GRASS RIVER & TRIBUTARIES
RESTORATION ASSESSMENT:
2011 FINDINGS
Three Lakes Association
PO Box 689
Bellaire, MI 49615
by
Roger Barber, Carrick Conway, David Witt, and Erik Youmans
and
TLA Volunteers
August 31, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this study were to determine whether or not human
practices are affecting the health of Grass River and its tributaries and warrant
corrective intervention. This study will allow a preliminary understanding of the
following four things about Grass River and its three tributaries (Shanty Creek,
Cold Creek, and Finch Creek).
 Identify sources of sediment currently accumulating in Grass River,
including the road-stream crossings
 Identify barriers to fish passage in the tributaries
 Develop time-temperature profiles for Grass River and its tributaries
 Measure stream flows and macroinvertebrate populations as part of an
effort to build a sediment loading model
This study was conducted under the auspices of a collaborative partnership with
the Elk River Chain of Lakes-Watershed Protection Plan Implementation Team
that involved the Watershed Center, Tip of the Mitt, Grass River Natural Area,
Friends of Clam Lake, and the Central Lake and Kalkaska High Schools. A
similar study of the Rapid River at the same time was spearheaded by the ElkSkegemog Lakes Association using the same methodologies. Training of
volunteers for both studies was provided by Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (Todd Kalish), and the Ottawa and Chippewa Tribe (Brett Fessell).
The preliminary modeling of these streams was provided by Professor Paul
Richards.
Macro Invertebrate Factors of Stream Quality (Roger Barber)
One of the most obvious indicators of stream health is the amount and
diversity of certain macro invertebrate species within the body of water. When
streams are polluted with certain types of chemicals, or when fertilizer runoff is
particularly high, or when large amounts of sediment are being deposited from
sources such as road crossings and erosion, the impact is always seen within the
living community of the body of water at often a very rapid pace. As such, many
researchers and scientists use samples of the stream’s insect and macro
invertebrate life to assess the water quality partially because of how responsive it
is to rapid changes within the water and how accurate these tests are to how well
the stream is functioning as a whole to support life.
Carrick, Becky, and David collecting macroinvertebrates
When beginning this test, one must start at the collection phase. The
collection phase must have a standard interval of time for each body of water
being done, which is normally 30 minutes. Collection is normally done using a
series of canvas nets with meshed bottoms, which are used to collect both water
and sediment samples in which the macro invertebrates are present in. The
samples are then deposited from the nets into a several gallon container, which
are then transported to a location convenient for the next stage of testing after
your allotted time period is up.
Continuing on, the container is then opened up and deposited in small
portions at a time onto plastic trays, where the macro invertebrates can be picked
out with tweezers and small pipettes and deposited into the “kill jar” (A jar with a
solution of ethyl alcohol that kills and preserves). During this stage, you never
pick up more than 15 samples of each species, because it is a waste of effort
and time. The final testing stage never uses more than that to determine water
quality, so it is generally encouraged to preserve as much of the stream life as
possible. The searching stage does not have an enforced time limit on it;
however, about an hour would give one sufficient time to get a solid and diverse
base of the macro invertebrates of the stream in question.
At any time next convenient, the next stage may begin, which involves
sorting the macro invertebrates into groups by species by usage of a paper key
or other kind of identification aid. This sampling process is done one site at a
time, and if done multiple times on the same river or stream, it is advisable to do
each total for each area separately in order to achieve the highest possible
accuracy (However, taking multiple samples in the same body of water is often
redundant, unless a significant geological or hydrological event occurs between
the two sites in question). Once sorted, the inverts must then be counted and
recorded in number on a standard recording sheet.
Macro invertebrates are divided into three categories and two
subcategories while being counted for water quality. Certain species are more
sensitive to water quality changes than others, therefore being a much more
significant indicator of stream health. These inverts fall into the categories of
Group 1, sensitive, Group 2, somewhat sensitive, and Group 3, tolerant. Within
these groups are rare (“R”) or common (“C”) species, which further affect the
water quality scores. Rare species within Group 1, for example, have a higher
score than common species within the same group, and indicate a much more
hospitable environment for aquatic life.
The Three Lakes Association conducted macro invertebrate testing on 3
separate streams: Cold Creek, Shanty Creek, and Finch Creek. All but one of the
streams were tested at one site; Cold Creek had a natural dam that had burst a
few years before these studies, and the association was interested in whether or
not the dam bursting and letting a significant amount of sediment wash
downstream would affect the water quality. As a result, Cold Creek was divided
into an upper and lower half, with the old site of the dam being the dividing line.
This graph shows the different scores of the streams, in no particular
chronological order.
Streams that rate from 0 to 19 are considered poor quality, those from 19
to 33 are considered fair quality, those from 34 to 48 are considered good quality,
and those above 48 are considered excellent quality. The results displayed
above rank the upper portion of Cold Creek as the only good quality stream,
while the lower half of Cold Creek, Shanty Creek, and Finch Creek are all of fair
quality rating.
Drawing exclusively from the data from this section of the report, an
accurate hypothesis is that a heavy sediment load being washed downstream
negatively impacts the overall quality of the stream life. Cold creek suffered from
the dam breakage, with long term effects showing up downstream of the break.
Shanty Creek experiences high sediment loads from runoff from the golf course
and areas of bank flooding. Finch Creek has no signs of particular sediment
buildup besides that of natural bank erosion from a high velocity. In short, the
macro invertebrate tests are a very valid method of testing hypotheses about
how sediment impacts the environment in the Grass River area, and adds a very
serious implication to the sediment problems being encountered in the area that
may lead to a gradual degradation of natural beauty within the streams and a
loss of recreational activities, most specifically, fishing.
Flow (Carrick Conway)
Over the summer, we have taken measurements of water flow in the
streams and rivers we have been studying; these being Finch Creek, Cold Creek,
Shanty Creek, and Grass River. Using different flow meters, we measured the
velocity of these rivers. Coupling the velocity we found with cross sections we
made of each stream, we could determine a total output in cubic feet per
second. Since flow data was taken in 2006, taking flow measurements now
allows us to see differences that may have appeared. While conclusions cannot
necessarily be made, we can make other observations that will allow us to
discover if this change is something to be worried about.
We used a variety of methods to measure velocity in these streams. Three
flow meters were used at least once to measure velocity; all of which were
compared against each other at the railroad crossing on Shanty Creek.
The Gurley meter was used most frequently to measure flow during the
summer. The Gurley meter consists of a Gurley apparatus attached to a wading
pole. The Gurley apparatus is a propeller made of cups that spin like a windmill.
The Gurley meter determines velocity based on rotations per 40 second period.
The more rotations in this time, the faster the velocity of the water. A wading pole
is a metal rod with 1/10 of a foot increments on the lower portion. On the top is
an area that is 4/10 of a foot. A smaller metal rod attached to the Gurley
apparatus can be slide up to move the device to 40% of the water depth. A
Gurley meter has trouble measuring slow flows, and may not even register a flow
if it is too slow.
Mars-Mcburnie meters were the other two flow meters that we used. One
measured velocity in feet/second wile the other measured in meters/second. This
meter uses a probe which has a magnetic field around it. Water, being a polar
molecule, distorts the magnetic field as it flows around the probe. The quicker the
flow, the higher the distortion. Mars-Mcburnie meters are much more accurate
then Gurley meters, able to register a velocity of 0.01 meters/second. The MarsMcburnie meter also has an almost immediate reading time, not having to
initialize and rotate for 40 seconds.
The table below shows the differences in the three meters when
compared against one another at the Railroad crossing on Shanty Creek.
Total Discharge (cft/s)
Paul Richard’s meter (Mars-Mcburnie)
9.542925
TLA Meter (Gurley Meter)
9.156417
Kevin Cronk’s meter (Mars-Mcburnie)
7.144849
We took a number of flow samples from many sites on Cold, Finch, and
Shanty creeks. Below is a graph comparing discharge samples from a location
on Cold Creek, Shanty Creek, and Finch Creek.
As previously mentioned, one of the major reasons that we made
measurements of flow was to be able to make comparisons with data taken in
2006. If an abnormal change in flow appeared once a comparison was made,
action could be taken to remedy the problem. It was important to remember that
weather occurrences, such as storms or periods of low rainfall, can have a large
affect on flow. Because of this, it can be difficult to determine whether changes
in flow are natural occurrences or the result of human interaction. That is where
walking the streams helped because it allowed the group to see areas of concern
in the rivers that may affect flow. As shown on the table below, we discovered
that there were differences in flow from 2006 until 2011.
River
2006 flow
(cfs)
2011 flow
(cfs)
Change
Upper Grass River
164
116
-48
Lower Grass River
(GRNA dock)
181
190
+9
Cold Creek
29
38
+9
Finch Creek
36
30
-6
Shanty Creek
10
9
-1
Temperature Logger Data (Erik Youmans)
On August 5, 2011, several of the summer interns set up four temperature
loggers in Grass River, and the three tributaries feeding into it. The temperature
loggers were set up to
record
the
temperature
variations in the waterways.
The loggers were set
up to record data for two
major
purposes.
Trout
populations prefer waters
below 60 deg F.
Higher
temperatures can cause
dissolved oxygen levels to
drop too low for the fish to
survive. Finch Creek, Cold
Creek, and Shanty Creek
are all believed to be
passageways for local trout
populations, as brought to
our attention by Todd Kalish
(DNR’s
Regional
Fish
Biologist),
but
high
temperatures may hinder
their ability to navigate the
streams. Brett Fessell (local
stream hydrology expert
with the Tribe), also brought
to our study the concern of
what sources were feeding
the
tributaries.
The
temperature data yet to be
recorded
may
reveal
whether the creeks are
flowing from sources of
ground water, or runoff.
Creeks flowing from ground
waters sources will have
lower temperatures than
creeks flowing mainly from
runoff sources. This information will play an important role in the ‘second
generation’ portion of the study
The temperature loggers (HOBO U22 Water Temp Pro V2 purchased from
Ben Meadows company, Janesville, WI 53547) consist of a thermometer that
records temperatures every hour. The logger is set inside a PVC pipe drilled with
holes to allow for water to flow through over the logger. The setup is attached to
a post drilled into water at least one foot deep, where swift moving water is most
likely to rush over it. So far the only concern is that the post may radiate heat and
affect the records given by the temperature logger.
Temperature Sensor
Site
Shanty Creek at
Railroad Crossing
Cold Creek at Tyler Rd.
Logger ID
TLA-1
Finch Creek on
Woodland Wildfire Trail
in GRNA
Grass River at Gary
Knapp’s
TLA-3
TLA-2
TLA-4
GPS Coordinate
N44°55’48”
W85°12’10’’
N44°55’02”
W85°12’05”
N44°54’31”
W85°13’02’’
N44°56’16”
W85°12’29”
Time temperature profile of Shanty Creek, railroad culvert, GRNA
Placeholder for roadstreamcrossing.xls
Road and Stream Crossings (David Witt)
We took a look at the culverts or bridges where roads crossed Cold Creek,
Finch Creek, and Shanty Creek, to see if they were inhibiting the flow of the
steam, causing erosion, and/or keeping fish from finding their way upstream. We
assessed each crossing for problems that could possibly be fixed in the future. Of
all the sites, we found four sites that were a concern.
Hydro Plant Dam
Hydro Plant Dam
Private property parcel no. 05-04-007-001-00
On private property, we found an old dam on Shanty Creek below where there
used to be a pond that had drained away. Though the pond is gone, the water
still falls a long way when it goes over the dam.
Pine Brook Dam
Pine Brook Iron Dam
There is a footbridge with a slab of metal underneath it holding back sediment
and making a 4-5 foot drop. It looked like it was put in to restrain the water, but
had filled up with sand. The supervisor for Pine Brook expressed interest in
future restoration actions to remove this water blockage.
Comfort Road Crossing
Cold Creek, Comfort Road Crossing
This culvert on Cold Creek was very undersized and the water is rushing out at a
great speed. There was a lot of debris up on the bank of the upstream side due
to storm water overflowing the banks.
Way Road Crossing
Finch Creek, Way Road Crossing
This culvert is a relatively small culvert as well. Located on finch creek, it backed
up the water and made a pond. Some of the trees upstream have died because
they were drowned.
Grass River Tributaries: Road-Stream Crossings
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tributary
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Shanty
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Finch
Finch
Finch
Finch
Finch
Finch
Finch
Finch
Road
Road to Nowhere
Railroad Crossing
Old hydropower site
Grass River Road
M-88
Pine Brook (iron dam/walkway)
Shanty Creek Golf Course?
Upstream culvert
Lower bridge upstream
Upper bridge upstream
Railroad Crossing
Private Road
Comfort Rd
Tyler Road
Fish farm road
Alden Highway
Railroad Crossing
Alden Highway
9310 Finch Creek road
Finch Creek Road
Elder Rd East
Elder Rd West
Bebb Rd
Way Rd
Location Comments
GPS (N)
GPS (W)
Bridge
44.92972
85.20278
44.93238
85.19836
44.93472
85.185
44.92194
44.91942
44.9174
85.18861
85.20031
85.20148
44.90279
44.90806
44.9024
44.89839
44.9586
44.88843
44.88842
85.20282
85.21583
85.21126
85.21082
85.1972
85.20766
85.20894
Macroinvertebrate site
Bridge
Walking bridge, fish passage concern
Creek-side drive bridge
Gravel road above golf course
Between Pine Brook & pond
Between Pine Brook & pond
Bridge
Private road, old boiler used as culvert
Undersized, dead trees upstream
Large culvert, macroinvertebrate site
Macroinvertebrate site
Bridge
Upstream pond
Bridge, macroinvertebrate site
road crossing 16?
Undersized, large upstream pond
Observations, Shanty Creek upstream of M-88 Crossing (Jim Kelderhouse)
Runoff from blacktop is entering Shanty Creek directly from each side of wooden
bridge at Pine brook road crossing.
Houses and condominiums are within 50-75 feet of Shanty Creek with
woods between buildings and stream with no brush and very open. The
buildings have no rain gutters or diversions for roof runoff. Banks along building
foundations are visibly eroded after recent event. There is a steep steam
gradient here alongside condos and the last event has left gravel bars in the
stream and dry washed out channels along the banks the condos are setting on
indicating two foot or more high water. There are so many fallen trees in the
stream below the condos that we can no longer walk in the stream. Pine brook
supervisor Pam Janise came out and talked to us saying the water rose three to
four feet during the last event and is upset about all the fallen trees because the
kids can not fish anymore and the deer are no longer able to cross the stream
here with their fawns. This log jam is holding a lot of sand and silt causing a
widening of the stream bed here.
There is a steel dam or barrier with approximately a five foot head before
we reach the golf course filled up with sand behind it. Where the stream passes
through the golf course there is no riparian buffer, but grass right to the edge.
You can see the path on top of the green that runoff from the green and golf cart
trails (both paved and unpaved ) took during the last event and flowed directly
into the creek in many places.
Leaving the golf course we encountered a gravel road crossing near
another gravel road intersection. Both roads here are eroding sand directly into
the creek, the location is longitude -85:11:6, latitude44:56:5. The intersecting
road led to a storage building with an earthen dam behind it creating a wetland
filled up with organic matter that is overflowing into the creek.
As we were leaving Shanty Creek resort, we noticed the steep paved
roads with bit curb directing the runoff directly into the creek probably carrying
the sand from the washed out gravel driveways joining it that led to large houses
on the hills. It also seems likely that these roads might be sanded in the winter,
and in the spring the sand would be carried to the creek during snow melt.
No manmade diversions to accommodate runoff were observed on Shanty
Creek and from the evidence above as well as a conversation with the supervisor
for Pine Brook, the stream appears flashy and burdened with excess runoff
carrying sand, silt, and organic matter into Shanty Creek from development at the
Shanty Creek resort and golf course. This is choking gravel beds, reshaping and
relocating the stream bed unusually fast through sediment deposition, widening
of stream bed, and new dry eroded channels outside stream bed left after
extreme events
17
Table:
Tributary Flow Rates
Tributary
Upper Grass River (Knapp’s dock)
Shanty Creek
Cold Creek
Finch Creek
Lower Grass River (GRNA dock)
West branch of Finch Creek
2006*
Average flow (cfs)
131
10
31
28
181
23
2011
Flow (cfs)
* Development of a Predictive Nutrient-Based Water Quality Model for Lake Bellaire and
Clam Lake, pp 22, Three Lakes Association 2006 (www.3lakes.com)
Conclusion
1. Based on the spring sampling of macroinvertebrate population scores,
only the upper reach of Cold Creek could be classified as good. The
macroinvertebrate population scores for Shanty Creek, Finch Creek, and
the lower reach of Cold Creek indicated fair water quality.
2. Barriers to fish passage were identified: (1) an abandoned hydropower
dam on Shanty Creek, (2) a small dam with a footbridge that may have
been a sand trap on Shanty Creek, (3) a perched culvert on Alden
Highway on Finch Creek, (4) perched culvert on Elder Road on the east
branch of Finch Creek, and (5) perched culvert on Comfort Road on Cold
Creek.
3. Several road-stream crossing culvers appeared to be undersized based
on observations of upstream dead trees: Elder Road on east branch of
Finch Creek and Comfort Road on Cold Creek.
4. Stream flow measurements were similar to those made in 2005.
5. Lack of storm water management is an area of concern on Shanty Creek
in the Pine Brook development.
18