TASK PRODUCT MEMORANDUM

Transcription

1 Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project Wayne County, Michigan TASK PRODUCT MEMORANDUM River Status and Trends Watershed Management Work Plan No. WMOG5.1, Task No. 4 RPO-WMGT-TPM42.00 ` June 1997

2 Rouge River National Wet Weather Wayne County, Michigan River Status and Trends TASK PRODUCT MEMORANDUM Watershed Management Work Plan No. WMOG5.1, Task No. 4 Author: V. Elliott Smith Rouge River National Wet Weather ii October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Colleen Hughes, Karen Snyder, Charlie Bristol and Noel Mullett for their assistance in the preparation of this document. The Rouge River National Wet Weather is funded, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant #X , #X , #X and #C The views expressed by individual authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of EPA. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. Rouge River National Wet Weather MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Rouge River National Wet Weather is to demonstrate effective solutions to water quality problems facing an urban watershed highly impacted by wet weather and develop potential solutions and implement projects which will lead to the restoration of water quality in the Rouge River. The project will address both conventional and toxic pollutants to: provide a safe and healthy recreational river resource for present and future generations; re-establish a healthy and diverse ecosystem within the Rouge River Watershed; protect downstream water resources such as the Detroit River and Lake Erie; and help ensure compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws which protect human health and the environment. This will be accomplish through the development, implementation and financial integration of technical, social and institutional frameworks leading to cost-efficient and innovative watershedbased solutions to wet weather problems. This watershed-based national demonstration project will provide other municipalities across the nation facing similar problems with guidance and potentially effective solutions. Rouge River National Wet Weather iii October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

4 PREFACE The Rouge River and its watershed are a primary source of pollution to the Great Lakes. The Clean Water Act of 1972 intended to make waterways "fishable and swimmable" by Although that goal has not been reached, great progress has been made in improving water quality in most waterways. The Rouge River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) provided a basis for which The Rouge River National Wet Weather (Rouge Project) efforts were created: it identified the major sources of pollution and measured the relative contributions of each. The RAP is the continuing foundation for the Rouge Project and presents a framework for addressing the problems within the Rouge River by looking beyond treatment and focusing instead on prevention methods. The Rouge Project was established under the initial Rouge Grant 1 from the United States Environment Protection Agency, Region 5, and enabled Wayne County to initiate a comprehensive watershed-wide pollution-control approach that addresses combined sewer overflow (CSO), stormwater management, and other nonpoint source controls through the application of innovative technologies, progressive financial and institutional arrangements, and creative public involvement and education programs. Rouge Grant 2 provides the framework for the progression and implementation of Project goals as Wayne County continues its mission to develop potential solutions and implement projects which will lead to the restoration of water quality in the Rouge River. The Project will address both conventional and toxic pollutants to: provide a safe and healthy recreational river resource for present and future generations; re-establish a healthy and diverse ecosystem within the Rouge River Watershed; protect downstream water resources such as the Detroit River and Lake Erie; and help ensure compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws which protect human health and environment. This will be accomplished through the development, implementation, and financial integration of technical, social, and institutional frameworks leading to cost-efficient and innovative watershedbased solutions to wet weather problems. This watershed-based national demonstration project will provide other municipalities across the nation facing similar problems with guidance and potentially effective solutions. Under Rouge Grant 2, the Rouge Project will build on lessons learned from Grant 1 efforts and focus on further integration of the goals of the overall Mission. To this end, Rouge Grant 2 concentrates on the following key Project areas: Rouge River National Wet Weather iv October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

5 Watershed Management will continue under Rouge Grant 2 with the development and evaluation of wet weather and stormwater alternatives, the planning of long-term monitoring programs, and the ongoing efforts to enhance instream water quality, monitor rain and flow levels, interpret data analysis, and present recommendations. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control will provide for the stormwater management, permit applications, and development of financial and institutional alternatives for wet-weather watershed management in concert with enhanced efforts to establish institutional partnerships. Toward the goal of institutional partnering, several community projects will be undertaken with watershed communities. Additional efforts include the inventory of wetlands and measurement of pollutant loads from abandoned dumps and air deposition with possible remediation of some sites. CSO Construction Coordination will continue to monitor the construction of CSO demonstration projects established under Grant 1. Additional planning and assistance will allow project coordinators to make additional recommendations on the design criteria of future CSO abatement facilities. Public Involvement and Information will reach and interact with more stakeholders, institutions, and regulatory agencies, thus fostering a renewed understanding and continued commitment to reducing pollution, and continuing the transfer of watershed management approaches way beyond the project. It will be the central mechanism for transmittal of the Project's Decision Support System tools, processes, and information necessary for sustaining a watershed management support system directly to varied audiences both within and outside the Rouge watershed. Additional information on the Rouge River Project is available from many sources, including the Wayne County Department of Environment (WCDOE) and the Rouge Program Office (RPO). Rouge River National Wet Weather v October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

6 ABSTRACT The memorandum describes and demonstrates an indicator approach developed by Rouge Project staff for conveying technical information on watershed quality to the public. The information consists of measurement data and observations of chemical, biological and physical indicators of river quality collected over two years ( ) in the Rouge River Watershed, Wayne County, Michigan near Detroit. The five indicators, chosen to represent the quality of river conditions overall, include three single factors (dissolved oxygen, river flow and bacteria) and two indexes or factor composites (aquatic life and stream habitat). The indicator information, collected at sites throughout the basin, is represented by color-coded icons on subwatershed maps. Icon colors indicate three ranges of quality: good, fair and poor. The maps also depict four categories of public use quality, as affected by condition quality (factors and indexes). Color codings on the river lines indicate the same three ranges of quality. Use categories are fishing, canoeing/boating, wading/swimming and aesthetics. The memorandum further describes the development of the indicator approach for reporting RPO results, the rationale for selecting and rating indicators, and how these indicators relate to historical impairments of Rouge quality. The document includes one example of the nine subwatershed reports which were recently prepared using this approach. Rouge River National Wet Weather vi October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND QUALITY INDICATORS IN WATERSHEDS ROUGE PROJECT INDICATORS APPROACH Historical Concerns Condition - Use Linkage Available Data APPROACH AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUBWATERSHED STATUS REPORTS Status Report Cover Use and Condition Icons, Defined Subwatershed Overview Condition and Use Quality Ratings by Use Category Information Sources & Program Summary Site Summary Sheets PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INDICATOR APPROACH INDICATOR SELECTION GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION LINKAGE OF CONDITION AND USE QUALITY SITE SUMMARY REPORT FUTURE MONITORING FOR STATUS REPORTING REFERENCES CITED...36 APPENDIX A...A-1 APPENDIX B...B-1 Rouge River National Wet Weather vii October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page Figure 4-1 Status Report Cover...16 Figure 4-2 Use & Condition Icons, Defined...17 Figure 4-3 Subwatershed Overview Figure 4-4 Fishing Quality Ratings: Legend Figure 4-5 Fishing Quality Ratings: Maps Figure 4-6 Wading/Swimming Quality Ratings: Legend Figure 4-7 Wading/Swimming Quality Ratings: Maps Figure 4-8 Canoeing/Boating Quality Ratings: Legend Figure 4-9 Canoeing/Boating Quality Ratings: Maps Figure 4-10 Aesthetics Quality Ratings: Legend Figure 4-11 Aesthetics Quality Ratings: Maps Figure 4-12 Informational Sources and Program Summary Figure 4-13 Site Summary Report: Information Figure 4-14 Site Summary Report: Data Rouge River National Wet Weather viii October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

9 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page Table 2.1 Water Quality Objectives and Indicators (USEPA, 1996)... 6 Table 2.2 User Impairments in the Rouge River... 9 Table 2.3 Rouge Watershed Problems - MDNR Table 2.4 Four Use Categories vs. Impairments Table 2.5 River Quality Factors Measured or Estimated in the Rouge River Rouge River National Wet Weather ix October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY One of the main issues concerning the Rouge River is how river quality affects its uses by the public for recreation and commerce. This technical memorandum examines the use of the indicator approach, which is an effective tool for reporting technical information on river quality to the interested public. Throughout the past three years, RPO staff have produced an abundance of technical information on river and watershed quality. From this data, staff have gained some practical insights which can be expressed in fairly simple terms. Indicator measurements and observations represent only selected parts of the data overall. RPO staff have used these indicators as a simple way to identify and rate the quality of river conditions which affect public uses of the Rouge. In other words, condition quality affects use quality. The public s response to these reports will be very important in determining the effectiveness of the indicator approach. Increased public awareness is also important for several reasons. Residents of the Rouge Watershed should be informed of progress made toward improved river quality and public use through clear nontechnical reporting. Solving problems that impact river use in specific subwatersheds should involve consensus and active participation of citizens at the local level. Upon completion of the Rouge Project, consistent methods should be established for reporting results of future monitoring programs. Direct reporting encourages public feedback on any other quality problems which may impact river uses. The river quality affects many people within the Rouge Watershed. Therefore, public awareness will be a vital component in the effective use of the indicator approach. The indicator approach used at the RPO evolved from many discussions among staff of the RPO, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the USEPA. RPO staff have produced a series of river quality reports for nine of the Rouge subwatersheds. These reports describe the current average status condition and use quality during both wet and dry weather conditions, based upon 1994 to 1996 data. Color-coded maps have been generated, and they indicate quality ratings for each of the four major use categories which will be identified later in this executive summary. Condition ratings have also been provided, along with a summary of each use status. Condition Quality The Rouge Project uses two kinds of condition quality indicators: 1) factors or direct measurements and observations of river quality features; and 2) indexes or indices which represent certain combinations of factors. There are many precedents for using water quality indexes to simplify reporting of technical data. On the other hand, using indexes can sometimes obscure the importance of factors which have a relatively greater impact on river quality. Such factors should be reported Rouge River National Wet Weather 1 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

11 separately rather than as part of an index. Indicators are mainly used to describe general patterns and trends of water quality, particularly to a nontechnical audience. As a result, the Rouge Project currently uses five indicators, three factors and two indexes, to report river quality conditions to the public. The factors are: dissolved oxygen (DO), river flow and bacteria; and the indexes are aquatic life and stream habitat. Use Quality The RAP published in 1989, describes 16 different impairments of beneficial use, resulting from poor water quality conditions in the Rouge River. These impairments can be categorized in various ways, either from a wildlife or a human perspective. Currently, the Rouge Project condition quality is being evaluated for its impact on four categories of river use by the public. However, it is important to recognize that conditions which best support full public use and enjoyment of the river are generally most favorable to wildlife as well. The four use categories are: fishing, canoeing/boating, wading/swimming and aesthetics. Quality Ratings Although RPO use of condition quality indicators is based largely on numerical data, RPO staff concluded that indicator results expressed with graphics provides more effective communication to nontechnical users. Many residents simply want to know whether river conditions and uses are good, fair, or poor, relative to common sense standards of quality. Indicator data in graphical form best provides this information in a user-friendly manner. Residents are also concerned with how these qualities change over time as pollution control methods are implemented in the watershed. A condition and use quality rating system allows residents to judge the effectiveness of measures designed to improve Rouge River quality. For purposes of Rouge reporting, conditions and uses were rated for three levels of quality: good, fair or poor, and were color-coded green, yellow and red, accordingly. The differences in condition quality for DO, river flow and bacteria are based on the relative frequency with which certain reference conditions occur. However, the aquatic life and stream habitat index ratings are based on established procedures used by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for scoring ecosystem quality. The condition ratings are expressed in the reports as color-coded icons linked to sites. The ratings for use quality, while based in part on condition quality, depend on other public use considerations as well. For example, uses involving water contact should always be limited by poor bacterial conditions; otherwise, stream access or water depth might control the use. The use quality ratings, as applied here to whole sections of the river are average ratings based on data and best professional judgments. The use ratings are expressed in the reports as color-coded zones along the river. Rouge River National Wet Weather 2 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

12 The RPO will seek further input from Rouge watershed communities Michigan DEQ, USEPA and other stakeholders on use of these quality indicators to report on river status. Rouge River National Wet Weather 3 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

13 1.0 INTRODUCTION. The Rouge Project is a publicly-funded program designed to benefit communities in this and other urban watersheds. It is fundamentally important that the project not only provides technical solutions to watershed problems, but it should also demonstrate ways to convey these results clearly and effectively to the interested public. Only then can the public take a meaningful part in solving these problems, which often require some action at the neighborhood or household level. Since its beginning in 1993, the Rouge Project has supported public education programs to help local residents understand how human activities may impact river quality, and how certain actions can improve it. In order to generate public support for positive actions, the Project must provide the public with good technical information, presented so that ordinary people can understand it. This communication link between technical experts and the interested public is crucial to the success of the Rouge Project. This is particularly important as communities attempt to gauge the successes of long term remedial programs in the Rouge Watershed. Public involvement and education efforts have continued under Grant 2 of the Rouge Project. Part of this has involved preparing status reports on the quality of river conditions and public uses for each subwatershed of the Rouge basin. This task product memorandum (TPM) describes how these reports were developed using certain quality indicators. The TM describes only the first stage of this effort; development of reporting techniques and tools will continue. Rouge River National Wet Weather 4 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

14 2.0 BACKGROUND. 2.1 QUALITY INDICATORS IN WATERSHEDS. Environmental quality in a river or watershed depends on many physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic factors. Measurements of each factor defines some aspect of quality, but each represents quality in a different way and to a different degree. However, certain key factors may best represent important categories of quality, such as human health or stream habitat. Measurements of these key factors can be useful as indicators of river quality overall. Recently, the USEPA issued the first in a series of reports on Environmental Indicators of Water quality in the United States (USEPA, 1996). This resulted from several years of collaboration between many agencies and organizations, public and private. The indicator approach they developed is intended for use in three ways: (1) to characterize the quality of U.S. water; (2) to chart progress toward meeting water quality goals; and (3) to help determine if programs designed to solve water quality problems are working. The goal, in other words, is to help managers and the public to monitor water quality status, trends and problem-solving efforts over time. Table 2.1 lists and defines these 18 indicators and the national water quality objectives they support. The USEPA report makes the important point that these and other indicators are still imperfect tools for characterizing the whole realm of water quality. However, they do provide a useful way to simplify large amounts of technical information and convey the essential meaning of it to all concerned. They are especially helpful in reporting water quality information to the general public, which is an important goal of the Rouge Project. Besides the USEPA report there is much precedent for the use of quality indicators to gauge the success of watershed management programs, such as the Rouge Project. Many examples are described in a comprehensive review of indicators used to evaluate stormwater control programs (USEPA, 1995). 2.2 ROUGE PROJECT INDICATORS APPROACH. Rouge Project staff began to consider the indicators approach for reporting in Fall By then a sizeable base of water quality data had been collected at monitoring stations and other sites throughout the watershed. The Project needed some way to condense and simplify the database for reporting purposes. At least three considerations were important as the plan developed to use indicators for reporting at the RPO Historical Concerns. Indicators should represent historical problems and concerns about river quality as summarized in the Rouge RAP and other documents. The Rouge RAP listed 16 potential impairments of beneficial use ranked in order of their importance. (Table 2.2). Of these, 13 were considered to be actual impairments in the Rouge. In the Rouge Watershed Rouge River National Wet Weather 5 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

15 TABLE 2.1 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS (USEPA, 1996) Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health 1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements - Population served by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements. 2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution - Population served by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbiological contaminants. 3. Population served by drinking systems exceeding lead action levels - Population served by, and number of, systems with lead levels in drinking water exceeding the regulatory threshold. 4. Source water protection - Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have programs to protect them from pollution. 5. Fish consumption advisories - Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not be eaten, or should be eaten only in limited qualities. 6. Shellfish growing water classification - Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved for harvest for human consumption. Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems 7. Biological integrity - Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities. 8. Species at risk - Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction. 9. Wetland acreage - Rate of wetland acreage loss. Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards 10. Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standards a. Drinking water supply designated use - Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes. b. Fish and shellfish consumption designated use - Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes. c. Recreation designated use - Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe recreation, as designated by the states and tribes. d. Aquatic life designated use - Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as designated by the states and tribes. Rouge River National Wet Weather 6 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

16 TABLE 2.1 (continued) Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions 11. Ground water pollutants - Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water. 12. Surface water pollutants - Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water. 13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish - The concentration levels of selected pollutants in oysters and mussels. 14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions - Trends in estuarine eutrophication conditions. 15. Contaminated sediments - Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans and aquatic life. Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors 16. Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) groundwater - Trends for selected pollutants discharged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources of point source loadings into groundwater. 17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface water - Amount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surface waters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source (NPS) surface water pollutants as well as sources of nonpoint source groundwater pollution. 18. Marine debris - Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment. Rouge River National Wet Weather 7 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

17 the sources and causes of those impairments are as generally described in a memo from the MDNR (1995) to the RPO Staff (Table 2.3). In concept, if all these sources of impairment were eliminated, then beneficial uses would be restored Condition - Use Linkage. In the original Rouge RAP (MDNR, 1988) the 16 use impairments above were associated in a general way with five broad categories of public use, as follows: Water Contact Recreation Warm Water Fisheries General Aesthetic Industrial/Agricultural Water Supply Navigation (Recreation & Commercial) The last two uses are not that pertinent to the Rouge River as a whole. Furthermore, these uses were not clearly linked to the impairments, or to river conditions which cause impairment. An alternative scheme for relating four general use categories to Rouge impairments was discussed at the RPO (Table 2.4). In this case, however it was still difficult to decide what specific indicators of river conditions would best represent such broad categories of use in ways that most people could understand Available Data. Indicators should be selected or developed from the wide range of river quality factors already being monitored in the Rouge Project (Table 2.5). A rating system should relate the indicator values to the river quality conditions they represent. The relationship between condition quality and use quality should also be defined as well, so that use potential can be rated from existing or future conditions. Rouge River National Wet Weather 8 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

18 TABLE 2.2 USE IMPAIRMENTS IN THE ROUGE RIVER (RANKED IN 1994 RAP) Rank Impairment 1 Restrictions on swimming and other water related activities 2 Loss of fish habitat 2 Loss of wildlife habitat 3 Degradation of fish and wildlife populations 3 Degradation of benthos (aquatic animals and insects) 4 Eutrophication or growth of undesirable algae 4 Degradation of aesthetics 5 Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption 6 Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems 7 Restrictions on dredging activities 8 Fish (and wildlife) tumors or other deformities 9 Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor 10 Restrictions to navigation (Rouge specific impairment) - Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems - Added costs to agriculture or industry - Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations Rouge River National Wet Weather 9 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

19 TABLE 2.3 ROUGE WATERSHED PROBLEMS - MDNR ( PROBLEM DEFINITION IN MDNR MEMO, AUG. 95) Source Cause 1. CSOs Human sewage Industrial discharges Commercial discharges Stormwater (all causes) 2. Septic Systems Poor design and maintenance Disposal of toxics or other inappropriate materials 3. Stormwater Illegal hookups Road and parking lot runoff 4. By-passes Improper O&M and over-utilization 5. Sediments Resuspension of contaminated sediments 6. Flow Variation Loss of groundwater flows 7. Erosion Flow variation eroding streambanks 8. Air Deposition Air discharges (auto, industry, commercial) 9. SW Detention Heated discharges 10. Landfills/Dumps Improper O&M Leachate/interflow Erosion undercutting 11. Development Excessive impervious areas Rouge River National Wet Weather 10 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

20 TABLE USE CATEGORIES VS. IMPAIRMENTS (Proposed 2/29/96) Use Category Human Health Impairments (1994 RAP) C Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption C Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems* Ecosystem Health C Degradation of fish and wildlife populations C Degradation of benthos (aquatic animals insects) C Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations* C Loss of fish habitat C Loss of wildlife habitat C Fish (and wildlife) tumors or other deformities C Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems Commerce Aesthetics C Restrictions on dredging activities C Added costs to agriculture or industry* C Restrictions to navigation (Rouge specific impairment) C Degradation of aesthetics CTainting of fish and wildlife flavor C Eutrophication or growth of undesirable algae C Restrictions on swimming and other water related activities Notes: * Not considered impaired/relevant by Rouge RAP Team Rouge River National Wet Weather 11 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

21 TABLE 2.5 RIVER QUALITY FACTORS MEASURED OR ESTIMATED IN THE ROUGE PROJECT FACTOR River Flow Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Water Temperature Conductivity ph (acidity) Alkalinity Hardness Biological Oxygen Demand (5-Day BOD) Ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand (UBOD) UNITS Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs) Milligrams per Liter (mg/l) Degrees Celcius (C) Micro-mhos Per Centimeter (µmhos/cm) Standard ph Units (ph) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) as CaCO3 Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) E. coli (bacteria) Number Per 100 Milliliters (#/100 ml) Fecal Coliforms (bacteria) Number Per 100 Milliliters (#/100 ml) Fecal Streptacoccus (bacteria) Number Per 100 Milliliters (#/100 ml) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) Total Phosphorus (TP) Ortho Phosphorus (ortho-p) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia Nitrate (nitrogen) Nitrite (nitrogen) Arsenic (As) Cadmium (Cd) Chromium (Cr) Copper (Cu) Nickel (Ni) Lead (Pb) Zinc (Zn) Water Clarity Water Color Odor Debris/Pollution Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Milligrams Per Liter (mg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Micrograms Per Liter (µg/l) Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Rouge River National Wet Weather 12 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

22 3.0 APPROACH AND METHODS. The indicator approach now in use at the RPO evolved over several months through many discussions among RPO, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and USEPA staff. The following is a brief chronology of this development, as documented in memorandums and meeting notes. RPO Memo, December 12, Initially, four water quality indexes were proposed: aesthetic, biological, chemistry and health. The components of these indexes and the scoring system used with each index for ranking water quality as good, fair or poor, is shown in Appendix A, Figure A-1 and Table A-1. RPO Memo, December 27, An idea was proposed changing the four water quality indexes above into five river use indexes, in order to show the effects of management options on use quality. The five indexes were Water Contact Recreation, Fish & Wildlife, Industrial/Agricultural Water Supply, Navigation (Recreational & Commercial), and General Aesthetic (Appendix A, Table A-2). RPO Memo, December 28, 1995 An alternative idea was proposed, to add a fifth index, Physical, to the original four. This would cover physical conditions of the river environment. Use quality (seven categories) would then relate to certain combinations of condition quality (five indexes), as shown in Appendix A, Table A-3. RPO Draft Report, December February 1996 A draft report on Preliminary Findings for the Lower Rouge Subwatershed presented color coded maps of water quality rating as based on the four original indexes. Present and future conditions (under three alternate management scenarios) were rated for Rouge Lower 1 and 2 subwatersheds (Appendix A, Note A-2). MDEQ Memo, March 5, 1996 Review comments were received from MDEQ on the RPO use of quality indexes in the Preliminary Report of December Reviewers pointed out problems with these indexes and water quality indicators in general. The gist of MDEQ comments is summarized in Appendix A, Note A-1. RPO/MDEQ/USEPA Meeting, March 7, 1996 Pros and cons of the RPO indicator approach were discussed at the Technical Coordination meeting in Benton Harbor. The consensus was to use a combination of three water quality factors (single parameters) to include bacteria, DO and flow, and three multi-factor indexes, to include biological (aquatic life), habitat and aesthetics. The logic was that the individual impact of these factors on use quality warrants using them as separate indicators apart from any index. There was also consensus to report factors and index ratings for both wet (high flow) and dry (low flow) conditions in the subwatersheds. Rouge River National Wet Weather 13 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

23 RPO Meeting, March 19, 1996 Members of the RPO Indicator Team met to work out details of the technical basis and rating systems for the six quality factors and indexes. RPO Memo, March 29, 1996 This memo with attachments described the technical basis and ratings for the six indicators and proposed using an additional factor as well: the Michigan Fish Consumption Guideline (Appendix A, Table A-4). Review comments were invited from RPO, MDEQ and USEPA staff by April 15, MDEQ Memo, May 13, 1996 Partial review comments were received from MDEQ. On MDEQ s recommendation, the DO rating values were revised to agree with the Michigan Water quality Standards (Appendix A, Table A-5). RPO Memo, June 25, 1996 and July 3, 1996 A draft of the Executive Summary for this Technical Memorandum was circulated for RPO and external review. This included comments on linkage between the indicators and the five use categories defined in the Rouge RAP. It also included a sample graphic of the format proposed (Appendix A, Note A-2). RPO/MDEQ Meeting, August 2, 1996 Technical details of the indicator approach were discussed and the consensus was to simplify the rating system in order to make it more meaningful to the general public. We also agreed to produce a draft status report using condition and use quality indicators for the Rouge Upper 2 subwatershed. This would be circulated for review and revision prior to developing similar draft reports for other subwatersheds. RPO Memo, September 13, 1996 A draft status report for the Upper 2 subwatershed was developed, reviewed and refined over the previous three weeks. This resulted in the basic format and content model to be used for all subwatershed reports by the RPO. This memo established priorities for producing these reports as soon as possible RPO Memo, March 7, 1997 Response to Wayne County Department of Environmental Health (WCDEH) letter (dated February 19, 1997), concerning data and text on the draft brochure for the Middle 1 subwatershed. The memo indicates that the comments would be incorporated into the revised brochure and would be submitted to WCDEH. Rouge River National Wet Weather 14 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

24 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. During October and November 1996 RPO staff produced nine status reports called Rouge River Quality for Public Use. These 12-page reports describe conditions and use quality for main branches for the Rouge in a largely graphical format with limited text. The content and layout are designed to summarize existing conditions ( ) of river quality using selected indicators, represented on maps by colorcoded icons. The probable impact of these conditions on the quality of common uses is represented on the maps by color-coded river segments. Other supporting information is included in the reports, as described below for each page. Attached to each subwatershed report are site summery sheets, which summarize two years of RPO water quality data for monitoring stations in that area. The following provides more information on the technical basis and design of these reports. 4.1 SUBWATERSHED STATUS REPORTS Status Report Cover (p. 1). The cover (Figure 4-1) shows the Rouge River Watershed, both its state location and boundaries of the 11 principal subwatersheds within it. The topic subwatershed, including its minor tributaries, it highlighted in each case. In the nine actual reports, a management decision was made to split the Main 2 subwatershed into Oakland and Wayne County portions, and combine each portion with another subwatershed. The RPO also elected to combine two subwatersheds, Lower 1 and Lower 2, into one report. The relevant site summery sheets were grouped accordingly Use and Condition Icons, Defined (p. 2). Four main categories of public use are defined here for quality rating purposes: Fishing, Canoeing & Boating, Wading & Swimming and Aesthetics (Figure 4-2). These were derived from the four use categories which were earlier linked to use impairments listed in the 1994 Rouge RAP (Table 2.4). However, the labels are now more specific to activities which the general public can better relate to. Namely, fishing derives from ecosystem health, wading/swimming (water contact) from human health, and canoeing/boating relates to navigation. Aesthetics includes all other forms of recreational and scenic enjoyment by the public. Since commercial use of the Rouge is minimal, except in the harbor near its mouth, this was not considered a basin-wide public issue. Swimming, identified as a public use of the Rouge River, warrants some explanation. While recreational swimming is physically possible only in the Rouge main branches and impoundments, it is generally not advisable due to bacterial contamination. Swimming as used here refers more to inadvertent swimming or whole body contact with Rouge water which may accompany canoeing and boating. Nevertheless, a primary purpose of water quality regulations since 1970s has been the attainment of fishable, swimmable waters throughout the U.S., and this continues to the ultimate goal for the Rouge River as well. Rouge River National Wet Weather 15 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

25 Five categories of condition quality over defined and rated (Figure 4-2). Three are single factors or variables measured individually: DO, river flow, and bacteria (E. Coli). Two more are multi-factor indexes or composite measurements: Aquatic Life (Index) and Stream Habitat (Index). These five indicators represent some 30 physical, chemical and biological conditions which have some direct impact on use quality, either singly or in combination. Rouge River National Wet Weather 16 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

26

27

28 The brief descriptions of Public Uses and River Conditions on page 2 of the reports highlights the significance of each and notes features which can influence quality ratings. The basis for rating each condition factor or index is as follows: Dissolved Oxygen and Bacteria (E. Coli) are both scored in relation to the Michigan Water Quality Standard (WQS) although the Rouge data were not collected in strict accordance with WQS Procedure (MDEQ, 1996 ) River Flow ratings are based on flow observations compiled as part of MDNR s Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section (GLEAS) Procedure #51 for habitat assessment The Stream Habitat index ratings are based on the part of GLEAS Procedure #51 for habitat assessment which includes features of bottom cover, channel morphology and bank structure The Aquatic Life index ratings are based on fish population data compiled by MDNR for the IBI Subwatershed Overview (p. 3). A base map of the subwatershed shows all tributaries, major roads and communities (Figure 4-3). Locations of all monitoring stations by type are plotted on the map. An overview table summarizes basic information about the subwatershed: sanitary service, development, land use and environmental features. Most of this information, compiled by RPO staff, is described further in the Subwatershed Characterization Data Report (RPO, July 1996) Condition and Use Quality Ratings by Use Category (p. 4-11). The body of the report consists of graphical summaries of condition and use quality for each of the four categories of use: Fishing, Canoeing/Boating, Wading/Swimming, and Aesthetics. Figure 4-4 represents Fishing Quality, and gives a brief overview of fishing potential in that subwatershed. (See Subwatershed Characterization Data Report - RPO, July 1996, p.4 and 5). The paragraph described how certain condition factors affect river quality for this activity; other use quality considerations are noted as well. Below the text are legend boxes where condition and use quality ratings are defined. Icons in the first legend represent those condition indicators which are most relevant to fishing in the particular way defined. Color codings with the icons represent three ranges of quality: good (green); fair (yellow); poor (red). All of the indicator ratings are based on one of two things: (1) a numerical value and a frequency of measurements above or below that value; (2) a division of the whole range of values into three sub-ranges. The first type of rating system was applied at the RPO to the DO and bacterial data. While the frequency distinctions between good, fair and poor ratings are somewhat arbitrary, they have the advantage of simplicity and appeal to common sense. Rouge River National Wet Weather 19 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

29

30

31 The second type of rating by numerical ranges was used by MDNR following the established procedures for the IBI Index (Aquatic Life) and GLEAS-51 Index (Stream Habitat). The same MDNR ratings were adopted here. In the second legend box (Figure 4-4) the color-coded lines represent three ratings of use quality with respect to Fishing, etc: Full use (green) where fishing potential is good; Limited Use (yellow); Restricted Use (red); and Not Evaluated (blue). These ratings are defined differently for each use category. On the facing page of the Fishing Quality (Figure 4-5) are two subwatershed maps representing both the wet weather (high river flow) and dry weather (low river flow) situations. Color-coded icons representing condition quality ratings are linked to monitoring station points on the maps. The icons reflect data that are appropriate to fishing quality and available at each site. In addition to data from these primary sites, more information pertinent to fishing may be available from other sampling sites as indicated on the base maps (Figure 4-3). Depending on the subwatershed, this may include biological, sediment and water quality information, either from RPO studies or other sources. For example, an RPO reconnaissance survey during 1994 resulted in data on sediment containments at nearly 200 additional sites. All pertinent data, whether or not it represented the five indicators, was considered by RPO staff as they evaluated Fishing or other use quality in the Rouge. In addition to the condition ratings (icons) for sites, the river lines on the map (Figure 4-5) are color-coded to represent zones of different fishing quality or potential. These zone ratings are necessarily based on both evaluations of the condition quality data for specific points and on the best professional judgement of RPO staff who have personal knowledge of the Rouge. Since the use ratings are inherently more subjective, they are more likely to be refined with more data and observations in the field. Similar rating systems were used to report on condition and use quality for wading/swimming and canoeing/boating, which are also of some interest to the public. As already noted above, condition and use criteria for these activities are somewhat different from those for fishing. For example, water depth rather than flow conditions per se may limit swimming and boating, where low bacterial levels would otherwise favor these activities. The reverse is also true where deeper waters are too contaminated for safe human contact. As a result, the entire subwatershed may be rated as Restricted Use quality for a combination of reasons. Aesthetic Quality (Figures 4-6 and 4-7) is a special case, in that different indicators of the observational type were used to rate condition and use quality. Aesthetic enjoyment of the Rouge by the public represents a wide range of activities in the river environment. Some of these like nature walks involve human perceptions of beauty or quality that are difficult to rate objectively. For example, natural debris (log jams) in the river may not appeal to hikers or canoeists, but may provide important shelter for fish communities during flow extremes. Rouge River National Wet Weather 22 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

32

33 Standards of use quality may conflict in that sense. Nonetheless, condition ratings for aesthetics are currently based on observations of four river properities: water clarity, color, odor and debris. Quality ratings for each are based on certain characteristics which indicate an unnatural or disturbed condition. A detailed description of the aesthetics rating system is available (RPO, 1996b) Information Sources & Program Summary. The final page of the report lists the main references to technical sources, and provides a brief summary about the Rouge Program (Figure 4-12) Site Summary Sheets. Attached to each subwatershed report are a number of Site Summary Reports (Figures 4-13 and 4-14). Each sheet summarizes information about one of the monitoring or sampling sites in the subwatershed, and provides a statistical summary of water quality data collected at the site over a period of record ( ). All together, these summaries represent the main body of technical information on which the subwatershed reports are based. 4.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. Now that a draft version of the nine subwatershed status reports is complete, a period of public evaluation and review is appropriate. From the beginning of this process, RPO staff recognized that each subwatershed would have a somewhat different set of problems and conditions, and that communities might have different priorities for addressing them. Although the reports were all developed on the same template, it was clear all along that it would be desirable later on to prepare a customized version of each report, which was more focused on local issues. For example, each report might rate only uses that are most relevant. Wading, but not swimming, would be appropriate for quality ratings in the headwaters areas, unless they included impoundments with public access. In other words, it is not useful to rate use quality where the use is irrelevant for practical reasons. However, we realized at the outset that customizing these reports would be easier if a basic structure was established first to illustrate how the information could be represented in simple, graphical terms. Consistency of format is useful in reporting only if it serves the information needs of users. Just after the release of these draft reports, some recommendations were made by Michelle Van Allen, Zachare Ball and Noel Mullett of the RPO (Appendix A, note A-3) on how to disseminate the reports to stakeholders for review and revision. During preparation of the document, the Upper 2 Subwatershed team at the RPO did undertake a revision of that report s format and content. The resulting draft is now available for review as well (Appendix B). Further revisions of other subwatershed reports will no doubt follow as local communities examine these findings and assess their needs. Rouge River National Wet Weather 24 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42 Summary Statistics Figure 4-14: Site Summary Report: Data Parameter No. of Samples Min Max Avg Units Dissolved Oxygen Mg/l Water Temperature C Conductivity umho/cm ph STU E. Coli #/100ml F. Coli #/100ml F. Strep #/100ml BOD (5-day) mg/l CBOD mg/l NBOD mg/l UBOD mg/l Total Phosphorus mg/l Ortho Phosphorus mg/l TKN mg/l Ammonia mg/l Nitrate mg/l Nitrite mg/l Total Suspended Solids mg/l Volatile Suspended Solids mg/l Alkalinity mg/l Hardness mg/l Arsenic ug/l Cadmium ug/l Chromium ug/l Copper ug/l Mercury ug/l Nickel ug/l Lead ug/l Zinc ug/l **Below Detection Limit results are included in computations using the detection limit. ***Statistics for flow include 5% frequency of occurance for minimum and 95% frequency of occurance for maximum. Rouge River National Wet Weather 33 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

43 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The following conclusions and recommendations apply to this demonstrated use of environmental indicators to report on the quality of conditions and potential uses of the Rouge River during INDICATOR APPROACH. This approach, which was already well established in the realm of water quality reporting, is not only a useful but a necessary means of distilling a large variety and quantity of technical data into simpler expressions of quality. These indicators convey the essential messages about river quality to the public: (a) Are key conditions good, fair or poor? (B) Do they result in potential uses being good, fair or poor? Whenever public understanding of technical issues is important, as in the Rouge Program, the indicator approach is all but essential. The RPO will continue to use it in one form or another for purposes of clear and economical reporting. 5.2 INDICATOR SELECTION. An important caveat of the indicator approach is that the factors and indices chosen should be regarded as general markers but not substitutes for other data. At best, indicator values can never perfectly represent other data in every situation. The five indicators used here (three factors and two indexes) were on balance the best surrogates for the Rouge database as a whole. Other quality indicators may also prove to be useful for tracking certain watershed conditions. However, for the sake of continuity, the RPO will continue to report quality status for these same five indicators. 5.3 GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION. In this report graphics were used to convey ranges of quality as much as possible. Using color-coded symbols on maps may be the simplest way to express quantitative information without numbers. An icon-based approach in packaging status information for the public will aid in their understanding of the technical information that is presented in this report and others like it. 5.4 LINKAGE OF CONDITION AND USE QUALITY. An important concept demonstrated here was that of linking condition quality status to its likely impact on use quality. While the strength of this cause and effect relationship varies greatly for different indicators, the public needs to know what the consequences of various conditions might be, now and in the future. In other words, bacterial concentrations can have a immediate effect on swimming and wading quality; aquatic habitat conditions tend to have a longer range impact on fishing quality. As a next step in public reporting, the RPO will project future condition and use quality for different management scenarios in each subwatershed. This will help the public to visualize how local management options should be funded and prioritized for the greatest overall benefit to use quality. 5.5 SITE SUMMARY REPORT. This two-page summary of information and data for monitoring sites is an important supplement to the subwatershed status report. As a general description of the site and a statistical summary of all data collected, it provides a technical basis for the indicator ratings of river quality. The user can see, for example, how other Rouge River National Wet Weather 34 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

44 measurements of quality varied over the period of record. It bridges the gap somewhat between the quality judgements made in the status report and the archival database, which is less accessible to the non-specialist. Also it emphasizes how zone ratings are based on point information. The data in site summaries can suggest where additional monitoring will help to better define a quality boundary in the river. The RPO will continue to provide updated site summaries with future status reports. 5.6 FUTURE MONITORING FOR STATUS REPORTING. As noted, the RPO monitoring program to date has emphasized intensive sampling and measurements at reference sites. Its purpose in part was to define quality variations over time under wet and dry conditions. Future, less frequent monitoring at many more sites would be useful in the transitional areas where use quality is uncertain. Site intensive sampling, especially during flow events, would help to identify pollutant source areas and add more focus to local control efforts. The RPO and Rouge communities will collaborate on developing hybrid monitoring programs of professionals and volunteers to support more site-intensive monitoring. Rouge River National Wet Weather 35 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

45 6.0 REFERENCES. Beam, J.D. and Braunscheidel, J.J. Rouge River Watershed Assessment, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division (1996). Karr, J.R. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities, Fisheries 6(6): Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Michigan Fishing Guide, Fisheries Division (1996). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. An Assessment of the Rouge River Fish Community, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division (1995). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). Water Quality Standards, Act 451 of 1994, Sections 3103 & 3106, Part 4 Rules (1996). Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section Procedure #51: Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers, Surface Water Quality Division (1991). Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments. MIRIS Land Cover/Land Use Data, (1994). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States, Office of Water, EPA 841-F and-002 (1996). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Indicators to Assess the Effectiveness of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Control Programs; Indicator Profile Sheets, Office of Wastewater Management; draft prepared by Center for Watershed Protection (March 1995). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Annotated Bibliography of Environmental Indicators to Assess the Effectiveness of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Control Programs, Office of Wastewater Management prepared by Center for Watershed Protection (April 1995). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Rouge River Remedial Action Plan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1989). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Rouge River Remedial Action Plan Update, Surface Water Quality Division (1994). Rouge Project Office. Subwatershed Characterization Data Report, Rouge River National Wet Weather (July 1996). Rouge River National Wet Weather 36 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

46 Rouge Project Office. Descriptive Water Quality Data: Overview and Analysis, Rouge River and Main Tributaries, Technical Memorandum RPO-WMGT-TM06.00 by T. Heidke (January 1996). Rouge River National Wet Weather 37 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgt\tpm.42.00

47 APPENDIX A

48

49 Table A-1 RPO Water Quality Indexes and Scoring Systems (December 1995) AESTHETIC INDEX (Developer: T. Heidke, WSU) The four main criteria considered in the aesthetic index and their weightings used to determine the overall ranking are: Water Clarity (20 percent); River Color (20 percent); Odor (30 percent); and Visible Debris (30 percent). Field survey sheets used in RPO sampling efforts contained several choices for describing the river for each of these four main aesthetic criteria, as listed below along with the score assigned for each choice. WATER CLARITY RIVER COLOR ODOR VISIBLE DEBRIS Choice Score Choice Score Choice Score Choice Score Clear 10 Clear 10 None 10 None 10 Cloudy 7 Green 7 Musty 6 Natural 8 Opaque 0 Brown 5 Sewage 2 Oil Film 3 Gray 2 Anaerobic 0 Trash 2 Black 0 Sewage 0 In calculating the aesthetic index, for a given location, an overall aesthetic index score from zero to 10 is computed as the weighted score for the four individual scores. In special cases where one of the four main criteria has very objectionable conditions, that criterion may be given a weight of 100 percent, since the river will be aesththetically poor no matter how good the other criteria are. The overall aesthetics index score is color coded as follows: Heavy Green (Excellent) >9 Green (Good) 8 to 9 Yellow (Fair) 6 to 8 Red (Poor) < 6 BIOLOGICAL INDEX (Developer: R. French, CDM) The biological index used for this analysis is based, in part, on the indices from the MDNR GLEAS 51 procedures. The three main criteria considered in the index are Fish, Macroinvertebrates and Rouge River National Wet Weather A-3 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

50 Table A-1 (Continued) Habitat, with each carrying one-third of the weight of the total ranking. Each criteria has a number of areas of consideration, as listed below, which are considered in the rankings. FISH MACRO INVERTEBRATES HABITAT Total Number of Species Total Number of Taxa Substrate and Instream Cover Total Number of Darter Species Total Number of Mayfly Taxa Bottom Substrate and Available Total Number of Sunfish Species Total Number of Stonefly Taxa Cover Total Number of Sucker Species Total Number of Caddisfly Taxa Embeddness and Siltation Percent Carp, Green Sunfish, Percent Mayflies Water Velocity Sucker Species Percent Caddisflies Channel Morphology Percent Omnivores Percent Contribution of Dominant Flow Stability Percent Insectivorous Cyprinds Taxon Deposition and Sedimentation Percent Piscivorous Fish Percent Isopods, Snails and Pools-Riffles-Runs-Bends Density of Individuals Leeches Riparian and Bank Structure Percent Anomalies Percent Surface Dependent Bank Stability Bank Vegetation Streamside Cover The biological evaluation results in a scoring of zero to 100 for each of the three main criteria. The three scores are then weighted to arrive at an overall score, since each of the three criteria holds equal weight. The color codings used for purposes of this presentation are related to the scores for each criteria in the table below. COLOR CODING RANKING Overall Score for Each Criteria FISH MACRO- HABITAT INVERTEBRATES Green Excellent 42 to to 54 > 90 Good 28 to to to 89 Yellow Fair 21 to to to 74 Red Poor < 20 < 10 < 59 CHEMISTRY WATER QUALITY INDEX (Developer: C. Hufnagel, MPS) The chemistry water quality index (WQI) used for this analysis is based on the National Sanitation Foundation WQI. The index was modified somewhat for this application and was based on available Rouge River National Wet Weather A-4 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

51 Table A-1 (Continued) data. Values for rankings within the index were compared to published water quality standards or goals. The chemistry parameters in the index include those which affect health (e. coli), biological diversity (DO, solids, BOD, temperature) and aesthetics (nutrients, solids). The values for each parameter are geometrically weighted. The result of the geometric weighting is such that if one parameter is very bad, it will cause the overall rating to be low. For example, if bacteria levels are very high, the index value would be low regardless of other parameter levels. Chemistry parameters included in the index as currently used, and the numerical values used at varying points along the scale are as follows: Parameter Weight Value at Value at Value 0 Reference Dissolved 17 9 mg/l 5 mg/l 0 mg/l aquatic life, WQ Oxygen standards, odor E. Coli 17 <130 < ,000 health protection Total 16 <2 mg/l 25 mg/l 400 mg/l aquatic life, water Suspended (MDL) clarity and color Solids Total 10 <0.01 mg/l 0.5 mg/l >10 mg/l nutrient loading Phosphorus (MDL) NO3 10 <0.05 mg/l 7 mg/l 100 mg/l nutrient loading (MDL) Temperature <28, <3 0 >28 aquatic life daily variation BOD5 10 <2mg/l 5 mg/l >30 mg/l aquatic life (MDL) NH3 10 <0.05 mg/l 0.5 mg/l >>1.0 aquatic life (MDL) mg/l In general, values at 100 could be considered as no impact. Chemistry values at or above those noted at 60 are thresholds which become non-supportive of use of the water way for either human or biota use. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-5 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

52 Table A-1 (Continued) Color coding are based on the following categorization: Bad: Less than 50 Medium: Good: 70 and above HEALTH INDEX (Developer: B. Johnson, CDM) The health index used for this analysis is based on two main criteria: fish consumption, which has a weighting of 70 percent, and the E. Coli bacteria count, which has a weighting of 30 percent. Fish consumption has the higher weighting since consumption of fish poses the greatest risk to human health. Contaminated fish have been linked to birth defects, cancer, neurological disorders, kidney ailments and diseases. The E. Coli criteria for human health risk is the standard recommended by the USEPA. The color coding used in the health index is described in the table below. Since there is insufficient data to project the improvement of fish quality for the current analysis, the color coding for this analysis was solely based on the E. Coli criteria. COLOR DEGREE OF E. COLI FISH CONSUMPTION IMPAIRMENT (geometric mean of E. Coli in 100 ml sample) Green None Zero to 130 Restricted Consumption (Good) Yellow Moderate 131 to 1000 No Consumption of White Suckers or (Fair) Carp Red Frequent Above 1000 No Consumption of Northern Pike, (Poor) Carp, Largemouth Bass, Catfish, White Suckers, Smallmouth Bass Rouge River National Wet Weather A-6 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

53 Table A-2 Proposed RPO River Use Indexes RPO WQ INDEX WHICH CURRENTLY INCLUDES RIVER USE INDEX* EVALUATION FACTORS THIS EVALUATION FACTOR Water Contact Recreation E. Coliform Bacteria Health and Chemistry Fish and Wildlife** Dissolved Oxygen Chemistry Ammonia Toxicity Temperature ph Fish Flesh Toxics Fish Population Diversity and Health Wildlife Population Diversity and Health Macroinvertebrate Species (Benthos) Diversity Habitat Fish and Wildlife Flavor Chemistry Chemistry Not included Health Biological Not included Biological Biological (but does not address wildlife habitat) Not included Industrial/Agricultural Water Total Dissolved Solids Not included Supply Navigation (Recreational & Log Jams/Obstacles Not included Commercial) Toxic Sediments (Dredging Restrictions) Not included Aquatic Plant Growth Siltation Not included Not included General Aesthetic Litter/Debris (in water and on river bank) Aesthetic (water only) Odors Eutrophication/Undesirable Algae (Total Phosphorous as indicator) Clarity/Color (TSS as indicator) Aesthetic Chemistry includes Total P Chemistry includes TSS * A sixth significant river use from a public perspective is River Bank Recreation, including walking, hiking, biking, picnics, bird watching, etc. If the RPO will be addressing this use by increasing public access to the river, then a River Bank Recreation Index should be considered. ** Water column toxics are not listed as an evaluation factor for Fish and Wildlife, but their impact is accounted for in two other evaluation factors: toxics which accumulate in fish and create a human health risk due to fish consumption are accounted for in the Fish Flesh Toxics evaluation factor; toxics which harm fish are accounted for in the Fish Population Diversity and Health evaluation factor. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-7 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

54 Table A-3 Proposed Link Between River Use Quality and Condition Quality Indexes (January 1996) River Use Aesthetic Health Physical Chemical Biological Water Contact Recreation Warmwater Fishery Industrial/ Ag Water Supply good good good good fair fair poor fair good good fair fair fair fair fair Navigation fair poor good poor poor General Aesthetic River Bank Recreation Fish and Wildlife good fair good fair fair good fair good fair fair fair poor fair good good Rouge River National Wet Weather A-8 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

55 NOTE A-1 Gist of Comments by MDEQ on RPO Use of Indexes (as of 3/5/96) Preliminary Findings for the Lower Rouge Subwatershed General: Indices don t adequately indicate if WQS/uses are achieved; Indices can not adequately represent WQS; Indices in general are poor (inaccurate) indicators of water quality; A multi-parameter rating (index) is not sensitive enough to single-parameter problems; Water quality indices do not represent important phenomena observed in the river; There was no prior indication that WQ indices would even be considered for use by RPO; significant part of monitoring program is already implemented without consideration of use of indices; Indices used are unclear, convey inaccurate information, and can generate confusion regarding water quality goals; RPO should use WQS to interpret results and determine future remedies needed to protect water quality. Aesthetic Index Index is very subjective; Use of index is very misleading; algorithms not provided in report; Method should be consistent with the narrative in WQS; Biological Index Should use GLEAS Procedure #51 as basis for RPO index; information in report is misleading and inaccurate; See MDEQ biosurvey reports SWQ93/066 and SWQ95/020; Chemical (WQ) Index Not all parameters have WQS associated; Doesn t reflect toxic elements; Doesn t explain weight given to various factors; Rouge River National Wet Weather A-9 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

56 Table A-1 (Continued) Provides comparative rank rather than absolute determination of acceptability (as by WQS compliance assessment); Oversimplifies the actual conditions; no distinction between WQ under dry and wet conditions; Not consistent with Michigan WQS; generates inconsistent information regarding WQ goals; In some instances indicates good WQ even when WQ is actually poor; Not capable of describing some of most important WQ phenomena, such as DO depletion, SOD or reaeration; Index doesn t indicate whether WQS for DO and E. coli are being met; Health Index Combining E. coli and fish consumption in one index leads to confusion; Should evaluate E. coli per WQS; present fish consumption advisory information as intended by MDPH; Rouge River National Wet Weather A-10 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

57 Note A-2 Memo on Technical Basics for Proposed Seven Quality Indicators (March 1996) Wayne County Rouge Program Office (RPO) MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 1996 To: From: Copies: Subject: MDEQ: Roy Schrameck, Fred Cowles, Ralph Resnick, Margie Synk, Bill Creal, Mike Mulcrone, Phil Argeroff EPA/Reg. 5: Margaret Thielke, Christine Urban, Peter Swenson, Quintin White Elliott Smith / RPO Index Task Team Charlie Bristol Vyto Kaunelis Noel Mullett Carl Johnson Don Tilton Gary Mercer Lou Regenmorter Jim Ridgway Kelly Cave Mark Mitchell Quality factors and indexes used to communicate Rouge Project findings (Work Plan WMOG5.1) Task Update In the recent RPO report, "Preliminary Findings for the Lower Rouge Subwatershed" (12/95), four quality indexes (indices) -- Aesthetics, Biology, Chemistry and Health -- were used to characterize good, fair and poor conditions of river quality. This approach is useful because the indexes provide a means to condense and present technical data in a graphical form that is easier for the non-specialist to understand. However, indexes can also have the disadvantage of obscuring data for certain key factors (parameters) which individually may have an important impact on public use or ecosystem health. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-11 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

58 Note A-2 (Continued) During the past month, staff from RPO, WCDOE, MDEQ and EPA/Reg. 5 took part in discussions about the design and appropriate use of indexes in RPO reporting. The consensus reached at the March 7 Benton Harbor meeting was that graphics representing both individual factors and multifactor indexes should be used to communicate findings on Rouge watershed status and trends. Specifically, there was agreement to continue charting three indexes, Aesthetics, Aquatic Biology and Aquatic Habitat, as well as three individual factors, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Bacteria (E. coli) and River Flow. In addition, there was general agreement that: Quality indexes are appropriately used for communication of results, rather than for decision making; Whenever possible, expressions of river quality should be tied to public uses, which can vary in different subwatersheds; There may be other means of expressing river quality (besides the above factors and indexes) that are best suited for informing the general public; Citizen monitoring of river quality can provide useful data to the extent that results can be quality assured. The last point is important because any realistic long-range monitoring program in the Rouge watershed is likely to involve some volunteer monitoring support. Planned Approach As a result of the last RPO Index Team meeting on March 19, we propose to use the following approach for rating the six factors and indexes above. We also propose to report another factor, the Michigan public health guideline for fish consumption. Our intention is to: Relate the factor ratings to Michigan water and fish quality standards as simply as possible; Base the Aquatic Biology Index ratings directly on the GLEAS 51 procedure and MDNR survey results; Base the Aquatic Habitat Index on GLEAS 51, plus additional chemical factors used in USFWS Habitat Suitability Index models for selected fish species. This approach is still being developed, and details will be described in a separate memo; Modify the selection of metrics used in the Aesthetics Index. The following tables and notes provide details on the numerical ratings and index weightings to be used, as well as the rationales behind them. The final version of this approach will be incorporated Rouge River National Wet Weather A-12 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

59 next month into an RPO Technical Memorandum, titled " Use of Quality Factors and Indexes to Report on Watershed Status and Trends." Please forward any comments on this memo to Elliott Smith at RPO by April 15, * Tom Heidtke, Ron French, Nicole Adaniya, Carol Hufnagel, Barry Johnson, Ed Kluitenberg Rouge River National Wet Weather A-13 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

60 Note A-2 (Continued) INDEX/FACTOR QUAL. RATING IND. RATIONALE FOR RANGE AND DESCRIPTOR RANK RANGE (units) WT. WEIGHTING OF RANK DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) Good $5 mg/l instant., Ref: Neponset River Basin Survey, 1994, Aquatic Life Dry or Wet $60% to #100% sat. Support guideline-- and instant. >4 mg/l Support: $5.0 mg/l Fair mg/l instant. Partial Support: mg/l and 50% to 59% sat. Non Support: #4.0 mg/l or 100% to 110% sat. Ref: Michigan DNR General Rules, 1994, Part 4, Poor <4.0 mg/l instant. Water Quality Standards R Rule 64 and <50% sat. or Warmwater fish and aquatic life: DO $6 mg/l >110% sat. daily average, and $5 mg/l instantaneous (Concentration alone Coldwater fish: DO $6 mg/l (warm weather) and used when saturation is $7 mg/l (design flow). not available.) RIVER FLOW Water Velocity Good Score Ref: Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey (ON HOLD Fair 6-10 Score Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers: Revised PENDING MDEQ Poor 0-5 Score GLEAS Procedure #51, 1991, Michigan Department STUDY RESULTS) Good 8-15 Score of Natural Resources, Lansing. Flow Stability Fair 4-7 Score Poor 0-3 Score FISH CONSUMPTION Good No restriction Ref: Fish Consumption Advisory, 1995, Michigan Fair #1 fish meal/week Department of Public Health, Division of Health Risk Poor No consumption Assessment, Lansing.

61 Note A-2 (Continued) INDEX/FACTOR QUAL. RATING IND. RATIONALE FOR RANGE AND DESCRIPTOR RANK RANGE (units) WT.* WEIGHTING OF RANK BACTERIA (E. coli) Dry or Wet Good #130 / 100mL** Ref: Michigan DNR General Rules, 1994, Part 4, Fair / 100 ml Water Quality Standards R Rule 62 Poor >1,000 / 100 ml Good - Full body contact** Fair - Partial body contact Poor - No body contact * *30-day geom. mean; max. 300/100mL/sample AQUATIC BIOLOGY INDEX Fish Good Fair Score Score 0.5 Ref: Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers: Revised GLEAS Procedure #51, 1991, Michigan Department Poor <20 Score of Natural Resources, Lansing. Good Score Macro- Fair Score 0.5 invertebrates Poor <10 Score AQUATIC HABITAT INDEX Good >50% Ref: Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Substrate/Cover Fair 25-50% 0.30 Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers: Revised Channel Morph. Poor <25% 0.25 GLEAS Procedure #51, 1991, Michigan Department Riparian/Bank 0.15 of Natural Resources, Lansing. Water Quality 0.30 Ref: Habitat Suitability Index Models, , Biological Services Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. * Best professional judgment

62 Note A-2 (Continued) INDEX/FACTOR QUAL. RATING IND. RATIONALE FOR RANGE AND DESCRIPTOR RANK RANGE (units) WT.* WEIGHTING OF RANK AESTHETIC INDEX Clarity Good Ref: A Review of Water Quality and Related Indices (C. Steinhart, L. Schierow and G. Chesters), Fair Poor 6-8 <6 1981, Environmental Planning Study Contrib. No. 38, Water Resources Ctr., Univ. of Wisc.- Madison. Color Good Fair 6-8 Poor <6 Odor Good Fair 6-8 Poor <6 Debris Good Fair 6-8 Poor <6 * Best professional judgment

63 Note A-2 (Continued) Table Notes: Dissolved Oxygen. The DO ratings are based on both concentration and per cent saturation values, both of which are ecologically important. The RPO "fair" condition is equivalent to the "partial support" guideline recommended for a warm water fishery. The same ratings apply to both wet and dry flow conditions. River Flow. We have assumed that the significance of flow is mainly related to habitat integrity. For now, flow ratings are based on the two flow-related components of the MDNR Habitat Index (GLEAS Procedure #51), namely water velocity (part of Substrate and Instream Cover) and flow stability (part of Channel Morphology). With MDNR assistance it may be possible later to correlate these ratings with flow regimes as measured by RPO. Bacteria (E. coli). These ratings are based directly on Michigan Water Quality Standards. Although major differences in bacterial (specifically E. coli) levels can occur under wet and dry conditions, the same ratings would apply to both. Fish Consumption. The Michigan Department of Public Health, Fish Consumption Advisory defines tissue concentrations of contaminants which are considered acceptable for fish consumption. We plan to show where the Advisory applies to the Rouge as the most direct way to represent contamination as it impacts public use. Aquatic Biology Index. Index ratings are based directly on the GLEAS Procedure #51 for scoring fish and benthic macroinvertebrates, except that the MDNR's Excellent (Non-impaired) and Good (Slightly impaired) categories have been combined here as a "Good" ranking. All available MDNR survey results will be used to determine the river rankings to be reported by RPO. Aquatic Habitat Index. As an RPO modification of the GLEAS Procedure #51 for scoring aquatic habitats, we propose to add a water quality metric which is also important to rating the suitability of the habitat for fish. This metric would be based on measurements of DO, temperature, ph, salinity, turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS). These parameters were selected because they are used in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Suitability Index Models (HSIs) to determine the ability of a habitat to support various fish species. Other modifications to the GLEAS Procedure #51 will include revised metric definitions for substrate/cover, channel morphology and riparian/bank structure. These are being proposed to accommodate the HSI definitions for Rouge River species. As much as possible the GLEAS definitions and ratings will be used, where there is a corresponding metric in the HSI models. The proposed Aquatic Habitat Index rating scheme, including the water quality metric, is not yet completed, and will be described in a separate memo. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-17 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

64 Note A-2 (Continued) Aesthetic Index. Descriptors of aesthetic conditions within the four index parameters will be modified somewhat to improve discrimination (see below), and to make them more similar to those to be used in the Rouge Education Project (REP) school field survey in May. Additional new conventions are: (1) if more than one descriptor applies to an observation parameter, the minimum descriptor value is used in calculating the index; (2) if one or more descriptors has a value #3 for a given observation, a weight of 1 is applied to the minimum descriptor value; that is, the index assumes a value equal to the minimum descriptor value for that observation. This approach prevents overrating sites when any condition is considered likely to limit public use of the river. Note that the quality ranks are based on scores averaged over time. Methods for more objective field measurements of clarity and color are also being developed. The following indicates the new metrics proposed for further evaluation of the Aesthetic Index. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-18 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

65 Note A-2 (Continued) Descriptor Index Parameter and Descriptors Value Weight Clarity Clear 10 Slightly Turbid 8 Cloudy 5 Muddy/Highly Turbid 2 Opaque 0 Color Clear 10 Green 9 Light Brown 8 Medium Brown 5 Dark Brown 2 Milky/White 0 Odor None/Natural 10 Musty-Faint 8 Musty-Strong 6 Harsh (sewage, fishy) -Faint 4 -Strong 2 Anaerobic (rotten eggs) 0 Debris/Obvious Pollution None 10 Natural (leaves, limbs) 9 Foam 7 Trash-Floating 4 -Fixed 4 Floating Scum 2 Oil Film 1 Sewage Solids-Floating 0 -Fixed 0 Rouge River National Wet Weather A-19 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

66 Table A-4 MDEQ - Recommended Revision of Dissolved Oxygen Indicator Ratings (May 1995) INDEX/FACTOR QUAL. RATING IND. RATIONALE FOR RANGE AND DESCRIPTOR RANK RANGE (units) WT. WEIGHTING OF RANK DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) Good $5 mg/l instant., Ref: Neponset River Basin Survey, 1994, Aquatic Life Dry or Wet $60% to #100% sat. Support guideline-- and instant. >4 mg/l Support: $5.0 mg/l Fair mg/l instant. Partial Support: mg/l and 50% to 59% sat. Non Support: #4.0 mg/l or 100% to 110% sat. Ref: Michigan DNR General Rules, 1994, Part 4, Poor <4.0 mg/l instant. Water Quality Standards R Rule 64 and <50% sat. or Warmwater fish and aquatic life: DO $6 mg/l >110% sat. daily average, and $5 mg/l instantaneous (Concentration alone Coldwater fish: DO $6 mg/l (warm weather) and used when saturation is $7 mg/l (design flow). not available.) RIVER FLOW Water Velocity Good Score Ref: Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey (ON HOLD Fair 6-10 Score Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers: Revised PENDING MDEQ Poor 0-5 Score GLEAS Procedure #51, 1991, Michigan Department STUDY RESULTS) Good 8-15 Score of Natural Resources, Lansing. Flow Stability Fair 4-7 Score Poor 0-3 Score FISH CONSUMPTION Good No restriction Ref: Fish Consumption Advisory, 1995, Michigan Fair #1 fish meal/week Department of Public Health, Division of Health Risk Poor No consumption Assessment, Lansing.

67 Note A-3 Draft Executive Summary of Technical memorandum for Review (June-July 1996) Rouge River National Wet Weather Wayne County, Michigan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Use of Quality Indicators to Report on Rouge River Status and Trends Author: V. Elliott Smith Rouge River National Wet Weather A-21 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

68 Note A-3 (Continued) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Rouge Project has produced a wealth of technical information on water and watershed quality. The data yield practical insights which can and should by conveyed to the public in simple terms. Many local residents are interested in whether river conditions are good, fair or poor with respect to familiar standards of quality. They want to know how these conditions change over time as pollution controls are implemented in the watershed. The public is also concerned with how the river s condition affects its uses for recreation and commerce. Understanding this condition-use relationship is important for diagnosing problems and finding solutions at the community level. Conditions which impact river uses may be specific to subwatersheds or even sites; control measures may require neighborhood consensus and active support from local citizens. Residents of the watershed should be kept informed of progress made toward improved river quality and public use through clear, non-technical reporting. Direct reporting also encourages public feedback on any other quality problems which may impact river uses locally. Consistent methods should be established now for reporting results of post-rouge monitoring programs. This memorandum describes an approach for distilling much technical data into graphical expressions of river quality, representing both conditions and uses. The graphs are designed to convey clear, succinct information on Rouge River status to non-technical users. More detailed supporting data and judgements will be made available to users as needed. Background There are many precedents for using environmental quality indicators, such as chemical factors or indexes to simplify reporting to the public. Some of these references are noted in the Technical Memorandum. Presenting such information graphically can make it easier to portray general patterns and trends of river quality, particularly to a non-technical audience. Single-factor indicators usually relate best to quality criteria, such as water quality standards. Indexes are more useful to express complex conditions which involve many factors, such as ecosystem health. Initially, the Rouge Project planned to use only four river quality indexes (Chemistry, Biology, Health and Aesthetics) to report river status on Rouge subwatersheds. A test application was prepared for review (Preliminary Findings for the Lower Rouge Subwatershed, RPO, December 1995). More recently the RPO adopted a modified approach which uses a combination of four factors and three Rouge River National Wet Weather A-22 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

69 Note A-3 (Continued) indexes to represent river quality. This approach was developed through several discussions among staff of the Rouge Project Office (RPO), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The current approach was outlined in a memorandum (Quality Factors and Indexes Used to Communicate Rouge Project Findings (Work Plan WMOG5.1), RPO, March 29, 1996). During May-June, further discussions were held at RPO to refine the ratings and graphics for depicting river condition quality with factors and indexes. Also, a decision was made to represent five categories of river use quality, as reported in the Rouge River Remedial Action Plan (1989). Approach Currently, the RPO plan is to report the status of both condition quality and use quality for each subwatershed of the Rouge River during two years of record (1994 and 1995). The status of condition and use quality indicators will be displayed on separate maps. Condition quality indicators are defined as follows: Factors -- Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Water concentrations (mg/l) and saturation (%) values, both of which are ecologically important; no distinction made between wet (high flow) and Dry conditions. Fish Consumption Advisory. The Michigan Department of Public Health has identified portions of the Rouge where fish consumption is not advised based on tissue concentrations of certain contaminants. River Flow. Flow velocities in ft./sec. Ratings to be used are pending MDNR determination of flow significance to aquatic habitats and fish communities. Bacterial Count (E. coli). Colony counts per 100 ml in culture; ratings are based on Michigan Water Quality Standards; distinction between wet and dry conditions. Indexes (Indices)-- Aquatic Biology Index. Index ratings are based directly on results of MDNR fish surveys using the GLEAS Procedure #51. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-23 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

70 Noter A-3 (Continued) Aquatic Habitat Index. Index ratings are based directly on results of MDNR habitat surveys using the GLEAS Procedure #51. Additional metrics may be used as well. Aesthetic Index. Index ratings are as described in another RPO Technical Memorandum (Descriptive Water Quality Data: Overview and Analysis of Rouge River and Main Tributaries, 1996 Draft). The numerical ratings to be used for ranking the quality of these factors and indexes are shown with references in the tables below. Use quality indicators are defined as follows: Methods Water Contact. Health hazard to humans of external contact with Rouge water; relates mainly to the Bacterial (E. Coli) factor above. Warmwater Fishery. Suitability of Rouge waters for fish populations and recreational fishing, relates mainly to DO, Consumption and Flow factors, and to the Aquatic Biology and Habitat Indexes above. Navigation (& Boating). Suitability of Rouge channels for use of ships (in lower Rouge) and other recreational craft; relates mainly (via water depth) to the Flow factor above; also some relation to other factors and indexes as they impact recreational uses. General Aesthetics. Desirability of Rouge environment for any personal enjoyment; relates mainly to the Aesthetic Index above. Graphic descriptions of river quality will be prepared eventually for all subwatersheds of the Rouge using the map-graphic method, as follows. In these graphs prepared for each indicator, two colorcoded tracks paralleling the river line on the map represent zones of quality for that stretch of the Rouge River during two different years of record. Color codes of green, yellow and red represent three ranges of indicator quality defined as good, fair and poor, respectively. Numbered color dots along the river line represent data collection points or sites, which are described elsewhere. The boundaries between different color (quality) zones may or may not coincide with these points, depending on other information or professional judgements. Text flags attached to these transition points indicate the probable cause of each indicated quality change. Color zones can be easily updated by changing the interval values (in river mile units) for each color zone. These map-graphic features are illustrated as a hypothetical example in Figure 1. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-24 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

71 Note A-3 (Continued) This style of map-graphic is preferable to the schematic bar plots used previously, which has to be referenced to features on a separate map (Preliminary Findings , above). With bar plots it was also difficult to represent zones on river branches. The present design requires much less interpretation by the user. Most important, the map-graphic for a given indicator can be applied to any or all branches of the river on a single map. Results Following the review period and any final changes to this approach, map-graphics of these condition and use indicators will be prepared, first for the Lower Rouge (Subwatersheds 1 and 2), then for Subwatersheds Upper 2, Middle 1 and Middle 3. The indicator maps may be packaged in different ways with other information, so other map features may vary somewhat. However, the indicator graphic should follow consistent rules for coding river quality ranges. The RPO will seek further input from watershed communities on the use of these quality indicators for conveying river status information. Rouge River National Wet Weather A-25 October 1, 1999 g:\wp\tpm\watermgmt\tpm42.00

72