Failing to meet water 35 sites (or 1.7 miles of stream) scored un-supporting Yes Yes Yes Yes standards (<36) for IBI and 41 sites or 2.2 miles of stream) scored un-supporting (<36) for mIB and 17 sites (or 0.6 miles of stream) scored poor for habitat (51 or less) for QHEI. Nearly all stream segments are listed as impaired on the 2014 draft 303(d) reassessment. Methods of dredging ditches There is no data showing the environmental impacts Yes No No Yes are having multiple negative of dredging on this watershed. impacts on the LCEB Emerald ash borer (EAB) EAB was studied for Coffee Creek Watershed Yes Yes Yes Yes killing trees, source of debris Conservancy report. All ash in the region is expected to die within 5 years. Invasive plants impact There is currently no data quantifying the impact of Yes No No Yes biodiversity and have impact invasive plants on water quality and wetlands in the on water quality/wetlands LCEB. Increased volume and flow Altered hydrology tends to increase stream flows and Yes No No Yes due to altered hydrology velocity; however, there is no data to confirm this (regulated drains, ditches) claim. Stream gages are only located at the base of the watershed. LaPorte County Waste There is no data to support environmental impacts No No No No Management landfill, is closed from the landfill. but may have impact Fish Consumption The Fish Consumption Advisory listing provides data No Yes No No, this is for fish consumption. Three fish species are listed outside the under Advisory Group 4 and 2 fish species are listed scope of under Advisory Group 3. the project Need to understand geology Geology and hydrology have been described in this Yes Yes Yes Yes and hydrology. Several habitat project. Habitats have also been described. types in watershed Need permits for woody Permit acquisition is not within the scope of this plan. No No No No debris management and Fisheries and habitat protections will be explored for fisheries and habitat this plan. protections
Failing to meet water standards 35 sites (or 1.7 miles of stream) scored un-supporting (<36) for IBI and 41 sites or 2.2 miles of stream) scored un-supporting (<36) for mIB and 17 sites (or 0.6 miles of stream) scored poor for habitat (51 or less) for QHEI. Nearly all stream segments are listed as impaired on the 2014 draft 303(d) reassessment. Yes Yes Yes Yes Methods of dredging ditches are having multiple negative impacts on the LCEB There is no data showing the environmental impacts of dredging on this watershed. Yes No No Yes Emerald ash borer (EAB) killing trees, source of debris EAB was studied for Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy report. All ash in the region is expected to die within 5 years. Yes Yes Yes Yes Invasive plants impact biodiversity and have impact on water quality/wetlands There is currently no data quantifying the impact of invasive plants on water quality and wetlands in the LCEB. Yes No No Yes Increased volume and flow due to altered hydrology (regulated drains, ditches) Altered hydrology tends to increase stream flows and velocity; however, there is no data to confirm this claim. Stream gages are only located at the base of the watershed. Yes No No Yes LaPorte County Waste Management landfill, is closed but may have impact There is no data to support environmental impacts from the landfill. No No No No Fish Consumption The Fish Consumption Advisory listing provides data for fish consumption. Three fish species are listed under Advisory Group 4 and 2 fish species are listed under Advisory Group 3. No Yes No No, this is outside the scope of the project Need to understand geology and hydrology. Several habitat types in watershed Geology and hydrology have been described in this project. Habitats have also been described. Yes Yes Yes Yes Need permits for woody debris management and fisheries and habitat protections Permit acquisition is not within the scope of this plan. Fisheries and habitat protections will be explored for this plan. No No No No