U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5050

Prepared in cooperation with Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, 

Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Water Quality and Hydrology of the 

Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, 

Michigan, 2005–08

By Thomas L. Weaver, Daniel J. Sullivan, Cynthia M. Rachol, and James M. Ellis

Prepared in cooperation with Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5050

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Weaver, T.L., Sullivan, D.J., Rachol, C.M., and Ellis, J.M., 2010, Water quality and hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5050, 66 p. 
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Previous Studies and Data-Collection Efforts..................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Climate...........................................................................................................................................6

Geologic Setting...........................................................................................................................7

Glacial Sediments...............................................................................................................7

Bedrock ................................................................................................................................7

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ...............................................................................................10

Streamflow...........................................................................................................................................10

Water-Quality Sampling.....................................................................................................................11

Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Analysis ...............................................................................11

Streambed Sediment and Biological Data .....................................................................................12

Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed.................................................................................................13

Streamflow...........................................................................................................................................13

Silver River Upstream of East Branch....................................................................................13

Silver River at Arvon Road .......................................................................................................13

Upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road ................................................................................14

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at Indian Road............................................14

West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek .........................................................................14

Gomanche Creek at Indian Road ...........................................................................................14

Dakota Creek at Trail Crossing ................................................................................................14

Silver River near L’Anse............................................................................................................14

Water Quality of Streams in the Silver River Watershed......................................................................20

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, Alkalinity, Nutrients, Metals, and Cyanide......20

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, and Alkalinity ..............................................20

Nutrients......................................................................................................................................20

Nickel and Copper.....................................................................................................................21

Mercury.......................................................................................................................................21

Mercury Cycling in Aquatic Systems .....................................................................................22

Cyanide........................................................................................................................................22

The Elements of a Boxplot........................................................................................................24

Statistical Analysis of Water-Quality Data and Comparison to Water-Quality Guidelines.....24

Bed-Sediments Analysis.............................................................................................................................29

Comparison to Sediment-Quality Guidelines .................................................................................32

Grain-Size Distribution.......................................................................................................................33

Ecological Investigation..............................................................................................................................33

Fishes....................................................................................................................................................33

Macroinvertebrate Sampling............................................................................................................36

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................37
iv

Figures

 1–5. Maps showing:

1. Location of Silver River Watershed study area, Baraga County, Michigan ..............2

2. Silver River Watershed showing topographic features, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations and sampling sites, and 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) surface-water sampling 

sites, Baraga County, Michigan ........................................................................................4

3. Silver River Watershed showing land cover, topographic features, 

and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations 

and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan ...............................................................5

4. Silver River Watershed showing Quaternary geology, topographic 

features, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging 

stations and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan................................................8

5. Silver River Watershed showing bedrock geology, topographic 

features, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging 

stations and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan................................................9

 6–14. Photographs showing:

6. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic technician examining low-water 

control downstream of bridge at USGS streamgage 04043126 

 prior to ecological sampling ............................................................................................15

7. U.S. Geological Survey streamgage at upper Silver River (04043126) 

during installation ..............................................................................................................15

8. View looking upstream at Silver River at Arvon Road 

(U.S. Geological Survey site 04043131) during moderate streamflow 

on April 20, 2006, and again during high streamflow on April 23, 2008 .....................16

9. View looking upstream at upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

(U.S. Geological Survey site 04043135) from Indian Road, May 10, 2005..................17

10. View looking upstream at East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek 

at Indian Road (U.S. Geological Survey site 04043137) from 

Indian Road, May 10, 2005................................................................................................17

11. View looking upstream at West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek 

(U.S. Geological Survey site 04043138) from unnamed logging road, 

May 11, 2005 .......................................................................................................................18

12. View looking upstream at a concrete culvert at the Indian Road 

crossing of Gomanche Creek (U.S. Geological Survey 

streamgage 04043140), May 11, 2005..............................................................................18

13. U.S. Geological Survey streamage at Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road (04043140) .....................................................................................................19

14. Dakota Creek at unnamed logging-road crossing 

(U.S. Geological Survey site 04043146), May 12, 2005 .................................................19

15. Aquatic mercury cycle illustrating the complexities of mercury-cycling pathways 

in aquatic environments. .............................................................................................................23

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................37

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................37

Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................41
v

 16–20. Boxplots showing:

16. Concentrations of major ions in 80 water-quality samples, 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08...................................................................25

17. Concentrations of metals in 80 water-quality samples, 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08...................................................................26

18. Concentrations of nutrients in 80 filtered (A) and unfiltered 

(B) water-quality samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08 ..................27

19. Concentration of metals in seven bed-sediment quality samples, 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08...................................................................30

20. Concentration of metals in seven bed-sediment samples compared to 

sediment-quality guidelines, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08...............32

 21–23. Photographs showing:

21. U.S. Geological Survey employees processing adult brook trout 

at Dakota Creek (site 04043146), August 26, 2008.........................................................34

22. U.S. Geological Survey employee using a D-frame kick net for 

macroinvertebrate sampling at Dakota Creek (site 04043146) ........................................36

23. Macroinvertebrates and detritus in sorting tray ..............................................................36

Tables

1. Land cover in the study area, Baraga County, Michigan.......................................................3

2. Mean monthly and mean annual temperature for 2005–08, measured

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration observer at 

Herman, Michigan ........................................................................................................................6

3. Monthly and annual precipitation for 2005–08, measured by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration observer at 

Herman, Michigan ........................................................................................................................6

4. U.S. Geological Survey site number, station name, latitude, longitude, 

drainage area, and wetland area for water-quality sampling and 

streamflow-measurement sites in the study area, Baraga County, Michigan.................10

5. Select U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory method 

detection limits, by sampling date ...........................................................................................12

6. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory codes, 

schedules, and respective analytes used for sampling in the 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005–08...........................................................................20

7. Sensitivity of surface-water bodies to acid rain; guidelines for Wisconsin.....................20

8. Concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in unfiltered 

water samples from the Silver River Watershed, Michigan ...............................................21

9. Human non-cancerous, final chronic, and aquatic-maximum criteria 

values for select constituents as defined by the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality .....................................................................................28

10. Ambient water-quality criteria for select nutrients as defined by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency within Nutrient Ecoregion VIII, 

Sub-ecoregion 50........................................................................................................................29

11. Consensus-based sediment-quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems ...................32

12. Bed-sediment grain-size distribution for selected sites in the 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan...........................................................................................33
vi

13. Summary of fish communities collected at sites in the 

 Silver River Watershed, Michigan...........................................................................................34

14. Concentrations of trace-elements in brook-trout tissue samples taken 

from the Silver River Watershed, Michigan...........................................................................35

Appendixes 

1A. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River upstream 

from East Branch near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan ..................................................42

1B. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River at 

Arvon Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.............................................................44

1C. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, upper Gomanche Creek 

at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan .....................................................46

1D. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, East Branch Tributary 

to Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.................48

1E. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, West Branch Tributary 

to Gomanche Creek near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan............................................50

1F. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan ............................................................52

1G. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Dakota Creek at 

trail crossing near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan ..........................................................54

1H. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, 

nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River near L’Anse, Baraga 

County, Michigan........................................................................................................................56

2. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, nutrients, 

and metals in bed-sediment samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan .......................58

3A. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Silver River upstream of 

East Branch near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan............................................................59

3B. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Silver River at Arvon Road 

near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan...................................................................................60

3C. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, upper Gomanche Creek 

at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan .....................................................61

3D. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, East Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near Herman,Baraga County, Michigan. ....................62

3E. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, West Branch Tributary 

to Gomanche Creek near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan. ..........................................63

3F. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. ..........................................................64
vii

3G. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Dakota Creek at trail 

crossing near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. ................................................................65

3H. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Silver River 

near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan...................................................................................66

Inset Boxes

1. Mercury Cycling in Aquatic Systems......................................................................................22

2. The Elements of a Box Plot .......................................................................................................24
viii

Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.40 millimeter (mm)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square

mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]

 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square

kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

inch per year (in/yr) 25.40 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

In this report, altitude or elevation refers to vertical distance above the National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the 

first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called sea level Datum of 1929.

Runoff is the quantity of water that is discharged, or “runs-off” from a drainage basin during a 

given time period. Runoff data in this study are reported as mean discharge per unit of drainage 

area in cubic feet per second per square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2].

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water and sediments are given in milligrams per 

liter (mg/L), micrograms per liter (μg/L), nanograms per liter (ng/L), micrograms per gram (μg/g), 

or micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical 

value is the same as for concentrations in parts per million.
ix

Abbreviations

Water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. The water 

year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. For example, the year starting 

October 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 2009 is called the “2009 water year.”

AMLE adjusted maximum likelihood estimation

AMV aquatic maximum value

DOC dissolved organic carbon

FCV final chronic value

GLEAS Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section

HCV human cancer value

HNV human non-cancerous value

KBIC Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

LRL laboratory reporting level

LT-MDL long-term method detection limit

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MDL method detection limit

MRL minimum reporting level

NFM national field manual

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

QAPP Quality-Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PEC probable effect concentration

TEC threshold effect concentration

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VA visual accumulation

WV wildlife value

Abstract

The Silver River Watershed comprises about 69 square 

miles and drains part of northeastern Baraga County, Michigan. For generations, tribal members of the Keweenaw Bay 

Indian Community have hunted and fished in the watershed. 

Tribal government and members of Keweenaw Bay Indian 

Community are concerned about the effect of any development within the watershed, which is rural, isolated, and lightly 

populated. For decades, the area has been explored for various minerals. Since 2004, several mineral-exploration firms 

have been actively investigating areas within the watershed; 

property acquisition, road construction, and subsurface drilling 

have taken place close to tributary streams of the Silver River.

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, conducted a multi-year 

water-resources investigation of the Silver River Watershed 

during 2005–08. Methods of investigation included analyses 

of streamflow, water-quality sampling, and ecology at eight 

discrete sites located throughout the watershed. In addition, 

three continuous-record streamgages located within the watershed provided stage, discharge, specific conductance, and 

water-temperature data on an hourly basis.

Water quality of the Silver River Watershed is typical 

of many streams in undeveloped areas of Upper Michigan. 

Concentrations of most analytes typically were low, although 

several exceeded applicable surface-water-quality standards. 

Seven samples had concentrations of copper that exceeded 

the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality standards 

for wildlife, and one sample had concentrations of cyanide 

that exceeded the same standards. Concentrations of total 

mercury at all eight sampling sites exceeded the Great Lakes 

Basin water-quality standard, but the ratio of methylmercury 

to total mercury was similar to the 5 to 10 percent found in 

most natural waters. Concentrations of arsenic and chromium 

in bed sediments were near the threshold-effect concentration. 

A qualitative ecological assessment of fishes and macroinvertebrates showed that intolerant salmonids were present at 

most sampled sites, and macroinvertebrate communities were 

indicative of near-excellent or excellent conditions at all eight 

sites. This baseline information will aid in an ongoing monitoring effort designed to protect the water resources of the 

Silver River Watershed.

Introduction

The Silver River is located in the northeastern part of 

Baraga County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (fig. 1). 

Much of the western half of the Silver River Watershed 

lies within the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) 

Reservation, although the majority of the land within the 

watershed is not tribally owned at the present time (2009). 

Water plays an integral role in the lives of KBIC Tribal members who have fished and hunted on Lake Superior, Keweenaw 

and Huron Bays, and waters in the Silver River Watershed for 

generations. Chippewa (or Ojibwa) Indians have lived in the 

northern Great Lakes Basin for centuries and have depended 

upon the Great Lakes and tributary streams for sustenance and 

transportation since their arrival.

Until recently, most water-resource management issues 

within the Silver River Watershed have been related to logging 

activities, with typical problems related to stream crossings 

and erosion. In 2004, however, exploration for metal-bearing 

deposits within the watershed began in earnest, spurred on by 

a worldwide surge in metal prices.

Tribal government and members of KBIC are concerned 

about the short-term effects of mining within the Silver River 

Watershed, including additional vehicular traffic, accessroad building, surface-plant construction, dust, and erosion. 

Potential long-term effects include destruction of forests and 

wetland areas and degradation of water quality within the 

Silver River, Huron, and Keweenaw Bay Watersheds and ultimately, Lake Superior. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

entered into a cooperative agreement with KBIC to (1) evaluate streamflow and water quality, (2) conduct an ecological 

assessment of the Silver River Watershed, (3) establish a database of baseline conditions, and (4) address concerns of KBIC 

tribal government and members. The study was conducted 

during 2005–08, and the results of that effort are summarized 

in this report.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to (1) sample field waterquality parameters, major ions, nutrients, trace metals, cyanide, and suspended solids from eight sites within the Silver 

Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, 

Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

By Thomas L. Weaver, Daniel J. Sullivan, Cynthia M. Rachol, and James M. Ellis
2 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Figure 1. Location of Silver River Watershed study area, Baraga County, Michigan.

Base from Michigan Center for Geographic Information,

Michigan Geographic Framework, 2006, 1:24,000

BARAGA COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

H

O

U

G

H

T

O

N

C

O

U

N

TY

M

A

R

Q

U

E

T

T

E

C

O

U

N

TY

41

141

41

141

41

38

28

28

95

Keweenaw Bay

Huron

Bay

28

L'Anse

Baraga

Pequaming

Keweenaw

Bay Aura Skanee

Zeba

Nestoria

Herman

Alberta

Bear

Town

88°40' 88°30' 88°20' 88°10' 88°

46°30'

46°40'

46°50'

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES

0 2 4 6 8 10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Silver River Watershed

Keweenaw Bay Indian

Community reservation

Lake

Stream

State road

Railroad

Mt Arvon

Mt Curwood

BIC

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE SUPERIOR

LAKE HURON

LAKE ERIE

Baraga

County

MICHIGAN

Keweenaw

Peninsula
Introduction 3

River Watershed during the period 2005–08; (2) establish a 

baseline surface-water-quality database; (3) describe generalized hydrologic and geologic characteristics of the Silver 

River Watershed; and (4) measure streamflow at all the 

sampling sites. Data from previous studies were used to augment the present study, primarily for the purpose of describing 

hydrology and geology of the watershed. Data collected during this study include streamflow, field water-quality parameters, water-quality samples, and quality-assurance samples at 

eight sites.

The study was modified somewhat in the later part of 

the 2008 water year, when KBIC added an ecological component to the study. Sampling of fish tissue for metals analysis 

and age-dating, bed-sediment sampling for size and metals 

analysis, and invertebrate sampling and identification were 

completed in August 2008; the results are summarized in this 

report.

Previous Studies and Data-Collection Efforts

Few studies of the Silver River Watershed are known. 

The USGS conducted a geochemistry study of stream sediments and groundwater wells in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, as well as surrounding states, primarily to document the 

presence of uranium, but the analysis also included a number 

of different metals. A total of 566 stream-sediment and 611 

groundwater samples were collected during 1978–79 (Smith, 

1997). The USGS also conducted a study of water resources of 

KBIC (Sweat and Rheaume, 1998).

USGS and KBIC have cooperatively operated a continuous-record streamgage on the Silver River at Skanee Road 

(04043150) since October 2001 (fig. 2). A water temperature 

sensor was installed at the site in May 2002 and operated yearround until October 2005, when a multi-probe with water temperature and specific conductance sensors was installed. For 

quality-assurance and calibration purposes, the multi-probe is 

operated only from April through November. Stage, discharge 

(streamflow), specific conductance, and water-temperature 

data are available on the USGS National Water Information 

System (NWIS) website at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

In October 2007, a continuous-record streamgage was 

installed at the downstream Gomanche Creek site at Indian 

Road (04043140) and in September 2008 another continuousrecord streamgage was installed at the upstream Silver River 

site (04043126) (fig. 2). At the time of gage installation, 

multi-probes with water temperature and specific conductance 

sensors also were installed at both sites. The multi-probes 

have an operational period of April through November, which 

mimics the multi-probe at streamgage 04043150. Data for 

streamgages 04043126 and 04043140 also are available in the 

USGS NWIS database.

Michigan Technological University through its Aqua 

Terra Tech student enterprise group, contracted with KBIC 

to produce groundwater and surface-water flow models of 

the Silver River Watershed (France and others, 2005; Trahan 

and others, 2005). The major purpose of constructing the 

surface-water flow model appears to have been to calibrate the 

groundwater-flow model. There are some inconsistencies in 

the surface-water model that are acknowledged by the authors.

Environmental staff from KBIC have been measuring 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, 

and pH, and collecting bacteriological samples at nine sites in 

the watershed since 1999 (fig. 2).

Several investigations of bedrock geology in the study 

area previously were completed. Dean Rossell of Kennecott 

Minerals Company prepared a concise description of their 

exploration at a site known as the BIC, which includes a full 

list of relevant geologic references in the area (Rossell, 2008).

Description of the Study Area

The Silver River Watershed comprises nearly 69 mi2

located entirely within Baraga County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (fig. 1). The river is composed of several 

branches and tributaries that drain the northeastern part of 

the county. Most of the western half of the watershed, including the mouth at Huron Bay, is located within the traditional 

reservation of KBIC. Altitude of land surface within the 

watershed ranges from about 602 ft at the mouth to about 

1,900 ft near Pages Creek in the eastern part of the watershed. The Keweenawan BIC deposit is hosted in a bedrock 

high that comprises the highest hill near Indian Road, at an 

altitude of about 1,540 ft. Branches of Gomanche Creek that 

drain either side of the Keweenawan BIC deposit flow beneath 

Indian Road at altitudes of 1,214 and 1,263 ft. High gradients 

are typical in parts of most of the tributary streams; several 

spectacular gorges, falls, and rapids cut into the Michigamme 

Slate are located on the Silver River between Arvon Road and 

the mouth.

Land cover in the study area is summarized in table 1 and 

shown on figure 3. No major cities are located within or near 

the study area, although the Village of L’Anse (fig. 1), with a 

population of 2,107 (2000 Census), is located several miles 

Table 1. Land cover in the study area, Baraga County, 

Michigan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division, 2003).

[<, less than; numerical values in the table are rounded and total is 

not exactly 100 percent]

Land-cover type Percentage of study area

Urban 0.6

Agricultural <.1

Upland open land 5.3

Forest 92.0

Water 1.2

Wetlands .9

Bare/sparsely vegetated <.1
4 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Figure 2. Silver River Watershed showing topographic features, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations and sampling sites, and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) surface-water sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan.

MICHIGAN

Studyarea

CI MEKAL GI H NA

LAKE HURON LAKE ERIE

LAKE

SUPERIOR

88°21' 88°16'30" 88°12'

46°39'

46°43'30"

46°48'

Elevation data from U.S. Geological Survey, EROS data center, 1999, 1:24,000Hydrologic divides modified from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 1:24,000Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

Road

Arvon

R

oad

Si vl er Roa

d

Rd

nI d

ai n Herman

Rd

Ce ol

et

x

Rd

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS0 1 2 3 4 MILES

Zeba

Herman

HuronBay

SR4-MO 04043150

04043146

K we

e ne

wa

DC1-MS

TL1-MS

LL1-MS

GC1-MS

PC1-MS

SR3-NP

SR2-NP

04043131

04043135

04043138

04043137

04043126

04043140

SR1-HD

EXPLANATION

Silver River WatershedLakeStreamRoad, improved surface

USGS stream gage with station identification number

04043150

USGS sampling site with site identification number

KBIC sampling site with site identification number

04043146

SR1-HD

Skanee

Silver

R vi

er

D

akota

Creek

Silv e r

River

a moG

nche r C

Silver

River

Bay
Introduction 5 Figure 3. Silver River Watershed showing land cover, topographic features, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan.

88°21' 88°16'30" 88°12'

46°39'

46°43'30"

46°48'

Skanee

Land cover from Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2003Elevation data from U.S. Geological Survey, EROS data center, 1999, 1:24,000Hydrologic divides modified from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 1:24,000Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

Road

Arvon

Si vl er Roa

d

Rd

nI d

ai n

Herman

Rd

Ce ol

et

x

Rd

River

04043150

04043146

04043131

04043140

04043137 04043138 04043126

04043135

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS0 1 2 3 4 MILES

Zeba

Herman

HuronBay

Road

Keweenaw Bay

mo G

anch Ce r

mo G

anch Ce r .

Silver

Silver

RR

Silver

Silver

River

Si vl er

Si vl er

River

River

Creek

Creek

D a

kota

D a

kota

MICHIGAN

Studyarea

CI MEKAL GI H NA

LAKE HURON LAKE ERIE

LAKE

SUPERIOR

EXPLANATION

StreamRoad, improved surface

USGS stream gage with station identification number

04043150

Silver River Watershed

USGS sampling site with site identification number

Land Cover

04043146

UrbanAgriculturalUpland openlandUpland forestWaterLowland forestNon-forested wetlandsBare/sparsely vegetated
6 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

west of the watershed on Keweenaw Bay. Nearly the entire 

watershed is composed of forested upland, with little development, except for some low-density residential housing along 

roads, particularly near the mouth at Huron Bay. Logging and 

recreation are the principal land uses within the study area.

Climate

Temperature, precipitation, and snowfall data were measured by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) cooperative climate observer at Herman, MI (located 

just south of the study area; NOAA station 203744) (fig. 1). 

All climatic data for 2005–08 measured at Herman were 

accessed at the National Climatic Data Center (2008) 

or (David Pearson, Hydrologist, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, written commun., 2009).

The climate of the Silver River Watershed study area is 

typical of the northern Great Lakes Basin. Sweat and Rheaume 

(1998) reported an average annual precipitation of 100 cm 

(39.4 in.) and mean monthly temperatures ranging from 

about -11 to about 17oC (12 and 63oF, respectively). Annual 

precipitation measured at the NOAA station at Herman for 

2005–08 was 38.0, 25.2, 36.6, and 34.7 in., respectively, and 

mean monthly temperatures ranged from 5.6 to 65.8oF. Mean 

monthly and annual temperatures and monthly and annual 

total precipitation (rain and rain-equivalent snowfall) for 

the NOAA station at Herman are included in tables 2 and 3, 

respectively.

Seasonal variability of precipitation in the watershed 

is appreciable. Most precipitation falls from May through 

November, and the least water-equivalent precipitation 

typically falls from December through April. Mean air temperature for the years 1971–96 is 40.4o

F (National Climatic 

Data Center, 2002), which is nearly equivalent to mean air 

temperatures measured at Herman during 2005 and 2006, 

40.8 and 39.5oF, respectively (monthly air temperatures were 

not available for all months during 2007–08). Temperature and 

precipitation data also have been collected at the KBIC fish 

hatchery at Pequaming, Michigan (fig. 1), since 2004.

Table 2. Mean monthly and mean annual temperature for 2005–08, measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

observer at Herman, Michigan.

[--, incomplete data available; data are in degrees Fahrenheit]

Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual

2005 9.5 18.3 19.9 41.9 48.6 65.1 65.7 64.5 60.2 47.3 30.3 18.1 40.8

2006 24.2 12.5 22.6 41.1 49.9 58.1 65.8 60.7 49.8 36.2 30.9 22.3 39.5

2007 13.5 5.6 25.5 31.7 52.5 60.3 62.4 62.0 -- -- 27.9 15.5 --

2008 15.3 8.9 18.2 29.4 38.9 53.2 56.9 -- -- 39.6 27.4 10.5 --

Table 3. Monthly and annual precipitation for 2005–08, measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration observer at 

Herman, Michigan.

[data are in inches]

Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual

2005 1.15 2.15 2.19 2.42 3.70 4.33 2.65 1.76 3.68 6.64 5.14 2.15 38.0

2006 2.08 1.85 2.00 1.65 3.39 1.44 3.28 2.02 1.62 2.64 1.50 1.78 25.2

2007 2.16 1.06 1.71 2.94 2.07 2.23 2.15 1.61 7.63 8.89 1.83 2.42 36.7

2008 1.66 .99 1.72 3.76 2.36 3.08 7.54 1.93 4.33 3.03 2.67 1.66 34.7
Introduction 7

Geologic Setting

The land-surface features in Baraga County are affected 

by the underlying Archean and Precambrian bedrock features 

and unconsolidated glacial deposits, which overlie the bedrock 

(Doonan and Byerlay, 1973). Topography of the study area 

(fig. 2) is quite rugged when compared with most of Michigan. 

Altitude of land surface ranges from about 600 ft at the mouth 

of the Silver River to about 1,979 ft at Mt. Arvon, in the eastern part of the county, which is the highest point in Michigan

(fig. 1).

Glacial Sediments

With the exception of some areas where bedrock outcrops at the land surface, landforms including outwash 

plains, moraines, and till plains created by Pleistocene glacial 

advance and retreat (melting) are the predominant geomorphologic features of the present-day Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

including Baraga County (Farrand and Bell, 1982) (fig. 4). The 

glacial history of the study area is complex, similar to most 

other glaciated areas of the Upper Midwest. Based on numerous studies, multiple episodes of Wisconsinan-age glaciation, 

beginning around 75,000 years ago (Illinois State Geological 

Survey, 2009), are known to have occurred in the study area. 

Earlier glacial advances also covered the study area, but glacially derived sediments, which compose most of the presentday unconsolidated deposits overlying bedrock in the study 

area, are primarily attributed to late Wisconsinan readvances, 

which occurred as recently as 9,900 years ago. As the ice 

advanced from the present-day Lake Superior Basin, it formed 

into lobes and flowed south and west. Baraga County was covered by the Keweenaw Lobe, which was a sublobe separated 

from the main Superior Lobe by highlands in the Keweenaw 

Peninsula (fig. 1), northwest of Baraga County. The 

Keweenaw Lobe moved southwestward in Keweenaw Bay 

and then spread generally southeastward onto the highlands 

(Doonan and Byerlay, 1973). As the Keweenaw Lobe melted 

back to the position of the Keweenaw Moraine, a series of 

proglacial ponded-meltwater lakes formed, including the area 

now known as the Baraga Plains. The Marinesco Moraine, 

which predates the Keweenaw Moraine, trends roughly eastwest, approximately parallel with and immediately south of 

State Highway M-28 (fig. 1), and covers the southern third of 

the county. A smaller, northeastward-trending landform was 

mapped by Leverett (1929) as the Covington Moraine. 

The location of the Covington Moraine is roughly parallel to 

the Keweenaw Moraine and simply may be a landward extension of that landform deposited during the last re-advance 

around 9,900 years before present. Holocene (post-glacial) 

sediments largely are confined to areas adjacent to surfacewater bodies, including the area near the mouth of the Silver 

River. 

Bedrock

The oldest rocks primarily are composed of Lower 

Precambrian granite and granitic gneiss, and Archean gneisses 

(Cannon and Ottke, 1999). This bedrock unit stands several 

hundred feet higher than surrounding bedrock formations and 

comprises the area called the Peshekee Uplands by Doonan 

and Byerlay (1973). The two highest points in Michigan, 

which are both in Baraga County (Mt. Arvon at about 1,979 ft 

and Mt. Curwood at about 1,978 ft), are both composed of this 

bedrock unit (fig. 1). Mt. Curwood is located within the study 

area, although Mt. Arvon is not. The most prolific bedrock 

unit in the study area is the Middle Cambrian (Animikean) 

Michigamme Slate, which subcrops (stratigraphically highest 

bedrock unit) immediately under unconsolidated sediments 

or outcrops (found at the surface) in the largest part of Baraga 

County (fig. 5). This unit appears to be a metamorphosed 

turbidite sequence that is primarily composed of slate, but 

also contains lesser amounts of quartzite, graywackes, and 

banded-iron formations in lower sections. The Michigamme 

Slate outcrops at the Silver River at Arvon Road site (site 

04043131) and at the Silver River near L’Anse streamgage 

(04043150), where it forms the low-water control. Upper 

Precambrian (Keweenawan) rocks primarily composed of the 

Jacobsville Sandstone unit are found near the shore of Huron 

and Keweenaw Bays. In addition to sandstone, the Jacobsville 

Sandstone also contains interbedded siltstones and shales. 

Outcrops of Jacobsville Sandstone are visible at the shoreline 

along U.S. Highway 41 at L’Anse and again near Keweenaw 

Bay, as well as many other places on or near the shore of 

Lake Superior. The bedrock unit comprising the Keweenaw 

BIC (fig. 5) is an ultramafic/mafic intrusive body believed to 

be about Keweenawan age as well (Rossell, 2008). The BIC 

intrudes near the contact of the Archean rock and the Michigamme Formation and rises to about 300 ft more than the surrounding terrain, at an altitude of about 1,540 ft, cross-cutting 

the Michigamme Formation.
8 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Figure 4. Silver River Watershed showing Quaternary geology, topographic features, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan.

88°21' 88°16'30" 88°12'

46°39'

46°43'30"

46°48'

Skane

e

Quaternary geology from Michigan Natural Features Inventory and Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1998, 1:500,000Elevation data from U.S. Geological Survey, EROS data center, 1999, 1:24,000Hydrologic divides modified from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 1:24,000Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

Road

Arvon

Road

Rd

nI d ai n

Ce ol

et

x

Rd

River

Silver

Rive

04043150

r

04043146

04043131 04043140 04043140

04043137 04043138 04043138 04043126 04043126

04043135

D a

kota

Creek

mo G

na

che

r C

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS0 1 2 3 4 MILES

Zeba

Herman

HuronBay

Keweenaw Bay

Silver

R

Silver

Road

Si vl er

Herman

Rd

MICHIGAN

Studyarea

CI MEKAL GI H NA

LAKE HURON LAKE ER EI

LAKE

SUPERIOR

EXPLANATION

Silver River WatershedLakeStreamRoad, improved surface

USGS stream gage with station identification number

04043150

USGS sampling site with site identification number

04043146

Coarse-textured glacial till

End moraines of coarse-textured tillGlacial outwash sand and gravel and postglacial alluviumThin to discontinuous glacial till over bedrock

Quaternary geology
Introduction 9 Figure 5. Silver River Watershed showing bedrock geology, topographic features, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface-water gaging stations and sampling sites, Baraga County, Michigan.

88°21' 88°16'30" 88°12'

46°39'

46°43'30"

46°48'

Bedrock geology from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Geologic Survey Division, 1987, 1:500,000Elevation data from U.S. Geological Survey, EROS data center, 1999, 1:24,000Hydrologic divides modified from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 1:24,000Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS0 1 2 3 4 MILES

HuronBay

Bay

Skane

e

Road

Arvon

Road

Rd

nI d ai n

Ce ol

et

x

Rd

River

Silver

Rive

04043150

r

04043146

04043131 04043140 04043140

04043137 04043138 04043138 04043126 04043126

04043135

D a

kota

Creek

mo G

na

che

r C

Zeba

Herman

Silver

R

Silver

Road

Si vl er

Herman

Rd

Keweenaw

BIC

MICHIGAN

Studyarea

CI MEKAL GI H NA

LAKE HURON LAKE ER EI

LAKE

SUPERIOR

EXPLANATION

Silver River WatershedLakeStreamRoad, improved surface

USGS stream gage with station identification number

04043150

USGS sampling site with site identification number

04043146

Archean Granite and GneissicJacobsville SandstoneMichigamme Formation

Bedrock geology
10 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Methods of Data Collection and 

Analysis

An unpublished Quality-Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

was prepared by the USGS Michigan Water Science Center 

and KBIC environmental staff, and approved by the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 prior 

to data collection. All data collection and analyses were 

performed, as described in the QAPP, by USGS and KBIC 

employees at eight sampling sites within the watershed. 

Geographic-location information and drainage and wetland 

areas for the eight sites are included in table 4.

Streamflow was measured using methods described in 

Carter and Davidian (1968) and Rantz and others (1982), and 

water-quality data were collected using methods described in 

the USGS National Field Manual (NFM) for the Collection 

of Water-Quality Data (variously dated) (available online at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A). Water-quality samples 

were processed at the USGS NWQL following their Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan with the following exceptions; cyanide samples were analyzed by a USGSapproved contract laboratory, and unfiltered total and methylmercury samples collected in September 2008 were analyzed 

by the USGS Wisconsin Mercury Research Laboratory in the 

Wisconsin Water Science Center. Fish-tissue samples were 

collected and processed using methods described in Moulton 

and others (2002) and analyzed by laboratories at Texas A&M 

University. The fish otoliths, which are parts of the ear, were 

age dated by a contract laboratory specializing in that procedure. Invertebrate sampling, preservation, and identification 

followed Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) qualitative biological- and habitat-survey protocols 

for wadeable streams and rivers (2007). Bed-sediment samples 

were collected and processed using methods described in 

USGS NFM Chapter A8, analyzed for metals at the USGS 

NWQL, and analyzed for grain-size distribution at the 

Kentucky Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory.

Streamflow

Streamflow was measured using a current meter or 

calculated using a stage-discharge rating at all of the datacollection sites during this study, and results are summarized 

in appendix 1. In addition, streamflow has been monitored on 

a real-time basis at the Silver River near L’Anse streamgage 

(04043150) since the beginning of the study. Two additional 

continuous-record streamgages were established after the 

study began: Gomanche Creek at Indian Road (04043140) on 

October 31, 2007, and the Silver River upstream of the East 

Branch (04043126) on October 1, 2008. Historic and current stage and streamflow data from the continuous-record 

streamgages are available online at several USGS websites 

including http://mi.water.usgs.gov and http://waterdata.

usgs.gov/nwis/sw. Sampling locations for this study include 

streamgages, which are equipped with stage recorders, and 

miscellaneous sites, hereafter referred to simply as “site”, 

which are not equipped with any equipment. 

Table 4. U.S. Geological Survey site number, station name, latitude, longitude, drainage area, and wetland area for water-quality 

sampling and streamflow-measurement sites in the study area, Baraga County, Michigan.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; NA, not applicable; numerical values in the table are rounded to the nearest hundredth, except drainage areas 

and percentages, which are rounded to the nearest tenth]

USGS 

site 

number

USGS 

station name

Latitude 

in degrees

Longitude 

in degrees

Drainage area, 

in mi2

Wetland area

in mi2

Percentage of 

basin composed 

of wetlands

04043126 Silver River upstream of 

East Branch near L’Anse

46.72 88.33 16.8 4.69 27.9

04043131 Silver River at Arvon Road near L’Anse 46.76 88.36 34.5 8.08 23.4

04043135 Upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

near Herman

46.71 88.36 .9 .19 20.9

04043137 East Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek near Herman

46.72 88.36 .2 .08 38.4

04043138 West Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek near Herman

46.72 88.37 .3 .08 27.1

04043140 Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

near L’Anse

46.75 88.36 3.5 .75 21.9

04043146 Dakota Creek at Trail Crossing 

near L’Anse

46.78 88.32 8.4 1.34 15.9

04043150 Silver River near L’Anse 46.80 88.32 64.7 12.46 19.2

Study area 

total

NA NA 69.8 12.80 18.3
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 11

Streamflow was measured at all sampling sites concurrent 

with water-quality sampling, with the exception of the Silver 

River at Arvon Road (site 04043131), which is very rocky 

and steeply graded for hundreds of feet upstream and downstream of the bridge. At medium to high streamflow, the river 

becomes too deep to wade and extremely turbulent near the 

Arvon Road bridge, precluding the prudent use of a suspended 

current meter as well as a depth-integrated sampler.

Standard USGS techniques were used to measure streamflow (Carter and Davidian, 1968; Rantz and others, 1982), 

typically with a current meter and wading rod. Each streamflow measurement was given a rating by the hydrographer, 

ranging from poor to excellent, which is intended to convey 

the accuracy of a given measurement. A number of factors are 

considered when rating a discharge measurement, including 

but not limited to characteristics of the measurement cross section, spacing and number of observation verticals, distribution 

of flow in the cross section, variability of velocity during the 

timed interval, and extent of change in stream elevation during 

the discharge measurement.

The USGS streamgage 04043150 at Silver River near 

L’Anse was established in October 2001 and was the only 

site within the Silver River Watershed with a stage-discharge 

rating during this study. A continuous-record streamgage at 

Gomanche Creek (04043140) was established in October 2007 

but its stage-discharge rating was not fully developed until fall 

2008, after all sampling for this study was complete. Typically, 

a stage-discharge rating is established after streamflow has 

been measured over a range of stage (gage height) at the site 

and updated as needed to reflect changes in channel configuration and control over time. A stage-discharge rating table lists 

a streamflow or discharge for each stage (typically in 0.1 or 

0.01 ft increments). At a continuous-data streamgage with an 

active stage-discharge rating, such as streamgage 04043150, 

which records stage every hour, the calculated streamflow 

values are useable with an acceptable level of confidence even 

though they were not specifically measured, except during site 

visits.

Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality data were collected using standard 

techniques and methods described in the USGS NFM (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A). Waterquality samples were analyzed at the USGS NWQL following 

the USGS NWQL QA/QC plan with the following exceptions: 

cyanide samples were analyzed by a USGS approved contract 

laboratory, and unfiltered total mercury and methylmercury 

samples collected in summer 2008 were analyzed by the 

USGS Wisconsin Mercury Research Laboratory in the Wisconsin Water Science Center.

Spring sampling proceeded ice out (when ice is fully 

melted on the streams) and was completed as soon as sites 

became accessible and streamflow was low enough not to 

damage sampling equipment. Spring sampling in all years 

was accomplished prior to active vegetation growth. Summer 

(or low-flow) sampling was accomplished after the streams 

reached baseflow conditions and while vegetation was still 

in the growth stage (before any killing frosts). Samples also 

were collected July 25 and 26, 2006, immediately following 

a quick-moving thunderstorm that dumped about 2 in. of rain 

on the field area (National Climatic Data Center, 2008). Field 

water-quality parameters (pH, specific conductance, concentration of dissolved oxygen, and water temperature) were 

measured using a multi-parameter meter, which was calibrated 

daily following the procedure outlined in the USGS NFM. 

Samples were collected using a proto-cleaned sampler suitable 

to the particular streamflow conditions at each site. In shallow, 

low-velocity streams, this typically was accomplished by use 

of a handheld grab-sample bottle (the sample bottle is held by 

hand below the top of the water surface), but at wadeable sites 

with greater depth and higher velocity streamflows, a DH81 

sampler and equal-width-increment protocol were used. At 

unwadeable sites, typically during spring sampling, either a 

D-95 depth-integrated sampler or a weighted-point sampler 

was used. The weighted-point sampler was used only as a last 

resort, when turbulence or streamflow conditions precluded 

using the D-95 owing to concerns about equipment damage or 

loss (typically at site 04043131).

Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Analysis 

The NWQL has established reporting levels for various 

analytical procedures (Oblinger-Childress and others, 1999), 

and this section largely is excerpted from that report. In the 

following sections of this report, tabulated data are reported 

as “uncensored,” “censored,” or “estimated.” Uncensored data 

are data reported as an unqualified numerical value. Censored 

data are reported as less than a particular reporting level; for 

example, < 0.12 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Censored data 

result from the analyte either not being present or, if seemingly 

present, an inability to conclusively identify it. Estimated data 

are reported as qualified numerical values with an “E” before 

the number; for example, E0.057. Estimated values can be 

less than, at, or greater than the analytical reporting level. An 

estimated value less than the reporting level means that the 

analyte can be identified and measured, but with less than 

99-percent confidence that it is present. Estimated values at or 

above the analytical reporting level can result from a poorperformance record of the analyte with the analytical method, 

matrix interference, or small sample volume.

Reporting levels used by the USGS NWQL are minimum 

reporting level (MRL), method detection limit (MDL), longterm method detection limit (LT-MDL), and laboratory reporting level (LRL). The MRL is the lowest measured concentration of an analyte that can be reliably reported. The MDL is 

the minimum concentration that can be measured and reported 

with a 99‐percent confidence that the analyte is present. The 

LT-MDL is derived from the standard deviation of a minimum 

of 24 MDL spike samples over an extended period. The LRL 

generally is equal to twice the LT-MDL. The probability of 

reporting an analyte as nondetected when it is present is less 
12 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

than 1 percent at the LRL. The LRL is used when the NWQL 

determines that an MRL is no longer appropriate to a specific analyte or analytical method. Concentrations measured 

between the LRL and LT-MDL are reported as estimated 

concentrations.

For constituents with censored values, summary statistics 

were calculated by use of the adjusted maximum likelihood 

estimation (AMLE) method (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). This 

approach is used when the uncensored data follow a known 

distribution, which for environmental data usually is a lognormal distribution (Helsel, 2005a). By relying on the detected 

data to define a hypothetical log-normal distribution that 

extends below the reporting levels of the analysis, summary 

statistics that are assumed to represent the whole sample population (uncensored and censored alike) were estimated based 

on this distribution. Unbiased statistics result from this method 

if the uncensored data fit an exact log-normal distribution and 

if the sample size is large (24 or more concentrations greater 

than the reporting level; Helsel and Hirsch, 2002).

Before the AMLE approach was applied, data were carefully scrutinized to ensure that the applicable reporting limits 

were used in the analysis. Helsel (2005b) stressed caution 

when examining data that contained censored and estimated 

values and described the occurrence of insider censoring as 

being situations where data measured as less than the detection limit are reported as being less than the quantitation, or 

reporting limit, but the “estimated” values are used for analysis with the same weight as uncensored values even though 

these values are less than the quantitation limit. This creates 

an uneven dataset where some data are censored at a higher 

level than others. For statistical applications, like AMLE, data 

that should be analyzed at a lower detection level are raised 

to the same analytical level as the quantitation level, resulting 

in an upward bias. To remove the bias, the MDL was used as 

the detection limit for analytes that contained both estimated 

values and non-detected values (table 5).

Streambed Sediment and Biological Data

Streambed-sediment samples were collected and processed using methods described in the USGS NFM Chapter 

A8 (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A) and 

were processed at the USGS Sediment Laboratory located at 

the Kentucky Water Science Center, Louisville, Ky. Fish-community and fish-tissue samples were collected and processed 

using methods described in Moulton and others (2002). 

Macroinvertebrate sampling, preservation, and identification 

followed the MDEQ Great Lakes Environmental Assessment 

Section (GLEAS) 51 procedure for qualitative-biological 

and habitat-survey protocols for wadeable streams and rivers 

(2007). The GLEAS 51 procedure has been used extensively 

Table 5. Select U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory method detection limits, by sampling date.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter] 

Constituent 

and unit of 

measurement

Method detection limit (MDL)

Overall 

range

May 

2005

July 

2005

April 

2006

July 

2006

 September

2006

April 

2007

July 

2007

September 

2007

October 

2007

April 

2008

Ammonia (mg/L) 0.005–0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.005 0.005 0.01† 0.01 0.01† 0.01 0.01†

Antimony (μg/L) .3–.10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .03 .03 .03 .07 .07

Beryllium (μg/L) .004–.03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .004

Cadmium (μg/L) .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02

Chloride (mg/L) .06–.10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06

Chromium (μg/L) .02–.40 .40 .40 .02 .02 .02 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06

Fluoride (mg/L) .05–.06 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .06 .06

Lead (μg/L) .04–.06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .06 .06 .06 .04 .04

Molybdenum .06–.20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .06 .06 .06 .06 .1

Nitrate plus nitrite (mg/L) .02–.30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .02 .02

Nitrite (mg/L) .001–.004 .004 .004 .004 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001

Orthophosphate (mg/L) .003–.009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .003 .003 .003 .003

Phosphorus (mg/L) .002–003 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003

Selenium (μg/L) .02–.2 .2 .2 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02

Zinc (μg/L) .3–.9 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .9 .9

†

 MDL for streamflow-gaging station 04043135 was 0.003
Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed 13

in Michigan for several years and consists of separate qualitative evaluations of the fish community, macroinvertebrate 

community, and the habitat quality, completed in that order to 

minimize disruption of the sampled communities.

Sediment samples were composites of samples 

collected by hand with a Teflon scoop from each of 5 to 

10 depositional zones (submerged during low streamflow) 

along a reach of approximately 150 m. Samples were collected from the upper 2 cm (most recent, oxidized layer), 

and the amount collected depended upon the relative size 

of the depositional zone. Deposits of fine-grained sediment 

were sought out and sampled; thus, concentrations represent 

conditions in depositional areas of the streams, not the average 

concentrations for sediment throughout the stream reach. A 

bulk (<2 mm fraction) sample was removed and submitted for 

particle-size analysis from the composited samples from each 

site. The remaining sediment was wet-sieved in the field, and 

the fine (<0.063 mm) fraction was submitted for trace-element 

analysis.

Methods for collection and processing of biota 

(Moulton and others, 2002) included use of plastic implements 

(Teflon, polypropylene, or polyethylene) where appropriate 

for trace-element sampling. Quality-control procedures for 

the collection and processing of biota and sediment included 

collection of approximately 15-percent replicate samples and 

the use of clean techniques to minimize potential contamination. Fish for community and tissue analyses were collected 

by use of direct-current electrofishing gear. Depending upon 

stream depth, stage, and other factors, either backpack-mounted or towed-barge electrofishing units were used. The target 

organism for tissue analysis was the brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis). After capture, the fish were rinsed in native water, 

weighed, and measured for total length. Otoliths were collected for age determination. Fish fillets were removed, placed 

in precleaned glass jars with Teflon-lined lids, frozen on dry 

ice, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis.

Hydrology of the Silver River 

Watershed

The hydrology of the Silver River Watershed was investigated by making discrete streamflow measurements at all 

eight sampling sites and installing three continuous-record 

streamgages. Annual mean streamflow and mean annual runoff 

are now known for each of the continuous-record streamgages 

showing differences between stream segments. In addition, 

if loading calculations are required in the future, each waterquality sample has an associated streamflow.

Streamflow

During this study, streamflow was either measured using 

a current meter; acoustic Doppler velocimeter; or water-tight 

container of known capacity, such as a plastic 1-gal. bucket; 

or calculated using a stage-discharge rating concurrent with 

water-quality sampling at all of the data-collection sites. 

The results are summarized in appendix 1. In addition, streamflow has been monitored on a real-time basis at the Silver 

River near L’Anse streamgage (04043150) since the beginning 

of the study. Two additional continuous-record streamgages 

were established during the study period: Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road (04043140) on October 31, 2007, and the Silver 

River upstream of the East Branch (04043126) on October 1, 

2008. Historic and current stage and streamflow data from the 

continuous-record streamgages are available online at various 

USGS websites including http://mi.water.usgs.gov and 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw.

Silver River Upstream of East Branch

The Silver River upstream of the East Branch confluence 

flows under a steel and timber bridge on an unnamed, unimproved road owned by Plum Creek Timber Company (fig. 2). 

The drainage basin includes an area of about 16.8 mi2. The 

stream channel is low gradient near the bridge and upstream 

for several hundred feet. Tag alders and other bushes dominate 

the near-shore vegetation. Water-quality sampling and streamflow measurements both are easily made at this location, 

which has a gravel-channel bottom except near the bridge, 

where the channel is quite rocky, including some large boulders (fig. 6). Average runoff will be available after the stagedischarge rating is developed. A continuous-record streamflow 

gage and a water-quality monitor to measure water temperature and specific conductance (streamgage 04043126) were 

installed and made operational at this location on September 

25, 2008 (fig. 7).

Silver River at Arvon Road

The drainage basin of Silver River at Arvon Road (site 

04043131) includes an area of about 34.5 mi2 (fig. 2). The site 

is located several miles downstream of the confluence with the 

East Branch Silver River and a few hundred yards upstream 

of the confluence with Gomanche Creek, which occurs near 

the center of a spectacular series of rapids and falls where 

both streams are deeply incised into the Michigamme Slate. 

Arvon Road crosses Silver River on a high-capacity modern 

concrete bridge demonstrative of the importance of the forestproducts industry in this remote location. The reach upstream 

and downstream of the bridge is high-gradient and composed 

of numerous riffles of rocks and boulders (fig. 8). During 

periods of low streamflow, the area immediately downstream 

of the bridge is pooled behind a riffle, but the channel bottom 

and banks are strewn with boulders that make water-quality 

sampling and streamflow measuring difficult. During moderate flows, a number of the pools are suitable for water-quality 

sampling, although useable streamflow-measuring sections 

are less plentiful. During times of high runoff, sampling is 

difficult at this site and streamflow measurement is impossible 

without incurring equipment damage. 
14 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road

The drainage basin of upper Gomanche Creek at Indian 

Road (site 04043135) includes an area of about 0.9 mi2 (fig. 2). 

Gomanche Creek flows through a steel culvert under Indian 

Road at this site. Upstream of the road, the deeply incised 

channel typically is less than 6‐ft wide and consists of a series 

of riffles and pools flowing through a cedar forest (fig. 9). 

A number of the pools are suitable for water-quality sampling, 

although good quality streamflow-measuring sections are less 

plentiful. This part of Gomanche Creek drains the south side, 

and perhaps part of the west side, of the bedrock high 

comprising the BIC.

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road

The East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at Indian 

Road (site 04043137) drains an area of 0.2 mi2 (fig. 2). 

The East Branch Tributary flows through a steel culvert under 

Indian Road at this site. Upstream of the road, the deeply 

incised channel typically is less than 3‐ft wide and consists 

of a series of riffles and pools (fig. 10). Several of the pools 

are suitable for water-quality sampling, although good-quality 

streamflow-measuring sections are nonexistent. The stream 

originates in wetlands located on the northeast side of the 

bedrock high comprising the BIC. The stream is not shown on 

topographic maps until it crosses an abandoned logging railroad grade about 0.5-mi downstream of the wetland; however, 

it was found to be flowing downstream of the wetland when 

it was checked during the study period. The stream appears to 

drain the north and east sides of the bedrock high.

West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek

The West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek (USGS 

site 04043138) drains an area of about 0.3 mi2 and is located 

about 0.25-mi west of site 04043137 (fig. 2). The sampling 

location is located upstream of a steel culvert where the West 

Branch Tributary flows under an unnamed logging road about 

0.25-mi west of Indian Road. Parts of this stream are incorrectly shown on topographic maps, as is the East Branch 

Tributary. Unfortunately, it appears that remote-sensing 

techniques used to produce topographic maps have resulted 

in logging roads near these two streams being illustrated as 

streams, and conversely, streams illustrated as logging roads. 

The wetland where the west tributary appears to originate is 

located west of Indian Road, and west northwest of the bedrock high comprising BIC, but the stream follows a different 

route than the one illustrated on topographic maps from there 

to the sampling site and then downstream for a few hundred 

more yards. This stream appears to drain part of the northwest 

side of the bedrock high.

Upstream from the road crossing, the channel typically is 

less than 3-ft wide and consists of a series of riffles and pools, 

which are suitable for water-quality sampling (fig. 11) but poor 

for measuring streamflow during much of the year. The reach 

75 to 150‐ft downstream of the logging-road crossing has the 

highest-quality streamflow-measuring sections. A container of 

known volume (1-gal plastic pail) and stopwatch were used 

to accurately measure streamflow during low-flow periods, 

because appreciable fall exists on the downstream end of the 

culvert.

Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

Gomanche Creek at Indian Road drains an area of 

3.5 mi2 (fig. 2). The precast-concrete culvert-style bridge at the 

site was installed after the previous bridge was washed out on 

May 12, 2003, when a dam at Lost Lake (shown on fig. 2 as 

KBIC sampling site LL1-MS) failed during a localized, multiinch rainfall event (fig. 12). The same storm system moved 

east, washing out two dams in the Dead River Watershed 

in Marquette County, resulting in appreciable property and 

environmental damage. The channel at the downstream side of 

the bridge is straight for about 75 ft, and conditions for waterquality sampling and streamflow measurements are good during typical streamflows. A continuous-record streamflow gage 

and water-quality monitor to measure water temperature and 

specific conductance (streamgage 04043140) were installed 

upstream of the culvert and made operational October 31, 

2007 (fig. 13). 

Annual mean streamflow for 2008 was 4.8 ft3/s, or 

1.05 (ft3/s)/mi2 of drainage area. Mean annual runoff for 2008 

was 14.32 in.

Dakota Creek at Trail Crossing

Dakota Creek at Trail Crossing (site 04043146) drains an 

area of about 8.4 mi2, flowing across an unnamed logging road 

about 3.7-mi northeast of site 04043131 (fig. 2). Bedrock is 

mapped as being close to the surface throughout much of the 

Dakota Creek Watershed (Doonan and Byerlay, 1973) but no 

outcrops were apparent near the sampling site, where the channel typically is sand and gravel with a series of cobble/boulder 

riffles. A number of good water-quality sampling sites and 

streamflow-measuring sections are available within several 

hundred feet of the trail crossing (fig. 14).

Silver River near L’Anse

The Silver River near L’Anse streamgage (04043150) is 

located on Skanee Road about 8-mi northeast of L’Anse and 

about 1-mi upstream of the mouth at Huron Bay (fig. 2). 

The drainage basin of the Silver River at L’Anse encompasses 

an area of 64.7 mi2 (about 69 mi2 at the mouth). A continuousrecord streamgage has been operating at the site since 
Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed 15

October 2001. A water-temperature sensor was installed 

in May 2002 and operated until October 2005 when it was 

replaced by a multiparameter probe measuring specific conductance and water temperature. Water-quality samples and 

streamflow measurements are obtained at the site by either 

wading or using a bridge crane and suspended D-95 sampler 

or current meter off the bridge. Conditions for sampling and 

measuring are good at all stages. Annual mean streamflow for 

the period 2002–08 is 82.9 ft3/s or 1.3 (ft3/s)/mi2 of drainage 

area. Mean annual runoff for the period 2002–08 is 17.3 in. 

Water year 2008 was somewhat wetter than other years with 

annual runoff of 1.5 (ft3/s)/mi2 of drainage area or 20.4 in. for the 

year. Highest streamflow for the period of record at the site is 

3,180 ft3/s, which occurred May 12, 2003, after the dam at Lost 

Lake (located in the Gomanche Creek Watershed) failed during 

an extremely heavy, localized rainfall event. Stream stage has 

been higher than the underside of the bridge twice since the gage 

became operational. Lowest streamflow for period of record at 

the site is 3.5 ft3/s, which occurred several days in mid-August 

2007; lowest streamflow during 2008 was 7 ft3/s.

Figure 6. U.S. Geological Survey 

hydrologic technician examining 

low-water control downstream of bridge 

at USGS streamgage 04043126 prior to 

ecological sampling. (Photograph by 

J.A. Wilkinson, U.S. Geological Survey)

Figure 7. U.S. Geological Survey 

streamgage at upper Silver River (04043126) 

during installation. (Photograph by 

M. A.A. Holmio, U.S. Geological Survey)
16 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Figure 8. View looking upstream at Silver River at 

Arvon Road (U.S. Geological Survey site 04043131) 

during moderate streamflow on April 20, 2006, and 

again during high streamflow on April 23, 2008 

(note red kayak for scale). (Photographs by T.L. Weaver, 

U.S. Geological Survey)
Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed 17

Figure 9. View looking upstream at upper Gomanche 

Creek at Indian Road (U.S. Geological Survey 

site 04043135) from Indian Road, May 10, 2005. 

(Photograph by T.L. Weaver, U.S. Geological Survey)

Figure 10. View looking upstream at 

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road (U.S. Geological Survey 

site 04043137) from Indian Road, May 10, 2005. 

(Photograph by T.L. Weaver, 

U.S. Geological Survey)
18 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Figure 11. View looking upstream 

at West Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek (U.S. Geological 

Survey site 04043138) from unnamed 

logging road, May 11, 2005. 

(Photograph by T.L. Weaver, 

U.S. Geological Survey)

Figure 12. View looking 

upstream at a concrete culvert 

at the Indian Road crossing of 

Gomanche Creek 

(U.S. Geological Survey 

streamgage 04043140), 

May 11, 2005. (Photograph by 

T.L. Weaver U.S. Geological 

Survey)
Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed 19

Figure 13. U.S. Geological Survey 

streamage at Gomanche Creek at 

Indian Road (04043140). (Photograph by 

T.L. Weaver, U.S. Geological Survey)

Figure 14. Dakota Creek at unnamed 

logging-road crossing (U.S. Geological 

Survey site 04043146), May 12, 2005. 

(Photograph by T.L. Weaver,

 U.S. Geological Survey)
20 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Water Quality of Streams in the Silver 

River Watershed

Factors that affect water quality of a stream are complex 

and interrelated. Geological and geomorphic characteristics of 

the watershed, as well as hydrological and biological components of the ecosystem, all affect the water chemistry. 

The tributaries to the Silver River drain a geomorphically diverse watershed (figs. 4 and 5). Water-quality samples 

were collected 10 times at eight locations during the period 

May 2005–April 2008. An additional set of samples was 

collected in September 2008 for mercury analysis only. The 

database developed from this study provides useful information to enhance future stream-monitoring, data-collection, and 

interpretive efforts.

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, 

Alkalinity, Nutrients, Metals, and Cyanide

A summary of sampling periods and USGS NWQL lab 

codes and schedules used for this study are provided in table 6. 

Streamflow, field water-quality parameters, major ions, suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and cyanide are summarized 

in appendix 1.

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, and 

Alkalinity

Water samples from streams in the Silver River Watershed ranged from 6.7 to 8.5 for pH and 23 to 270 μs/cm for 

specific conductance (the lowest pH and conductance typically, but not exclusively, was measured during spring sampling). Concentrations of chloride ranged from an estimated 

0.11 to 1.67 mg/L, indicating little effect from septic systems 

or road-deicing salt. By comparison, Weaver and Fuller (2007) 

noted a maximum concentration of chloride of 270 mg/L in 

141 measurements made at the Clinton River in Mt. Clemens 

in Lower Michigan from 1973 to 1995. Water samples can 

be classified as soft, medium, and hard (Hem, 1985, p. 159), 

with concentrations of hardness reported as calcium carbonate 

ranging from 12 to 130 mg/L (average hardness is about 55 

mg/L, which is soft). Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, 

and other dissolved solids (residue on evaporation at 180oC) 

ranged from 35 to 149 mg/L throughout the study area, with 

highest concentrations typically occurring within the Gomanche Creek Watershed. Alkalinity, which is a measure of the 

capacity to react with and to neutralize acid (Hem, 1985), 

enables prediction of how easily acid rain can affect water 

quality of a specific water body. Alkalinity, in most natural 

waters, is related to higher levels of dissolved carbon dioxide 

species (carbonate and bicarbonate). Alkalinity data from the 

Silver River Watershed are expressed in equivalent calcium 

carbonate units; alkalinity ranged from 5 to 126 mg/L. The 

Silver River sites are considered moderate to non-sensitive to 

acid rain when compared to Wisconsin’s alkalinity standards 

for surface-water bodies (Michigan currently (2009) does 

not have a standard for alkalinity of surface-water bodies) 

(table 7). Upstream parts of the watershed appear to be most 

susceptible, particularly during snowmelt/spring runoff, when 

alkalinity is lowest.

Nutrients

One indicator of the water quality of a stream is its 

biological productivity. Biological productivity may be altered 

from a stream’s natural state when human activities cause 

an increase in nutrients. Levels of nutrients above a natural 

“baseline” most commonly result from the effects of septic 

systems or sewers and agricultural and domestic application 

of fertilizers. Sewage effluent is the largest single source of 

phosphorus in natural waters (Hem, 1985); however, the Silver 

River Watershed is sparsely populated with only a few homes 

near enough to the river to affect nutrient levels. Therefore, it 

Table 7. Sensitivity of surface-water bodies to acid rain; 

guidelines for Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, 2004).

[Alkalinity is in units of milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate 

(CaCO3); >, greater than]

Sensitivity Alkalinity

High 0-2

Moderate >2-10

Low >10-25

Nonsensitive >25

Table 6. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory codes, schedules, and respective analytes used for 

sampling in the Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005–08.

[LC, lab code; NA, not applicable; °C, degrees Celsius; <, less than]

Sampling period LC or schedule Analyte

2005–08 Schedule 2701 Major inorganics

2005–08 Schedule 2702 Low-level nutrients

2005–08 Schedule 2044 Trace elements

2005–October 2007 NA Cyanide

2005–July 2007 LC 165 Residue on evaporation, 

dried at 105°C

2005–July 2007 LC 169 Residue on evaporation, 

dried at 180°C

September 2007–08 NA Suspended sediment, 

sieve diameter 

<0.063 millimeters

September 2007–08 NA Suspended sediment, 

concentration

September 2008 NA Total mercury, unfiltered

September 2008 NA Methylmercury, 

unfiltered
Water Quality of Streams in the Silver River Watershed 21

is reasonable to assume that nutrient levels measured during 

this study are representative of non-perturbed or natural “baseline” conditions.

Laboratory analyses showed concentrations of ammonia plus organic nitrogen in unfiltered water ranging from an 

estimated 0.06 to 0.52 mg/L at all sites except East Branch 

Tributary to Gomanche Creek site (04043137), which had concentrations ranging from 0.41 to 0.65 mg/L. Concentrations 

of nitrate plus nitrite in filtered water ranged from 0.02 to 0.23 

mg/L at all sites except West Branch Tributary to Gomanche 

Creek (04043138), which had a concentration of 0.47 mg/L 

on October 31, 2007. Concentrations of total phosphorus in 

unfiltered water ranged from an estimated value of 0.004 to 

0.05 mg/L at all sampling sites except 04043137, which had 

concentrations that were all less than 0.01 mg/L (0.013 to 

0.086 mg/L). Concentrations of nutrients in the Silver River 

Watershed are low, indicating little, if any, septic-system or 

agricultural-waste effect in the watershed during the time of 

this study.

Nickel and Copper

Concentrations of nickel ranged from 0.1 to 1.57 μg/L, 

with the highest concentrations found in samples from the 

upper Silver River, East Branch Tributary to Gomanche 

Creek, and downstream Gomanche Creek sites. Concentrations of copper ranged from an estimated value of 0.26 to 

22.9 μg/L, with the highest concentrations found in samples 

from the upper Silver River (22.9 μg /L) and Dakota Creek 

(16.3 μg /L). There appears to be a correlation between high 

concentrations of copper and high streamflows at the other six 

sites, but this was not the case at the two sites with the highest 

concentrations. Erosion and runoff also are highest during 

periods of high streamflow; however, both high-concentration 

samples were collected during a period of low streamflow in 

September 2006. One possible scenario is that the streams 

are in direct contact with copper-bearing geologic materials 

upstream of the two sites with the highest concentrations. 

Seven samples had concentrations of copper that exceeded the 

MDEQRule 57 water-quality standard aquatic-maximum value 

of 7.6 μg/L (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2008), including three samples from the East Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek site (04043137).

Mercury

Some streams and lakes in northern Baraga and Marquette 

Counties are known to have elevated concentrations of mercury 

in game fish, but the source of the mercury is unknown. The 

Michigamme Slate is known to be locally anomalously enriched 

in Hg with vales as high as 1.6 parts per million (ppm). Likewise, 

mineral prospectors have reported cinnabar from time to time. 

Atmospheric deposition of mercury is probably the dominant 

source of mercury to the Silver River Watershed although some 

concealed bedrock sources may also be in contact with parts 

of the streams. (W.F. Cannon, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2009) 

Investigations initiated in the late 1980s in the northern-tier 

states of the U.S., Canada, and Nordic countries found that fish, 

mainly from nutrient-poor lakes and often in very remote areas, 

commonly have high levels of mercury. More recent fish-sampling surveys in other regions of the U.S. have shown widespread 

mercury contamination in streams, wetlands, reservoirs, and 

lakes. To date (2009), 33 states have issued fish-consumption 

advisories because of mercury contamination (Krabbenhoft and 

Rickert, 1995). (See inset box on page 22.)

The USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center houses the Mercury Research Laboratory (USGS MRL) and team. Prior to September 2008, samples from the Silver River Watershed sites were 

analyzed using the mercury-analytical schedule at the USGS 

NWQL. The September 2008 samples were analyzed using the 

USGS MRL protocol and laboratory. All sites were sampled for 

unfiltered total mercury and methylmercury, and those results are 

summarized in table 8. Unfiltered samples contain both dissolved 

and particulate forms of mercury.

Table 8. Concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in unfiltered water samples from the Silver River Watershed, 

Michigan.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SW, surface water; --, measurement not recorded; QA, quality-assurance sample; all concentrations are in 

nanograms per liter]

USGS station number Parameter

Concentration 

of unfiltered 

total mercury

Concentration 

of unfiltered 

methylmercury

pH, in standard 

units

Ratio of 

methylmercury

to total mercury 

4043126 SW 3.44 0.38 7.5 0.11

4043131 SW 2.74 .33 7.9 .12

4043135 SW 4.52 .24 8.1 .05

4043137 SW 5.48 .25 7.9 .05

4043138 SW 2.43 .28 8.6 .12

4043140 SW 1.31 .18 -- .14

04043146 SW 1.84 .20 8.1 .11

04043146 QA <.04 <.04 8.1 --

04043150 SW 2.43 .28 7.7 .12
22 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

The lowest concentration of total mercury was sampled at the downstream Gomanche Creek site streamgage 

(04043140), and the highest concentration was sampled at the 

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek site (04043137). 

The lowest concentration of methylmercury also was sampled 

at streamgage 04043140, and the highest concentration was 

sampled at the upstream Silver River streamgage (04043126). 

The highest ratio of methylmercury to total mercury was at 

site streamgage 04043140. Although concentration of mercury 

in several of the sites is high, the ratio of methylmercury to 

total mercury is similar to the 5 to 10 percent found in most 

natural waters (M.E. Brigham, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009). Typically, watersheds with larger percentages of wetlands have a greater percentage of methylmercury. The National Wetlands Inventory Database (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1994) indicates that wetlands upstream 

of the sampling sites comprise about 16 to 38 percent of each 

subwatershed (table 4).

There is a Great Lakes Basin water-quality standard for 

total mercury in water of 1.8 ng/L to protect human health 

from consumption of aquatic organisms (U.S. Environmental 

It can be brought to sediments by particles settling and then 

later released by diffusion or resuspension. It can enter the 

food chain, or it can be released back into the atmosphere by 

volatilization.

Concentrations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and pH 

have a strong effect on the ultimate fate of mercury in an ecosystem. Studies have shown that for the same species of fish 

taken from the same region, increasing the acidity of the water 

(decreasing pH) and (or) the DOC content generally results in 

higher concentrations of mercury in fish. At the time this report 

was written, many scientists believe that higher acidity and 

DOC levels enhance the mobility of mercury in the environment, 

thus making it more likely to enter the food chain.

The exact mechanism(s) by which mercury enters the 

food chain largely remain unknown and probably vary among 

ecosystems. We do know, however, that certain bacteria play 

an important early role. Studies have shown that bacteria that 

process sulfate (SO4) in the environment take up mercury in its 

inorganic form and through metabolic processes convert it to 

methylmercury. The conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury is important for two reasons: (1) methylmercury is more 

toxic than inorganic mercury and (2) organisms require considerably longer time to eliminate methylmercury than inorganic 

mercury. At this point, the methylmercury-containing bacteria 

may be consumed by the next higher level in the food chain, or 

the bacteria may release methylmercury into the water where it 

can quickly adsorb to plankton, which also are consumed by the 

next level in the food chain.

The following discussion of mercury in the environment 

largely is excerpted from Krabbenhoft and Rickert (1995). This 

discussion is provided to explain the complexities of mercury 

in the environment. There are many sources of mercury in the 

environment, both natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources 

include volcanoes, natural mercury deposits, and volatilization 

from the ocean. The primary human-related sources include 

coal combustion, chlorine alkali processing, waste incineration, 

and metal processing. Best estimates to date (2009) indicate 

that human activities have about doubled or tripled the amount 

of mercury in the atmosphere, and the atmospheric burden is 

increasing by about 1.5 percent per year.

Mercury-cycling pathways in aquatic environments are 

very complex. The various forms of mercury can be converted 

from one to the next; most important is the conversion to methylmercury (CH3Hg+), which is the most toxic form. Ultimately, 

mercury ends up in sediments, in fish and wildlife, or back into 

the atmosphere (fig. 15).

With the exception of isolated cases of known point 

sources, the ultimate source of mercury to most aquatic ecosystems is deposition from the atmosphere, primarily associated with rainfall. Although atmospheric deposition contains 

the three principal forms of mercury, the majority is inorganic 

(Hg(II), ionic mercury). Once in surface water, mercury enters a 

complex cycle in which one form can be converted to another. 

Protection Agency, 1995a) and 1.3 ng/L to protect wildlife 

health (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). All 

samples exceed both of those standards; however, it should 

be noted that these are single-point samples taken during a 

period of low streamflows. Additional samples over the range 

of streamflow and conditions would need to be collected to 

confirm the persistence of the contamination or the need for a 

health or fishing advisory.

Cyanide

Measured concentrations of cyanide ranging from 0.0024 

to 0.0058 mg/L were detected at least once at all sites except 

the downstream Silver River streamgage (04043150), and several sites had multiple detections. All concentrations were less 

than the LRL (0.010 mg/L), and several were at or near the 

MDL of 0.0024 mg/L. A sample collected on July 26, 2005, at 

the East Branch Gomanche Creek site (04043137) had a concentration of 0.0058 mg/L, which exceeds the MDEQ Rule 57 

water-quality standard final chronic value of 0.0052 mg/L 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008).

Mercury Cycling in Aquatic Systems
DEMETHYLATION

METHYLATION

REDUCTION

SEDIMENTATION

DEPOSITION DEPOSITION

Hg(II)

Hg(O)

DIFFUSION / 

SEDIMENT RESUSPENSION

CH Hg 3

Hg(II) CH3Hg SEDIMENTATION

DEPOSITION

AND RUNOFF

DEPOSITION

AND RUNOFF

BIOMAGNIFICATION

and VOLATILIZATION

DEPOSITION and 

VOLATILIZATION

OUTFLOW

OUTFLOW

OUTFLOW

DEMETHYLATION

RsS

Figure 15. Aquatic mercury cycle illustrating the complexities of mercury-cycling pathways in aquatic environments.

Water Quality of Streams in the Silver River Watershed 23
24 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Statistical Analysis of Water-Quality Data and 

Comparison to Water-Quality Guidelines

Over the course of this study, laboratory methods 

changed as analytical equipment was replaced or updated, 

resulting in differing MDLs being used for sample analysis. 

This is important to note when employing the AMLE method 

for the calculation of summary statistics. Several of the 

analytes had detected and estimated concentrations present in 

enough samples for summary statistics to be calculated, even 

though most of the concentrations were below their respective 

detection limits. Summary statistics could not be calculated 

using the AMLE method for cyanide, mercury, and silver 

owing to each having an insufficient number of detected concentrations present in an adequate number of samples (appendix 1). Summary statistics of water-quality data collected as 

part of this study were calculated and graphed as boxplots. 

Although boxplots such as these appear complex, they convey 

a great deal of information succinctly (inset box page 24) (figs. 

16–18).

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

o

o

Upper detached

Lower detached

{ Interquartile

range

{ Whisker

Boxplots provide a means to visualize the summary statistics of data. 

A quick glance at a boxplot would show the range in data values and 

whether the data are skewed. The main element of the boxplot is the box 

itself, whose top and bottom are defined by the 75th and 25th percentiles, 

respectively. The median (or 50th percentile) typically is represented by a 

line that cuts across the box. The difference between the 75th and 25th 

percentiles is known as the Interquartile Range (IQR).

Lines extending up and down from the box are called whiskers, 

and their lengths are defined by the upper and lower adjacent values. 

The upper adjacent is equal to the maxiumum data value that is equal to 

or less than the 75th percentile + (1.5 x IQR); the lower adjacent is equal 

to the minimum data value that is is equal to or greater than the 25th 

percentile - (1.5 x IQR). 

The upper outside value is outlier data whose value is greater than 

the upper adjacent value, but less than the 75th percentile + 2 (1.5 x IQR). 

The upper detached value is outlier data whose value is greater than this 

upper outside bounds.

The lower outside value is outlier data whose value is less than the 

lower adjacent value, but greater than the 25th percentile - 2 (1.5 x IQR).

The lower detached value is outlier data whose value is even less thanthis 

lower outside bounds.

Boxplot statistics estimated below the largest laboratory method 

detection limit are represented by a dashed outline.

The Elements of a Boxplot
Water Quality of Streams in the Silver River Watershed 25

x

x

o

o

o

x

x

x

x

x

Calcium*

Sodium*

Sulfate*

Silica*

Magnesium*

Potassium*

Fluoride

Chloride*

EXPLANATION

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Upper outside

Largest method detection limit

Final chronic value

Aquatic maximum value

o Upper detached

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR IONS IN WATER, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

* Not included in Michigan 

Department of Environmental 

Quality criteria

Figure 16. Concentrations of major ions in 80 water-quality samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08
26 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

x

x

xx

x

x

[AMV=

2,453 μg/L]

[FCV=

1,135 μg/L]

x

Aluminum*

Barium

Copper

Iron*

Manganese

Zinc

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN WATER,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

* Not included in Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality criteria

AMV, Aquatic maximum value

FCV, Final chronic value

EXPLANATION

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Upper outside

Largest method detection limit

Aquatic maximum value

Final chronic value or

human non-cancerous, 

non-drinking value

μg/L, micrograms per liter

x

Cobalt

[FCV=

100 μg/L]

[AMV=

370 μg/L]

x

x

Cadmium

[AMV=

2.2 μg/L]

Beryllium

[AMV=

4.7 μg/L]

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

x

xxxx

x

x

Uranium*

Selenium *

Nickel

[FCV=

31 μg/L]

[AMV=

281 μg/L]

Molybdenum

[AMV=

29,000 μg/L] [FCV=

3,200 μg/L]

Lead

[AMV=

47 μg/L]

Chromium

[AMV=

348 μg/L]

[FCV=

45 μg/L]

Arsenic

[FCV=

150 μg/L]

[AMV=

340 μg/L]

Antimony

[HNV=

130 μg/L]

[AMV=

1,100 μg/L]

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN WATER, 

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

10 1 0.1 0.01

Figure 17. Concentrations of metals in 80 water-quality samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08.
Water Quality of Streams in the Silver River Watershed 27

Orthophosphate

0.001 0.01 0.1 0.0001

Nitrite

Nitrate plus

Phosphorus

nitrite

Ammonia

Ammonia

plus organic

nitrogen

EXPLANATION

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Upper outside

Largest method detection limit

25th percentile reference

nutrient concentration

from U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2001)

0.01 0.1 1 0.001

CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS IN WATER,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A. FILTERED SAMPLES

Ammonia

plus organic

nitrogen

x

x

Phosphorus

0.01 0.1 1 0.001

B. UNFILTERED SAMPLES

CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS IN WATER,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 18. Concentrations of nutrients in 80 filtered (A) and 

unfiltered (B) water-quality samples, Silver River Watershed, 

Michigan, 2005-08.
28 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

In 2006, MDEQ adopted rules defining water-quality 

standards for the Great Lakes, connecting channels, and all 

other surface-water bodies in Michigan (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a). The MDEQ rules 

provide selected water-quality criteria for cancerous and 

non-cancerous human consumption (drinking) and exposure (non-drinking), final chronic exposure, and wildlife and 

aquatic-ecosystem protection values (table 9). Although most 

of the Silver River Watershed is sparsely populated, a diverse 

population of wildlife and aquatic creatures lives within the 

watershed, and the Silver River drains into Huron Bay, itself a 

part of Lake Superior. KBIC is concerned that tribal members 

and others fishing, hunting, and living within the watershed 

are aware of any health concerns presented by surface-water 

quality degradation.

The human cancer value (HCV) is the maximum ambient-water concentration that a lifetime of direct exposure 

(either through consumption or from water-related recreation 

activities) or consumption of fish exposed to this concentration 

will represent a risk of contracting cancer of 1 in 100,000. The 

human non-cancerous value (HNV) represents the maximum 

ambient-water concentration at which adverse non-cancerous 

effects are not likely to occur from a lifetime of exposure 

through consumption or recreation activities or consumption 

of fish from these waters. The final chronic value (FCV) represents the concentration below which injurious or debilitating 

effects to an aquatic organism will not result after repeated 

long-term exposure. The wildlife value (WV) represents the 

maximum ambient-water concentration below which adverse 

effects are not likely to occur to mammal and bird populations 

through a lifetime exposure either through direct consumption or through exposure within their food supply (Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a).

For any given water-quality constituent, the recommended use of the criteria above involves selecting the most 

conservative value (lowest concentration) between the cancerous and non-cancerous human exposure and the WVs. Since 

the Silver River is not used as a water-supply source, it is not 

necessary to include the cancerous and non-cancerous humanconsumption criteria in this comparison. This conservative 

value is compared to the average concentration of the samples 

(Brenda Sayles, Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, oral commun., 2009).

The aquatic maximum value (AMV) represents the highest constituent concentration in ambient water that an aquatic 

community can briefly be exposed to without detriment (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a). The AMV 

is compared to the maximum concentration of the samples 

(Brenda Sayles, Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, oral commun., 2009). HNVs, FCVs, and AMVs are 

listed for fluoride and all analyzed metals except aluminum, 

iron, selenium, and uranium. HCV and WV are not available 

for any of the analytes. All fluoride samples were well below 

the defined criteria (fig. 16). The AMV criteria for metals 

are dependent upon the calculated hardness of water, and an 

average hardness concentration of 54.8 mg/L was used for the 

calculations. Of the metal analytes, only copper exceeded the 

criteria; 13 of 80 copper samples exceeded the FCV and 7 of 

those exceeded the AMV as well (appendix 1, table 9, fig. 17).

Table 9. Human non-cancerous, final chronic, and aquatic-maximum criteria values 

for select constituents as defined by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006b).

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ND, not defined]

Constituent Human 

non-cancerous value Final chronic value Aquatic maximum criteria value

Antimony (μg/L) 130 240 1,100

Arsenic (μg/L) 280 150 340

Barium (μg/L) 160,000 231 659

Beryllium (μg/L) 1,200 .52 4.7

Cadmium (μg/L) 130 .80 2.2

Chromium (μg/L) 9,400 45 348

Cobalt (μg/L) ND 100 370

Copper (μg/L) 38,000 5.4 7.6

Fluoride (mg/L) ND 2.7 9.8

Lead (μg/L) 190 5.3 47

Manganese (μg/L) 59,000 1,135 2,453

Molybdenum (μg/L) 10,000 3,200 29,000

Nickel (μg/L) 210,000 31 281

Zinc (μg/L) 16,000 71 70
Bed-Sediments Analysis 29

As of June 2009, MDEQ had not adopted criteria for 

nutrients, although the USEPA had developed criteria for total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, turbidity, and chlorophyll a (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Nutrient criteria 

have not been developed for ammonia plus organic nitrogen 

and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, though these analytes were 

included in this study, and 25th percentiles were reported 

within the USEPA’s nutrient-criteria document. The USEPA 

recommended that these percentiles should be used as references and not specifically as water-quality criteria; however, 

according to Haack and Duris (2008) it is possible that these 

25th-percentile values will be used if quality criteria are 

established in the future. Table 10 presents the 25th-percentile 

values for Nutrient Ecoregion VIII, subecoregion 50 streams, 

which include the Silver River Watershed (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2001).

For the filtered samples, concentrations of nutrients in 33 

of the 80 samples analyzed for ammonia plus organic nitrogen 

were equal to or greater than the 25th-percentile value; all but 

2 of the samples analyzed for nitrate plus nitrite were equal to 

or exceeded the 25th-percentile value; and 2 of the 80 samples 

analyzed for total phosphorus were equal to or greater than 

the 25th-percentile value. For the unfiltered samples, 35 of the 

80 samples analyzed for ammonia plus organic nitrogen were 

greater than the 25th-percentile value; and for samples analyzed for total phosphorus, 39 of the 80 samples were equal 

to or greater than the corresponding 25th-percentile values 

(table 9, fig. 18). Notably, 8 of 10 filtered samples and all 

10 unfiltered samples collected at the East Branch Tributary 

to Gomanche Creek exceeded the 25th-percentile value for 

ammonia plus organic nitrogen criteria.

Bed-Sediments Analysis

Bed sediments were sampled at seven of the eight sites in 

conjunction with fish-tissue sampling in August 2008. The 

Silver River at Arvon Road site (04043131) was excluded 

owing to lack of suitable sediments at the site. Bed-sediment samples were collected and processed using methods 

described in the USGS NFM Chapter A8 (available online at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A). The samples were analyzed 

for 42 metals and other selected elements at the USGS NWQL 

and for grain-size distribution at the Kentucky Water Science 

Center Sediment Laboratory.

Bed-sediment samples were composites of samples 

collected by hand with a Teflon scoop from each of 5 to 10 

depositional zones (submerged during low streamflow) along 

a reach of approximately 150 m. Samples were collected from 

the upper 2 cm (most recent, oxidized layer), and the amount 

collected depended upon the relative size of the depositional 

zone. Deposits of fine-grained sediment were targeted for 

sampling; thus, concentrations represent conditions in depositional areas of the streams, not the average concentrations for 

sediment throughout the stream reach. A bulk <2-mm fraction 

was removed from the composited sample from each site for 

particle-size analysis. The rest of the sample was wet-sieved in 

the field, and the fine (<0.063 mm) fraction was collected for 

trace-element analysis.

Results of the metals analysis are presented in appendix 2. 

Notably, two sites (upstream Gomanche Creek (04043135) 

and Silver River near L’Anse streamgage (04043150)) did 

not have concentrations of any elements that ranked highest 

overall among the seven sites. Conversely, three sites (West 

Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek (04043138), Dakota 

Creek (04043146), and upper Silver River (04043126)) had the 

highest concentrations of many of the elements (27, 11, and 8, 

respectively). West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek had 

the highest concentrations of mercury, uranium, vanadium, 

and zinc. Dakota Creek had the highest concentrations of the 

rare-earth elements cerium and lanthanum, as well as rubidium 

and cesium. The upper Silver River and West Branch Tributary 

to Gomanche Creek had identical concentrations of nickel, 

niobium, and scandium, and the West Branch Tributary to 

Gomanche Creek and Dakota Creek had identical concentrations of cadmium. Figure 19 illustrates statistical analyses of 

the concentrations of bed sediment for all but bismuth, silver, 

and sulfur, which were below MDLs at all sampling sites. Once 

again, boxplots were chosen to most concisely present the data.

Table 10. Ambient water-quality criteria for select nutrients as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency within 

Nutrient Ecoregion VIII, Sub-ecoregion 50 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

[All values are in milligrams per liter]

Ammonia plus 

organic nitrogen

Nitrate plus 

nitrite nitrogen Total nitrogen Total phosphorus

25th percentile 0.33 0.03 0.44 0.012
30 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

x

AntimonyBerylliumCarbonCesiumCobaltGallium

Lithium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

0.1 1 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

10

o

o

Molybdenum

Niobium

ScandiumThoriumUraniumYttrium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

0.1 1 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

10

o

o

Molybdenum

Niobium

ScandiumThoriumUraniumYttrium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

0.1 1 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

10

Figure 19. Concentration of metals in seven bed-sediment quality samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08.
Bed-Sediments Analysis 31

x

Barium

CeriumLanthanumManganeseRubidiumStrontiumVanadium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

10 100 10,000

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

1,000

Calcium

Magnesium

Potassium

Sodium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

1,000 10,000 100,000

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

x

Titanium

Iron

Aluminum

EXPLAN

x

x

Upp

75th 

Med

25th 

Low

Low

Upp

1,000 10,000 100,0000

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

o

o

Molybdenum

Niobium

ScandiumThoriumUraniumYttrium

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

0.1 1 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT,

 IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

10

Figure 19. Concentration of metals in seven bed-sediment quality samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08.—Continued
32 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Comparison to Sediment-Quality Guidelines

Sediment-quality guidelines often are built around concerns about specific groups of contaminants such as organochlorine insecticides, industrial organochlorine compounds 

such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Chemical analyses for this 

study focused on determining the concentrations for a full 

suite of metals, for which sediment-quality guidelines have 

been developed for only a small, select group of metals in 

sediments collected from freshwater streams and lakes.

MacDonald and others (2000) developed two criteria 

for bed sediment in freshwater environments: the thresholdeffect concentration (TEC), which represents the concentration 

above which adverse effects on biota are expected, and the 

probable-effect concentration (PEC), which defines the concentration above which adverse effects on biota are expected 

to occur frequently. These criteria were developed through 

a consensus-based analysis of six other numerical sedimentquality guidelines. Metals for which TECs and PECs have 

been defined are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, 

mercury, nickel, and zinc (table 11). All samples were below 

Table 11. Consensus-based sediment-quality guidelines for 

freshwater ecosystems (MacDonald and others, 2000).

[TEC, threshold effect concentration; μg/g, micrograms per gram; PEC, 

probable effect concentration]

Constituent TEC,

 in μg/g

PEC, 

in μg/g

Arsenic 9.79 33

Cadmium .99 4.98

Chromium 43.4 111

Copper 31.6 149

Lead 35.8 128

Mercury .18 1.06

Nickel 22.7 48.6

Zinc 121 459

x

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Zinc

EXPLANATION

x

x

Upper adjacent

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Lower adjacent

Lower outside

Upper outside

Less than TEC

Greater than PEC

Greater than TEC

PEC, Probable-effect concentration

TEC, Threshold-effect concentration

(from MacDonald and others, 2000)

0.01 0.1 1 100

CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT, IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

10

their corresponding TECs, although concentrations of 

arsenic and chromium approached their respective TECs 

(appendix 2 and fig. 20).

Figure 20. Concentration of metals in seven bed-sediment samples compared to sediment-quality guidelines, 

Silver River Watershed, Michigan, 2005-08
Ecological Investigation 33

Grain-Size Distribution

Analysis of grain-size distribution over time provides an 

important measure of physical changes within a watershed. 

Erosion and mass wasting, both natural and anthropogenic, 

can result in considerable changes in grain-size distribution 

within a watershed. This can occur gradually or catastrophically, depending upon the sediment source(s) being introduced 

into the stream.

Results of the grain-size distribution of bed sediments 

are shown in table 12. The silt and clay-size fraction (all 

sediments <0.063 mm) composed about 20 percent or less 

of the analyzed sediments in all of the streams and less 

than 7 percent in three streams (upper and lower Gomanche Creek (04043135 and 04043140, respectively) and 

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek (04043137)). 

All sites except Dakota Creek (04043146) and Silver River 

near L’Anse (04043150) had visual accumulation (VA)-tube 

fractions (grain size 0.063 to 1.0 mm) ranging from about 

71 to 87 percent. The laboratory noted that not enough sample 

material was available for either of those sites and the VA tube 

was not used. It is noteworthy that all the streams have 20 

percent or less silt/clay-sized materials, demonstrative of the 

high gradient typical throughout the watershed, which rapidly 

washes any fine-grained sediment out of the system.

Ecological Investigation

An ecological investigation of the Silver River sites that 

complements other parts of this study was conducted during 

August–September 2008. The investigation was completed 

using a modified version of the MDEQ GLEAS procedure 51, 

which is a qualitative-biological and habitat-survey protocol 

for wadeable streams that has been employed extensively in 

Michigan for several years (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2007). The GLEAS 51 protocol consists 

of separate qualitative evaluations of the fish community, 

the macroinvertebrate community, and the habitat quality, 

completed in that order to minimize disruption of the sampled 

communities. The study team and KBIC Natural Resources 

Department chose the GLEAS 51 procedure for ease of 

application and comparison with other streams throughout 

the Upper Peninsula previously surveyed by the MDEQ. In 

the GLEAS 51 procedure, each survey station is described 

by up to three numbers or metrics; one each for the fish, 

macroinvertebrates, and habitat. An excellent-quality stream 

for the ecoregion would have the most metrics performing like an excellent site, while a poor-quality stream would 

have substantially different metrics. Use of metrics creates a 

uniform and systematic evaluation for each site with the result 

expressed as a single numerical value that easily is comparable 

to other sites. For this study, the habitat-assessment part of 

the GLEAS 51 procedure was not completed owing to budget 

constraints, as well as to the unaltered, inaccessible condition 

of most of the watershed.

Fishes

Much of the Silver River Watershed primarily is a coldwater fishery, with one or more species of salmonids present 

at several of the sampling sites. The GLEAS 51 protocol 

for coldwater fisheries is much simpler than for warm-water 

fisheries. Target streams are evaluated for the presence of 

at least 50 fish and the relative abundance of anomalies and 

salmonids collected (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2007). For this study, the fish community part of 

the GLEAS 51 procedure was modified, targeting a single 

intolerant fish species (brook trout) as described in the next 

paragraph, although all shocked fish in each sampling reach 

were measured and identified. After a thorough reconnaissance 

of all eight water-quality sampling sites, the USGS and KBIC 

elected to sample reaches at the following four sites: upstream 

Silver River (04043126), Gomanche Creek (04043140), 

Dakota Creek (04043146), and Silver River near L’Anse 

(04043150). A summary of fish communities collected at the 

four sites is shown in table 13. Additional sites downstream 

of Silver River at Arvon Road (04043131) and upstream 

and downstream of Silver River near L’Anse streamgage 

(04043150) also were sampled, but stream conditions at those 

locations were either poor (no fish habitat) or channel composition (depths; high gradients; channels composed entirely of 

slaty bedrock) made electrofishing difficult to impossible.

USGS and KBIC crews used a combination of backpack 

and barge-shocking units to conduct the survey, targeting 

native (not hatchery stocked) 3- to 4-year-old brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis), with some success in Gomanche Creek 

(two fish) and Dakota Creek (three fish). Low-conductivity 

Table 12. Bed-sediment grain-size distribution for selected sites in the Silver River Watershed, Michigan.

[All values are in percent of total; silt/clay is grain sizes less than 0.063 mm; visual accumulation tube is grain sizes 0.063 to 1.0 millimeter; sieve is grain sizes 

1.0 to 4.0 millimeters]

U.S. Geological Survey site number

4043126 4043135 4043137 4043138 4043140 4043146 4043150

Silt/clay 12.3 4.5 5.7 20.2 15.4 11.1 6.5

Visual accumulation tube 83.1 70.8 86.6 73.2 82 0 0

Sieve 4.6 24.7 7.7 6.6 2.6 88.9 93.5
34 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

waters at all sites made the electrofishing equipment somewhat 

less efficient than is ideal for fish capture; however, taking 

into account that capture efficiency may have biased total 

fish counts, it was clear that fish populations at all the sites 

were low. Sampling at the downstream-most site on the Silver 

River (streamgage 04043150) produced the largest number of 

individuals and the most species of all the sites; however, all 

the brook trout captured at this site were fin clipped indicating 

they were hatchery-bred fish introduced by stocking. Since 

the residence time of hatchery fish in a stream is uncertain, 

and thus, exposure to any potential contaminants in the stream 

is unknown, no fish from this site were submitted for tissue analysis. Fish filets were processed on site (fig. 21) and 

analyzed for metals at Texas A&M University; results of the 

metal analyses are presented in table 14. Fish otoliths, which 

are small parts located in the head of fish that assist with 

hearing, accrete layers of calcium carbonate and gelatinous 

matrix throughout the fish’s life. The accretion rate varies with 

growth of the fish, often less growth in winter and more in 

summer, which results in the appearance of rings that resemble 

tree rings. By counting the rings, it is possible to determine the 

age of the fish in years. Fish otoliths were examined by two 

independent laboratories. Three samples met the targeted-age 

criteria (3 to 4 years of age): one sample was dated 2 years of 

age; and one sample was destroyed while being mounted for 

analysis, and its age is unknown. No notable concentrations of 

metals were detected in any of the five fish analyzed. 

Presence of brook trout at all but the upstream Silver River 

site is an indication of good water quality in much of the 

watershed. Brook trout are intolerant of poor water quality, 

low dissolved-oxygen concentrations, and water temperatures 

greater than 21-23oC.

Table 13. Summary of fish communities collected at sites in the Silver River Watershed, Michigan.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS station number Number of fish collected Number of fish 

species collected

Number and type of Salmonid 

species collected Tissues collected?

04043126 40 5 0 No

04043140 16 1 1 (brook trout) Yes

04043135 52 4 1 (brook trout) Yes

04043150 74 11 4 (brook trout, rainbow trout, 

coho salmon, pink salmon)

No

Figure 21.

U.S. Geological Survey 

employees processing adult 

brook trout at Dakota Creek 

(site 04043146), August 26, 2008. 

(Photograph by T.L. Weaver, 

U.S. Geological Survey)
Ecological Investigation 35

Table 14. Concentrations of trace-elements in brook-trout tissue samples taken from the Silver River Watershed, Michigan.

[ID, identification; <, less than; all concentrations in micrograms per kilogram]

Property or 

constituent Concentration

Lab number T8060-001 T8060-002 T8060-003 T8060-004 T8060-005

Sample ID 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C

Stream name Dakota Dakota Gomanche Gomanche Gomanche

Metals

Silver <0.00955 <0.00965 <0.00955 <0.00938 <0.00966

Arsenic 1.1 1.29 2.98 1.81 1.38

Boron <.478 <.482 <.477 <.469 <.483

Barium .124 <.096 .449 .094 <.097

Beryllium <.0478 <.0482 <.0477 <.0469 <.0483

Calcium 497 647 657 555 612

Cadmium <.0191 <.0193 .0204 <.0188 <.0193

Cobalt <.0191 <.0193 <.0191 <.0188 <.0193

Chromium .251 <.193 .192 <.188 <.193

Copper 1.74 1.53 9.82 1.86 1.74

Iron 21.8 20.7 23.4 14.6 11

Mercury .661 .553 .451 .373 .409

Potassium 18,700 18,500 19,300 17,100 18,500

Magnesium 1,280 1,320 1,410 1,310 1,340

Manganese .592 .656 1.11 .769 .686

Molybdenum <.0955 <.0965 <.0955 <.0938 <.0966

MOIST-Grav 74.4 76.2 68.4 71.5 68.5

Sodium 1,110 1,100 1,260 1,150 1,010

Nickel .131 <.0965 <.0955 <.0938 <.0966

Phosphorus 10,700 10,800 11,200 10,500 10,800

Lead .103 .0911 .128 .0563 .0673

Sulfur 8,580 8,920 9,110 8,490 8,400

Antimony <.0478 <.0482 <.0477 <.0469 <.0483

Selenium 1.91 1.65 2.09 2.16 1.94

Silicon 8.81 7.67 15.7 9.57 9.14

Tin <.0955 <.0965 <.0955 <.0938 <.0966

Strontium .306 .328 .449 .272 .299

Titanium 6.02 4.22 2.99 2.15 1.98

Thallium <.00955 <.00965 <.00955 <.00938 <.00966

Vanadium <.478 <.482 <.477 <.469 <.483

Zinc 35 35.6 47.8 37.5 36.6
36 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Macroinvertebrates were collected from all eight 

sampling sites on September 16 and 17, 2008. Following 

the GLEAS 51 procedure, samples were collected from all 

available habitats using either a D-frame kick net (fig. 22) or 

they were hand-picked. Fixed substrates were scrubbed with 

a small brush to dislodge organisms, as necessary. Samples 

were taken from all velocity regimes within the study reach 

as well, with consideration given to sampling all regimes 

proportionally to their relative abundance. The target quantity 

of organisms 300 ± 60 was met or exceeded at all sites except 

the Silver River at Arvon Road (04043131), which primarily is 

composed of boulders and bedrock, with less-suitable macroinvertebrate habitat than the other sites. The macroinvertebrate 

samples were preserved in ethanol and brought back to USGS 

offices where they were examined, sorted, and classified. 

Figure 23 shows a sorting tray in the field with insects and 

detritus prior to removal of detritus.

Scoring is simple. For streams within the northern 

lakes and forests category, which all parts of the Silver River 

Watershed fall under, the following metrics apply: poor is -9 

or less, acceptable is -4, and excellent is 5 and greater. Six 

of the sites scored excellent, with scores of 6 or 7, while two 

were slightly less than excellent. The upstream Silver River 

at streamgage 04043126 scored 4, which is not surprising 

given the channel is sandy and low-gradient, vegetation is 

dominated by tag elders and other bushes, and no salmonids 

were observed during electrofishing. More surprisingly, the 

downstream Gomanche Creek site (streamgage 04043140), 

which is fairly high-gradient, wooded, harbored brook trout, 

and certainly appears to be better habitat than the upstream 

Silver River site, scored 3. Appendix 3 is a summary of the 

macroinvertebrate-sampling results.

Figure 22. U.S. Geological Survey 

employee using a D-frame kick net 

for macroinvertebrate sampling at 

Dakota Creek (site 04043146). 

(Photograph by D. A. Burdett, 

U.S. Geological Survey)

Figure 23. Macroinvertebrates and detritus in 

sorting tray. (Photograph by D. A. Burdett, 

U.S. Geological Survey)
References Cited 37

Summary and Conclusions

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, conducted a study during 

2005–08 to (1) evaluate baseline hydrology and water quality, (2) conduct an ecological assessment of the Silver River 

Watershed, and (3) address tribal concerns. Streamflow was 

measured; water-quality samples were collected; and an 

ecological assessment was conducted at eight locations within 

the central and western parts of the 69-square mile Silver 

River Watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey and Keweenaw 

Bay Indian Community cooperatively operate three real-time 

streamgages and water-quality monitors within the watershed; 

two were installed as a complement to this study. Waterquality sampling was done 2 to 3 times per year, including, at 

a minimum, once shortly after ice-out in the spring and once 

during the summer baseflow period. Additional samplings during the year were coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey 

and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to encompass different 

runoff and streamflow scenarios, for example, immediately 

following a heavy summer precipitation event in 2006.

The water-quality characteristics of the streams within 

the Silver River Watershed are typical of many streams flowing through sparsely populated areas in the central Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. Of note, seven samples had copper 

concentrations exceeding Michigan wildlife standards, and 

one sample had concentrations of cyanide that exceeded 

the same standards. Concentrations of total mercury at all 

eight sampling sites, from a low-flow sampling in 2008, 

exceeded the Great Lakes Basin water-quality standards, but 

the ratio of methylmercury to total mercury was similar to 

the 5 to 10 percent typical in most natural waters. Concentrations of arsenic and chromium in bed sediments were near 

the threshold-effect concentration. An ecological assessment 

analyzing fish and macroinvertebrate communities, by use of a 

modified version of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section 

51procedure, was conducted in 2008. Numbers of intolerant, 

coldwater salmonids were noted at all but one sampling site, 

and six of the eight sites scored excellent for their macroinvertebrate communities (the remaining two sites scored slightly 

less than excellent).

Additional water-quality data were collected by the 

U.S. Geological Survey and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community during 2009, and all three real-time streamflow-gaging 

and water-quality monitoring sites continue to operate. This 

report will aid in an ongoing monitoring effort designed to 

protect the water resources of the Silver River Watershed.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are extended to the staff at KBIC, including previous and current water-quality specialists, Marc Slis 

and Micah Petosky, respectively, for their assistance in the 

preparation and review of the QAPP, help in establishing 

sampling sites, and assistance throughout the project. Todd 

Warner, Director, KBIC Natural Resources is thanked for his 

oversight of the project since inception. Dean Burdett, Matt 

Holmio, Steve Horton, and John Knudsen, USGS Michigan 

Water Science Center, Escanaba Field Office; Rick Jodoin 

and Lori Fuller, USGS Michigan Water Science Center; and 

Amanda Bell and Barb Scudder, USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center are thanked for their assistance to the authors with 

many aspects of report preparation. 

References Cited

Cannon, W.F., and Ottke, Doug, 1999, Preliminary digital 

geologic map of the Penokean (early Proterozoic) continental margin in northern Michigan and Wisconsin: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–547, 

1 CD-ROM, accessed October 20, 2009, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-547/. 

Carter, R.W., and Davidian, Jacob, 1968, General procedure 

for gaging streams: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A6, 13 p., 

accessed October 20, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/

twri3-A6/. 

Doonan, C.J., and Byerlay, J.R., 1973, Ground water and 

geology of Baraga County, Michigan: State of Michigan 

Geological Survey Water Investigation 11, 26 p.

Farrand, W.R., and Bell, D.L., 1982, Quaternary geology of 

northern Michigan: Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan, Department of Geological Sciences, scale 1:500,000.

France, G.M., Bendall, K.A., and Lefevre, M.L., comps 2005, 

Groundwater flow model of the Silver River Watershed, 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Baraga County, Michigan: [Houghton, Mich.] Michigan Technological University, 

Aqua Terra Tech, 8 p.

Haack, S.K., and Duris, J.W., 2008, Chemical and microbiological water quality of subsurface agricultural drains during a field trial of liquid dairy manure effluent application 

rate and varying tillage practices, Upper Tiffin Watershed, 

southeastern Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008–1189, 38 p., accessed October 20, 2009, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1189/. 

Helsel, D.R., 2005a, Nondetects and data analysis—Statistics 

for censored environmental data: Hoboken, N.J., Wiley, 

250 p.
38 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Helsel, D.R., 2005b, Insider censoring—Distortion of data 

with nondetects: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 

v. 11, p. 1127–1137.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, accessed 

May 27, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri4a3/.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. 

Illinois State Geological Survey, 2009, Timetable of Quaternary glacial and interglacial events, accessed on November 

23, 2009, at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/glacialgeology/timetable.shtml.

Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Rickert, D.A., 1995, Mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 216–95, 4 p., accessed October 20, 2009, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/. 

Leverett, Frank, 1929, Moraines and shore lines of the 

Lake Superior Region: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 154–A, 72 p.

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A., 2000, 

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sedimentquality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems: Archives 

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 39, 

p. 20–31.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a, 

Part 4—Water quality standards: Lansing, Mich., Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Bureau, 

Water Resources Protection, 62 p., accessed May 27, 2009, 

at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-rulespart4_254149_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006b, 

Rule 57—Water quality values: Lansing, Mich., Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water 

Assessment Section, accessed May 27, 2009, at http://www.

michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3728-11383--

,00.html

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2007, Qualitative biological and habitat survey protocols for wadeable 

streams and rivers (May 2007 rev.): Lansing, Mich., Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water 

Quality Division, Great Lakes Environmental Assessment 

Section Procedure Number 51, 51 p.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008, 

Rule 57—Water quality values, accessed July 9, 2008, 

at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swasrule57_210455_7.xls

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forest, Mineral 

and Fire Management Division, 2003, IFMAP/GAP Upper 

Peninsula Land Cover.

Moulton, S.R., II, Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., and Hambrook, J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for sampling algal, 

invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 02–150, 75 p., accessed 

October 21, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-

150/.

National Climatic Data Center, 2002, Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling 

degree days, 1971–1996: Asheville, N.C., National Climatic 

Data Center.

National Climatic Data Center, 2008, Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling 

degree days, 2005–08: Asheville, N.C., National Climatic 

Data Center.

Oblinger-Childress, C.J., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and 

Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on 

long-term method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p., 

accessed October 21, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/

OFR_99-193/index.html

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—Volume 1, Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 

284 p., accessed October 21, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

wsp/wsp2175/. 

Rossell, Dean, 2008, Geology of the Keweenawan BIC Intrusion, in Bornhorst, T.J., and Klasner, J.S., eds., Proceedings 

of the 54th Institute on Lake Superior Geology, Volume 54, 

Part 2: Field Trip Guidebook, p. 181–199.

Smith, S.M., 1997, National geochemical database—Reformatted data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment 

Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program (ver. 1.40): U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–492, accessed 

October 21, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/492/

index.html

Sweat, M.J., and Rheaume, S.J., 1998, Water resources of the 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Baraga County, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4060, 33 p.
References Cited 39

Trahan, Melissa, Ward, Adam, Culberson, Shannon, Kreving-

haus, Andrea, and LeFevre, Greg, 2005, Hydrologic model 

of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan: 

[Houghton, Mich.] Michigan Technological University, 

Aqua Terra Tech, 23 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, Great Lakes 

water quality initiative technical support document for 

human health criteria and values: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

EPA 820–B95–007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b, Great Lakes 

water quality initiative technical support document for wild-

life criteria: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, Office of Water, EPA 820–B95–009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Ambient water 

quality criteria recommendations—Information supporting 

the development of State and Tribal nutrient criteria, rivers 

and streams in Nutrient Ecoregion VIII: Washington, D.C., 

Office of Water, EPA 822–b-01–015, 142 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994, National wetlands 

inventory, accessed October 21, 2009, at http://www.fws.

gov/wetlands/. 

U.S. Geological Survey [variously dated], National field man-

ual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed October 21, 2009, at http://water.

usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/. 

Weaver, T.L., and Fuller, L.M., 2007, Stream-water qual-

ity during storm-runoff events and low-flow periods 

in the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair Basin, Michigan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1201, 

13 p., accessed October 21, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1201/. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Surfacewater-quality standards and policy, Table 9, Sensitivity 

of lakes to acid rain, accessed March 18, 2010, at http://

learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3582.pdf
40 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08
Appendixes
42 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

A. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River upstream from East Branch 

near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043126Sampling date 5/12/2005 7/27/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/12/2007 10/31/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501159 501600 600154 601531 602668 700670 701614 702328 800002 800225Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 18 5.1 61 6.8 3.7 140 2.8 8 22 E130Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 12.3 9.3 11.9 8.4 10.2 10.2 7.8 10.5 10.2 11.4pH, unfil standard 

units

7.7 8.2 6.8 7.4 7.8 7 7.8 7.9 7.3 6.8

Specific conductance μs/cm 60 116 34 125 144 25 144 132 54 23Water temperature oC 5.4 17 8.6 20.9 11.8 7.3 23.3 10.4 7.5 6Hardness, water, fil mg/L 33 60 15 59 70 12 71 68 28 10Calcium, water, fil mg/L 9.63 18 4.41 17.5 20.6 3.54 20.8 19.7 8.23 2.96Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.12 3.64 .974 3.78 4.38 .78 4.59 4.49 1.89 .659Potassium, water, fil mg/L .37 .67 .32 .66 .58 .33 .7 .68 .4 .36Sodium, water, fil mg/L .87 1.27 .54 1.28 1.43 .5 1.51 1.42 .86 .43Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

30 59 12 55 70 6 68 62 20 5

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 36 71 15 66 84 7 82 75 24 6Chloride, water, fil mg/L .2 .27 <.20 .26 .32 .15 .29 .39 .33 .29Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 E.05 <.10 E.05 E.06 <.10 E.06 E.07 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 5.05 7.31 3.92 8.5 8.14 3.68 7.95 8.5 6.28 4.11Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.32 3.44 2.38 3.85 4.02 2.25 3.74 5.58 3.23 2.26Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 60 83 43 70 89 54 76 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 54 75 46 77 92 46 82 88 63 35Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .28 .19 .33 .17 .15 .45 .13 .18 .41 .31Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .31 .19 .32 .22 E.06 .45 .16 .17 .41 .41Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 E.007 E.006 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N E.04 E.03 <.06 .09 <.06 E.03 E.04 E.04 .04 .13Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.001 <.002 <.002 <.002 E.002 E.002 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 E.004 <.006 E.004 E.005 <.006 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .006 .005 .007 .006 E.003 E.005 E.004 E.004 .007 .008Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .013 .008 .015 .012 .004 .029 .01 E.006 .012 .05
Appendix 1

A 43

Appendix 1A. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River upstream from East Branch near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043126Sampling date 5/12/2005 7/27/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/12/2007 10/31/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501159 501600 600154 601531 602668 700670 701614 702328 800002 800225

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 57 14.9 95 19.6 12.6 152 10.9 9 114 136Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 E.05 E.05 E.05 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .6 1.3 .35 1.2 1.1 .37 1.7 1.2 .71 .3Barium, fil μg/L 8 10 7 14 15 7 12 10 9 5Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .01 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 E.02 E.03 .06 E.03 <.04 <.04 <.04 E.04Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .24 .18 .18 .27 .16 .18 .34 .27Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .072 .081 .068 .05 .05 .06 .05 .04 .08 .07Copper, water, fil μg/L .9 .6 4.6 9.1 22.9 5.9 .67 E.36 1.1 1.1Iron, fil μg/L 191 179 146 118 118 157 156 180 301 120Lead, water, fil μg/L .11 .08 .22 .57 1.17 .33 E.07 <.12 .14 .17Manganese, fil μg/L 14.8 14.9 7.4 16.4 11 7.8 19.2 11.6 20.2 8.8Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 E.005 <.010 <.010 <.010Molybdenum, fil μg/L <.4 E.4 <.4 E.4 .4 <.1 .5 .4 E.1 <.2Nickel, fil μg/L .38 .94 .67 .5 1.4 .43 .24 .31 .42 .48Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.06 E.07 E.04 E.06 E.07 .09 .1 .09Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L 1.2 .8 3.3 5.1 14.7 3.8 1.9 1.1 E1.7 4.7Uranium (natural), fil μg/L .05 .1 E.03 .08 .11 E.03 .09 .1 .05 .02

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 62 77 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 4 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. E.0030 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. --
44 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

B. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River at Arvon Road near L’Anse, 

Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043131Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/27/2005 4/20/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/11/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501157 501597 600155 601529 602666 700668 701613 702325 800004 800223Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 35 8.9 E115 18 4.3 E260 3.2 9.8 41 --Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 11.8 9.3 10.6 8.5 10.3 11.8 8.3 9.5 11.6 10.6pH, unfil standard 

units

7.8 8.1 7.7 8 7.8 7 8 8 7.5 6.9

Specific conductance μs/cm 67 121 39 117 151 31 151 134 59 64Water temperature oC 9.6 14.6 10 19.5 11.8 6.5 21 11.5 8.1 8.5Hardness, water, fil mg/L 34 64 19 55 75 15 73 69 29 12Calcium, water, fil mg/L 10.2 19.4 5.67 16.4 22.3 4.5 21.6 20.5 8.38 3.52Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.17 3.75 1.22 3.3 4.57 .989 4.66 4.43 1.9 .786Potassium, water, fil mg/L .49 .64 .39 .66 .61 .39 .7 .71 .47 .44Sodium, water, fil mg/L .91 1.35 .64 1.2 1.49 .57 1.58 1.47 .89 .47Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

30 61 14 50 73 10 71 61 20 7

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 37 74 17 60 89 12 85 74 25 9Chloride, water, fil mg/L .21 .41 E.11 .58 .49 .22 .49 .6 .35 .29Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 E.06 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 4.65 6.82 3.66 6.59 7.74 3.81 6.84 7.6 6.33 4.3Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.18 2.88 2.47 3.38 3.57 2.48 3.63 7.11 3.28 2.42Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 52 87 49 90 99 53 78 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 58 82 42 75 101 50 90 101 68 41Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 11 <10 12 <10 17 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .29 .17 .29 .23 .13 .42 .14 .26 .37 .33Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .29 .21 .32 .52 .12 .41 .17 .3 .37 .39Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 E.007 E.006 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.06 <.06 <.06 E.05 <.06 E.04 <.06 <.06 E.02 .13Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 E.002 E.002 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 E.005 <.006 E.005 E.005 E.003 E.005Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .006 .004 .007 .008 E.004 E.005 E.004 E.004 E.006 .008Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .011 .009 .01 .045 E.004 .028 E.008 E.008 .01 .035
Appendix 1

B 45

Appendix 1B. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River at Arvon Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043131Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/27/2005 4/20/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/11/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501157 501597 600155 601529 602666 700668 701613 702325 800004 800223

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 37.3 9.6 73.9 15.4 4.4 117 6 8.3 93.7 109Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 E.13 .07 E.05 E.05 <.14 E.08Arsenic, fil μg/L .5 .9 .36 .85 .86 .36 1.1 .97 .56 .31Barium, fil μg/L 7 10 6 12 12 6 12 10 7 6Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .01 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L E.03 <.04 E.03 E.03 <.04 E.03 <.04 <.04 E.02 E.03Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .2 .15 .12 .26 .13 .13 .29 .25Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .054 .068 .061 E.03 .07 .06 E.03 E.04 .06 .06Copper, water, fil μg/L .8 .5 2.1 6.8 3.8 4.5 .65 .42 E.89 8.1Iron, fil μg/L 151 103 132 83 91 145 56 138 243 115Lead, water, fil μg/L E.06 <.08 .12 .23 .15 .2 E.06 <.12 .11 .26Manganese, fil μg/L 6.9 2.3 5.9 7.4 2.6 5.7 3.7 3 12.4 6Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010Molybdenum, fil μg/L <.4 E.4 <.4 E.3 .4 <.1 .5 .4 E.1 <.2Nickel, fil μg/L .34 .94 .66 .52 .24 .43 .24 .28 .34 .45Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.06 .08 E.05 .09 E.05 .08 .09 .08Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L 1 E.4 2.5 3.8 1.6 3.7 1.2 1.5 2.2 4.3Uranium (natural), fil μg/L E.04 .09 E.03 .06 .14 E.03 .09 .09 .04 02

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 75 85 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 6 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. E.0026 N.D. N.D. E.0036 E.0029 N.D. N.D. N.D. --
46 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

C. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043135Sampling date 5/10/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501152 501595 600148 601525 602662 700664 701609 702321 800006 800218Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 0.77 0.19 1.2 0.76 0.08 3.6 E.05 0.25 0.48 7.3Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 9.1 8.6 11.2 8.3 11.3 10.2 7.2 8.9 9.8 10.8pH, unfil standard 

units

7.5 7.7 8.4 7.9 8.5 7.3 7 7.7 7.4 6.9

Specific conductance μs/cm 92 154 71 121 188 66 215 175 89 42Water temperature oC 14 15.4 8.3 17.7 9.6 9.8 17.2 11 7.6 6.5Hardness, water, fil mg/L 48 90 35 57 91 32 92 88 44 19Calcium, water, fil mg/L 14.1 27.5 10.2 16.8 27.6 9.2 27.8 25.9 12.8 5.51Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 3.19 5.25 2.28 3.67 5.45 2.1 5.59 5.69 2.91 1.38Potassium, water, fil mg/L .84 .71 .64 .71 .72 .7 .82 .66 .57 .62Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.28 1.41 .95 1.36 1.8 .92 1.8 1.83 1.18 .64Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

43 89 30 54 89 26 90 55 37 13

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 52 107 37 66 108 32 109 67 45 16Chloride, water, fil mg/L .24 E.17 .24 .2 .3 .31 .29 .31 .33 .27Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 E.06 E.06 <.10 E.05 <.10 <.10 E.06 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 5.51 8.11 5.26 5.66 10.2 5.07 10.5 8.41 7.51 5.63Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.07 2.02 2.94 4.62 4.23 3.17 4.34 30 5.59 2.86Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 63 112 62 73 121 63 117 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 59 116 62 71 114 67 108 123 77 49Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .31 .33 .28 .37 .14 .41 .19 .3 .34 .35Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .32 .34 .31 .46 .15 .48 .19 .28 .34 .38Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 <.010 E.007 <.020 E.013 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.06 .11 E.03 E.04 .18 <.06 .15 E.05 <.04 .23Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 <.002 <.002 <.002 E.002 E.002 <.002 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 .006 E.003 E.006 E.004 <.006 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .006 .007 .006 .008 E.002 E.005 .008 E.004 E.005 .011Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .012 .02 .01 .017 .006 .024 .011 .009 .009 .018
Appendix 1

C 47

Appendix 1C. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043135Sampling date 5/10/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501152 501595 600148 601525 602662 700664 701609 702321 800006 800218

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 27.7 11.3 34.8 13.1 4.7 59 5.7 7.1 58.8 114Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 .06 E.04 E.06 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .7 1.4 .59 1.2 1.1 .58 1.4 1.1 .76 .37Barium, fil μg/L 11 13 8 12 11 9 14 16 10 7Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 E.01 E.01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 E.03Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .21 .14 .12 .3 E.09 .12 .29 .28Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .059 .106 .054 .05 .04 .05 E.02 .04 .05 .05Copper, water, fil μg/L 1.2 .5 2.5 1.7 .68 5.3 E.36 .58 1.4 1.5Iron, fil μg/L 137 108 135 192 50 120 56 77 167 86Lead, water, fil μg/L E.06 <.08 .08 E.05 <.08 .25 <.12 <.12 E.06 E.04Manganese, fil μg/L 9.9 42.1 6.4 26.6 35.6 5.5 38.8 31.1 17 4.1Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 E.007Molybdenum, fil μg/L E.3 .7 E.2 E.3 .5 .2 .6 .4 .4 E.1Nickel, fil μg/L .65 1.48 .94 .45 .21 .61 .18 .43 .56 .51Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.07 E.07 .08 .09 E.04 .08 .1 .09Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L .9 .6 1.3 .93 <.60 3 .74 1.8 <1.8 E1.5Uranium (natural), fil μg/L .09 .29 .06 .08 .39 .06 .41 .16 .09 .05

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 77 83 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 2 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. N.D. N.D. E.0046 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. --
48 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

D. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek 

at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043137Sampling date 5/10/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501153 501596 600150 601527 602664 700666 701611 702322 800008 800220Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 0.24 0.02 0.31 0.12 0.02 1 E.02 0.03 0.14 1.1Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 8 8.4 9 7.6 7.1 9 6.7 8.4 9.5 9.7pH, unfil standard 

units

7.4 7.9 7 7.8 7.8 6.9 6.9 7.6 7.3 7.6

Specific conductance μs/cm 85 146 67 100 203 66 242 164 87 43Water temperature oC 15.5 15.8 13.5 20.9 12 11.1 19.3 11.8 7.9 8Hardness, water, fil mg/L 46 86 33 49 110 34 110 84 45 21Calcium, water, fil mg/L 13.8 26 10.1 14.5 32.2 10.2 32.5 25.1 13.7 6.29Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.71 5.01 1.91 3.21 6.28 1.93 6.51 5.22 2.65 1.26Potassium, water, fil mg/L .58 .63 .51 .27 .68 .55 .83 .65 .5 .44Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.17 1.56 .93 1.07 1.85 .93 1.92 1.73 1.13 .65Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

41 83 28 45 104 25 106 63 32 15

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 50 101 34 55 126 31 129 76 40 19Chloride, water, fil mg/L E.17 E.12 .25 <.20 .29 .42 .37 .46 .56 .28Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 E.06 E.08 <.10 E.05 <.10 E.08 E.07 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 3.2 8.13 4.22 4.21 13.2 4.37 13.1 9.2 7.79 4.91Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 1.25 1.46 2.53 2.06 2.34 3.11 2.32 19.4 5 2.6Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 68 115 61 72 191 -- 166 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 75 110 64 69 133 75 142 125 99 47Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <25 <20 14 43 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .38 .45 .41 .56 .29 .49 .29 .43 .72 .47Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .41 .44 .49 .61 .48 .58 .6 .54 .65 .45Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 E.02 <.04 .011 .021 <.020 .022 E.013 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.06 .1 <.06 <.06 .11 E.03 .2 E.05 E.02 .07Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.001 .002 <.002 E.002 .002 E.002 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 .01 E.003 .007 E.006 <.006 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .007 .013 .007 .01 .009 E.004 .007 .006 .008 .01Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .016 .021 .013 .018 .065 .033 .086 .025 .013 .023
Appendix 1

D 49

Appendix 1D. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043137Sampling date 5/10/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501153 501596 600150 601527 602664 700666 701611 702322 800008 800220

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 26.5 9.8 54.6 15.2 14 62.4 6.2 11.4 88.1 121Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 .06 <.06 E.06 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .4 .9 .39 .75 .87 .38 67 .63 .55 .32Barium, fil μg/L 10 15 9 13 19 10 18 17 10 6Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .02 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 E.03 E.03 <.04 E.03 E.02 <.04 E.02 E.03Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .21 .12 .11 .27 E.08 .13 .39 .32Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .064 .144 .056 .06 .1 .04 .07 .08 .05 .04Copper, water, fil μg/L .6 E.3 7.8 11.1 6.6 10.2 E.26 .41 1.2 1.1Iron, fil μg/L 119 339 113 192 177 112 147 148 248 128Lead, water, fil μg/L E.04 E.05 .29 .43 .37 .29 <.12 <.12 E.08 E.07Manganese, fil μg/L 15.1 126 5.9 39.1 158 5.7 152 92.2 19.7 3.1Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 E.006Molybdenum, fil μg/L <.4 E.3 <.4 <.4 E.2 .1 .4 .2 E.2 E.1Nickel, fil μg/L .49 1.16 1.06 .73 .38 .57 .18 .3 .57 .32Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.06 .08 E.06 .11 <.08 E.07 .14 .08Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L 1.1 .9 4 7.3 3.3 5.4 1.2 1.8 E1.5 2.3Uranium (natural), fil μg/L E.02 .07 E.02 E.02 .1 E.03 .11 .05 .05 .03

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 71 75 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 1 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. E.0058 N.D. N.D. N.D. E.0025 N.D. at 

1350

N.D. at 

1400

N.D. N.D. --
50 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

E. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek 

near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043138Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501156 501598 600149 601526 602663 700665 701610 702324 800007 800219Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 0.2 0.01 0.38 0.03 0.01 1.2 E0.00 0.03 0.27 2.2Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 10.7 8.7 10.6 7.5 9.3 10.4 7 9.4 10.2 9.9pH, unfil standard 

units

7.7 8 7.2 7.9 8.4 7.1 6.7 7.6 7.3 7.2

Specific conductance μs/cm 74 106 60 101 110 60 141 138 74 43Water temperature oC 8.1 15.1 9.2 18.2 11.2 8.6 18 11.1 8.4 9Hardness, water, fil mg/L 39 60 29 49 52 31 60 65 37 20Calcium, water, fil mg/L 11.6 18.4 8.48 15 15.7 9.25 18.2 19.5 11 5.9Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.43 3.35 1.78 2.85 3.05 1.91 3.59 3.99 2.24 1.3Potassium, water, fil mg/L .52 .67 .45 .42 .58 .54 .77 .62 .37 .54Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.04 1.31 .93 1.09 1.36 1.05 1.46 1.41 1.12 .71Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

35 57 23 40 51 23 60 35 25 15

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 43 69 28 49 62 28 72 42 30 18Chloride, water, fil mg/L .2 .24 .29 E.17 .29 .56 .34 .38 .49 .41Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 <.10 E.06 <.10 <.10 <.10 E.05 E.05 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 6.68 9.61 6.3 7.61 10.2 6.21 11.9 8.66 7.83 5.69Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.13 2.68 3.39 5.72 3.12 3.42 3.1 29.4 5.25 2.77Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 62 82 51 75 74 72 112 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 65 81 47 70 68 77 73 107 68 53Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <11 <20 <10 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .32 .26 .33 .45 .19 .42 .2 .26 .44 .36Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .31 .26 .34 .41 .29 .46 .19 .28 .41 .38Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 E.009 E.007 <.020 024 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.06 .11 <.06 E.03 .1 .07 .12 E.04 .47 .28Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.001 <.002 <.002 E.002 E.002 E.001 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 E.004 E.006 E.004 .009 E.005 E.003 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .004 .009 .005 .009 E.004 E.004 .009 E.004 E.006 .008Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .009 .011 .007 .015 .01 .02 .014 E.007 .008 .018
Appendix 1

E 51

Appendix 1E. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043138Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/26/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501156 501598 600149 601526 602663 700665 701610 702324 800007 800219

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 39.5 14.8 60.7 25.1 11.8 82.1 9.7 12.4 77.5 101Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 E.05 E.04 .07 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .3 .8 .3 .68 .67 .32 .85 .53 .42 .28Barium, fil μg/L 8 11 7 11 10 7 12 13 9 6Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .01 <.01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 E.02 <.04 <.04 E.02 <.04 <.04 <.04 E.03Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .21 .2 .22 .29 .13 .19 .3 .25Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .047 .102 .051 .04 .04 .04 .05 .04 .04 .04Copper, water, fil μg/L 1.5 .5 6.7 3.9 5.7 2.2 .47 .81 2.6 1.5Iron, fil μg/L 92 121 57 70 51 69 90 52 76 55Lead, water, fil μg/L E.05 <.08 .37 .14 .3 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.08 E.04Manganese, fil μg/L 10.3 39.8 4.2 9 13.2 3.1 35.9 15.7 7.2 1.8Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 E.006 <.010 <.010 <.010 E.008Molybdenum, fil μg/L <.4 E.2 <.4 E.2 <.4 .1 .2 .2 E.2 E.1Nickel, fil μg/L .34 .91 1.04 .39 .31 .36 .12 .28 .35 .31Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 .09 .12 E.05 .14 <.08 .08 .15 .09Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L 1.5 E.5 5.6 1.7 2.9 1.4 4.8 3.2 2.7 E1.4Uranium (natural), fil μg/L E.04 .08 .04 .05 .08 .06 .06 E.04 .07 05

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 55 50 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 2 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. E.0025 N.D. N.D. --
52 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

F. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near 

L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043140Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/27/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501155 501599 600151 601528 602665 700667 701612 702323 800005 800221Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 3.3 1.5 5.2 2.4 1 16 1.1 1.8 3.8 30Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 12.6 10.1 14 8.9 10.6 10.4 8.4 10.1 10.3 10.6pH, unfil standard 

units

8.1 8.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.8 8.4 8.2 7.8 7.6

Specific conductance μs/cm 158 228 118 192 241 101 270 229 153 64Water temperature oC 8.8 12.1 12.7 18.4 11.5 6.3 19.2 10.6 8.8 8.5Hardness, water, fil mg/L 84 120 59 94 120 51 130 120 79 30Calcium, water, fil mg/L 25.6 38.2 18.1 28.6 37.8 15.6 38.7 37.5 23.9 9.08Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 4.84 6.71 3.45 5.49 7.04 2.96 7.35 7.24 4.7 1.86Potassium, water, fil mg/L .78 .86 .69 .69 .85 .74 .79 .88 .72 .64Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.33 1.69 1.12 1.45 1.72 1.11 1.71 1.65 1.43 .76Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

78 120 55 92 121 44 126 115 63 26

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 94 144 67 112 148 54 152 138 76 32Chloride, water, fil mg/L .46 <.20 .54 .41 .55 .51 .53 .62 .6 .42Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 E.08 E.06 <.10 <.10 <.10 E.09 E.07 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 8.3 10.6 7.25 8.97 10.8 6.52 10.7 10.5 9.05 5.86Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 3.38 4.32 3.82 3.77 4.96 3.76 4.96 8.44 5.78 3.31Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 108 136 91 107 -- 85 144 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 111 127 77 115 149 87 144 149 114 61Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 11 <10 <10 12 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .2 .1 .25 .23 .11 .34 .14 .14 .31 .35Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .22 .15 .29 .28 .12 .42 .11 .14 .31 .4Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 <.010 E.007 <.020 E.010 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N .07 .15 .06 .1 .15 E.04 .16 .13 .09 .15Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.001 <.002 <.002 E.001 E.002 E.001 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 E.004 .006 E.004 .008 E.006 E.003 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .005 .005 .005 .008 <.004 E.003 E.006 E.003 E.004 .01Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .014 .011 .011 .013 E.004 .025 .011 .008 .009 .03
Appendix 1

F 53

Appendix 1F. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043140Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/27/2005 4/18/2006 7/25/2006 9/11/2006 4/23/2007 7/24/2007 9/11/2007 10/31/2007 4/23/2008Record number 501155 501599 600151 601528 602665 700667 701612 702323 800005 800221

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 16.6 7.9 29.2 16 6.6 34.4 8.9 6.7 23.3 84.7Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 .06 E.03 E.03 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .7 .9 .62 1 .72 .53 1.1 .86 .76 .41Barium, fil μg/L 11 15 11 14 16 9 16 15 12 7Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 E.01 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 E.03 <.04 E.02 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 .08Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .19 .16 .23 .25 .19 .19 .28 .27Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .068 .099 .087 E.03 .04 .04 E.02 E.04 .05 .05Copper, water, fil μg/L .9 .7 4.8 4.1 4.2 1.5 E.31 E.27 E.98 1.6Iron, fil μg/L 142 82 113 73 57 98 42 74 170 112Lead, water, fil μg/L E.05 <.08 .14 .21 .22 <.12 <.12 <.12 E.07 E.08Manganese, fil μg/L 22.1 18.1 12.3 9.1 12.9 9.4 7.9 12 19.3 5.7Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010Molybdenum, fil μg/L E.3 E.3 E.2 E.3 E.3 .2 .3 .3 .2 E.1Nickel, fil μg/L .57 1.57 1.3 .42 .3 .34 .1 .24 .32 .37Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.07 .09 .09 .1 <.08 .09 .1 .08Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L E.6 E.5 2.6 3.8 2.3 1.2 E.50 1.2 E1.7 2.1Uranium (natural), fil μg/L .2 .4 .14 .23 .37 .07 .34 .29 .17 .05

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 75 33 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 --Cyanide mg/L E.0035 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. at 

1600

E.0032 at 

1610

N.D. E.0024 N.D. --
54 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

G. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Dakota Creek at trail crossing near L’Anse, 

Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043146Sampling date 5/12/2005 7/28/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/12/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501158 501601 600152 601530 602667 700669 701615 702327 800003 800224Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 6.1 0.83 11 3.4 0.57 27 0.35 1.4 9.6 55Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 11.2 8.9 14.7 8.6 10.4 11.2 7.4 10.2 11.1 10.6pH, unfil standard 

units

7.9 7.9 7.6 7.9 8 7.9 7.3 7.8 7.3 7.4

Specific conductance μs/cm 66 109 61 99 123 51 125 115 68 38Water temperature oC 5.5 15.1 8.1 18.4 11 7.4 18.2 10.2 8.1 8.5Hardness, water, fil mg/L 34 56 27 48 57 24 60 57 32 18Calcium, water, fil mg/L 10.3 17.7 8.21 15 17.8 7.33 18.4 17.2 9.62 5.4Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.02 2.94 1.59 2.58 3.11 1.43 3.34 3.28 1.88 1.11Potassium, water, fil mg/L .57 .83 .59 .91 .82 .53 .9 .9 .64 .59Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.06 1.41 1 1.14 1.41 .92 1.5 1.55 1.1 .72Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

29 54 20 44 57 17 51 47 29 13

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 36 65 25 53 69 20 62 57 35 15Chloride, water, fil mg/L .34 .4 33 .51 .62 .6 .57 .8 .55 .49Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 <.10 E.07 <.10 E.05 <.10 <.10 E.06 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 6.11 7.32 5.53 7.15 7.82 5.43 7.58 7.92 7.54 5.86Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.63 2.48 3.36 2.67 3.04 4.34 3.19 9.05 3.81 2.9Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 47 77 51 66 81 47 88 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 59 70 55 59 78 58 84 87 61 36Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .27 .2 .34 .36 .17 .42 .15 .25 .35 .33Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .3 .23 .31 .37 .18 .38 .18 .25 .38 .36Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 <.010 <.010 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N .07 .18 .1 .1 .11 E.05 .17 E.06 .12 .1Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 .002 E.001 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 E.005 <.006 E.005 E.006 <.006 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .006 .005 .006 .01 .005 E.003 <.006 E.005 E.006 .008Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .011 .012 .011 .02 .007 .012 .009 E.007 .011 .018
Appendix 1

G 55

Appendix 1G. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Dakota Creek at trail crossing near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043146Sampling date 5/12/2005 7/28/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/12/2006 4/24/2007 7/25/2007 9/12/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501158 501601 600152 601530 602667 700669 701615 702327 800003 800224

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 30.3 9.5 48.6 17.4 12.6 81 6.7 11.8 59.2 100Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 .07 E.04 E.04 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .4 .5 .35 .7 .36 .35 .46 .56 .42 .34Barium, fil μg/L 10 16 9 15 19 9 17 14 11 8Beryllium, fil μg/L <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .01 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L <.04 <.04 <.04 E.03 .06 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 E.02Chromium, fil μg/L <.8 <.8 .26 .2 .12 .28 E.11 .17 .29 .29Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .06 .081 .072 .05 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .05Copper, water, fil μg/L 1.4 .9 2.5 5.5 16.3 2.2 1.1 .83 1.4 1.8Iron, fil μg/L 286 287 182 416 140 152 121 304 271 129Lead, water, fil μg/L .1 <.08 .09 .32 .41 E.11 <.12 <.12 E.06 E.08Manganese, fil μg/L 10.9 11.9 8.6 12.9 10.8 7.7 15.7 12.7 13.9 7.5Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010Molybdenum, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 E.1 .2 .2 E.1 <.2Nickel, fil μg/L .39 .96 .87 .53 .82 .5 .3 .46 .43 .45Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.07 .1 .09 .1 E.07 .1 .11 .1Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L 1 2.6 1.5 2.8 8.1 7.9 .98 .89 2.1 E1.7Uranium (natural), fil μg/L .04 .06 .05 .05 .08 05 .05 .06 .06 .05

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 67 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 1 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. E.0024 N.D. N.D. N.D. --
56 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 1

H. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River near L’Anse, 

Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043150Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/28/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/13/2006 4/25/2007 7/26/2007 9/12/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501154 501602 600153 601532 602669 700671 701616 702326 800001 800222Streamflow, instantaneous ft3/s 61 12 137 30 11 217 6.5 16 71 625Dissolved oxygen, unfil mg/L 11.7 9.8 12 8.8 8.6 11.5 6.7 10.8 12.1 12.1pH, unfil standard 

units

7.9 8.2 7.5 8.1 7.9 7.2 7.8 8.3 7.5 7.2

Specific conductance μs/cm 86 148 55 138 181 46 192 163 77 32Water temperature oC 10.5 18.3 10.3 23.5 12.1 6.6 22.9 12 5.9 6Hardness, water, fil mg/L 45 78 24 67 89 23 91 84 38 15Calcium, water, fil mg/L 13.3 23.7 7.28 20.1 26.7 6.76 26.9 24.8 11.4 4.52Magnesium, water, fil mg/L 2.74 4.48 1.49 4.07 5.32 1.44 5.73 5.28 2.35 .97Potassium, water, fil mg/L .61 .81 .48 .77 .76 .45 .9 .79 .55 .5Sodium, water, fil mg/L 1.26 1.74 .79 1.62 2.03 .82 2.21 1.97 1.17 .59Alkalinity, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L as 

CaCO3

39 75 18 61 95 18 99 73 30 11

Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/L 48 90 22 74 116 21 120 88 36 13Chloride, water, fil mg/L .59 1.1 .32 1 1.4 .46 1.67 1.34 .73 .5Fluoride, water, fil mg/L <.10 E.07 .11 <.10 E.07 <.10 E.07 E.07 <.12 <.12Silica, water, fil mg/L 5.77 7.05 4.66 7.31 8.41 4.62 7.29 7.89 7.08 4.81Sulfate, water, fil mg/L 2.46 3.19 2.82 3.7 3.83 3.22 3.92 8.08 4.01 2.59Residue on evaporation, dried at 105oC, unfil mg/L 64 100 58 84 112 56 98 -- -- --Residue on evaporation, dried at 180oC, unfil mg/L 65 94 45 87 111 49 117 108 76 42Residue, total nonfilterable mg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -- -- --

Nutrients

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/L as N .24 .2 .29 .2 .13 .38 .15 .18 .35 .3Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/L as N .29 .18 .27 .29 E.09 .32 .23 .21 .35 .35Ammonia, water, fil mg/L as N <.04 <.04 <.04 <.010 E.006 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N E.04 <.06 E.03 E.04 E.03 E.03 E.04 E.04 .04 .13Nitrite, water, fil mg/L as N <.008 <.008 <.008 E.001 <.002 <.002 <.002 .002 E.001 E.001Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/L as P <.02 <.02 <.02 <.006 .006 E.003 E.004 E.005 <.006 E.004Phosphorus, water, fil mg/L .006 E.004 .006 .007 E.003 E.004 E.003 E.003 .018 .009Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/L .009 .007 .012 .011 .005 .018 .011 E.005 .009 .042
Appendix 1

H 57

Appendix 1H. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and cyanide, Silver River near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; E, estimated value; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; fil, filtered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; --, no data; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mm, millimeter; N.D., analyte not detected at method detection limit]

Property or constituent U.S. Geological Survey station 04043150Sampling date 5/11/2005 7/28/2005 4/19/2006 7/26/2006 9/13/2006 4/25/2007 7/26/2007 9/12/2007 10/30/2007 4/24/2008Record number 501154 501602 600153 601532 602669 700671 701616 702326 800001 800222

Metals

Aluminum, fil μg/L 32.7 7.8 72.1 12.6 4.5 87.2 3.7 5.4 69 105Antimony, fil μg/L <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 <.20 .11 E.05 E.05 <.14 <.14Arsenic, fil μg/L .5 .8 .38 .77 .62 .41 .9 .74 .54 .36Barium, fil μg/L 12 18 8 16 20 8 24 18 10 5Beryllium, fil μg/L E.05 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 .01 .01Cadmium, fil μg/L E.02 <.04 E.02 <.04 E.02 .04 <.04 <.04 .04 .33Chromium, fil μg/L E.4 <.8 .22 .13 .12 .24 E.11 .14 .28 .27Cobalt, water, fil μg/L .068 .082 .064 .04 .04 .06 .05 .05 .06 .06Copper, water, fil μg/L 1 .6 3.1 .75 2 5.2 .69 .48 1.4 1.3Iron, fil μg/L 140 98 122 126 97 120 85 144 240 129Lead, water, fil μg/L E.05 <.08 .11 <.08 .13 .44 <.12 <.12 .16 .1Manganese, fil μg/L 10.3 7.6 9.9 12.2 8.2 7.5 28.2 11 14.7 5.8Mercury, fil μg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010Molybdenum, fil μg/L E.2 E.4 <.4 E.3 E.3 .1 .4 .3 E.1 <.2Nickel, fil μg/L .52 1.15 .81 .27 .43 .5 .23 .36 .49 .36Selenium, fil μg/L <.4 <.4 E.06 .08 E.06 .09 E.07 .09 .1 .08Silver, fil μg/L <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1Zinc, fil μg/L .8 .7 2.1 1.6 2.6 15.1 .89 1.7 2.6 2Uranium (natural), fil μg/L .06 .15 .05 .1 .18 .07 .15 .15 .06 .03

Suspended sediment

Suspended sediment, sieve diameter Percent 

<0.063 mm

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50 33 --

Suspended sediment concentration mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 --Cyanide mg/L N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. --
58 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08 Appendix 2. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, nutrients, and metals in bed-sediment samples, Silver River Watershed, Michigan. [°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; μS/cm @ 25°C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NA, not analyzed; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; μg/g, micrograms per gram] Constituent Units U.S. Geological Survey station identification number 04043126 04043135 04043137 04043138 04043140 04043146 04043150 Strontium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 62 73 69 76 77 62 59 Sulfur, bed sediment, dry weight In percent .01 .02 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 Thorium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 Uranium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 1.5 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.3 Vanadium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 42 29 28 43 34 36 31 Yttrium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 12 14 12 16 16 16 14 Zinc, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 48 36 36 49 35 38 29 Calcium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 4,450 5,230 4,930 6,530 6,390 4,660 3,420 Potassium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 20,200 23,300 20,600 21,700 21,900 25,700 22,200 Magnesium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 5,650 3,920 3,310 5,420 3,980 4,010 3,020 Sodium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 6,540 6,950 6,760 7,830 7,710 6,100 5,880 Carbon (inorganic plus organic), bed sediment, dry weight Percent, by weight .70 1.6 2.1 2.9 2.4 2.8 1.1 Bismuth, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g NA .06 .06 NA .06 .06 .06 Cerium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 25 27 23 30 26 32 24 Gallium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 7 7 6 8 7 7 6 Lanthanum, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 14 18 14 20 16 21 14 Rubidium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 52 56 52 56 53 64 54 Cesium, bed sediment, dry weight μg/g 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.1
Appendixes 2 and 3A 59

Appendix 3A. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, Silver River upstream of East Branch 

near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043126

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae 2 

 Ephemerellidae 45 

 Heptageniidae 33 

 Leptophlebiidae 97 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Aeshnidae 3 

 Cordulegastridae 1 

 Zygoptera (damselflies)

 Calopterygidae 6 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Perlodidae 32 

 Pteronarcyidae 4 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies) 5 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Brachycentridae 13 

 Hydropsychidae 51 

 Limnephilidae 3 

 Molannidae 1 

 Philopotamidae 22 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Dytiscidae (total) 4 

 Elmidae 25 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 5 

 Chironomidae 20 

 Simuliidae 7 

 Tipulidae 7 

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 391 

Appendix 3A. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, Silver 

River upstream of East Branch near L’Anse, Baraga County, 

Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043126

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 22 0 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 4 0 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 5 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 2 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 45.27 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 23.02 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 24.81 0 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH 1.28 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS 1.02 1 

TOTAL SCORE 4 
60 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Appendix 3B. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, Silver River at Arvon Road near L’Anse, 

Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043131

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae 32 

 Ephemerellidae 6 

 Heptageniidae 24 

 Leptophlebiidae 28 

 Siphlonuridae 5 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Aeshnidae 4 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Pteronarcyidae 6 

 Taeniopterygidae 13 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies) 7 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Brachycentridae 2 

 Glossosomatidae 2 

 Helicopsychidae 7 

 Hydropsychidae 1 

 Limnephilidae 1 

 Philopotamidae 17 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Chrysomelidae (adults) 2 

 Elmidae 17 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 2 

 Ceratopogonidae 1 

 Chironomidae 15 

 Simuliidae 16 

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 209

Appendix 3B. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

Silver River at Arvon Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, 

Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043131

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 22 0 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 5 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 6 1 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 2 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 45.45 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 14.35 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 15.31 1 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .48 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .96 1 

TOTAL SCORE 7 
Appendixes 3B and 3C 61

Appendix 3C. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road 

near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043135

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ANNELIDA (segmented worms)

 Hirudinea (leeches) 2

ARTHROPODA

 Crustacea

 Isopoda (sowbugs) 1

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae 18 

 Caenidae

 Ephemerellidae 12 

 Heptageniidae 15 

 Leptophlebiidae 51 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Aeshnidae 1 

 Cordulegastridae 14 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Capniidae 7 

 Leuctridae 41 

 Hemiptera (true bugs)

 Gerridae 2 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies)

 Sialidae (alder flies) 6 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Hydropsychidae 8 

 Leptoceridae 6 

 Limnephilidae 6 

 Philopotamidae 10 

 Polycentropodidae 45 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Elmidae 4 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 1 

 Ceratopogonidae 17 

 Chironomidae 30 

 Simuliidae 4 

 Tabanidae 1 

 Tipulidae 13 

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 315

Appendix 3C. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

upper Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near Herman, 

Baraga County, Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043135

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 24 1 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 4 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 5 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 2 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 30.48 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 23.81 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 16.19 1 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .95 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .63 1 

TOTAL SCORE 7 
62 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Appendix 3D. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, East Branch Tributary to Gomanche 

Creek at Indian Road near Herman,

Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043137

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Ephemerellidae Epherella 43

 Heptageniidae Stenonema 13

 Leptophlebiidae

 Paraleptophlebia 39

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Cordulegastridae 9

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Leuctridae Leuctra 10

 Hemiptera (true bugs)

 Gerridae 2

 Megaloptera

 Sialidae (alder flies) 4

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Hydropsychidae 34

 Lepidostomatidae 6

 Philopotamidae 10

 Rhyacophilidae 24

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Hydrophilidae (total) 1

 Elmidae 3

 Diptera (flies)

 Ceratopogonidae 20

 Chironomidae 50

 Ptychopteridae 1

 Thaumaleidae 2

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 308

Appendix 3D. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

East Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near 

Herman, Baraga County, Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043137

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 18 1 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 3 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 4 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 1 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 30.84 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 24.03 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 16.23 1 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .00 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS 1.30 1 

TOTAL SCORE 7 
Appendixes 3D and 3E 63

Appendix 3E. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, West Branch Tributary to Gomanche 

Creek near Herman, Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043138

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ANNELIDA (segmented worms)

 Oligochaeta (worms) 2

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae 13 

 Ephemerellidae 82 

 Leptophlebiidae 31 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Cordulegastridae 2 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Perlodidae 15 

 Hemiptera (true bugs)

 Gerridae 1 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies) 1 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Glossosomatidae 6 

 Hydropsychidae 23 

 Limnephilidae 26 

 Molannidae 2 

 Philopotamidae 8 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Chrysomelidae (adults) 2 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 5 

 Ceratopogonidae 1 

 Chironomidae 84 

 Tipulidae 7 

MOLLUSCA

 Pelecypoda (bivalves)

 Unionidae (mussels) 2

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 314

Appendix 3E. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

West Branch Tributary to Gomanche Creek near Herman, Baraga 

County, Michigan. —Continued

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043138

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 20 1 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 3 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 5 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 1 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 40.13 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 20.70 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 26.75 0 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .32 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .96 1 

TOTAL SCORE 6 
64 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Appendix 3F. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near 

L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043140

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae Pseudocloeon 11 

 Ephemerellidae Ephemerlla 28 

 Heptageniidae Stenonma 21 

 Heptageniidae Rhitrogena 35 

 Leptophlebiidae Paralephlebia 48 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Aeshnidae 1 

 Cordulegastridae 3 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Nemouridae 23 

 Perlodidae 16 

 Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcella 1 

 Taeniopterygidae 1 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Brachycentridae 1 

 Glossosomatidae 1 

 Hydropsychidae 31 

 Polycentropodidae 4 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Elmidae 8 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 29 

 Ceratopogonidae 5 

 Chironomidae 11 

 Ephydridae 1 

 Simuliidae 4 

 Tipulidae 17 

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 300 

Appendix 3F. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

Gomanche Creek at Indian Road near L’Anse, Baraga County, 

Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043140

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 22 1 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 5 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 4 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 4 0 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 47.67 0 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 12.33 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 16.00 0 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .00 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .00 0 

TOTAL SCORE 3 
Appendixes 3F and 3G 65

Appendix 3G. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, Dakota Creek at trail crossing near 

L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043146

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

ANNELIDA (segmented worms)

 Hirudinea (leeches) 2

 Oligochaeta (worms) 2

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetidae 3 

 Ephemerellidae 9 

 Heptageniidae 32 

 Leptophlebiidae 51 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Cordulegastridae 4 

 Gomphidae 2 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Peltoperlidae 23 

 Perlidae 13 

 Pteronarcyidae 1 

 Hemiptera (true bugs)

 Gerridae 1 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies) 8 

 Sialidae (alder flies) 3 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Hydropsychidae 31 

 Lepidostomatidae 1 

 Limnephilidae 6 

 Philopotamidae 44 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Elmidae 13 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 19 

 Ceratopogonidae 5 

 Chironomidae 24 

 Simuliidae 3 

 Tipulidae 21 

MOLLUSCA

 Pelecypoda (bivalves)

 Unionidae (mussels) 1

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 324

Appendix 3G. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

Dakota Creek at trail crossing near L’Anse, Baraga County, 

Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043146

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 26 1 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 4 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 4 0 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 3 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 29.32 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 25.31 0 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 15.74 1 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH 1.23 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .31 1 

TOTAL SCORE 7 
66 Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08

Appendix 3H. Results of macroinvertebrate 

sampling, Silver River near L’Anse, 

Baraga County, Michigan.

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043150

Taxa Quantity of 

individuals

PORIFERA (sponges) 1

ANNELIDA (segmented worms)

 Oligochaeta (worms) 3

ARTHROPODA

Insecta

 Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

 Baetiscidae 2 

 Baetidae 9 

 Ephemerellidae 11 

 Heptageniidae 77 

 Leptophlebiidae 37 

 Odonata 

 Anisoptera (dragonflies)

 Cordulegastridae 1 

 Gomphidae 5 

 Zygoptera (damselflies)

 Calopterygidae 1 

 Plecoptera (stoneflies)

 Perlidae 9 

 Perlodidae 9 

 Megaloptera

 Corydalidae (dobson flies) 10 

 Trichoptera (caddisflies)

 Brachycentridae 6 

 Helicopsychidae 10 

 Hydropsychidae 86 

 Lepidostomatidae 4 

 Limnephilidae 5 

 Philopotamidae 13 

 Coleoptera (beetles)

 Elmidae 44 

 Diptera (flies)

 Athericidae 7 

 Ceratopogonidae 4 

 Chironomidae 18 

 Culicidae 1 

 Simuliidae 1 

 Tipulidae 13 

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 388 

Appendix 3H. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling, 

Silver River near L’Anse, Baraga County, Michigan. —Continued 

U.S. Geological Survey station 04043150

Metric Value Score

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA 27 0 

NUMBER OF MAYFLY TAXA 5 1 

NUMBER OF CADDISFLY TAXA 6 1 

NUMBER OF STONEFLY TAXA 2 1 

PERCENT MAYFLY COMPOSITION 35.05 1 

PERCENT CADDISFLY COMPOSITION 31.96 1 

PERCENT DOMINANT TAXON 22.16 0 

PERCENT ISOPOD, SNAIL, LEECH .26 1 

PERCENT SURFACE AIR BREATHERS .26 1 

TOTAL SCORE 7 

Weaver, Sullivan, Rachol, and Ellis—Water Quality and Hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08—SIR 2010–5050

Printed on recycled paper