DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigating the Feasibility of River Restoration at Argo Pond on the Huron River, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigating the Feasibility of River Restoration at Argo Pond on the Huron River, Ann Arbor, Michigan INVESTIGATING THE FEASIBILITY OF RIVER RESTORATION AT ARGO POND ON THE HURON RIVER, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN By: Wendy M. Adams Meghan Cauzillo Kathleen Chiang Sara L. Deuling Attila Tislerics A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan August 2004 Faculty Advisor: Associate Professor Gloria Helfand ABSTRACT People have long used dams and reservoirs to produce energy, store water, control floods, provide recreation, and spur economic development. Dams also have negative impacts on rivers, such as habitat damage and water shortages downstream. Across the country, state and federal agencies are examining dam removal as a means to restore the ecological integrity of rivers. Argo Dam on the Huron River in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been identified by the state Department of Natural Resources as a candidate for removal and ecological restoration. For an informed decision to be made on removal, much research is necessary, including studies on hydrologic, ecologic, economic, and social impacts. Our project focused on the human aspects of this issue, with the goal of evaluating the political and economic feasibility of restoring the Argo area. This included identifying stakeholders and determining the value of the dam and pond for users and local residents. Our research methods included a mail survey, interviews, and literature review. We found that the Argo area, and the dam in particular, is not well known among Ann Arbor residents. Nonetheless, after a description of the tradeoffs involved, dam removal was generally supported by residents and the net willingness to pay for removal was approximately $20 per adult per year. Differences in perceptions about the Argo area varied by proximity to the dam with residents living no farther than one mile from the dam having more familiarity and experience with the site than the average Ann Arbor resident. Removal of Argo Dam is strongly opposed by the rowing community, Argo Pond’s most important recreational user group. Due in part to lack of funds, the Ann Arbor City government does not consider removal of Argo Dam to be a priority, but sedimentation and growth of aquatic plants in the pond will require modification of present usage and management practices in the relatively near future. Our client, the Huron River Watershed Council, plans to use our findings to augment ecological and other data that they are gathering to develop proposals for the future of Argo Pond and Dam. i Executive Summary INVESTIGATING THE FEASIBILITY OF RIVER RESTORATION AT ARGO POND ON THE HURON RIVER, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN INTRODUCTION In 1995, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources conducted an assessment of the Huron River and identified Argo Dam, along with other dams on the river, as a candidate for removal, as it no longer serves its original purpose of producing hydropower, and its removal could benefit the aquatic environment for this urban stretch of the Huron River (Hay- Chmielewski et al. 1995). In this study, we have examined the social, political, and economic feasibility of removing Argo Dam using stakeholder interviews, an economic analysis, and a mail-based survey. We sought to answer questions about the community’s knowledge and perceptions about the dam, the ways in which the community and various stakeholders use the site in its current configuration, the economic values of Argo Dam and Argo Pond as they currently exist, the public’s willingness to pay for dam removal or dam maintenance, and the process and players involved in decisions about the future of Argo Dam. BACKGROUND Argo Dam in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is one of nineteen dams that impound the main stem of the Huron River. Argo Dam is eighteen feet high and 1940 feet long; 190 feet are composed of the spillway gates and sluice gates, while 1750 feet are earthen embankment (City of Ann Arbor 1971). Argo Dam creates a 92-acre impoundment called Argo Pond, which extends approximately one mile upstream from the dam. The average depth of Argo Pond is ten feet (Barr Engineering Co. 2002). It was originally built to provide power to small mills and was converted hydropower in the early 20th century, but it has been deactivated since 1959. It is now owned by the City of Ann Arbor, and provides mainly recreational benefits associated with the pond and surrounding parkland. In recent decades, it has become apparent that Argo Dam and Pond produce ecological costs, which were not understood or considered at the time of construction. It presents a physical iii barrier to the movement of fish, mussels and other aquatic organisms, many species of which require migration as part of their life cycles. Eutrophication is accelerated in the pond; it offers very different habitat conditions from those that would otherwise be present. The water is warmer and less oxygenated than a free-flowing river. The impoundment reduces the velocity of the river, trapping nutrients which encourage plant growth and releasing sediment which, together with additional sediment from decaying plant material, buries the original bottom substrate habitat needed by many aquatic species. The operation of the dam’s gates alters the hydrology of the Huron River: the gates open and close rather abruptly, frequently sending large rushes of water downstream. This has a scouring effect along the banks and bottom of the river, increasing erosion and destroying fish nests. Steve Blumer, with the US Geological Survey (USGS), claims Argo Dam is one of the most extreme examples of dams negatively affecting a river’s natural hydrology (Blumer 2003). Removal of Argo Dam would transform a mile-long section of the river from a lake to a free- flowing, high-gradient river. Currently, every high gradient portion of the Huron River’s main stem is dammed from Commerce Township to Lake Erie (Hay-Chmielewski et al. 1995). This is not atypical; in the state of Michigan, dams impound ninety percent of high gradient rivers and one hundred percent of those flowing into the Great Lakes (Blumer 2003). If river restoration were pursued, Argo Pond would be drained, narrowing the river and likely returning its flow to the channel it occupied over a century ago (Riggs 2003). Much of the land that is currently submerged beneath Argo Pond would become available to the City of Ann Arbor for additional riparian parkland and natural areas (Miller 2003; Naud 2003). METHODS We used interviews, review of relevant documents and academic literature, and a mail-based survey to gather data for this project. Interviews took place in two phases: an initial series was used to gather background information and plan the survey, and a second series of interviews focused on the interests and perspectives of the various stakeholders. The survey gathered data on usage of and attitudes toward the Argo site. We also used the contingent valuation method to estimate the survey respondents’ willingness to pay either to keep or to remove Argo Dam. The survey sample was divided into two strata; 1000 recipients were selected from iv within one mile of the Argo site, and another 1000 were selected from the rest of the city of Ann Arbor. SURVEY RESULTS Our survey response rate was 49%. Demographically, our survey achieved a broad but not wholly representative sample of the Ann Arbor population. The most notable pattern was underrepresentation of younger, less educated, and lower-income individuals, particularly in the stratum drawn from within one mile of the Argo site. This area is heavily populated by students; due to their transience, relatively few students were included in the source lists from which our samples were drawn. Attitudes and Usage We estimated that 43% of the adult residents of the study area (approximately the city of Ann Arbor) visited the Argo area in the 12 months prior to the survey; almost 22% have never been to the Argo area and are not familiar with it. Residents throughout our study area use Argo Pond or the parks around it; we estimate that people who live more than one mile from the pond account for nearly half of the recreational activity occurrences at the site. The most popular activities at Argo were walking, running, and bicycling, with 53% of the surveyed residents participating; 5% or fewer of the study area residents fished, kayaked, rowed, or skied there. However, over 64% of the kayaking and over 95% of the rowing done by adults in our study area was done at Argo, suggesting that Argo is an important site for these activities. Respondents generally were supportive of parkland and open space. They felt more familiar with and favorable toward the parks around the pond than toward the pond and the dam itself. About 60% of respondents expressed opinions about the parks around Argo Pond; the remainder indicated they were neutral, didn’t know, or didn’t answer the question. In contrast, only about 44% and 35% of respondents expressed opinions about Argo Pond and Argo Dam, respectively. Of those who expressed opinions about the parks, 95% had favorable opinions. Seventy-three percent (73%) of respondents with opinions were favorable toward Argo Pond and were least favorable toward the pond’s water quality. Just 49% of those with opinions about the dam expressed favorable opinions. v In response to two questions asking whether Argo Dam should be removed or remain in place, about 60% of respondents indicated no preference; of those expressing a preference, small majorities favored keeping the dam. However, when later asked in a referendum format whether they supported dam removal at no cost to them, given only “Yes” or “No” alternatives, fewer than 7% gave no response, and 62% of those who responded indicated they would vote to remove the dam.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Huron River History Book
    THE HURON RIVER Robert Wittersheim Over 15,000 years ago, the Huron River was born as a small stream draining the late Pleistocene landscape. Its original destination was Lake Maumee at present day Ypsilanti where a large delta was formed. As centuries passed, ceding lake levels allowed the Huron to meander over new land eventually settling into its present valley. Its 125 mile journey today begins at Big Lake near Pontiac and ends in Lake Erie. The Huron’s watershed, which includes 367 miles of tributaries, drains over 900 square miles of land. The total drop in elevation from source to mouth is nearly 300 feet. The Huron’s upper third is clear and fast, even supporting a modest trout fishery. The middle third passes through and around many lakes in Livingston and Washtenaw Counties. Eight dams impede much of the Huron’s lower third as it flows through populous areas it helped create. Over 47 miles of this river winds through publicly owned lands, a legacy from visionaries long since passed. White Lake White Lake Mary Johnson The Great Lakes which surround Michigan and the thousands of smaller lakes, hundreds of rivers, streams and ponds were formed as the glacier ice that covered the land nearly 14,000 years ago was melting. The waters filled the depressions in the earth. The glaciers deposited rock, gravel and soil that had been gathered in their movement. This activity sculpted the land creating our landscape. In section 28 of Springfield Township, Oakland County, a body of water names Big Lake by the area pioneers is the source of the Huron River.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron River Report – Fall 2017
    Huron River Report Published quarterly by the Huron River Watershed Council FALL 2017 feature story Fishing the Home Waters Huron River becomes a destination for anglers The naturally nutrient-rich waters establishment of bait and guide shops of the Huron River and some of its in the watershed (see list, page 5). tributaries offer great habitat for a Here is the angler’s report. wide variety of fish. The prize fish found in these home waters attract The upper Huron anglers from diverse backgrounds, The upper headwaters of the Huron using an array of fishing styles. contain lakes with a variety of sizes Annually, the Huron River attracts and depths, producing a diversity 250,000 visitor-days for fishing, of fish populations. Larger lakes according to a study by Grand Valley like Kent and Pontiac have public State University (see article, page 10). access points that anglers can use So what are all these anglers looking to test the fishing waters. Many of for and how are they doing it? The the smaller lakes are private and answer depends on who you ask and accessible only by those owning where you are on the river system. lakefront property. Typically, anglers HRWC staff talk with many excited in the headwaters region approach anglers about their observations, by boat, floating or anchoring off These big smallmouth beauties can be successes, failures, and ideas shoals, underwater ridges or natural found at many locations along the river. about improving the game fishery. credit: Schultz Outfitters This interest encourages the continued on page 4 Planning Ahead Local governments and residents are key to the health of the Huron The Huron River is currently the supplies the Huron with clear, cool, spaces to the watershed’s health, it is cleanest river in Southeast Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Edison Power Plant Historic District
    Final Report of the Historic District Study Committee for the City of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, Michigan This Report has been prepared by the Historic District Study Committee appointed by the City Council, City of Ypsilanti, Michigan, on July 15, 2008, to study and report on the feasibility of providing legal protection to the Edison Power Plant, Dam, and Peninsular Paper Company Sign by creating the three-resource Edison Power Plant Historic District Submitted to Ypsilanti City Council December 15, 2009 Contents Charge of the Study Committee .............................................................................. 1 Composition of the Study Committee ..................................................................... 1 Verbal boundary description (legal property description) .................................. 2 Visual boundary description (maps) ...................................................................... 2 Washtenaw County GIS aerial view of Peninsular Park, location of Edison Power Plant, showing power plant, dam, parking area, park pavilion, & dock City of Ypsilanti zoning map showing Peninsular Park City of Ypsilanti Image/Sketch for Parcel: 11-11-05-100-013 Sanborn Insurance map, 1916 Sanborn Insurance map, 1927 Proposed Boundary Description, Justification, & Context Photos ...................... 8 Criteria for Evaluating Resources .......................................................................... 11 Michigan’s Local Historic Districts Act, 1970 PA 169 U.S. Secretary of the Interior National Register
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Huron River Watershed Report
    The Huron River Data Report The Lower Huron River Creekshed Profile The Huron River flows 125 miles from its headwaters at Big Lake, near Pontiac in Oakland County, to its mouth at Lake Erie in Monroe County. HRWC divides the river into five sections based on its geology, ecology, and hydrology. This re- port is based on the section that runs from French Landing Dam, on the downstream end of Belleville Lake, to the mouth of the Huron River at Lake Erie. The land immediately around the Huron River in this section (yellow area in map below) is the focus of this report. In this section, the Huron River achieves a mature river form; it is very wide and slow-moving. There is an abundance of wetlands along its banks and the entire drainage area is flat. The river’s final large dam (originally created to produce hy- droelectric power) is found at Flat Rock. Below this point, the drainage area narrows rapidly, with land and water merging into marshlands that nurture a rich variety of fish and fowl. Two international migratory flyways intersect over Pointe Mouillee. At the mouth of the Huron, diked and drained land supports productive traditional agriculture. Throughout this section, one can sense the presence of a larger body of water (Lake Erie), a longer history of human habitation, and the influence of the river on the lives of the people who live here. The main branch in this section is 46 miles. It has a gradient of 1.2 feet per mile, which is very flat.
    [Show full text]
  • Millers Creek Watershed Manangment Plan Part 2
    5. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section is a general overview of conditions of Millers Creek and its watershed. Descriptions of individual reaches (sections of the stream) are also summarized in this chapter. Detailed descriptions of individual reaches within the creek, along with detailed site maps and photographs can be found in Appendix D. All the mapping data, in ArcMap format, can be found in Appendix E. A map of the reaches is shown in Figure 5.1. Each reach is referred to by the sampling station name at the downstream end of that reach. For example, the Plymouth reach ends at the Plymouth sampling station and includes all channel upstream of this sampling station. The Baxter reach begins at the Plymouth sampling station and ends at the Baxter sampling station. In some areas, the reaches are broken up into sub-reaches due to the heterogeneity of conditions within that reach. 5.1 General conditions Climate In Ann Arbor on average, 32-35 inches of total annual precipitation falls during roughly 120 days of the year (UM weather station data, See Appendix F). Over half the days with precipitation, the total precipitation amounts to 0.1 inches or less. On any given year, 90% of all daily precipitation events result in a 24-hour total depth of 0.66 inches or less. It is also highly probable in any given year that there are only 3 or 5 events with a 24-hour total of an inch or more of precipitation. During January, typically the coldest month of the year, temperatures average between 16 and 30 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
    [Show full text]
  • Peninsular Paper Dam: Dam Removal Assessment and Feasibility Report Huron River, Washtenaw County, Michigan
    Silver Brook Watershed Riparian Buffer Restoration Report Great Swamp Watershed Association July 2018 PENINSULAR PAPER DAM: DAM REMOVAL ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY REPORT HURON RIVER, WASHTENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN SEPTEMBER 2018 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: HURON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL PRINCETON HYDRO 1100 NORTH MAIN, SUITE 210 931 MAIN STREET, SUITE 2 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SOUTH GLASTONBURY, CT 06073 734-769-5123 860-652-8911 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Three Critical Issues ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Firm Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Review of Existing Files and Historical Documents ......................................................................................................... 3 Field Investigation, Survey, and Observations ................................................................................................................ 4 Vibracoring and Sediment Sampling ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan
    Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan Our vision for the future of the Huron River in Ann Arbor can be summarized as: A healthy Huron River ecosystem that provides a diverse set of ecosystem services. We envision a swimmable, fishable and boatable river, including both free-flowing and impounded segments, which is celebrated as Ann Arbor’s most important natural feature and contributes to the vibrancy of life in the city. The river and its publicly-owned shoreline and riparian areas create a blue and green corridor across the city that contains restored natural areas and adequate, well-sited public trails and access. Ample drinking water, effective wastewater removal and a full range of high quality passive and active recreation and education opportunities are provided to the citizens of Ann Arbor. Ongoing public engagement in the river’s management leads to greater stewardship and reduced conflict among users. Our approach to management creates a model that other communities upstream and downstream emulate. Executive Summary The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan Committee is pleased to provide the following draft plan, report, and recommendations to the Environmental Commission and City Council for their review and approval. The committee has met for the past two years to better understand the sometimes-complex interrelationships among the Huron river ecology, community recreation preferences, the effect of dams on river processes, and the economic implications of different recommendations. The Committee heard presentations from key user groups (e.g., anglers, paddlers and rowers, among others) and regulatory agencies (e.g., MDEQ Dam Safety, MDNR Fisheries). The committee included representatives from key user groups and community organizations including river residents, rowers, paddlers, anglers, the University of Michigan, Detroit Edison, the Environmental Commission, Park Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, and the Huron River Watershed Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Generating Capacity Estimate for Pen
    Peninsular Paper Dam Hydropower Generating Capacity Estimate Huron River Watershed Council February 1, 2019 Disclaimer This document should not be used in place of a professional hydroelectric feasibility and cost assessment conducted by professional engineers. This document is only intended to 1) provide an estimate of the hydroelectric-generating capacity of Peninsular Paper Dam based on its location and dimensions, and 2) discuss additional considerations common to enabling hydropower at dams of similar scale. The information provided is based on publicly available resources. Many unique and often unforeseen challenges can tremendously affect the feasibility and total cost of enabling hydropower at any dam. This document is only intended to help inform the City of Ypsilanti and its residents as they consider options for repair or removal of Peninsular Paper Dam. HRWC has provided the information below based on the best available data and references, but the estimates provided should be not considered as formal conditions of replacing or removing infrastructure. Background During the Ypsilanti City Council Meeting on December 4th, 2018, the Sustainability Commission Meeting on January 14, 2019, and in discussions with city councilmembers, many community leaders expressed interest in the feasibility of rebuilding the hydroelectric generating capability at Peninsular Paper Dam (Pen Dam). Based on that interest, HRWC has reviewed existing information relevant to hydropower capacity at Pen Dam. The installation of turbines, the construction of transmission infrastructure, operating costs, maintenance in addition to the $807,000 estimated for repairing the dam, FERC licensing, and other associated safety costs are not considered in detail here. This document only examines the possible hydropower capacity of Pen Dam based on its location on the river and its dimensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Draft Resolution Adopted By
    DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PAC ON THE HRIMP REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 5-19-2009 Submitted by Commissioners David Barrett and Gwen Nystuen 1) Whereas the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) Committee has produced a report with recommendations on the management of the four dams owned by the city on the Huron River, and 2) Whereas the Park Advisory Commission (PAC) supports many of the recommendations, and 3) Whereas the hearings and communications since the April release of the HRIMP report have produced additional information and options for the repair of the headrace and earthen embankment below Argo dam that offer the potential of the least expensive course of action to meet the immediate requirements of the state1 as well as improvements in the access to pathways and use by canoes and kayaks while continuing the other water recreational uses, including the four rowing teams, and 4) Whereas the implementation of the HRIMP recommendations will require significant additional staff and capital expenditure from Parks & Recreation, Parks Operations, and Natural Area Preservation that are not reflected in the budgets to be adopted for 2010 and 2011, and 5) Whereas the HRIMP report recommends two courses of action with regard to Argo dam, 1) remove Argo dam, or 2) leave the dam and Argo Pond as is, but make necessary repairs to the headrace and embankment2 by using the hybrid solution without the whitewater component, and 6) Whereas either of the two courses will require substantial funding and time for completion in a period of extreme financial pressure from the national, state and local recession that is projected to result in a General Fund deficit of approximately 8 million or 10% of the General Fund for FY10 and FY11combined, and will require significant cuts to City services in all areas through at least 2010 and 2011, and 7) Whereas “Argo dam is not failing.
    [Show full text]
  • Washtenaw County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
    WASHTENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN (ALL JURISDICTIONS) VOLUME 1 OF 2 Community Community Community Community Name Number Name Number Ann Arbor, Charter 260535 Milan, City of 260151 Township of Ann Arbor, City of 260213 Northfield, Township of 260635 Augusta, Township of 260627 Pittsfield, Charter Township of 260623 Barton Hills, Village of 261154 Salem, Township of 260636 Bridgewater, Township of* 261786 Saline, City of 260215 Washtenaw County Chelsea, City of 260599 Saline, Township of 261792 Dexter, Township of 260536 Scio, Township of 260537 Dexter , Village of 260600 Sharon, Township of* 260538 Freedom, Township of* 261787 Superior, Township of 260540 Lima, Township of 261788 Sylvan, Township of 261793 Lodi, Township of 261789 Webster, Township of 261785 Lyndon, Township of 261790 York, Charter Township of 260541 Manchester, Township of 261791 Ypsilanti, Charter Township of 260542 Manchester, Village of 260316 Ypsilanti, City of 260216 * No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified Effective April 3, 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 26161CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
    MI/EGLE/WRD-20/023 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAM 2019 ANNUAL REPORT A SUMMARY OF EDIBLE PORTION SAMPLING EFFORT AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATES TO THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES’ EAT SAFE FISH GUIDE OCTOBER 2020 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy-Water Resources Division (EGLE-WRD) has measured contaminants in over 20,000 fillet or other edible portion fish tissue samples collected since 1980. Fish contaminant analyses are limited to chemicals with high bioaccumulation potential in fish tissue. The presence of even extremely low concentrations of some bioaccumulative pollutants in surface water can result in fish tissue concentrations that pose a human or wildlife health risk. The EGLE-WRD conducts fish contaminant monitoring to address four goals: 1. The first goal is to support the development of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Eat Safe Fish Guide. Edible portion sample results are used by the MDHHS to issue general and specific consumption advisories for sport-caught fish from Michigan’s surface waters. 2. The second goal is to support the regulation of commercial fisheries in the waters of the state. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) uses edible portion monitoring results to regulate sales of the commercial catch. 3. The third goal of the fish contaminant monitoring is to identify spatial differences and temporal trends in the quality of Michigan’s surface waters. Temporal trends and spatial differences are examined by collecting whole fish, passive sampler, and caged fish samples in addition to the edible portion samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Millers Creek 7
    The pages in this document were taken from the “Millers Creek Watershed Improvement Plan” published in April 2004. The entire document can be found at http://www.aamillerscreek.org/Findings.htm. Millers Creek Watershed Improvement Plan Excerpt Showing an Example of Watershed Description Information April 2004 2. BACKGROUND Millers Creek has a 2.4 square mile watershed and is the smallest named tributary to the Huron River (Figure 2.1a and 2.1b). The 125-mile Huron River, from its origin in Springfield Township in Oakland County to its outlet on Lake Erie, is a critical natural resource. It supplies drinking water to 140,000 people, and with two-thirds of the public recreational land of southeast Michigan, is one of the major recreational features in the region. The Huron River is also recognized as one of the premier smallmouth bass fisheries in Michigan. Thirty-seven miles of the Huron River and three of its tributaries have Michigan Department of Natural Resources Country Scenic River designation under the State’s Natural Rivers Act (Act 231, PA 1970). Huron River Watershed a. b. Millers Creek Watershed Figure 2.1 a. Location of Huron River Watershed within the State of Michigan. b. Location of the Millers Creek Watershed within the Huron River Watershed. The main branch of Millers Creek (formerly known as the North Campus Drain) originates on Pfizer’s 1600 Huron Parkway campus and flows under Baxter Road, through UM north campus, under Huron Parkway and Pfizer’s 2800 Plymouth Road campus and then back again under the Parkway and Hubbard Road (See Figure 2.2).
    [Show full text]