LLLooowwweeerrr HHHuuurrrooonnn RRRiiivvveeerrr WWWaaattteeerrrssshhheeeddd MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt PPPlllaaannn

Prepared by the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee Enhanced image of a photograph by M. Kost with technical assistance from the of floodplain forest in Huron River Watershed Council Oakwoods Metropark, Huron River October, 2005

LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prepared by the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee

Charter Township of Berlin ~ Charter Township of Brownstown City of Flat Rock ~ City of Gibraltar ~ Huron Township City of Rockwood ~ City of Romulus ~ Village of South Rockwood Sumpter Township ~ Charter Township of Van Buren Charter County of Wayne ~ City of Woodhaven Woodhaven-Brownstown School District

with technical assistance from the Huron River Watershed Council

October, 2005

The next day we reached the mouth of the Huron river about thirty miles from Detroit . . . Thus far our journey had been performed with ease, but now we must row against the current when the stream would admit rowing, and when it would not, the boat was propelled by means of poles . . . the 3rd night we reached Smooth Rock . . . the Huron from Smooth Rock to Ypsilanti is very crooked . . . the country through which we passed was rolling~ there was no road, so we dodged here and there through the openings, over hills so steep that it required all the strength of both yokes of oxen to make the ascent. We reached Ann Arbor on the seventh day after leaving Detroit, but the boat containing our goods did not arrive . . . four miles below Ypsilanti, which was as far as it could come, till the fifteenth day.

— Excerpted from an account by Bethuel Farrand, 1852, Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 6

Lower Huron River Watershed 2 Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The members of the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-municipality Committee, who provided content, oversight, and funding for this watershed management plan, are:

Charter Township of Berlin – Supervisor Richard Reed; Mark Gaworecki and Rob Rochon of Hennessey Engineers

Charter Township of Brownstown – Alan Bober; Joe Disanto; Rodney Julian; and Brian Woodworth of Wade-Trim, Inc.

City of Flat Rock – Mayor Richard Jones; Bruce Hammond; and Brent Florek and Sarah Chope of Charles E. Raines Co.

City of Gibraltar – Mayor Richard F. Kuhn, Jr.; Paul Lehr; and Brent Florek and Sarah Chope of Charles E. Raines Co.

Huron Township – Supervisor John Mitchell; Melvin Sheats; Linda Spangler; Deeda Stanczak; and Michelle LaRose of OHM, Inc.

City of Rockwood – Mayor Dan Guzzi; Cindy Trombly; and Roy Schrameck and Lori Villar of ECT, Inc.

City of Romulus – Carl Brooks; Richard Suiter; and Evan Pratt and Elizabeth Thacker of OHM, Inc.

Village of South Rockwood – Willene Harold; Mark Gaworecki and Rob Rochon of Hennessey Engineers

Sumpter Township – Supervisor Johnny Vawters; George Ferraro of METCO Services, Inc.

Charter Township of Van Buren – Dan Swallow

Charter County of Wayne – Kelly Cave; Kereen Conley; Sue Hanson; Noel Mullett; Mike Schermesser

City of Woodhaven – Michael Kruse

Woodhaven-Brownstown Township School District – Susan Featheringill; Jack Rychlicki; and Tim Smith of Prein&Newhof

Other interested parties and their representatives who attended meetings, received communications and in other ways showed interest in the development of this watershed management plan are:

Huron–Clinton Metropolitan Authority – Mark Arens; Paul Muelle

Michigan Department of Transportation – Judy Ruszkowski

Lower Huron River Watershed 3 Management Plan

Monroe County – Drain Commissioner Dan Stefanski

Wayne County Airport Authority – Bryan Wagoner

Friends of Detroit River/Detroit Riverkeeper – Bob Burns

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – Hae-Jin Yoon; Patricia Huddas

Technical assistance was provided by the Huron River Watershed Council: main author and facilitator – Elizabeth Riggs; GIS and modeling – Kris Olsson; codes and ordinances review and field data compilation – Debi Weiker; HRWC volunteer Dave Brooks catalogued stream crossing survey photographs

Lower Huron River Watershed 4 Management Plan

Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Executive Summary 11

Chapter 2 Introduction 22

2.1 The Lower Huron River Watershed 22 2.2 Purpose of the Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan 25 2.3 Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee 25 2.4 Coordination with the Federal Water Quality Programs 26 2.4.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Program 26 2.4.2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program 27

Chapter 3 Current Conditions in the Lower Huron River Watershed 29

3.1 Landscape Context 29 3.2 Hydrology and Channel Morphology 31 3.3 Significant Natural Features 38 3.4 Water Chemistry 44 3.5 Freshwater Biological Community 51 3.6 Physical Stream and Riparian Conditions 57 3.7 Land Use Trends 68 3.8 Community Profiles 71 3.9 Point Sources 79 3.10 Sewer Service Areas and Privately Owned Septic Systems 80

Chapter 4 Land Use Analysis 82

4.1 Impervious Cover Model 82 4.2 Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment 86 4.3 The Simple Method 90 4.4 Identification of Critical Area 92

Chapter 5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan 97

5.1 Designated and Desired Uses 97 5.2 Summary of Watershed Impairments, Sources and Causes 99 5.2.1 Altered Hydrology 99 5.2.2 Sediment 100 5.2.3 Excess Nutrients 101 5.2.4 Pathogens 102 5.2.5 Organic Compounds and Heavy Metals 102 5.2.6 Elevated Water Temperature 103 5.2.7 Debris and Litter 103

Lower Huron River Watershed 5 Management Plan

5.3 Goals and Objectives for the Lower Huron River Watershed 109 5.4 Watershed Management Alternatives 112 5.4.1 Analysis of Community Development Codes and Ordinances 112 5.4.2 Selection of Management Alternatives 114 5.5 Lower Huron River Action Plan 118 5.5.1 Recommended Actions to Achieve Lower Huron River Watershed Goals and Objectives 118 5.5.1.1 Managerial Actions: Illicit Discharge Elimination 118 5.5.1.2 Managerial Actions: Public Information & Education 119 5.5.1.3 Managerial Actions: Ordinances and Policies 121 5.5.1.4 Managerial Actions: Practices 126 5.5.1.5 Managerial Actions: Studies and Inventories 128 5.5.1.6 Managerial Actions: Coordination and Funding 130 5.5.1.7 Vegetative Management Alternatives 131 5.5.1.8 Structural Management Alternatives 135 5.6 Evaluation Methods for Measuring Success 140 5.6.1 Qualitative Evaluation Techniques: Tier 1 143 5.6.2 Quantitative Evaluation Techniques: Tier 2 145

References 158

Lower Huron River Watershed 6 Management Plan

APPENDICES

A Maps B Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli in Wagner-Pink Drain C Stream Crossing Watershed Survey D Critical Area Methodology E Codes & Ordinances Worksheet Results and Recommendations by Community F Watershed Management Plan Development G Stormwater BMP Specifications H Conservation Planning in the Huron River Watershed I Communications from the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee J Model Ordinances and Development Principles K Downriver Results of SEMCOG Public Survey

Appendices can be found in Book 2: Appendices for the Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan, or in digital format on the accompanying CD.

Lower Huron River Watershed 7 Management Plan

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Flow (cfs) of the Huron River and select tributaries 3.2 Inventoried dams of the lower Huron River Watershed 3.3 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Griggs Creek subwatershed and upstream portion of the lower Huron River 3.4 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the main stem subwatershed of the lower Huron River 3.5 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Silver Creek subwatershed of the lower Huron River 3.6 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the mouth of the Huron River 3.7 pH ranges that support freshwater biology 3.8 Temperature data for 3 lower Huron River Watershed sites 3.9 Summary of relative abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates found in the Huron River from below Belleville Lakes to Lake Erie, 1978-1982 3.10 Fish stocking history in lower Huron River by MDNR 3.11 Excerpt of synoptic table showing distribution of Naiads (mussels) by collecting stations in the Huron River (1938) 3.12 Distribution of current land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed by community 3.13 Watershed area (acres) and population of participating entities within the lower Huron River Watershed 3.14 NPDES Storm Water Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of December, 2004 3.15 NPDES Individual and General Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of December, 2004 4.1 Impacts of development on hydrological conditions 4.2 Typical pollutant concentration from land uses 4.3 Percent impervious cover based on current land uses (2000) and build out based on community master plans 4.4 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and presettlement land uses/cover 4.5 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and future land uses/cover 4.6 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by the Simple Method, based on current land use (2000) and build out based on community master plans 4.7 Critical subwatersheds (high impact category) of the lower Huron River Watershed 5.1 Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed 5.2 Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated and desired uses they address 5.3 Pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater best management practices 5.4 General guidelines for locating BMPs 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan 5.6 Stormwater indicators 5.7 Summary of qualitative evaluation techniques for the lower Huron River Watershed 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Lower Huron River Watershed 8 Management Plan

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Watersheds of Michigan (A), Watersheds of southeast Michigan (B), and the Huron River Watershed with lower Huron River Watershed (C) 3.1 Average flow (cfs) by month from 1982-1991 of the Huron River at River Road, near the mouth 3.2 Huron River hydrograph using flow measured at STORET #580364 downstream of Rockwood 3.3 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Griggs Creek 3.4 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in the Huron River at Flat Rock 3.5 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Port Creek at Armstrong Road 4.1 Components of the critical areas methodology

Note: Maps are found in Appendix A.

Lower Huron River Watershed 9 Management Plan

ABBREVIATIONS

BMP: Best Management Practice DDT: Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GIS: Geographic Information System HCMA: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority HRWC: Huron River Watershed Council IDEP: Illicit Discharge Elimination Program LHRWIC: Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee LID: Low Impact Development L-THIA: Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment MDEQ: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation MNFI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS: Non-Point Source OSDS: On-site Disposal Systems PAH: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB: Polychlorinated Biphenyls PEP: Public Education Plan PLOAD: Pollutant Load SEMCOG: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments STORET: Storage and Retrieval Database SWPPI: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Initiative TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load U.S. EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency USDA: United States Department of Agriculture USGS: United States Geological Survey WMP: Watershed Management Plan WQS: Water Quality Standards WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant

Lower Huron River Watershed 10 Management Plan

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Huron River near S. Huron River Drive, Village of South Rockwood, Michigan — photo: F. Wenzel

Lower Huron River Watershed The lower Huron River Watershed covers 74-square miles of the 908-square-mile Huron River basin. The lower Huron River begins downstream of the French Landing Dam that creates Belleville Lake in Van Buren Charter Township, and flows into Lake Erie. More than a dozen tributaries flow into the lower Huron River including the more significant Silver Creek that drains the eastern areas of the watershed and has 81 miles of streams and Griggs Drain that drains the northwestern area of the watershed and has 27 miles of streams. The main stem of the Huron River itself is 28.5 miles long with an additional 145 miles of streams. Nearly 10,940 acres of wetlands remain in the watershed as of 2000. Included in the watershed are four Metroparks (Lower Huron; Willow; Oakwoods; and Lake Erie), and the Pointe Mouillée State Game Area providing over 7,500 acres of public land for recreation and natural resource protection. The Metroparks contain some of the most diverse native ecosystems remaining in the lower Huron River Watershed.

The vast majority of the lower Huron River Watershed lies within the Charter County of Wayne (Wayne County) and comprises all or portions of fourteen municipalities. The southernmost portion of the Watershed is located in Monroe County and the far western portion lies in Washtenaw County’s Ypsilanti Charter Township. The watershed includes large portions of Belleville, Brownstown, Huron Township, Flat Rock and Rockwood, the southern half of Van Buren Charter Township, the northeastern edge of Sumpter Township, the western edge of Romulus, the northeastern portion of Ash Township, the southern portions of Woodhaven and Gibraltar, and the northern portions of Berlin Charter Township and South Rockwood. Active agricultural fields, grasslands/old agricultural fields and low-density residential areas are found throughout the watershed while medium- and high-density residential and commercial and industrial areas are focused in the downstream communities and in the villages and cities.

Designated and Desired Uses According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the primary criterion for water quality is whether the waterbody meets designated uses. Designated uses are recognized uses of water established by state and federal water quality programs. In Michigan, the goal is to have all waters of the state meet all designated uses. It is important to note that not all of the uses listed below may be attainable, but they may serve as goals toward which the watershed

Lower Huron River Watershed 11 Management Plan

can move. All surface waters of the state of Michigan are designated for and shall be protected for all of the following uses. 1 Those that apply to the lower Huron River Watershed are in boldface:

ƒ Agriculture ƒ Industrial water supply ƒ Public water supply at the point of intake ƒ Navigation ƒ Warmwater fishery ƒ Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife ƒ Partial body contact recreation ƒ Total body contact recreation between May 1 and October 31 ƒ Coldwater fishery

Not all of the designated uses are fulfilled due to anthropogenic impacts to the lower Huron River Watershed. Partial body contact recreation is impaired, while warmwater fishery use and other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife use are threatened along a stretch of Wagner-Pink Drain due to elevated E. coli counts resulting from partially treated sewage releases from failing septic systems. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife use is threatened in Port Creek where the biota is considered poor. Stressors to the aquatic system in the lower Huron River Watershed threaten the designated uses of warmwater fishery, other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife, partial body contact recreation, and total body contact recreation.

In addition to designated uses are uses of the watershed that are desired by its residents but not yet achieved. Desired uses specific to each community were generated and are presented in Appendix F. The LHRWIC identified the following desired uses:

ƒ Recreation Areas and Greenways Potential exists for an enhanced and expanded recreation experience for residents and visitors through greenways, trails and parks as well as water-based recreation.

ƒ Wetlands, Open Space and Natural Features Protect and enhance natural features, including wetlands, floodplains and stream channels and riparian corridors that regulate the flow of stormwater runoff, protect against downstream flooding, and curb erosion and sedimentation.

ƒ Unique Habitats and Species, and Natural Buffers Several dozen federal and state listed plant and animal species and unique habitats on which they depend are found in the lower Huron River Watershed and require protection.

ƒ Stormwater and Flood Management Existing “natural infrastructure” regulates the flow of stormwater and protects against downstream flooding. Yet structural and vegetative options need to be added to the mix of management tools since the natural infrastructure of wetlands, floodplains and riparian corridors have been diminished by development.

ƒ Native Vegetation Native plants, trees, shrubs and grasses are adapted to local soils, pests, and moisture conditions. Their extensive, deep root systems hold rain and survive drought much better than non-native plants and turf grass, and are resistant to disease. Restoration of native landscapes and preservation of what remains is needed in the watershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 12 Management Plan

Purpose of the Watershed Management Plan The Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan is part of an effort undertaken by the communities of lower Huron River Watershed seeking the NPDES Wastewater Discharge General Permit MIG619000 (watershed-based). As that permit states “the permittee shall participate in the development and implementation of a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The purpose of the WMP is to identify and execute the actions needed to resolve water quality and water quantity concerns by fostering cooperation among the various public and private entities in the watershed. . . The emphasis of the WMP shall be to mitigate the undesirable impacts caused by wet weather discharges from separate storm water drainage systems.”

As required by the General Permit, this WMP also will address Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established within the lower Huron River Watershed by discussing the concerns related to any TMDLs and detailing appropriate actions specific to storm water controls to meet the TMDLs. Portions of the lower Huron River Watershed fail to meet minimum water quality standards or provide designated uses. To date, a TMDL for pathogens (E. coli) was established in 2003 for 0.5 miles of Wagner-Pink Drain resulting from failing septic systems and raw/partially treated sewage. The need for establishing a TMDL for poor biota on Port Creek will receive further evaluation by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality scientists.

The eleven communities, one county and one school district that were involved in the development of this plan are committed to protecting the sensitive natural areas of the watershed, mitigating the impacts of stormwater discharges and preventing future increases, and restoring degraded areas.

Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group and Inter-municipality Committee In June 2003, the municipalities and/or political subdivisions located within the Lower Huron River Watershed formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group whose mission is to provide: A lower Huron River Watershed and riverine corridor system that is aesthetically pleasant, clean, healthy and safe so that watershed residents and visitors can enjoy an improved quality of life, with reduced risk of flooding and better coordination of stormwater management throughout the region.

In December 2003, the Watershed Advisory Group formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee (LHRWIC) to coordinate and facilitate the study, development, preparation and timely filing with the MDEQ of a Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan as part of the required NPDES Phase II stormwater compliance. The LHRWIC formed for the duration of 2 ½ years beginning in January 2004 to complete the Watershed Management Plan and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative. These same groups functioned as the technical advisory group, as well.

Lower Huron River Watershed 13 Management Plan

Challenges to the health of the lower Huron River Watershed The LHRWIC spent one year gathering the information necessary to understand what are the impairments, or pollutants, to the watershed, and their sources and causes. Analysis of existing data and the stream inventory indicate that the lower Huron River Watershed has stretches of medium- and low-quality stretches that require mitigation of existing impairments. Although the LHRWIC intends to address all of these challenges in the long term with targeted programs, it has been important to prioritize and identify the most pressing concerns in the watershed so that resources can be spent cost-effectively in a phased approach. The impairments have been prioritized based upon the results of the stream crossing inventory, analysis of existing data, Project Team observations, and contributions from citizens and the LHRWIC. This information was used to prioritize the impairments from greatest threat to least threat. The sources and causes are not prioritized but known causes (k) are listed above *suspected causes (s). As additional information is obtained that indicates a lower ranked impairment, source or cause should be elevated in priority the ranking should be adjusted to reflect the new information.

The LHRWIC developed, through many discussions and iterations, the tables on the following pages that identify the challenges to the health of the watershed, and their sources and causes, as well as goals and objectives for the watershed. The goals and objectives are based on the findings presented in the challenges table and on the designated and desired uses for the lower Huron River Watershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 14 Management Plan

Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed Sources Causes 1. Engineered drains and 1. Loss of connection between stream and floodplain from streams (k) channelization and dredging (k) 2. Removal of riparian buffer (k) 3. Drain maintenance (k) 4. Rerouting channel for development (k) 2. Dams: French Landing Dam operations/construction (k) Dam; Flat Rock Dam (k) 3. Developed areas (k) 1. Removal of woodland/forest and wetlands, pervious areas (k) 2. Lack of BMPs at existing developed areas (k) 3. Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration/increase runoff (k) 4. Problems with road/bridge crossings (k) 4. Construction sites (k) 1. Removal of woodland/forest and wetlands, pervious areas (k) 2. Rerouting channel for development (k)

1. Impairment: Altered Hydrology (k) Altered 1. Impairment: 3. Poor drain maintenance (s) 4. Deviation from County stormwater standards (s) 5. Site exemptions (s) Sources Causes 1. Eroding stream banks 1. Altered hydrology: flashy flows; dam discharge (k) and channels (k) 2. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 3. Drain maintenance (k) 4. Channelization (k) 5. Culvert problems (k) 6. Eroding crossing embankments (k) 7. Eroding road ditch (k) 8. Livestock in streams (s) 2. Construction sites (k) 1. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 2. Lack of soil erosion BMPs and BMPs education (s) 3. Drain maintenance (s) 4. Exposed soils (s) 5. Lack of resources for enforcement/inspection (s) 6. Site exemptions (s)

2. Impairment: Sediment (k) Sediment 2. Impairment: 3. Developed areas (k) 1. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 2. Lack of BMPs at existing developed areas (k) 3. Impervious surfaces (k) 4. Dirt/gravel roads and 1. Poorly designed/maintained road stream crossings (k) bridges (k) 2. Poor road maintenance (s) 5. Agricultural field runoff 1. Lack of BMPs (upland and riparian buffers) (s) (s) 2. Exposed soils (s)

Lower Huron River Watershed 15 Management Plan

(continued) Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed Sources Causes 1. Developed areas and 1. Existing development pre-dates stormwater management construction sites (k) standards (k) 2. Soil erosion and sedimentation (k) 3. Impervious surfaces (k) 2. Fertilizers from (new) 1. Overuse of fertilizers (improper application/ storage) (k) residential, commercial, 2. Lack of riparian buffers (k) and golf courses (k) 3. Lack of appropriate ordinances (k) 3. Illicit discharges (k) 1. Aging development sanitary sewer infrastructure (k) 2. Inadequate inspection/detection and repair due to cost (s)

3. Lack of homeowner education (s) 4. Illegal septic application and trailer waste disposal (s) 4. Failing septic tanks (k) 1. Old units are too small or don’t meet codes (s) 2. Poor maintenance/lack of homeowner education (s)

3. Lack of a required maintenance program (s) 5. Huron River upstream Multiple causes (k) (k) 3. Impairment: Excess Nutrients (k) (k) Nutrients Excess 3. Impairment: 6. Agricultural runoff (s) 1. Lack of BMPs (upland and riparian buffers) (s) 2. Livestock access to surface waters (s) 7. Pet and wildlife waste 1. Improper disposal of pet waste (s) (s) 3. Ponds increase habitat for waterfowl, wildlife (s)

8. NPDES permitted Permits are concentration-based instead of load-based (s) sources (s) Sources Causes 1. Failing septic tanks (k) 1. Old units are too small or don’t meet codes (k) 2. Inadequate enforcement by DPH (k) 3. Lack of a required maintenance program (k) 4. Poor maintenance/lack of homeowner education (s) 2. Illicit discharges (k) 1. Aging development sanitary sewer infrastructure (k) 2. Inadequate inspection/detection and repair due to cost (s) 3. Lack of education (s) 4. Illegal septic application and trailer waste disposal (s) 3. Pet and wildlife waste 1. Improper disposal of pet waste (runoff from paved areas) (s) (s) 2. Ponds increase habitat for waterfowl, wildlife (s) 4. Livestock waste from Lack of BMPs (s) 4. Impairment: Pathogens (k) Pathogens 4. Impairment: agricultural operations (s) 5. Lack of adequate Illegal/improper septage application (s) septage facilities (s)

Lower Huron River Watershed 16 Management Plan

(continued) Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed Sources Causes 1. Roads (k) 1. Automobile emissions (k) 2. Poor road maintenance (s) 3. Lack of BMPs during de-icing of roads (s) 2. Developed areas (k) 1. Lack of stormwater BMPs (k) 2. Illegal dumping (s) 3. Turfgrass chemicals 1. Improper lawn care (s) from residential, 2. Illegal dumping (s) commercial lawns (s) 4. Agricultural runoff (s) Lack of upland and riparian BMPs (s) 5. NPDES permitted Inadequate inspection (s) and Heavy Metals (k) Metals and Heavy facilities (s) 6. Existing instream 1. Illegal dumping (s)

5. Impairment: Organic Compounds Compounds Organic 5. Impairment: pollution (s) 2. Wayne Co airport/Pinnacle AeroPark property (s)

Sources Causes ) k ( 1. Developed areas (k) Directly-connected impervious surfaces that heat stormwater (k)

2. Eroded soil areas (k) 1. Soil erosion from channel and upland (k) erature p 2. Lack of vegetated canopy in riparian buffer (k) 6. Impairment: Elevated Water Elevated Water Tem

Sources Causes 1. Roadways (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Unsecured vehicle/truck loads (s)

3. Poor road maintenance (s) 2. Parks (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Inadequate refuse containers (s) 3. Urban areas (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Unsecured garbage (s) 4. Residential areas (k) 2. Unsecured garbage (s) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s)

7. Impairment: Debris/Litter (k) Debris/Litter 7. Impairment: 5. Construction sites (s) 2. Poor site clean-up (s) 1. Lack of adequate riparian buffers (s)

Lower Huron River Watershed 17 Management Plan

Goals and Objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed The designated and desired uses for the lower Huron River Watershed provide a basis from which to build long-term goals and objectives. Long-term goals describe the future condition of the watershed toward which the LHRWIC will work. Long-term goals are not expected to be met within the first three years of plan implementation, but are to be met at some time beyond the first three years of implementation. The long-term goals have been developed on a watershed-wide basis. No single community or agency is responsible for achieving all of the goals or any one of the goals on its own. The goals represent the desired end product of many individual actions, which will collectively and synergistically protect and improve the water quality, water quantity and biology of the river. The members of the LHRWIC will strive together to meet these long term goals to the maximum extent practicable, by implementing a variety of BMPs over time, as applicable to the individual communities and agencies, relative to their specific priorities, their individual jurisdictions, their authority and their resources.

The committee prioritized the goals employing a pair-wise comparison exercise. Short- term objectives are presented for each goal, and will be partially or wholly fulfilled within the first three years of plan implementation. Long-term objectives are developed for some of the goals, and may be partially fulfilled during the first three years of plan implementation but realistically will be fulfilled in subsequent implementation phases.

Lower Huron River Watershed 18 Management Plan

Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated and desired uses they address Long-Term Goal Short-Term Objective Uses(s) Addressed 1 Establish — Increase the general public’s awareness All information and and knowledge of the Watershed and the education efforts interconnectedness of the system to raise — Increase activities that result in watershed preservation, restoration and protection of the awareness system — Increase participation in Watershed stewardship and recreation Long-Term Objective — Reduce pollution that impacts the lower Huron River Watershed by providing practical knowledge to key audiences 2 Protect and Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; mitigate loss of — Increase protections for natural features Aquatic life and natural features through policy and educational measures wildlife; Native — Improve mapping of natural features and vegetation; Open distribution of such maps space, wetlands, — Conduct field work to refine natural and natural features information and prioritize for features; Unique protection habitat and species, — Inventory the aquatic community and natural buffers; — Inventory listed species and communities Recreation and — Identify the type and extent of non-native greenways; Public species water supply Long-Term Objective — Increase areas of natural features including wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, riparian buffers and open spaces — Maintain or improve the aquatic community — Preserve listed species and communities — Prevent/regulate spread of non-native species 3 Establish Short-Term Objective All financial and — Develop long-term funding plans institutional — Create representative group to guide WMP arrangements for implementation WMP fulfillment — Prioritize specific projects for funding and establish estimated costs — Identify options for institutions to guide WMP implementation — Increase local community awareness about progress of plan implementation 4 Reduce flow Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; variability/ — Protect and increase storage in wetlands, Aquatic life and stabilize flows floodplains, groundwater and other pervious wildlife; areas with infiltration capacity Open space, — Establish current stream flow dynamics wetlands, and through established monitoring strategy (see natural features; Goal 9) Stormwater and — Increase the use of Low Impact flood management; Development design Native vegetation

Lower Huron River Watershed 19 Management Plan

5 Reduce soil Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; erosion and — Establish baseline data for sediment fines Aquatic life and sedimentation in monitored streams through established wildlife; Industrial monitoring strategy (see Goal 9) water supply; Public — Increase education of BMPs among water supply; property owners and the building community Unique habitat and — Improve application and enforcement of species, and natural Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls buffers; Stormwater (SESC) and flood Long-Term Objective management; Native — Increase clarity in surface waters based on vegetation; Open MDEQ Stream Crossing Watershed Survey space, wetlands, and natural features 6 Reduce nutrient Short-Term Objective Partial and total loading — Establish baseline data for nutrient body contact concentrations and loading in surface waters recreation; through established monitoring strategy (see Warmwater fishery; Goal 9) Aquatic life and — Reduce incidences of Separate Sewer wildlife; Overflows Stormwater/Flood Management 7 Reduce Short-Term Objective Partial and total pathogen (E. coli) — Decrease bacteria contributions to Wagner- body contact loading Pink Drain to meet the MI WQS for E. coli recreation; (TMDL) Warmwater fishery; — Establish baseline data for bacteria through Aquatic life and established monitoring strategy (see Goal 9) wildlife — Implement and maintain Illicit Discharge Elimination Program investigations — Reduce incidences of Separate Sewer Overflows 8 Increase Short-Term Objective All adoption of — Integrate stormwater management in the BMPs for Low planning and land use approval process Impact — Educate land use decision makers on Development development impacts and LID tools (LID) design — Increase coordinated land use planning principles and development standards among the communities in the Watershed 9 Increase water Short-Term Objective All quality, water — Develop a monitoring strategy quantity and — Secure funding and develop partnerships biological to conduct short-term and long-term monitoring monitoring of key indicators — Develop QAPPs for applicable parameters — Increase coordination of monitoring through development of a monitoring strategy 10 Increase Short-Term Objective Open space, opportunities for — Improve public access to land- and water- wetlands, and recreational uses based recreational opportunities natural features; — Expand Greenways Trails Network Recreation and greenways; Partial and total body contact recreation

Lower Huron River Watershed 20 Management Plan

Watershed Management Alternatives After establishing goals and objectives for the watershed, the LHRWIC discussed various management alternatives that could be employed to fulfill them. More than 100 management alternatives are presented in the Action Plan in Chapter 5 as actions that will help the LHRWIC achieve the goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed. Alternatives include managerial, vegetative and structural practices intended to be implemented in combination rather than in isolation for greater cost-effectiveness and pollutant removal. Where possible, each management alternative in the Action Plan is presented with which goals it addresses, level of effort, estimated capital and maintenance costs, technical and/or financial resources, and intent of the permittees to employ the alternative.

Watershed Management Plan Implementation, Coordination and Assessment Once the watershed management plan is written, the challenge begins to implement the management alternatives, coordinate activities, and assess the progress being made. Chapter 5 includes a discussion on evaluation methods for measuring success. While members of the LHRWIC are required to provide the State with regular reports on their NPDES Phase II-related activities, a well-organized process for implementing and reviewing this plan on a watershed- wide level still is needed. A group will need to continue meetings to consider any new data and information that becomes available during implementation that might require a decision to revise the plan. An example of a plan revision process that the LHRWIC may consider is illustrated below and comes from the Lower One Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan.

Watershed Management Plan Revision Process

1. Develop and implement plan

Redesign 2. Identify and implement practices, revise practices, standards, recommended and/or programs standards, and/or programs

3. Assess Continue attainment/maintenance practices, of water quality targets or standards, and/or plan goals programs implementation

Lower Huron River Watershed 21 Management Plan

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION

Huron River behind Flat Rock Dam, City of Flat Rock, Michigan — photo: D. Edmondson

2.1 THE LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED The Huron River Watershed is one of Michigan’s natural treasures. The Huron River supplies drinking water to approximately 150,000 people, supports one of Michigan’s finest smallmouth bass fisheries, and is the State’s only designated Scenic River in southeast Michigan. The Huron River Watershed is a unique and valuable resource in southeast Michigan that contains ten Metroparks, two-thirds of all southeast Michigan’s public recreational lands, and abundant county and city parks. In recognition of its value, the State has officially designated 37 miles of the Huron River and three of its tributaries as Michigan Department of Natural Resources Country Scenic River under the State’s Natural Rivers Act (Act 231, PA 1970). The Huron is home to one-half million people, numerous threatened and endangered species and habitats, abundant bogs, wet meadows, and remnant prairies of statewide significance.

The Huron River basin is located in southeastern Michigan and encompasses approximately 900 square miles (576,000 acres) of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties (Figure 2.1). The main stem of the Huron River is approximately 136 miles long, with its origin located at Big Lake and the Huron Swamp in Springfield Township, Oakland County. The main stem of the river meanders from the headwaters through a complex series of wetlands and lakes in a southwesterly direction to the area of Portage Lake. Here, the river begins to flow south until reaching the Village of Dexter in Washtenaw County, where it turns southeasterly and proceeds to its final destination of Lake Erie. The Huron is not a free-flowing river. At least 98 dams segment the river system, of which 17 are located on the main stem.

The immediate drainage area to the lower Huron River is 74 square miles (47,287 acres), representing approximately 8% of the 908-square-mile Huron River basin (Appendix A, Map 1). The vast majority of the lower Huron River Watershed lies within the Charter County of Wayne (Wayne County) and comprises all or portions of fourteen municipalities. The southernmost portion of the Watershed is located in Monroe County and the far western portion lies in Washtenaw County’s Ypsilanti Charter Township. The Watershed includes large portions of Belleville, Brownstown, Huron Township, Flat Rock and Rockwood, the southern half of Van Buren Charter Township, the northeastern edge of Sumpter Township, the western edge of Romulus, the northeastern portion of Ash Township, the southern portions of Woodhaven and Gibraltar, and the northern portions of Berlin Charter Township and South Rockwood. Active agricultural fields, grasslands/old agricultural fields and low-density residential areas are found throughout the watershed while medium- and high-density residential and commercial and

Lower Huron River Watershed 22 Management Plan industrial areas are focused in the downstream communities and in the villages and cities. Nearly 10,940 acres of wetlands remain in the Watershed as of 2000. Included in the Watershed are four Metroparks (Lower Huron; Willow; Oakwoods; and Lake Erie), and the Pointe Mouillée State Game Area providing over 7,500 acres of public land for recreation and natural resource protection.

The lower Huron River begins downstream of the French Landing Dam that creates Belleville Lake in Van Buren Charter Township, and flows to Lake Erie. More than a dozen tributaries flow into the lower Huron River including the more significant Silver Creek that drains the eastern areas of the watershed and has 81 miles of streams and Griggs Drain that drains the northwestern area of the watershed and has 27 miles of streams. The main stem of the Huron River itself is 28.5 miles long with an additional 145 miles of streams.

Impacts to the downriver reaches of the Huron River have long been felt since human activities historically have been located in this area as a result of close proximity to Detroit and other Great Lakes coastal towns and harbors. In recent decades, the lower Huron River Watershed and the Huron River basin have experienced amplified development pressures from a growing economy and urban sprawl. The U.S. Census in 2000 counted 48,110 individuals living in the census blocks of the lower Huron River Watershed. According to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the total population of the Watershed communities averaged an increase of 23% from 1990 to 2004. Projections to 2030 estimate a 26.2% average increase in total population from 2004 levels. The number of households of the Watershed communities averaged an increase of 35% from 1990 to 2004. Projections to 2030 estimate a 42% average increase in total households from 2004 levels.

If current development practices are employed to accommodate the projected increase in population and associated infrastructure, then SEMCOG estimates 40% of the remaining open spaces will be developed within the watershed by 2020. Much of this projected conversion of undeveloped land will occur in the lower Huron River Watershed where it will hasten degradation of the hydrology and water quality of surface waters. To an extent, the lower Huron River is the reflection of human activities and natural conditions of the upper 92% of the Huron River basin. However, the close proximity of activities from within the lower Huron River Watershed directly impact this downstream reach of the River and, therefore, are the focus of this Watershed Management Plan.

Note on the maps in this document: The hydrologic boundary depicted in the maps in this plan is from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Adjoining watershed planning efforts, e.g. Combined Downriver, used the hydrologic boundary from Wayne County. Slight discrepancies of the watershed boundaries result since the MDNR and Wayne County delineations are not identical.

Lower Huron River Watershed 23 Management Plan

Figure 2.1 Watersheds of Michigan (A), Watersheds of southeast Michigan (B), and the Huron River Watershed with lower Huron River Watershed (C)

A Lake Superior B FLINT SHIAWASSEE CLINTON UPPER Lak GRAND e H u r o n

a n g i h HURON ROUGE/ c i DETROIT M

e k a L

RAISIN STONY

e ri E e ak L L

N C

INGHAM LIVINGSTON

OAKLAND

Huron River Watershed

WAYNE

JACKSON

lowerlower HuronHuron RiverRiver WASHTENAW Watershed

e i r

E

e

k

a 50510Miles MONROE L

Source: Michigan Resource Information System; SEMCOG

Lower Huron River Watershed 24 Management Plan

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN The Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan is part of an effort undertaken by the communities of lower Huron River Watershed seeking the NPDES Wastewater Discharge General Permit MIG619000 (watershed-based). As that permit states “the permittee shall participate in the development and implementation of a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The purpose of the WMP is to identify and execute the actions needed to resolve water quality and water quantity concerns by fostering cooperation among the various public and private entities in the watershed. . . The emphasis of the WMP shall be to mitigate the undesirable impacts caused by wet weather discharges from separate storm water drainage systems.”

As required by the General Permit, this WMP also will address Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established within the lower Huron River Watershed by discussing the concerns related to any TMDLs and detailing appropriate actions specific to storm water controls to meet the TMDLs. To date, a TMDL for pathogens (E. coli) was established in 2003 for 0.5 miles of Wagner-Pink Drain resulting from failing septic systems and raw/partially treated sewage. The need for establishing a TMDL for poor biota on Port Creek will receive further evaluation by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality scientists.

This Plan was developed with the intention of including the required elements for the NPDES Phase II Program, as mentioned above, as well as for the U.S. EPA’s Clean Water Act §319 Program and MDEQ’s Clean Michigan Initiative Program.

The eleven communities, one county and one school district that were involved in the development of this plan are committed to protecting the sensitive natural areas of the watershed, mitigating the impacts of stormwater discharges and preventing future increases, and restoring degraded areas.

2.3 LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED INTER-MUNICIPALITY COMMITTEE In June 2003, the municipalities and/or political subdivisions located within the Lower Huron River Watershed formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group whose mission is to provide: A lower Huron River Watershed and riverine corridor system that is aesthetically pleasant, clean, healthy and safe so that watershed residents and visitors can enjoy an improved quality of life, with reduced risk of flooding and better coordination of stormwater management throughout the region.

In December 2003, the Watershed Advisory Group formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee (LHRWIC) to coordinate and facilitate the study, development, preparation and timely filing with the MDEQ of a Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan as part of the required NPDES Phase II stormwater compliance. The LHRWIC formed for the duration of 2 ½ years beginning in January 2004 and dissolving with the completion of the Watershed Management Plan and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative. In January 2004, the LHRWIC contracted the services of the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC) to facilitate the development of and write the Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan.

Lower Huron River Watershed 25 Management Plan

Members of the LHRWIC are from the following municipalities and/or political subdivisions:

Berlin Charter Township Village of South Rockwood Brownstown Township Sumpter Township City of Flat Rock Van Buren Charter Township City of Gibraltar City of Woodhaven Huron Township Charter County of Wayne City of Rockwood Woodhaven-Brownstown School District City of Romulus

Details on the machinations of the LHRWIC are found in the Memorandum of Agreement for Creation of the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee. Permittees are voting members and are considered “Primary entities” of the LHRWIC. “Secondary entities” are located within the lower Huron River Watershed and are either not regulated under Phase II or are covered by a jurisdictional permit. However, they were encouraged to participate in the planning process. These Secondary entities are:

Ash Township City of Belleville Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority Monroe County Drain Commissioner Monroe County Road Commission Michigan Department of Transportation

Additionally, representatives from other stakeholder groups attend the regular meetings of the LHRWIC because they share an interest in the health of the lower Huron River Watershed. These groups are:

Friends of the Detroit River Wayne County Airport Authority Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

2.4 COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS

2.4.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Program As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit. However, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops during rainfall and snow events that often contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality. Most stormwater discharges are considered point sources and require coverage by an NPDES permit.

Lower Huron River Watershed 26 Management Plan

This Watershed Management Plan is being developed to meet a requirement of Michigan’s watershed-based stormwater permit, one of two permit options available to communities in Michigan that must comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater regulations. The watershed-based permit requires the formation of watershed working groups composed of communities and other political and public agencies responsible for the management of stormwater discharges to work cooperatively to develop and implement plans to address stormwater pollution.

Communities that are located within the U.S. Census Bureau’s urbanized areas, based on the 2000 census, are required to obtain stormwater discharge permits under Phase II of the NPDES. Phase I of the NPDES required communities with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and populations larger than 100,000 to obtain stormwater discharge permits during the 1990s. Phase II captures the next tier of communities with MS4s. The majority of communities in the Huron River Watershed must comply with these regulations as of March 2003.

Communities and agencies that opt to obtain the watershed-based permit are required to meet the terms and conditions of the permit, which includes developing a series of plans. These plans include one that identifies the steps that will be taken to identify and eliminate illicit discharges entering the stormwater system (Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan), and a strategy to educate the public about its role in preventing stormwater pollution (Public Education Plan). The Public Participation Plan details how the public will be involved in the development of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). After the completion of the WMP, each permittee must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) that identifies the specific actions they will take in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the WMP. Permittees are required to report annually to the MDEQ on the status of their plans and progress over the five-year term of the permit.

2.4.2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program A TMDL is the maximum amount of a particular pollutant a waterbody can assimilate without violating state water quality standards. Water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody, such as swimming, fishing or aquatic life support, and the scientific criteria to protect that use. The water quality criteria can be a number or a description of conditions necessary to ensure that the water is safe for the identified uses. TMDLs provide a basis for determining the pollutant reductions necessary from both point and nonpoint sources to restore and maintain the quality of their water resources. The Clean Water Act requires that an implementation plan be developed and implemented by the affected stakeholders to meet the established TMDL. The Clean Water Act requires all states to develop TMDLs for waterbodies that are impaired, or too polluted to maintain their beneficial uses. In Michigan, the responsibility to develop TMDLs rests with the MDEQ.

One TMDL has been established in the lower Huron River Watershed. A section of Wagner- Pink Drain, a tributary to the Huron River, was first identified by state biologists in 1994 as not meeting beneficial uses, in particular total body contact recreation. One-half mile of Wagner- Pink Drain was identified as impaired due to the presence of elevated levels of E. coli. In 2003, the state developed a TMDL for E. coli in the Drain with numeric target levels of 130 per 100 ml as a 30-geometric mean from May 1 to October 31 as prescribed by Rule 62 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards.

Lower Huron River Watershed 27 Management Plan

MDEQ determined that illicit discharges to the storm sewer drains and failing on-site septic systems are the main sources of E. coli to Wagner-Pink Drain. If the E. coli inputs can be controlled from the illicit connections then total body contact recreation will be protected. As the TMDL for Escherichia coli for Wagner-Pink Drain states, problems have been well-documented for several years with the MDEQ and Monroe County Health Department. The discharge of raw or partially treated sewage will be addressed once the municipalities arrive at agreement on how to take corrective action. Corrective action most likely will be in the form of a sewer extension from the City of Flat Rock according to the MDEQ.

Lower Huron River Watershed 28 Management Plan

CHAPTER 3: CURRENT CONDITIONS IN THE LOWER HURON RIVER Great Blue Heron, Huron River at Willow Metropark, WATERSHED Huron Township, Michigan — photo: HCMA

An effort has been made to collect all readily available information to establish a baseline of current conditions of the watershed. This effort included requests to LHRWIC members and researchers in the area. Comprehensive literature searches resulted in acquisition of studies, as well. Numerous studies and datasets of relevance were obtained in this process. In addition, spatial data was gathered and analyzed in a Geographic Information System. However, the information reviewed here should not be considered comprehensive.

3.1 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT Climate The Huron River Watershed has a humid, continental climate common to much of the northeastern United States. The area is influenced by its location in the Great Lakes region, a mixing zone for tropical and polar air masses characterized by frequent and sometimes rapid weather changes. The Great Lakes also tend to modify temperatures, making summers cooler and winters warmer, than might otherwise be the case. Lake Erie somewhat moderates climate in the Lower Huron River Watershed.2

Seasonal changes are the most important feature of Michigan’s, and therefore the watershed’s climate. Seasonal precipitation patterns are fairly stable due to warmer temperatures that hold more moisture in the air. Since southern Michigan thaws and refreezes regularly through most of the winter, the Huron River does not experience as much variability as more northern rivers with their low and high flows.3 Snowfall is relatively light, ranging from 30 to 40 inches annually. Average annual precipitation ranges from 30 to 32 inches.4 Evaporation in the watershed is higher than most of the state, due to higher temperatures and slightly drier air found in southeast Michigan. As a result, the watershed has one of the lowest amounts of total annual runoff in Michigan.

The growing season is generally long, ranging from 150 to 180 days; growing season is longer near the shorelines of the Great Lakes and shorter inland.5 The average annual daily temperature at Ann Arbor is 48.3° F with a maximum record of 105° F and a

Lower Huron River Watershed 29 Management Plan

minimum of -21° F. Extreme minimum temperature ranges from -18.5° F to -26.5° F in the shoreline areas along western Lake Erie.

Topography The surface topography of the watershed was determined by the last continental glacial period, the Wisconsinan. The watershed largely is a region of end, or recessional, moraines with associated till plains and outwash deposits. Lake Maumee, a glacial precursor to Lake Erie, once covered the Lower Huron, and was 230-40 feet higher than current Lake Erie levels. Approximately 13,000 to 14,000 years ago, Lake Maumee alternately found an outlet southwest near Fort Wayne, Indiana and north near Imlay City. During that time, the waters of the Huron flowed west across the Lower Peninsula to what would become Lake Michigan and from there into the early Illinois and Mississippi River systems.6 The current Huron River narrows below Belleville Lake, dropping further toward Lake Erie.

The Lower Huron River Watershed is located in the Maumee Lake Plain regional landscape ecosystem.7 The broad and flat clay lake plain is dissected by broad glacial drainage ways of sandy soil. The lake-moderated climate and productive loamy soils resulted in early and intensive agricultural development.

Ecoregions are areas that exhibit broad ecological unity, based on such characteristics as climate, landforms, soils, vegetation, hydrology and wildlife. The Nature Conservancy identifies the Huron River Watershed as located within the North Central Till Plain and the Great Lakes ecoregions. The Lower Huron River region lies within the Great Lakes ecoregion.

Geology Along Lake Erie, lacustrine deposits are more than 100 feet thick along the inland edge of the lake plain, but less than 5 feet thick near the shoreline (Appendix A, Map 2). The surface lacustrine deposits are underlain by Mississippian, Devonian, and Silurian marine and nearshore bedrock, including sandstone, shale, coal, limestone, dolomite, gypsum, and other evaporates.8 Bedrock is only locally exposed in stream banks and near the shorelines of Lake Erie. At Rockwood, South Rockwood and Flat Rock, the Huron River flows over an outcropping of bedrock. The oldest Silurian bedrock is near the surface in the south. Commercial deposits of rock salt and saline wells occur in the Silurian Salina Formation near Detroit.

Soils The following soil associations are found in the lower Huron River Watershed, as described by the Soil Survey of Wayne County from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:9

Wasepi-Gilford-Boyer: Nearly level to sloping, very poorly to somewhat poorly drained to well drained soils that have a coarse textured or moderately coarse textured subsoil. This association is located south of Belleville Lake in Van Buren Charter Township, and northeast of New Boston.

Thetford-Granby-Tedrow: Nearly level, very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a coarse textured subsoil. This association is found in the watershed in

Lower Huron River Watershed 30 Management Plan

Romulus, southeastern Van Buren Charter Township, most of Sumpter Township, and northern Huron Township.

Belleville-Selfridge-Tedrow: Nearly level to gently slopping, very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a coarse textured to moderately fine textured subsoil over a coarse textured to moderately fine textured substratum. This association is located in northwestern Huron Township.

Pewamo-Selfridge-Corunna: Nearly level to gently sloping, very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a moderately fine textured to coarse textured subsoil. This association is found in the southern Huron Township and western Flat Rock.

Hoytville-Nappenee: Nearly level and gently sloping, very poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that have a fine textured subsoil. This association is located in all areas of the watershed downriver of Flat Rock.

The hydrologic soils groups, and soil permeability characteristics, of the lower Huron River Watershed are presented in Appendix A, maps 3 and 4, respectively. The information conveyed in these maps is useful when considering the applicability of certain stormwater control structures, especially infiltration-based, and the appropriateness of certain development proposals that may require added water quality precautions within the watershed (e.g., gas stations, chemical storage facilities, etc.).

3.2 HYDROLOGY AND CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

A discussion of the lower Huron River’s hydrology, including flow and flow stability, and its channel morphology, including channel gradient and shape, is provided below.

Flow The flow in the lower Huron River is influenced by upstream dam operations and by the elevation of Lake Erie downstream, and to a lesser extent by the tributary streams that feed into the river. Operations at the French Landing Dam and the Ford Lake Dam that form Belleville Lake and Ford Lake, respectively, are FERC-regulated and maintain run- of-the-river operations with instantaneous outflow required to equal instantaneous inflow. Instrumentation at the dams records water levels every 10 minutes. Dam operators have a wide range of gradual actions they can take to regulate the volume of flow that is released downstream.10

Despite flow management at French Landing Dam, the lower Huron River can experience significant fluctuations in water level resulting from additional factors. Water levels at Flat Rock have been recorded changing as much as 7 inches during a 12-hour period.11 While trees in the riparian zone may have 90% of their root system exposed. Factors that influence flow conditions, besides dams, in the lower Huron River include flow stability, channel gradient, and channel shape; each of these factors is presented below.

Existing studies and data were reviewed for river flow data as new flow monitoring was not conducted during this planning phase. No USGS gage station is located in this

Lower Huron River Watershed 31 Management Plan

stretch of the Huron River nor is there a coordinated effort underway to measure flow. The main sources of data used for the plan are STORET data provided by the MDEQ as the station is located near the mouth of the river and has an extensive temporal record, and the Adopt-A-Stream monitoring program that provides recent data on tributaries. Historic data is from investigations conducted by the State of Michigan.

Table 3.1 Flow (cfs) of the Huron River and select tributaries Monitoring Stations Griggs Wagner-Pink Port Creek Huron River Huron River Creek Drain at Wil at Armstrong d/s at River at Metropark Carleton Dr Rd Rockwood Road 2002 Baseflow 0.3 474 2002 Wet 0.1 weather Summer 2001 0.4 (n=1) Fall 2000 0.7 (n=1) Fall 1997 1.8 (n=1) 1991-1982 349 (n=40) Baseflow 1991-1982 Wet 1038 (n=40) weather Source: Adopt-A-Stream, HRWC; and MDEQ

Flow data for the lower Huron River and tributaries is sparse as Table 3.1 conveys. The most recent flow data obtained is illustrated in Figure 3.2 that depicts 2002 Huron River flow at a station downstream of Rockwood.12 The State of Michigan maintained a flow and water chemistry monitoring station at River Road near the mouth of the Huron River from 1963-1992 that provides the most robust dataset available. Figure 3.1 illustrates the general flow pattern in the Huron River using monthly averages over the most recent 10-year period recorded. Seasonally high flows in the Huron River are generally during March to May and baseflow conditions are generally during July through October. Reaches of tributaries go dry occasionally during summer months either due to their intermittent nature, such as headwaters of tributaries, or due to decreased baseflows caused by urbanization, such as Silver Creek at Fort Road in Rockwood.

Lower Huron River Watershed 32 Management Plan

Figure 3.1 Average flow (cfs) by month from 1982-1991 of the Huron River at River Road, near the mouth

3,000 1982 2,500 1983 1984 2,000 1985 1986 1,500 1987 flow (cfs) flow 1,000 1988 1989 500 1990 1991 0

l r ry ry ri ly er e a ber b u ua Ap May June Ju o br March t Jan e August tem Oc cemb F November Sep De

Source: STORET as reported by MDEQ

Lower Huron River Watershed 33 Management Plan Figure 3.2 Huron River hydrograph using flow measured at STORET #580364 downstream of Rockwood

Source: Aiello, C. 2004. Michigan Water Chemistry Monitoring, Great Lake Tributaries, 2002 Report.

Lower Huron River Watershed 34 Management Plan

Flow Stability Flow stability is a determining factor in ecological and evolutionary processes in streams and is positively related to fish abundance, growth, survival and reproduction. Flow stability is determined by comparing mean monthly highest flow to mean monthly lower flow for each year. High ratios of these two numbers indicate unstable flows dominated by rainfall runoff; low numbers indicate stable flows dominated by groundwater.

Extreme stability problems are evident in Silver Creek, which has a ratio of >10.1. This problem is related to extensive use of designated drains in its subwatershed and clayey soils. The lower Huron River exhibits fair flow stability (5.1-10.0).13

Channel Gradient River channel gradient is a controlling influence on river habitat. Steeper gradients allow faster water flows with accompanying changes in depth, width, channel meandering and sediment transport.14 Areas of different gradient create diverse types of channels with different habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Gradient is measured as elevation change in feet per river mile.

The Huron River has a slow to moderate stream gradient dropping 446 feet in elevation from its source at Big Lake (1,018 ft) in Oakland County to Lake Erie (572 ft). Although there are a few areas where the gradient is greater, the average drop in elevation over the 125 miles of river is 2.95 ft/mi. The lower Huron River Watershed begins downstream of French Landing Dam, which is located at river mile 28.52 as measured from the mouth of the Huron River. The lower Huron River begins at an elevation of 620 ft and drops to 572 ft at Lake Erie, although river flow characteristics are influenced by the elevation of the lake.

The 28.5 miles of the river from French Landing Dam to Lake Erie are dominated by low- gradient, run habitat, with the final 2 miles influenced by Lake Erie, yet free-flowing. Fair to good gradient is found in 7 miles of this reach, with most of the good gradient impounded by Flat Rock Dam.15 Many of the high gradient locations on the Huron have been dammed or channelized, such as on the Huron River at Flat Rock.

The reach of the river from French Landing Dam to Lake Erie potentially has much attractive habitat if flows were stabilized. Flat Rock Dam inundates important high gradient bedrock habitat that is a unique and rare resource in Michigan. Streams with this type of habitat, and bedrock shelves, are necessary for some spawning fish species. This reach of the river has mostly run habitat with riffle-pool habitat in a few high gradient areas. Cover is limited as it is swept away by fluctuating water levels. The area below Rockwood is entirely run habitat with bottom substrate of sand and clay and little in- stream cover.16

Nearly all of the lower Huron tributaries have been dredged and channelized, which are practices common in southeast Michigan. Drains typically are narrow, simple channels with accelerated flows in channelized areas, but wide and shallow in other sections. Most drains provide little hydraulic diversity, as pool and riffle sequences are lacking almost entirely in the Lower Huron tributaries.17

Lower Huron River Watershed 35 Management Plan

Larson and others18 measured the river channel gradients of lower Huron River and tributaries:

Gradient 0-4.9 ft/mi: ƒ Characterized by low to modest hydraulic diversity, mostly run habitat with some riffles ƒ Found in Silver Creek and the main stem of the Huron River

Gradient 5.0-9.9 ft/mi: ƒ Characterized by riffle-pool sequences with good hydraulic diversity ƒ Found in Griggs Drain

Gradient 10-69.9 ft/mi: ƒ Characterized by established, regular riffle-pool sequences with excellent hydraulic diversity ƒ Found in tributaries south of main stem, including Regan Drain, Port, Wagner- Pink (10-14.9 ft/mi), Bunton Drain (15-25 ft/mi), and McBride Drain (15-25 ft/mi)

Channel Shape Cross-section data from below French Landing Dam show a channel width of 88.5 ft at 810 cfs. The channel is much narrower than the expected width of 155.3 ft. At lower flows of 129 cfs, this channel has a width of 88 ft, which is wider than the expected width of 62.2 ft.19 This U-shaped channel form is typical of fluctuating flow affects in a constrained channel. In this section of the river, the erosion-resistant clay banks direct the water’s force to downcutting the substrate, lowering the channel. The dam’s discharge, which is more powerful than an open river, aids this downcutting.

Cross-section data below Flat Rock Dam show a width of 114 ft at a discharge of 191 cfs. This width is much wider than the expected width of 76 ft and is a result of the water eroding the clay banks which, though resistant, are less so than the bedrock substrate. Hydraulic diversities range from 2.34 to 2.57, indicating a somewhat complex channel with higher diversity than most other reaches of the Huron River. However, the sections from French Landing Dam to I-275 and below Rockwood are less complex.

The lower reaches of the tributaries in the lower Huron River Watershed are mostly run habitat with no pools and bottom substrate of sand and gravel. Most of the upper reaches have been dredged and channelized as drains. Silver Creek near Rockwood has mostly deep run habitat with instream fish cover.

Dams The presence of dams directly impacts the river’s hydrology and channel morphology. Dams may be constructed for uses such as hydropower or recreation. Once useful dams can outlive their intended purpose and become a hazard and detriment to river health. Dams hold back silt, debris and nutrients, alter river flows, decrease oxygen levels in impounded waters, block fish migration and eliminate spawning habitat, increase nuisance plant growth in reservoirs, alter water temperatures, and injure or kill fish.

The most significant dam, both in size and impact, on the lower Huron River system is the Flat Rock Dam in the City of Flat Rock. Fish passage was enabled through installation of a fish ladder in 1996 by MDNR and a local sporting group, the Huron River

Lower Huron River Watershed 36 Management Plan

Fishing Association. At Flat Rock the Huron River flows through its last dam. The Huron once ended in a vast delta of marshes. The river slows and sediment falls out of suspension as the river reaches the same elevation as Lake Erie. These sediments built the delta. The repeated damming of the river reduced the flow of sediments, and the delta marshes were carried away by the lake. Marshes have been recreated, held in place by dikes at the Pointe Mouillée wildlife refuge.20

In the late 18th century Patrick McNiff drew a map of the lower Huron and eastern Lake Erie that shows the delta at the river’s mouth was a much more dominant geographical feature than present-day. The artist shows the delta of the Huron jutting out into the Detroit River so that it extends nearly halfway to Canada. Artistic inaccuracies aside, it is clear that the sediment deposition at the delta was much greater historically prior to the introduction of dams on the Huron River.21

According to the National Inventory of Dams, 5 dams or control structures are located in the watershed (Table 3.2 and Appendix A, Map 5).22

Table 3.2 Inventoried dams of the lower Huron River Watershed Dam Name

(w/ Identification Number) Flat Rock Dam Lower Middle Washago Upper Pond and Weir Pond Pond Pond (MI01888) (MI00556) (MI01887) (MI02392) (MI00760) Brook Brook Waterway Huron River Brook Drain Regan Drain Drain Drain City of Flat Sumpter Sumpter Sumpter Huron Community Rock Township Township Township Township City of Flat Owner HCMA HCMA HCMA HCMA Rock Downstream Hazard High Low Low Low Low Potential Retired Purpose Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation Hydropower Dam Type Gravity/Earth Earth Earth Earth Gravity/Earth Date Built 1924 pre-1901 pre-1901 pre-1901 1979 Dam Height (ft) 16 0 0 0 11 Crest Length; 650; 490 50; 4 0 50; 4 100; 4 Spill Width (ft) Pond Surface 316 1 1 1 13 Area (ft) Source: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (MDNR)

French Landing Dam, although upstream of the lower Huron River Watershed, impacts the study area due to its proximity and size. The 38 foot tall dam impounds 16,000 acre- feet of water that covers 1,270 acres known as Belleville Lake. In addition to the influences described above, the impoundment can serve as a sink or source of nutrients depending on atmospheric and riverine conditions. Nutrient mass balance studies underway by the University of Michigan, and funded by the U.S. EPA, are improving understanding of the conditions that create conditions conducive to harmful aquatic blooms.

Lower Huron River Watershed 37 Management Plan

3.3 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES

Presettlement Vegetation Presettlement vegetation of the clay lakeplain supported both upland and wetland forest. The forests of the clay lakeplain responded to differences in slope and drainage. Lowland hardwoods were prevalent on flatter portions (<=10 ft/mi) of the lakeplain or in shallow basins or depressions. Black ash was the common dominant in closed depressions. Where the topography was flat or gradually sloping, black ash was still the dominant species, but American elm and basswood were also common co-dominants. As slope increased slightly and drainage conditions improved, beech, white oak, white ash, and hickory became more common, but were generally less common than black ash and elm. Cottonwood, sycamore, trembling aspen, and [red or silver] maple were other common wetland species of the clay lake plain. Where drainage conditions were improved by streams, there were mesic forests dominated by beech, sugar maple, white oak, [American] elm, and hickory.23

Extensive marshes occurred along the entire coast of Lakes Erie and St. Clair. The marshes, which extended into water 4 to 5 feet deep, were 1 to 2 miles wide in places and extended for miles up major rivers such as the Huron. Upland of the marshes, there was typically a broad zone of swamp forest; but locally along Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, 1- to 3-mile-wide expanses of wet prairie occurred.

Presettlement vegetation in the lower Huron River Watershed was dominated by beech- sugar maple forests throughout the middle and downriver portions, while lowland hardwoods were common upriver (Appendix A, Map 6). Pockets were to be found of oak barrens, black ash swamp, silver maple and red maple, and oak-hickory. The lakeplain prairie covered, within the watershed, what is today northeast Huron Township and western Brownstown Township. But it extended northward into present-day Romulus and neighboring communities. Management and restoration of the Sibley Lakeplain Prairie is a high priority in the lower Huron River Watershed and for all of southern Michigan. Prairies and savannas on the lake plain are called "lakeplain prairie or oak opening" because of the distinctive flora and fauna.

Natural Features The lower Huron River Watershed is home to an impressive assemblage of significant natural features including unique community types such as Southern floodplain forest, Great Lakes marsh, Lakeplain oak openings, and Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, and rare animal species such as freshwater mussels, and rare plant species such as American lotus and wild hyacinth. The entire native clam fauna, especially the large unionids, is being threatened by the zebra mussel invasion. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas map in Appendix A provides general locations for listed species and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Detailed information about the status of natural communities and rare plants in the Huron-Clinton Metroparks is available in four recent volumes produced by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). Lake Erie, Lower Huron, Oakwoods, and Willow Metroparks all contain important remnants of presettlement vegetation. In Kost, et al, the value of these remaining natural areas is emphasized:

Lower Huron River Watershed 38 Management Plan

Metroparks serve an increasingly important role in the conservation of the biodiversity for southeast Michigan. The areas surrounding [the Metroparks] are rapidly converting to an urbanized landscape. As development proceeds, the Metroparks, along with other public lands will likely harbor some of the only remaining examples of native ecosystems in southeast Michigan. Protecting and stewarding the remaining natural habitats within the Metroparks is an extremely important component of any long-term strategy for biodiversity conservation in southeast Michigan.24

Protecting the native plant communities, and the animals that depend on them, within these virtual islands of biodiversity is a considerable management challenge. Fire suppression, urban development, invasion of exotic plant species and insects, and extreme water level fluctuations are some of the stressors for the native ecosystems in the Metroparks. Specifically, Metropark naturalists recognize that soil erosion is sending considerable portions of the river banks downstream and contributing to sedimentation.25 Another problem noted by naturalists is the expansion of invasive plant species, primarily phragmites, in coastal marsh areas within Lake Erie Metropark during periods of lower water levels in Lake Erie.

Lists of all known occurrences of threatened, endangered, and special concern species and high quality natural communities occurring within the lower Huron River Watershed are provided in Tables 3.3 through 3.6. The species and community information is derived from the MNFI database.26 MNFI issues several caveats to this information. This list is based on known and verified sightings of threatened, endangered, and special concern species and represents the most complete data set available. It should not be considered a comprehensive listing of every potential species found within a watershed. Because of the inherent difficulties in surveying for threatened, endangered, and special concern species and inconsistency of inventory effort across the State, species may be present in a watershed and not appear on this list.

Lower Huron River Watershed 39 Management Plan

Table 3.3 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Griggs Creek subwatershed and upstream portion of lower Huron River (P) = Plant; (A) = Animal; (C) = Community (LE) = federally endangered; (SC) = state special concern; (T) = state threatened; (E) = state endangered Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Angelica venenosa (P) Hairy Angelica SC Aristolochia serpentaria (P) Virginia Snakeroot T Calephelis mutica (A) Swamp Metalmark SC Diarrhena americana (P) Beak Grass T Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (A) Northern Riffleshell LE E Euonymus atropurpurea (P) Wahoo SC Gentianella quinquefolia (P) Stiff Gentian T Geum virginianum (P) Pale Avens SC Hydrastis canadensis (P) Goldenseal T Jeffersonia diphylla (P) Twinleaf SC Ruellia humilis (P) Hairy Ruellia T Silphium laciniatum (P) Compass-plant T Southern floodplain forest ( C) Speyeria idalia (A) Regal Fritillary E Stylurus laurae (A) Laura's Clubtail SC Source: Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Lower Huron River Watershed 40 Management Plan

Table 3.4 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the main stem subwatershed of the lower Huron River (P) = Plant; (A) = Animal (LE) = federally endangered; (SC) = state special concern; (T) = state threatened; (E) = state endangered Federal Scientific Name Common Name State Status Status Camassia scilloides (P) Wild-hyacinth T Carex squarrosa (P) Sedge SC Clemmys guttata (A) Spotted Turtle T Cyclonaias tuberculata (A) Purple Wartyback SC Diarrhena americana (P) Beak Grass T Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (A) Northern Riffleshell LE E Epioblasma triquetra (A) Snuffbox E Euonymus atropurpurea (P) Wahoo SC Gentianella quinquefolia (P) Stiff Gentian T Justicia americana (P) Water-willow T Lampsilis fasciola (A) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel T Ludwigia alternifolia (P) Seedbox SC Morus rubra (P) Red Mulberry T Nelumbo lutea (P) American Lotus T Obovaria subrotunda (A) Round Hickorynut E Opsopoeodus emiliae (A) Pugnose Minnow E Percina copelandi (A) Channel Darter E Percina shumardi (A) River Darter E Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis (A) Brown Walker SC Silphium laciniatum (P) Compass-plant T Silphium perfoliatum (P) Cup-plant T Strophostyles helvula (P) Trailing Wild Bean SC Villosa fabalis (A) Rayed Bean E Source: Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Lower Huron River Watershed 41 Management Plan

Table 3.5 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Silver Creek subwatershed of the lower Huron River Watershed (P) = Plant; (A) = Animal; (C) = Community (C) = species being considered for federal status; (LE) = federally endangered; (SC) = state special concern; (T) = state threatened; (E) = state endangered Federal Scientific Name Common Name State Status Status Angelica venenosa (P) Hairy Angelica SC Camassia scilloides (P) Wild-hyacinth T Carex frankii (P) Frank's Sedge SC Carex squarrosa (P) Sedge SC Cyclonaias tuberculata (A) Purple Wartyback SC Cyperus flavescens (P) Yellow Nut-grass SC Elaphe vulpina gloydi (A) Eastern Fox Snake T Epioblasma triquetra (A) Snuffbox E Euphyes dukesi (A) Dukes' Skipper T Great Lakes marsh ( C) Gymnocladus dioicus (P) Kentucky Coffee-tree SC Hibiscus moscheutos (P) Swamp Rose-mallow SC Hydrastis canadensis (P) Goldenseal T Justicia americana (P) Water-willow T Lakeplain oak openings ( C) Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie ( C) Alkaline Tallgrass Prairie, Midwest Type Lampsilis fasciola (A) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel T Ludwigia alternifolia (P) Seedbox SC Morus rubra (P) Red Mulberry T Myotis sodalis (A) Indiana Bat or Indiana LE E Myotis Nelumbo lutea (P) American Lotus T Opsopoeodus emiliae (A) Pugnose Minnow E Percina copelandi (A) Channel Darter E Percina shumardi (A) River Darter E Potentilla paradoxa (P) Sand Cinquefoil T Rallus elegans (A) King Rail E Sagittaria montevidensis (P) Arrowhead T Silene virginica (P) Fire Pink T Silphium perfoliatum (P) Cup-plant T Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (A) Eastern Massasauga C SC Strophostyles helvula (P) Trailing Wild Bean SC Villosa fabalis (A) Rayed Bean E Zizania aquatica var. aquatica (P) Wild-rice T Source: Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Lower Huron River Watershed 42 Management Plan

Table 3.6 Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the mouth of the Huron River (P) = Plant; (A) = Animal (C) = species being considered for federal status; (SC) = state special concern; (T) = state threatened; (E) = state endangered Federal Scientific Name Common Name State Status Status Camassia scilloides (P) Wild-hyacinth T Carex squarrosa (P) Sedge SC Cyclonaias tuberculata (A) Purple Wartyback SC Elaphe vulpina gloydi (A) Eastern Fox Snake T Epioblasma triquetra (A) Snuffbox E Hibiscus moscheutos (P) Swamp Rose-mallow SC Justicia americana (P) Water-willow T Ludwigia alternifolia (P) Seedbox SC Morus rubra (P) Red Mulberry T Nelumbo lutea (P) American Lotus T Obovaria subrotunda (A) Round Hickorynut E Opsopoeodus emiliae (A) Pugnose Minnow E Percina copelandi (A) Channel Darter E Percina shumardi (A) River Darter E Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis (A) Brown Walker SC Potentilla paradoxa (P) Sand Cinquefoil T Rallus elegans (A) King Rail E Sagittaria montevidensis (P) Arrowhead T Silphium perfoliatum (P) Cup-plant T Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (A) Eastern Massasauga C SC Strophostyles helvula (P) Trailing Wild Bean SC Zizania aquatica var. aquatica (P) Wild-rice T Source: Michigan Natural Features Inventory

A conservation planning tool known as the Bioreserve planning map was developed to identify places within the watershed that should be targeted for protection. The map (Appendix A, Map7) illustrates the inventory and prioritization of critical habitats for unique flora and fauna, open spaces and critical natural features that maintain the hydrological functions of the Huron River Watershed.27 The map was developed by the HRWC and funded by U.S. EPA. Appendix H provides the methodology for the Bioreserve planning map. Chapter 3.8 Community Profiles describes the remaining natural areas in more detail. Environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, riparian corridors, wetlands and woodlands are mapped in Appendix A, Map 8.

Lower Huron River Watershed 43 Management Plan

3.4 WATER CHEMISTRY

Pathogens Pathogens are microorganisms that are found everywhere. Coliform bacteria are a group of pathogens that includes a smaller group known as fecal coliforms, which are found in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in freshwater ecosystems indicates that pollution by sewage or wastewater may have occurred and that other harmful microorganisms may be present. A species of fecal coliform known as Escherichia coli or E. coli is analyzed to test for contamination.

Rule 62 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards (Part 4 of Act 451) limits the concentration of microorganisms in surface waters of the state and surface water discharges. Waters of the state which are protected for total body contact recreation must meet limits of 130 Escherichia coli (E. coli) per 100 milliliters (ml) water as a 30-day average and 300 E. coli per 100 ml water at any time. The limit for waters of the state which are protected for partial body contact recreation is 1000 E. coli per 100 ml water.28

Concentrations of E. coli in Wagner-Pink Drain, a tributary to the Huron River, exceed the WQS for E. coli along a half-mile of the tributary. Monitoring conducted in 2002 in dry weather conditions found 30-day geometric mean concentrations ranging from 128 E. coli per 100 ml to 2,369 E. coli per 100 ml. Daily geometric mean concentrations ranged from 20 E. coli per 100 ml to 6,729 E. coli per 100 ml. 29 A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was completed in 2003 and implementation of the TMDL is underway; the TMDL document is included in Appendix B.

Conductivity Conductivity, a measure of general water quality, increases with the amount of dissolved ions, such as salts or metals. If the average conductivity measured at a site is 800 micro Siemens (µS) or less, then it is considered natural for stream water in the Huron River Watershed.30 Conductivity over 800 µS may indicate the presence of toxic substances; however many toxins are not measured by conductivity. A high conductivity measurement signals a need for further investigation of what is dissolved in the water.

Recent monitoring in the Huron River indicates that average conductivity values are close to 800 µS. In the Huron River at Flat Rock (Adopt-A-Stream site), conductivity values range from 718 µS to 920 µS during 8 visits from 1996 to 2004, yielding an average value of 816 µS.31 Monitoring by MDEQ in the Huron River at River Road recorded a 5-yr average (1989 to 1993) of 686 µS (n=56).32 More recently, MDEQ recorded an average value of 662 µS in 1996 and 1998 (n=21) in the Huron River in the vicinity of Berlin Township.

Conductivity is greater than 800 µS in tributaries for which recent data are available, with Griggs Creek providing the only exception. Griggs Creek conductivity ranges from 618 µS to 857 µS during 10 visits from 1996 to 2004 by Adopt-A-Stream, yielding an average value of 776 µS. The Adopt-A-Stream site on Port Creek at Armstrong Road measured conductivity ranging from 322 µS to 1,740 µS during 12 visits from 2000 to 2004, giving an average value of 1,078 µS. Field reconnaissance conducted in July 2003 measured

Lower Huron River Watershed 44 Management Plan

conductivity values of 980 µS in the confluence area of Silver and Smith creeks; 870 µS in Smith Creek at Woodruff Road, just north of Rockwood Park in Rockwood; and 900 µS in Silver Creek at Fort Road. In addition, a trickle of water from a storm drain at Woodruff Road measured 5,180 µS.

Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the volume of oxygen that is contained in water. DO is essential for fish and is an important component in the respiration of aerobic plants and animals, photosynthesis, oxidation-reduction processes, solubility of minerals, and decomposition of organic matter. Aquatic plants, algae and phytoplankton produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. Oxygen also dissolves rapidly into water from the atmosphere until the water is saturated. Dissolved oxygen diffuses very slowly and depends on the movement of aerated water. DO levels fluctuate on a diurnal basis. They rise from morning through late afternoon as a result of photosynthesis, reach a peak in late afternoon, then drop through the night as a result of photosynthesis stopping while plants and animals continue to respire and consume oxygen. DO levels fall to a low point just before dawn.

The amount of oxygen an organism requires varies according to species and stage of life. DO levels below 1-2 mg/L do not support fish. DO levels below 3 mg/L are stressful to most aquatic organisms. DO levels of 5-6 mg/L usually are required for growth and activity. Low DO levels encourage the growth of anaerobic organisms and nuisance algae. The accumulation of organic wastes and accompanying aerobic respiration by microorganisms as they consume the waste depletes DO in freshwater systems. High levels of bacteria from sewage pollution and high levels of organic matter can lead to low DO levels. Michigan Water Quality Standards states that surface waters protected for warmwater fish and aquatic life must meet a minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/l.33

Recent monitoring indicates that the average DO value in the lower Huron River meets state standards. In 2002, MDEQ recorded a mean concentration of DO (February- November) of 10.2 mg/L, with a maximum of 13.7 mg/L in March and a minimum of 4.4 mg/L in July (STORET ID#580364).34 In July 2002, MDEQ monitored the Huron River downstream of the City of Flat Rock and reported an average DO of 6.6 mg/L for the study period with a maximum value of 8.2 mg/L and minimum value of 5.6 mg/L.35 Monitoring conducted in 1996 and 1998 by MDEQ (as reported in STORET) in the Huron River in the vicinity of Berlin Township reported an average DO value of 6.85 mg/L based on 22 measurements. The maximum value was 11.5 mg/L, and the minimum value was 4.5 mg/L. Monitoring conducted by MDEQ from 1987 to 1991 in the Huron River at River Road recorded a 5-year average of 10.8 mg/L. The maximum DO value was 15.4 mg/L, and the minimum was 1.5 mg/L.

Mercury Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is found in air, water and soil. It exists in several forms including organic mercury compounds such as methylmercury. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for about 40 percent of all domestic mercury emissions. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as

Lower Huron River Watershed 45 Management Plan

the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment.

Mercury in the air may settle into water bodies and affect water quality. This airborne mercury can fall to the ground in raindrops, in dust, or simply due to gravity (known as “air deposition”). After the mercury falls, it can end up in streams, lakes, or estuaries, where it can be transferred to methylmercury through microbial activity. Methylmercury accumulates in fish at levels that may harm the fish and the other animals that eat them. Birds and mammals that eat fish are more exposed to methylmercury than any other animals in water ecosystems. Similarly, predators that eat fish-eating animals are at risk. Effects of methylmercury exposure on wildlife can include death, reduced fertility, slower growth and development and abnormal behavior that affects survival, depending on the level of exposure. In addition, research indicates that the endocrine system of fish, which plays an important role in fish development and reproduction, may be altered by the levels of methylmercury found in the environment.36

Mercury is the only metal in the lower Huron River that exceeds state water quality standards according to recent monitoring by MDEQ. The water quality value for mercury in Michigan is 1.3 nanogram per liter or ng/L.37 Monitoring conducted by the state in 2000 and 2001 detected mercury concentrations in exceedence of state WQS along a 3- mile stretch of the Huron River downstream of Rockwood – STORET #580364. Mean concentration of mercury at this station in 2002 was 1.43 ng/L. Four of the 12 samples analyzed exceeded state WQS.38 The reach will be receiving further evaluation by MDEQ in order to determine whether previous elevated levels of mercury concentrations in the water column are persisting. In comparison, the high quality headwaters of the Huron River had a mean concentration of 0.868 ng/L, and none of the 4 samples analyzed exceeded the water quality value. pH pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion activity in a solution, and is important in determining the chemical speciation and solubility of various substances as well as regulating biological processes in freshwater systems. pH is measured on a scale of 0 to 14 with 0 indicating acid and 14 indicating base. For every one unit change in pH, there is approximately a ten-fold change in acidity or alkalinity. Pure deionized water is 7 and is “neutral.” Natural water usually has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5, which is optimal for most organisms (Table 3.7). Rule 53 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards (Part 4 of Act 451) states that pH shall be maintained within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 in all waters of the state.39

Most aquatic plants and animals are adapted to a specific pH range, and natural populations may be harmed by water that is too acidic or alkaline. Immature stages of aquatic insects and young fish are extremely sensitive to pH values below 5. Even microorganisms which live in the bottom sediment and decompose organic debris cannot live in conditions which are too acidic. In very acidic waters, metals which are normally bound to organic matter and sediment are released into the water. Many of these metals can be toxic to fish and humans. Below a pH of about 4.5, all fish die.

Rapidly growing algae and vegetation can remove carbon dioxide from the water during photosynthesis, which can result in a significant increase in pH. While there are natural variations in pH, many pH variations are due to human influences. Acid rain, industrial

Lower Huron River Watershed 46 Management Plan

wastes, agricultural runoff, dredging and other activities can cause fluctuations in pH. Low pH can cause heavy metals to become more mobile and be released into the water.

Monitoring conducted in the lower Huron River (STORET #580364) by MDEQ in 2002 yielded a mean pH in of 7.9, with pH values ranging from 8.3 to 7.7. These values fall within the pH range optimal for most freshwater organisms.40

Table 3.7 pH ranges that support freshwater biology Most Acidic Neutral Most Basic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Bacteria

Plants (algae, rooted, etc.)

Carp, suckers, catfish, some insects

Bass, bluegill, crappie

Snails, clams, mussels

Largest varieties of animals (trout, mayfly and stonefly nymphs, caddisfly larvae)

Source: W. Stapp, and M. Mitchell. Field Manual for Low Cost Water Quality Monitoring, 11th Edition.

Phosphorus Phosphorus is an essential nutrient required for plant growth and is required for many metabolic reactions in plants and animals. Generally, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in freshwater aquatic systems. In other words, if all phosphorus is used, then plant growth will cease no matter how much nitrogen is available. Phosphorus is the main parameter of concern for lake and impoundment eutrophication for its role in producing blue-green algae. MDEQ considers total phosphorus concentrations higher than 0.03 mg/L to have the potential to cause eutrophication.

Phosphorus enters surface waters from point and nonpoint sources. Wastewater treatment plants are the primary point sources of the nutrient, as the average adult excretes 1.3-1.5 g of phosphorus per day. Additional phosphorus originates from the use of industrial products, such as toothpaste, detergents, pharmaceuticals and food-treating compounds. Tertiary treatment of wastewater, through biological removal or chemical precipitation, is necessary to remove more than 30% of phosphorus.41

Nonpoint sources of phosphorus include natural, human and animal sources. Natural sources include phosphate deposits and phosphate-rich rocks which release phosphorus during weathering, erosion and leaching; and sediments in lakes and reservoirs which release phosphorus during seasonal overturns. As phosphorus has a strong affinity for soil, stormwater runoff from activities that dislodge soil or introduce excess phosphorus (such as conversion of land to urban uses and over-fertilization of lawns) is frequently considered the major nonpoint source of phosphorus contribution to waterbodies. Eroded sediments from mining and agricultural areas carry phosphorus- containing soil to surface waters. Septic system failures and illicit connections also are routes for phosphorus introduction. Domesticated animal and pet wastes that enter surface waters comprise another nonpoint source of phosphorus.

Lower Huron River Watershed 47 Management Plan

In 2002, state biologists reported the mean concentration of total phosphorus in the Huron River downstream of Rockwood (STORET #580364) as 0.04 mg/L, and a loading rate of 16 metric tons/yr based on a mean flow of 474 cfs.42 Bosch reports a significant increase in total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus from the outflow of Belleville Lake to the mouth at Lake Erie compared to upstream concentrations despite relatively small nutrient contributions from point sources.43 Therefore, Belleville Lake and nonpoint sources in the lower Huron River Watershed are the primary sources of phosphorus.

Temperature Water temperature directly affects many physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of a river. Temperature affects the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in the water; the rate of photosynthesis by algae and larger aquatic plants; the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms; and the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, parasites, and diseases. Changes in water temperature affect the rate of photosynthesis by aquatic plants; i.e., higher temperatures result in higher rates of photosynthesis until temperatures become so high that tissue damage or death of the plant occurs. Water temperature changes also affect the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, parasites, and disease.

An average summer temperature of about 72º F is the warmest water that will support coldwater fish, such as sculpin and trout. Fish that can survive in warmer waters up to 77º F include smallmouth bass, rockbass, sunfish, carp, catfish, suckers, and mudminnows. Average summer temperatures above 77º F exclude many fish and cool water insects.44 Fluctuations in temperature also affect biodiversity. Extreme fluctuation in summer temperature, as defined by a difference of more than 18º F between the average maximum and average minimum stream temperature, have been found to decrease fish diversity at warm sites.45

Thermal pollution, the discharge of heated water from industrial operations, dams, or stormwater runoff from hot pavement and other impervious surfaces often cause an increase in stream temperature. The Michigan Water Quality Standards specify that the Great Lakes and connecting waters and inland lakes shall not receive a heat load which increases the temperature of the receiving water more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit above the existing natural water temperature (after mixing with the receiving water). Rivers, streams and impoundments shall not receive a heat load which increases the temperature of the receiving water more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit for warmwater fisheries. These waters shall not receive a heat load which increases the temperature of the receiving water above monthly maximum temperatures (after mixing).46

Recent temperature data in the Huron River for 2002 (STORET #580364) yielded a mean temperature of 49.8° F, with a maximum temperature of 78° F in July, and a minimum temperature of 36° F in February.47 Summer temperatures in select tributaries (Table 3.8) reveal significant differences between minimum and maximum temperatures during the study period. More than 11° F variation in Griggs and Port creeks indicates the strong influence of stormwater runoff in their drainage areas.

Lower Huron River Watershed 48 Management Plan

Table 3.8 Temperature data for 3 lower Huron River Watershed sites Griggs Creek Huron River Port Creek

at Metropark at Flat Rock at Armstrong Road Average 71.8 75.8 69.2 Temperature Average Maximum 77.4 79.7 75.1

Average Minimum 66.2 71.8 63.2 Difference between 11.1 7.8 11.9 Max. and Min. Maximum of 83.3 80.4 80.0 Maximum Minimum of 61.3 70.7 54.0 Minimum Source: Adopt-A-Stream, HRWC

Temperature is in degrees Fahrenheit. Volunteers measured weekly maximum and minimum temperatures during July and August 2000 (Flat Rock) and 2001 (Griggs and Port). Only have temperature readings for July for Flat Rock.

Turbidity and Total Dissolved/Suspended Solids Turbidity is the measure of the relative clarity of water and is the result of suspended solids in the water that reduce the transmission of light. Turbidity should not be confused with color since darkly colored water can be clear without being turbid. Turbidity is expressed as Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) include anything present in water other than the pure water (H20) molecule and suspended solids such as minerals, salts, metals, cations or anions dissolved in water. Total suspended solids (TSS) include all particles suspended in water which will not pass through a filter. Suspended solids are any particles/substances that are neither dissolved nor settled in the water.

High turbidity directly results from soil erosion, stormwater runoff, algal blooms and bottom sediment disturbances that may be caused by boat traffic and large populations of bottom feeders such as carp. Turbid water absorbs heat from the sun, resulting in less oxygen in the water, and warmer water holds less oxygen than cooler water. Water with high turbidity loses its ability to support diverse aquatic biology. Suspended solids range from clay, silt and plankton to industrial wastes and sewage. Suspended solids can clog fish gills, reduce growth rates and disease resistance, decrease photosynthesis and reduce DO levels, and prevent egg and larval development. Settled particles can accumulate on the stream bottom and smother fish eggs and aquatic insects including larvae of benthic macroinvertebrates.

Michigan Water Quality Standards sets the narrative standard that waters of the state shall not have any of the following unnatural physical properties in quantities which are or may become injurious to any designated use: turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foam, settleable solids, suspended solids, and deposits. Most people consider water with a TSS concentration less than 20 mg/l to be clear. Water with TSS levels between 40 and 80 mg/l tends to appear cloudy, while water with concentrations over 150 mg/l usually appears dirty. The nature of the particles that comprise the suspended solids

Lower Huron River Watershed 49 Management Plan

may cause these numbers to vary.48 Standards have not been established for turbidity and TDS.

In 2002, MDEQ reported a mean turbidity value of 10.7 NTU in the Huron River (STORET #580364) with a maximum of 37.0 NTU in April, and a minimum of 3.3 NTU in November.49 In 2002, state biologists found TDS levels at 2 sites to be of concern and warrant further investigation: in the Huron River 0.3 miles downstream of Hagerman Road; and in the Huron River downstream of outfall for Sylvania Minerals. In 2002, MDEQ reported a mean TSS concentration in the Huron River (STORET #580364) of 12.92 mg/L. A mean TDS concentration of 574.2 mg/L was recorded at the same station.

Lower Huron River Watershed 50 Management Plan

3.5 FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Aquatic insects living on the bottom of the creek compose the benthic macroinvertebrate (no backbone) population, along with clams and crayfish. Since the benthic population depends on the physical conditions of the stream as well as water quality, its composition indicates the overall stream quality. Insect diversity indicates good stream quality, and is measured by the number of different insect families. The families Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (EPT) are indicators of alterations in stream flow, temperature, oxygen and other changes that raise metabolic rates. Sensitive insect families, such as Perlidae (Perlid stonefly) and Brachycentridae (log-cabin caddisfly), are highly sensitive to organic pollution; 19 of the 87 benthic insect families living in the Huron River Watershed are sensitive.50

Current data on macroinvertebrate populations is available for three locations in the lower Huron River Watershed. The Adopt-A-Stream program of the Huron River Watershed Council has monitored Griggs Creek (aka Griggs Drain) and the Huron River at Flat Rock since 1996, and Port Creek since 2000. A description of each site and the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate up to 2003 is provided below. Monitoring continues at these sites with annual visits in January, April and September.

The benthic macroinvertebrate population in Griggs Creek is considered acceptable; “acceptable” indicates that the quality of the site is just below what would be expected for a healthy site of its characteristics. Collectors have found, on average, 10 insect families, 4.5 EPT families, and 1 sensitive family from 11 visits to the site. The prong- gilled mayfly (Leptophlebiidae) and perlodid stonefly (Perlodidae), both sensitive families, have been found here. Figure 3.3 illustrates the number of families that have been found in Griggs Creek since monitoring began in 1996.

Figure 3.3 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Griggs Creek 14

12

10

8

6

4 INSECTS

2 EPT_SCORE

0 SENSITIVE Number of Families 1996.75 1997.75 1998.75 1999.75 2000.75 2001.75 2002.75 1997.33 1998.33 1999.33 2000.33 2001.33 2002.33 2003.33

Source: Adopt-A-Stream, HRWC

Lower Huron River Watershed 51 Management Plan

The benthic macroinvertebrate population in the Huron River at a site in Flat Rock is in “acceptable” condition. Collectors have found, on average, 11 insect families, 6 EPT families, and 1 sensitive family from 8 visits to the site. Only two sensitive families have been found here: the brush-legged mayfly (Isonychiidae) and the Stonefly (Perlidae). Figure 3.4 illustrates the number of families that have been found at this site since monitoring began in 1996.

Figure 3.4 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in the Huron River at Flat Rock 16

14

12

10

8

6

4 INSECTS

2 EPT_SCORE

0 SENSITIVE Number of Families 1996.75 1997.75 1998.75 1999.75 2000.75 2001.75 2002.75 1997.33 1998.33 1999.33 2000.33 2001.33 2002.33 2003.75

Source: Adopt-A-Stream, HRWC

Benthic macroinvertebrates in Port Creek from the confluence of the creek upstream to the vicinity of Rockwood and South Rockwood are in “poor” condition. In addition to low biological diversity, sensitive families and winter stoneflies are absent and conductivity is chronically excessive. Collectors have found, on average from 7 visits, 9 insect families, 2 EPT families and no sensitive families. Figure 3.5 illustrates the number of families that have been found in Port Creek since monitoring began in 2000. State biologists will conduct further investigations to determine whether the creek is meeting state WQS.

Figure 3.5 Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Port Creek at Armstrong Road 16

14

12

10

8

6

4 INSECTS

2 EPT_SCORE

0 SENSITIVE Number of Families 2000.33 2001.33 2002.33 2003.33 2000.75 2001.75 2002.75 2003.75

Source: Adopt-A-Stream, HRWC

Lower Huron River Watershed 52 Management Plan

State biologists conducted a survey of benthic macroinvertebrates at 6 sites from downstream of Belleville Lake to Lake Erie in 1979 and 1982.51 The mean number of benthic taxa in the survey reach indicates moderate stream quality when compared with a 1978 survey conducted upstream in the high quality reach between Kent Lake and Barton Pond. Relative abundance of insects is summarized in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Summary of relative abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates found in the Huron River from below Belleville Lake to Lake Erie, 1978-1982 Mean # of Mean # of Taxa Representative Taxa Benthic Taxa Stations Sampled Midges, caddisflies, French Landing Dam 10 8.5 blackflies Caddisflies, midges, S. Metropolitan Pkwy 10.6 8.6 blackflies Gastropods, caddisflies, Waltz Rd at New Boston 13 11.5 midges, sponges, scuds Damselflies, mayflies, Willow Rd 15 12.8 caddisflies, midges, blackflies, gastropods Mayflies, caddisflies, Above Flat Rock WWTP 14 12 midges Below Flat Rock WWTP 13.3 11 Mayflies, caddisflies, Mayflies, beetles, scuds, Above Rockwood 10.3 8 damselflies Below Rockwood WWTP 10.5 8 Mayflies, scuds, midges Source: Kenaga, D. 1983.

Fisheries Fish depend upon aquatic insects for food, and good quality stream habitat and free- flowing reaches for all life cycle phases. Historically, large numbers of potamodromous fishes entered the Huron River seasonally to spawn in marshes and on riffles, rapids and bedrock. Original potamodromous fauna included lake sturgeon, muskellunge, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, white bass and walleye. Coldwater fishes such as lake trout and whitefishes also spawned in many Great Lakes tributaries and these were originally abundant in Lake Erie.52

More than 90 species of fish are native to the Huron River watershed. Since European settlement, deliberate and inadvertent changes to the river’s fish communities have resulted in the persistence of some species but the elimination or endangerment of other species. The Huron River now contains approximately 99 species. The diversity of fish species is relatively high, and the communities appear healthy with a good mix of species requiring various habitats. 53 Fish species typical of vegetated lake outlet, gravel, and high gradient habitat have been reduced through loss of such habitats.

The Huron River remains a high-quality, warmwater river for the most part with good to excellent warm and coolwater fish populations, as assessed by state fisheries biologists.54 However, the reach from French Landing Dam to the mouth contains significant populations of warmwater fish that are limited by turbidity, competition, lack of

Lower Huron River Watershed 53 Management Plan

cover or habitat.55 The section does not support a good fishery for resident fish. Moreover, the dam at Flat Rock is the first barrier to migration for fish in the Huron River. A fish ladder, a series of stair-step pools that allow fish to bypass the dam, was installed by MDNR and local anglers in 1996. However, the ladder is not large enough to allow the passage of lake sturgeon.

The river below Belleville initially has fairly high gradient, with extensive gravel riffles and deep pools. As it enters the glacial lake plain it becomes flat and deeper. This stretch probably was somewhat turbid due to the naturally fine soils in this area. By 1938, this lower section had been affected negatively by sewage and other pollutants. A 1938 survey recorded 22 species, whereas 35-40 species would be expected in a river of this size.56 The 1938 fish community reflected both the lake-like nature of this lower stretch and the degraded nature of the system. Common species included northern pike, common carp, goldfish, golden shiner, emerald shiner, bluntnose minnow, white crappie, Johnny darter, and yellow perch. A 1986 survey recorded 17 species using the river between Flat Rock and Rockwood.57 The species included pumpkinseed, smallmouth bass, walleye, emerald shiner, logperch, spotfin shiner, white perch, gizzard shad, greenside darter, brook silverside, black crappie, yellow perch, Johnny darter, golden shiner, bluntnose minnow, bluegill, and orangespotted sunfish.

Most current data on fisheries in the lower Huron River focus on species favored by anglers as sportfishing in this reach is very popular. Managing for certain species has included stocking, as well as poisoning, target fisheries. For example, the Flat Rock impoundment was treated with rotenone from 1972 to 1974 to remove high densities of common carp.58 State fisheries biologists assert that the Flat Rock impoundment would have been an outstanding spot for a smallmouth bass fishery if it were free-flowing. The impoundment provides poor fishing due to its shallowness caused by sediment accumulation.

Potamodromous (migrants from freshwater lakes to freshwater rivers for spawning) fish have been stocked by MDNR below the Flat Rock Dam to create a fishery over the spawning run. A steelhead fishery has existed in the area since stocking began in the early 1980s. Steelhead stocking rates increased from the pre-fish passage level of approximately 20,000 smolts/year to 47,500 in 1995 to 150,000 in more recent years. Efforts to build this fishery are ongoing. Stocking with Coho salmon was unsuccessful (Table 3.10). Historically important walleye runs are now small due to loss of spawning habitat beneath the Flat Rock impoundment. However, state fisheries biologists anticipate fall walleye runs now that these fish have been seen passing over the ladder and reaching spawning sites they have not had access to in more than 60 years. Other than the species mentioned above, limited numbers of several potamodromous species use the river below Flat Rock Dam, including muskellunge, gizzard shad, white sucker, channel catfish, white perch, white bass, and smallmouth bass.

Lower Huron River Watershed 54 Management Plan

Table 3.10 Fish stocking history in lower Huron River by MDNR Stocking Common name Years Numbers Comments location Huron R. No run Coho Salmon 1981-85, 88 679,103 Metropark established Huron R. Flat No run Coho Salmon 1986-87, 89 464,684 rock established Huron R. No run Rainbow Trout 1981-88 227,131 Metropark established Huron R. Flat 20,000 (historic)- On-going Rainbow trout 1989-present Rock 150,000 program Source: Hay-Chmielewski et al, 1995

MDNR recommends that fish passage through the fish ladder should be monitored throughout the year to determine if other species are using the passage to access upper river stretches of the Huron River.

Mussels Mussel distributions are excellent habitat indicators as they are sessile (permanently attached or fixed) and reflect both their own tolerances of local environmental conditions, including pollution and siltation, and the tolerances of their host fishes. A clamming cottage industry existed on the Huron River from Flat Rock to Rockwood in the early 1900s. The Huron was one of a half dozen rivers in southern Michigan which produced enough freshwater mussels, or clams, to nurture a significant but brief industry. Thick shelled commercial species were present in sufficient quantities to support a few part- time clammers: Hickory Nut, Pimpleback, Maple-leaf, Pigtoe, Three Ridge, Mucket, Pocketbook, and Black Sand Shell.59

By the 1930s, from Ann Arbor to Flat Rock, mussel communities were negatively affected by dams and pollution (see Table 3.11 for 1938 populations). The completion of the dams at Rawsonville Road and French Landing completely changed the face of the lower Huron River. Downstream of Flat Rock mussels were affected negatively by variable stream flows, sewage, other pollutants, and clamming; in many areas of this section there were no mussels.60 In the decades since, many of those practices have continued and new ones have begun that produce negative affects for mussel populations.

Lower Huron River Watershed 55 Management Plan

Table 3.11 Excerpt of synoptic table showing distribution of Naiads (mussels) by collecting stations in the Huron River (1938) Station (mouth to French Landing Dam)

Mussels Park Willow Willow Boston Rd, New Flat Rock 1 miE. of Rockwood Rockwood 2 mi. E. of Huron RiverHuron Near Willow Willow Near E. Rockwood Landing Dam Landing 1/2 mi above Below French French Below Quadrula pustulosa xx Cyclonaias tuberculata xxxx xx Elliptio dilatatus xxx xxx Strophitus rugosus x Anodonta grandis xxx Anondonta imbeciliis xxx Anodontoides x ferrussaciana Lasmigona costata xxxx Lasmigona complanata x Alasmidonta marginata xx Ptychobranchus fasciolare xxxx xx

Obovaria subrotunda xx x Actinonaias carinata xxxxxxxxx Micromya iris xxx x Micromya fabalis xx xxx Ligumia recta latissima xx x Lampsilis fasciola x Lampsilis siliquoidea xx Lampsilis ventricosa xxxx Truncilla truncata xxx Dyssnomia triquetra xx Fusconaia flava xx Carunoulina parva xx Source: van der Schalie in Hay-Chmielewski et al, 1995

Current information is lacking on the condition of mussel populations in the lower Huron River. Several species receive special protection under the Endangered Species Act as they are Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern, such as the Northern Riffleshell, Wavy-rayed Lampmussel, Purple Wartyback, Rayed Bean, Snuffbox, and Round Hickorynut.

Lower Huron River Watershed 56 Management Plan

3.6 PHYSICAL STREAM AND RIPARIAN CONDITIONS

Stream and Riparian Survey Methods A GIS utilized current land use data and aerial photography of the lower Huron River Watershed to identify 300 stream crossing sites from which 1/3 were selected for surveying. The Project Team and a group of trained volunteers comprised of interested citizens and community consultants surveyed the physical instream and riparian conditions. Surveys were completed over a 6-month period from July, 2004 to December, 2004.

Surveyors followed the Stream Crossing Watershed Survey Procedure developed by MDEQ, which is a stream visual assessment procedure established by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).61 The Survey serves as a proxy for more detailed and intensive survey methods, such as walking the streams, because it can be done with less investment of time and resources while still yielding information about stream health. Goals of the Survey include (1) increasing available information on the water quality of surface waters and sources of pollutants; and (2) serving as a quick screening tool to identify issues of concern and the need for more in-depth investigations. The following data were collected at each crossing:

• Background Information o Event conditions o Days since rain o Water color o Waterbody type o Stream width o Average stream depth o Stream flow type • Substrate of channel bottom • River Morphology o Presence of riffles o Presence of pools o Channel: natural, recovered or maintained o Designated drain status o Highest water mark • Physical Appearance o Presence of aquatic plants o Presence of floating algae o Presence of filamentous algae o Presence of bacterial sheen/slime o Presence of turbidity o Presence of oil sheen o Presence of foam o Presence of trash • In-stream Cover o Presence of undercut banks o Presence of overhanging vegetation o Presence of deep pools o Presence of boulders

Lower Huron River Watershed 57 Management Plan

o Presence of aquatic plants o Presence of logs or woody debris • Stream Corridor o Riparian vegetation width o Severity of streambank erosion o Type of riparian land cover o Amount of stream canopy o Types of adjacent land use/cover • Potential Pollution Sources

Digital photographs also were taken to capture upstream and downstream conditions at each site. Those photographs have been catalogued with descriptive file names and organized by creek system, and recorded onto digital media. The photograph collection is included with the summary database of the survey results on CD, which has been distributed to the LHRWIC, MDEQ, and on file at the HRWC. The summary database also is included in Appendix C. Survey site locations are presented in Appendix A, Map 9.

Survey Results by Creek (Note: Warner and Vandecar drains, and portions of the lower Huron River main stem were not completed due to inclement weather during the field season that prevented reliable field observations.)

Bancroft-Noles Drain (South Rockwood and Berlin Charter Township; surveyed in December, 2004)

Three sites were chosen for assessment along the Bancroft-Noles Drain. The stream is a recovering channel and a designated drain, and the overall quality ranking for these sites was poor (Carleton-Rockwood Rd near Armstrong Rd) to fair.

The stream width at the road crossings ranged from 10-25 feet with moderate to high flows. Turbidity was at a high level and trash was present at each site. The banks were undercut with overhanging vegetation, and logs or woody debris were seen in the stream; stream canopies ranged from <25 to 50%. Riparian buffers averaged from 10- 30 feet wide on both the up and downstream sides of the stream crossings, and were vegetated with trees, grasses or shrubs. Bank erosion was considered moderate at all sites but there were no erosion problems found at the culverts.

Adjacent land uses at the crossings were primarily residential or parkland (maintained lawns along the streambanks) with shrubs and old fields beyond. Potential sources of pollution were thought to be highway/road/bridge maintenance and runoff (transportation NPS), continued streambank erosion, urban runoff and instream woody debris (at one site only).

Brook Drain (Sumpter Township; surveyed in November, 2004)

The surveys along Brook Drain revealed a stream that was <10 feet wide and 1-3 feet deep with clear running water at low to medium flows. While most of this stream is a designated drain, 3 channel types were present: natural stream, recovering stream and

Lower Huron River Watershed 58 Management Plan

a maintained channel. The overall quality ranking at the maintained channel site was fair, whereas the other two sites were ranked as good.

Bank erosion was minimal at the 3 sites surveyed. Riparian buffers were quite good at 2 sites, with buffer widths over 100 feet and vegetated with shrubs and grasses. The site with the maintained channel segment had a poor buffer of less than 10 feet and was vegetated with grass as a maintained lawn. Stream canopies ranged from <25% to 50%. Undercut banks and overhanging vegetation were found at 2 sites and a few riffles were also present at one of those 2 sites. Significant sedimentation was observed at only one site.

No culvert problems were observed at any of the stream crossings; however there was some erosion of the road ditches running to the stream. Potential NPS pollution sources were noted as transportation NPS, channelization, riparian vegetation removal, road/bridge construction, urban runoff and natural sources.

Bunton Drain (Van Buren Charter Township; surveyed in November, 2004)

The 3 stream crossings selected for the survey along Bunton Drain run primarily through a residential area. In fact, there was no stream channel at one site, but rather a turf grassed swale that conveyed stormwater to a storm sewer on the upstream side of the road crossing. Riparian buffers were mostly non-existent, with a couple of exceptions where there were 2-3 foot areas of unmowed grass along the streambank on the upstream side and one short run of shrubs and trees about 30-100 feet wide depending on the direction the surveyor was looking. One downstream bank was cemented as it ran parallel to Haggerty Road.

The stream itself was less than 10 feet wide with clear running water at moderate flows at 2 sites. The substrate was cobble/gravel/sand and there were aquatic plants in abundance at the most upstream site. There was no overhanging vegetation at 2 of the 3 sites and the streambanks were not undercut; bank erosion was minimal.

There were no specific culvert problems observed, although at one site the unmortared stonewall around the pipe outlet extending to the road shoulder was collapsing. Erosion was evident at the crossing embankments of 2 sites.

Potential sources of NPS pollution were noted as transportation NPS and urban runoff. The overall quality rankings of the sites were fair to good.

Flat Rock Drain (Huron Township and Flat Rock; surveyed in July, 2004)

Four stream crossings were surveyed on Flat Rock Drain, which discharges into the Huron River and is a designated drain. The data collected at these sites suggest that both the stream and riparian corridor are significantly degraded.

The stream channel was less than 10 feet wide, water color varied from brown and gray to clear, and the flow was considered stagnant to low. The stream’s physical appearance was poor, with floating algae, bacterial sheen or slimes, and trash at the sites. The channel bottom was over 80% silt, detritus or muck and one site had an

Lower Huron River Watershed 59 Management Plan

artificial bottom. The banks were undercut with overhanging vegetation and logs/woody debris was found at all sites. Most of the riparian buffers were less than 10 feet wide, consisting of trees and shrubs, and bank erosion was judged to be low to moderate. The downstream side of the site where the Flat Rock Drain discharges into the river (Huron River Dr near Gibraltar Rd) was too overgrown to assess the conditions.

Only one culvert was observed to have a problem, which was impounding water. Erosion at the stream crossings was minimal, with road embankment erosion at just one site. Adjacent land uses include one animal feeding operation, residential or maintained lawn, shrub/old fields and impervious cover of some type. Several potential pollution sources were identified: crop-related and transportation NPS, streambank erosion, road/bridge/development construction, urban residential runoff, debris in the stream channel and one industrial point source.

Griggs Drain (Van Buren Charter and Sumpter townships; October and December, 2004)

The Griggs Drain subwatershed is one of the largest in the lower Huron system and quite complex due to the wide variety of land uses present in the drainage area. The stream channel is a designated drain with all three types of channel morphology present at the stream crossings: natural, recovering and maintained channel segments. Data was collected at 14 sites along the Drain and only 5 of the sites had paved stream crossings, with the remainder being gravel. Six out of 28 segments (upstream and downstream) run parallel to roads.

The overall appearance of the stream was good; 79% of the sites had clear water with low to medium flows. The average depth of the streams at 60% of the crossings was less than 1 foot; the remaining sites were 1 to 3 feet deep. The stream was less than 10 feet wide at 85% of the sites. Aquatic plants were present at 60% of the sites with minimal or no algae noted at all sites. The channel substrate was primarily sand, however 35% of the sites had a significant amount (greater than 50%) of silt, detritus and muck covering the stream bottom.

Undercut banks were observed at 29% of the sites and overhanging vegetation at 43% of the sites. Aquatic plant cover was present at 46% of the sites and logs or woody debris was observed at 36% of the sites. 60% of the sites had riffles and pools, and the stream canopy ranged from <25% to over 50%. These data, taken together, suggest that habitat for fish may be of moderate quality in some sections of the stream.

Riparian buffer widths ranged from <10 feet to 30-100 feet, with majority (over 50% of the areas) at less than 10 feet. As some of these areas are located in residential communities with maintained lawns up to the streambank edge, they may be good candidates for re-establishing a vegetated stream buffer.

Land use was primarily residential (or parkland), shrub/old fields, some forest, impervious cover and bare ground. Potential sources of pollution were noted as crop and transportation NPS, channelization, riparian vegetation removal, streambank erosion, altered hydrology, urban residential runoff and one municipal point source.

Out of the 14 stream crossings surveyed, only a few culvert problems were observed: impounding water at one site, an undersized culvert at one site, one culvert was

Lower Huron River Watershed 60 Management Plan

obstructed and 2 were misaligned. Erosion of the crossing embankment and road ditches was evident at only 3 sites.

Hale Drain (Huron Township; surveyed in December, 2004)

The 3 sites surveyed in the Hale Drain subwatershed are located in a residential area and residential/agricultural area. The 3 streams appeared to be natural or recovering channels, with one downstream section running through cropland (King Rd). Two of the streams crossed under Steadman Rd, which is unpaved.

In general, the streams were <10 feet wide and 1-3 feet deep with low to moderate flows. There was severe down-cutting on some banks and bank erosion was low to moderate. At 2 sites, either the upstream or downstream channels at the culverts were in poor condition. There was trash at all 3 sites and one site on Steadman Rd also had floating algae and bacterial sheens. This same site had impounded water at the culvert and the stream bottom was 100% silt and detritus. Surprisingly, the downstream side of this crossing was in good condition, with a sand/gravel channel substrate, riffles and clear water.

The riparian buffer widths ranged from <10 feet wide (through the cropland) to 10-30+ feet in the residential areas. Buffer vegetation consisted of trees, shrubs and some grasses.

Culvert problems existed at 2 of the 3 stream crossings. These culverts were obstructed with woody debris or other materials on either the upstream or downstream sides; one culvert had structural integrity problems. Road ditch and embankment erosion was also evident at all the crossing sites. Potential NPS pollution inputs include cropland and transportation NPS, streambank erosion, urban residential runoff, woody debris and natural NPS.

McBride Drain (Romulus; surveyed in September and November, 2004)

Three stream crossings were surveyed along McBride Drain. Even though it is a designated drain, there were natural and recovering stream channels present as well as a maintained channel segment. Only the upstream side of the crossing at the I-94 entrance ramp (from I-275) was surveyed due to inaccessibility of the downstream side.

At all 3 sites, the stream was less than 10 feet wide, less than 1 foot deep and had low water flows. The water color was both green and brown, but not turbid. At one of the sites, there were aquatic plants, bacterial sheens and trash, with over 50% of the channel bottom covered in silt and detritus near the culvert. Two of the sites had average buffer widths of 10-30 feet vegetated with grasses and shrubs; the other site had buffer areas of 30-100 feet vegetated with trees. Overall streambank erosion was rated as low.

There were 2 problems with the culvert at the site near Grant Road: inadequate armoring and structural integrity. The site at North Line Road had severe embankment and road-approach erosion problems on the upstream side of the stream crossing,

Lower Huron River Watershed 61 Management Plan

causing significant sediment buildup on the downstream side at the pipe discharge point. As a result, this site was ranked as poor and should be more thoroughly investigated.

The adjacent land uses were wetlands, old fields, residential and impervious cover. The potential sources of NPS pollution were noted as transportation, urban residential runoff and debris in the water.

Morrison Drain (Brownstown Township and Gibraltar; surveyed in November, 2004)

Five stream crossings were assessed in the Morrison Drain subwatershed. Four of the sites were recovering stream channels and one was a maintained channel that was dry at the time of the survey. The quality ranking for 4 of the sites, including the dry channel, was fair and the fifth site ranked as poor.

Channels widths ranged from <10 feet to 25-50 feet; stream depth was < 1 foot to 3 feet for three sites and 2 were unknown. Stream flows were low, with one section stagnant, and water colors varied from brown and green to clear. Riparian buffers were relatively good as every site had at least one buffer zone that was 30-100 or more feet wide. Three of the sites had 2 such zones, including the dry channel.

Undercut banks were observed at 3 of the crossing sites and all the sites had overhanging vegetation present. Aquatic plant cover was evident in all the wet stream channels and 2 of those channels had logs or woody debris in them. While overall bank erosion was considered low, stream appearance was somewhat poor. All stream crossing sites were littered with trash; 3 sites had turbid water, two sites had bacterial sheens and two channel segments had 50% of the bottom covered with silt and detritus. The site at Huron River Dr near Green Wing Rd was the worst with 100% of the channel bottom covered in silt and detritus upstream of the crossing (downstream condition unknown), with turbid water, and trash and oil sheens present. This particular site received the poor quality ranking.

There was only one culvert problem observed, however crossing erosion was noted at 3 places.

Observed land use outside the stream corridor was wetlands (at site with stagnant water), shrub and old fields, maintained lawns, impervious cover and disturbed ground. Potential pollution inputs were listed as transportation NPS, channelization, riparian vegetation removal, streambank erosion, road/bridge/development construction, urban residential runoff, debris in water, natural NPS and one industrial point source.

Point Mouillée Tributary (Brownstown Township; surveyed in November, 2004)

Four stream crossings were surveyed along Point Mouillée Tributary: Huron River Dr near River Rd, Jane Rd near River Rd, Campeau Rd near River Rd, and Campeau Rd near Pt. Mouillée Rd. The site on Huron River Dr was a bridge crossing over wetlands in a natural, public lands setting; there was no stream channel per se. Wetlands were also on the downstream side of the crossing on Campeau Rd near Pt. Mouillée Rd. The other 2 sites had stream channels flowing through culverts under gravel roads, and they appeared to be maintained channels. Stream channel widths ranged from <10 to 25 feet

Lower Huron River Watershed 62 Management Plan

and the wetlands area on Huron River Dr was 25-50 feet wide. The water color was clear at Campeau Rd near Pt. Mouillée and the other 3 sites had brown colored water. Water flow was considered stagnant or low, and the downstream channel at Jane Rd was enclosed where it ran through a development.

Aquatic plants were seen at all sites except Jane Rd. The water was turbid at 3 sites and there was trash and floating algae at 2 sites. The stream at Campeau Rd near River Rd had the worst appearance of all the sites as there was trash, foam, floating algae, bacterial sheens and turbid water present. Both Campeau Rd sites had poor substrates as they were 90% covered in silt, detritus, and muck, and there was woody debris observed in both streams as well. Undercut banks were seen only at the Campeau/River Rd site.

Streamside cover consisted of shrubs and trees at all sites except at Jane Rd, where the cover was grasses. Stream canopy was less than 25% at all sites. Riparian buffers ranged from 10-100 feet wide with the widest at the wetland sites. Bank erosion was negligible at all the sites.

The bridge at the Huron River Dr site was considered to have structural integrity problems (crumbling) and there was embankment erosion at all the crossings. Adjacent land uses were wetlands, old fields and shrubs, forest, maintained lawn/parkland, and impervious cover. Potential sources of pollution were noted as transportation NPS, riparian vegetation removal, altered hydrology, urban residential runoff, development construction, recreation and golf courses, and debris in the water.

Port Creek (Berlin Charter and Ash townships; surveyed in July, 2004)

Four stream crossings were selected for assessment along Port Creek. Two of the stream channels were considered natural, one was maintained and other had both natural and maintained channel segments. It was unknown if the Creek was a designated drain.

Overall, the creek ranged from <10 to 25 feet wide and was <1 to 3 feet deep, with brown or clear water and stagnant flow. Aquatic plants were observed at 2 sites; turbid water and oil sheens were present at 2 sites; trash was present at 3 sites. The Huron River Dr crossing, which was one of the maintained channels, had trash, oil sheens and turbid water, and no aquatic plants. The upstream channel segment substrate was 80% artificial material; the downstream substrate was 80% silt/detritus/muck. The other 3 sites had 80-100% silt/detritus/muck channel substrates on at least one of the stream crossing sides. The Huron River Dr site also had undercut banks, overhanging vegetation and woody debris in the stream. These 3 features were also seen at the Armstrong Road crossing, which had both natural and maintained channel segments.

Bank erosion was considered low at all sites. The riparian buffer width at the Huron River Dr site averaged 30-100 feet and was vegetated with trees, whereas the buffers at the other 3 sites were less than 10 feet wide vegetated with trees, shrubs or grasses. Two sites with trees for streamside cover had a 25-50% stream canopy.

The Huron River Drive site was a bridge crossing, which was considered to be poorly aligned with the stream channel. There was no crossing erosion evident at any of the

Lower Huron River Watershed 63 Management Plan

sites. Land use adjacent to the stream was old fields and shrubs, cropland, maintained lawns and impervious cover. Potential NPS pollution inputs were noted as crop and transportation NPS, urban residential runoff, golf courses, debris in the water, and natural NPS sources.

Regan Drain (Huron Township; surveyed in November, 2004)

The Regan Drain surveys were conducted at 6 crossings along the stream. The stream is a designated drain; 4 sites were recovering channels and the other 2 were maintained channels both up and downstream, located at Waltz Road and International Road near Bell Road. The International Road site was rerouted for future development and was considered to be in poor condition. The Bell Road site, next to I-275, was only accessible on the upstream side. The site at S. Huron Road near Rust Road was noted as having a nice upstream forested wetland complex.

The stream water was clear with mostly low flows at all sites. The stream width was <10 feet at 5 of the sites and was 10-25 feet wide at one site. Stream depth ranged from <1 to 3 feet. There were aquatic plants at all sites, filamentous algae at 2 sites, foam at 2 sites and trash at only one site. The upstream side of the International Road site had algae, bacterial sheens and turbid water. Three sites had substrates of 60% silt/detritus or muck; the composition of the remaining 40% was unknown. Two of these sites were the maintained channel segments. Substrates at the other 3 sites were made up of cobble, gravel, or sand, and some bedrock.

The drain’s instream cover was diverse at most of the sites. Five of the six stream channels had woody debris in them; four had undercut banks; three had overhanging vegetation and 2 had boulders. The site on S. Huron Road had all 6 instream cover features, including deep pools, which provide for high quality fish habitat. The site at Willow Metropark Road had all the same instream features except deep pools. Three of the sites had some good to excellent riparian buffer areas, with many of them over 100 feet wide. Streamside vegetation at all sites was shrubs and grasses with stream canopies of less than 25%. Streambank erosion was minimal at all the sites.

There were no culvert problems or erosion associated with the crossing itself at any of the sites.

Land uses along the stream corridor were wetlands, forest, cropland, maintained lawn and impervious cover. Potential pollution sources were given as crop and transportation NPS, channelization, dredging, riparian vegetation removal, recreation and natural NPS.

Silver Creek (Huron, Berlin and Brownstown townships, and Rockwood and Flat Rock; surveyed in August and September, 2004)

The Silver Creek subwatershed is another very large system running through 5 townships in the lower Huron Watershed. Fifteen sites were selected for surveys in this area. All three stream channel types were observed along the creek: natural, recovering and maintained channel segments. Road surfaces crossing the stream were varied: 9 were paved; 4 were gravel; 1 was clay; and 1 was a railroad crossing. Only 2 culvert problems were found: the culvert at Sibley Road (east of Vining Road) had structural

Lower Huron River Watershed 64 Management Plan

integrity problems and the culvert at King Hill St. near Spring St. had rebar exposed on the headwall.

Stream widths ranged from 25-50 feet at 60% of the sites to less than 10 feet at 40% of the sites. Stream depth was less than 1 foot at 75% of the sites and 1-3 feet at 25% of the sites. At 80% of the sites the water color was clear and water flows ranged from stagnant to medium. Aquatic plants were present at 73% of the sites. Forty-seven percent of the sites had floating algae and 33% had filamentous algae. Trash was observed at 60% of the sites. Only 3 sites had bacterial sheens and turbid water.

The channel bottoms at 85% of the sites were over 90% silt, detritus and muck. One site (Middlebelt Road) had 90% bedrock as the channel substrate on the upstream side of the crossing (downstream side unrecorded) and one other site (Davelle Road near Bourdeax Dr) had 80% sand on the channel bottom on the upstream side and 80% silt/detritus and muck on the downstream side.

Overhanging vegetation was seen at 8 out of 15 sites and 6 sites had woody debris in the stream channels. Six sites had riparian buffer areas of 30-100 feet wide, although not on all four sides of the crossing. At 5 of the sites the buffers were less than 10 feet wide. (Buffer widths were not recorded at 4 of the sites.) Streamside cover varied from grass, shrubs and trees and stream canopy ranged from <25% to 50%.

Adjacent land uses were primarily maintained lawns/residential, old fields/shrubs, forest, impervious cover and some cropland. Potential pollution sources were identified as transportation and crop NPS, streambank erosion, road/bridge construction, urban residential runoff, recreation, development construction, and debris in the water.

Smith Creek (Huron and Brownstown townships, and Flat Rock and Woodhaven; surveyed in December, 2004)

The Smith Creek subwatershed is the third largest drainage area in the Lower Huron system. Twelve sites were surveyed along the creek, some segments of which are designated as drains. At one of the Vreeland Road sites (west of Hill St and I-75), only the upstream side of the crossing was surveyed; there was no obvious downstream side or culvert outlet found. And a new roadside drain was being constructed at the Streicher Road site (west of Jefferson Ave) at the time when that site was assessed.

Half of the sites had channel widths of <10 feet; 5 sites had channel widths of 10-25 feet and 1 channel was 25-50 feet wide. The depth was unknown at 8 sites (due to turbidity) and was <1 to 3 feet deep at 4 of the sites. Medium, or average, flow volumes were observed at 11 of the 12 sites.

The overall physical appearance of the stream was dominated by turbid water at 9 of the crossing sites. This condition might have resulted from a recent rain event. Aquatic plants were seen at 4 sites, oil sheens at 2 sites and foam at 2 sites. Also due in part to turbidity, the channel substrate was unknown at 10 of the sites. At the 2 sites where the water was clear, the substrate was 90% bedrock at one site (West Road near Beech Daly) and 80% silt, detritus and muck at the other (King Road). With regard to instream cover, 4 sites had undercut banks and overhanging vegetation and only 2 sites had woody debris in the stream channel.

Lower Huron River Watershed 65 Management Plan

Bank erosion varied from site to site, ranging from none to heavy. The three sites that were ranked as having heavy erosion were at West Road near Beech Daly, Vreeland Road east of Cahill, and Hall Road near Roche Road. These sites were natural or recovering stream channels.

Riparian buffer areas were good to excellent at 6 sites, with 30 to >100 foot wide buffer zones observed. The rest of the sites had buffer zones <10 feet wide. Streamside vegetation at the sites was varied with stream canopies ranging from <25% to over 50%.

Most of the road surfaces were paved, but one was paved only at the railroad tracks, which ran between the up and downstream stations at the stream crossing (Hall Road near Roche Road). There were no culvert problems or crossing erosion observed at any of the sites. Land uses adjacent to the stream corridor were maintained lawns/residential, old fields/shrubs, impervious cover, wetlands, cropland, and one area with no vegetation. Potential pollution inputs were noted as transportation NPS, channelization, streambank erosion, hydrology, urban/residential runoff, road/bridge construction, development construction, natural NPS, and industrial point sources.

Two miles of Smith Creek from the Huron river confluence upstream to Vreeland Road is on the state Water Quality Standards Nonattainment List for Highly Modified Water Bodies (Category 4c) since it has been altered by channelization and dredging. Category 4c indicates a water body is not attaining Water Quality Standards, but a TMDL is not scheduled because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant. Rather the stream is highly modified with impaired habitat that is considered insufficient to support an acceptable biological community.

Sherman Drain and Cass Drain (Brownstown Township, Rockwood, Gibraltar and Flat Rock; surveyed in December, 2004)

The Cass and Sherman drains are two small tributaries that discharge into Smith Creek. One crossing site on each of these tributaries was selected for assessment: Woodruff Road (east of Fort St) on Cass Drain and Inkster Road (south of Sibley Road) on Sherman Drain. The crossings at each of these sites were in good condition; the crossing surfaces were paved and there were no culvert problems or crossing erosion observed.

Cass Drain was surveyed in mid-December, right after a heavy rain storm. The water was brown and turbid, with medium flow volume. The channel width was 10-25 feet but the depth was undetermined. Aquatic plants and trash was observed at the stream site, but the substrate was unknown, again due to water turbidity. The Sherman Drain site was surveyed at the end of December, when the there was no precipitation. The water was clear, the stream channel <10 feet wide and <1 foot deep, with low water flow volume. Aquatic plants, bacterial sheens and trash were observed at the site. Substrate was poor, with one side of the stream crossing at 100% silt, detritus and muck; the other side was 40% silt, etc., and the remainder sand, gravel/cobble.

Instream cover characteristics were similar at both sites; essentially no cover existed except some overhanging vegetation at the Cass Drain site. However, the riparian buffers along the stream corridors were very different. The Cass Drain site had very

Lower Huron River Watershed 66 Management Plan

good buffers at 30 to >100 feet wide. The Sherman Drain site had buffer widths of less than 10 feet. Stream canopy was also good at Cass Drain at over 50%. Bank erosion at both sites was assessed as low to moderate.

Adjacent land use around the Cass Drain site was old fields/shrubs, maintained lawns and impervious. At the Sherman Drain site, land use was maintained lawns and impervious cover. Potential sources of pollution at Cass Drain were noted as transportation NPS, streambank erosion, urban residential runoff, natural NPS and one industrial point source. At Sherman Drain, the sources were noted as transportation NPS, urban residential runoff and unknown NPS.

Wagner-Pink Drain (Berlin Charter Township; surveyed in July, 2004)

There were only 2 stream crossings assessed along the Wagner-Pink Drain, one on S. Huron River Dr and the other on Telegraph Road. There were no culvert problems or crossing erosion evident at either site.

Both sites had clear stream water; the water flow was low at S. Huron River Dr and stagnant at Telegraph Road. The stream was noted to be less than 10 feet wide and less than 1 foot deep at both sites. There was trash at both sites, and aquatic plants and oil sheen at the Telegraph Road crossing. The stream channel substrates at both sites had over 80% silt, detritus and muck.

Neither site had undercut banks, deep pools or instream aquatic plant cover. Both sites had overhanging vegetation and logs/woody debris in the streams. There was little bank erosion observed at the Telegraph Road crossing, however the S. Huron River Dr had one area moderately eroded. The riparian buffers were minimal at <10 feet to 30 feet wide at the sites. Streamside vegetation was mostly shrubs with some trees and the stream canopy averaged 25-50% cover.

Adjacent land uses were residential, old fields and shrubs, and impervious cover. Potential pollution sources were noted as transportation NPS, urban residential runoff, and industrial and municipal point sources.

Lower Huron River Watershed 67 Management Plan

3.7 LAND USE TRENDS

Humans have a long history in the lower Huron River Watershed, beginning with Native Americans who farmed the floodplains of the Huron River. This region was among the first areas in Michigan to be farmed by European settlers who had a monopoly on the land once the remaining Native American (Wyandot) villages were consolidated onto reservations and ultimately removed from the area by the early 1840s.62 As a result of their farming activities, most lands have been ditched and tiled and are among the most valued agricultural lands in the state. Draining the land has allowed vast expanses of wet prairie and some areas of marsh to be farmed.

The lower Huron River Watershed contains a wide range of land uses, from active agriculture and low-density residential lands in Sumpter and Huron townships to dense suburban development and industrial areas in downriver communities such as Flat Rock and Rockwood. The various land use types described by SEMCOG have been condensed into six land use types: active agriculture, commercial; industrial; open; residential; and water.

In order to understand land use changes in the lower Huron River watershed, it is useful to look at growth trends across the 5-county southeast Michigan region. The results of a study by SEMCOG that looked at land use changes from 1990-2000 include the following findings:

ƒ From 1990-2000, developed land in the region increased by 17% (more than 159,000 acres), increasing the developed land in southeast Michigan to 37%

ƒ Southeast Michigan’s population grew by 5% (243,000 people)

ƒ Recent residential development is lower in density than older developments. The average density for housing in the region was 2.84 units per acre in 1990. New housing added between 1990 and 2000 was built at an average density of 1.26 units per acre.

ƒ Average household size decreased and average home size increased63

The trends identified by SEMCOG are reflected in the lower Huron River Watershed, which is located on the southwestern edge of metropolitan Detroit. Housing and population projections for the watershed are presented by community in Chapter 3.8. Housing stock is dominated by single family, detached homes. The trend toward larger homes on larger pieces of land with fewer people living in them has serious implications in terms of infrastructure costs, environmental impacts and sense of community. Table 3.12 presents the distribution of current land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 68 Management Plan

Table 3.12 Distribution of current land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed by community Land Use ( in acres) Active Agriculture Commercial Industrial Open Residential Water

Ash Twp 1,925 46 240 267 533 0

Belleville 4 52 45 80 252 4 Berlin Charter 808 23 46 436 619 28 Twp Brownstown Twp 944 238 265 2,816 1,956 270

Flat Rock 291 623 737 1,541 1,085 89

Gibraltar 0 41 56 326 4 5

Huron Twp 2,912 170 599 8,607 3,097 151

Rockwood 138 67 178 898 383 111

Romulus 116 72 250 689 364 0

South Rockwood 241 9 50 362 288 0

Sumpter Twp 562 21 27 1,149 759 0

Van Buren 2,189 65 199 3,230 1,844 38 Charter Twp

Woodhaven 106 95 234 177 171 4 Total Acres 10,236 1,524 2,925 20,576 11,354 699 % of lower Huron River 21.6% 3.2% 6.2% 43.5% 24.0% 1.5% Watershed Source: 2000 land use data from SEMCOG; watershed boundary from MDNR Includes: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority; Monroe County; Wayne County Airport Authority; and Wayne County

The top three land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed are open uses, including recreation and wetlands (43.5%), residential (24%), and active agriculture (21.6%), which combined represent nearly 90% of the total watershed area. All communities contain at least one of these land uses with most of the communities containing all three (Appendix A, Map 10). Significant acreage is managed by the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority in four Metroparks that line the lower Huron River: Lower Huron; Willow; Oakwoods; and Lake Erie (Appendix A, Map 12). Less than 2% of the watershed encompasses water bodies due to the clayey soil characteristics and relatively flat terrain of the lake plain, as well as the ubiquitous agricultural drain.

Nearly 22% of the watershed, or 10,236 acres, is actively farmed – primarily in Ash, Berlin Charter, Brownstown, Huron, and Van Buren Charter townships. Less than 10% of the watershed is dedicated to intensive development such as commercial and industrial uses. These uses are concentrated in the downriver communities of Flat Rock, Rockwood, and Woodhaven.

Lower Huron River Watershed 69 Management Plan

Land use activities in close proximity to waterways have a proportionally higher impact on surface waters than activities farther away. Therefore, land uses within a 300 ft buffer of the river and stream network in the lower Huron River Watershed are illustrated in the Land Use in Buffer map in Appendix A, Map 11. Natural vegetation in the riparian corridor and uplands surrounding the river and streams is most desirable for its ability to maintain the structural integrity of the channels and the quality and quantity of water. The top three land uses within the buffer are open uses (49%), residential (21%), and active agriculture (18%), paralleling the land uses for the entire lower Huron River Watershed. Using aerial data gives a coarse understanding of land uses within the riparian buffer. Observations in the field provide a finer lens for this analysis as was described in Chapter 3.6.

Future land use trends in the lower Huron River Watershed can be learned by studying the each community’s master plan. A master plan is a community’s comprehensive guide for all aspects of future development. Future land uses according to master plans of watershed communities are illustrated in Land Use Build out According to Master Plan map in Appendix A, Map 13.

All land use types expand in the future scenario at the expense of open land and agriculture. The most remarkable change is the expansion of residential areas into areas that currently are actively farmed or are open; residential use is projected to jump from 24% to 71% of the total land area of the watershed while active agriculture may go from 22% of current land area to zero. Most of the residential development is slated to be low- or medium-density according to local zoning ordinances. Open lands will decrease by 30% and those that remain will be located in municipal parks, Pointe Mouillée State Game Area, or the Huron-Clinton Metroparks. Commercial and industrial areas will nearly double if master plans are fulfilled are written.

The potential for negative environmental impacts increases as lower Huron River communities develop. Water quality impacts will result from erosion, sedimentation and increased inputs of stormwater pollutants. Water quantity impacts will result from loss of wetlands, woodlands and riparian vegetation and increased impervious surfaces. Community profiles are presented alphabetically in Chapter 3.8, highlighting their existing land uses and growth trends.

Lower Huron River Watershed 70 Management Plan

3.8 COMMUNITY PROFILES

The lower Huron River Watershed spans more than 74 square miles, or approximately 47,000 acres, encompassing all or portions of fourteen municipalities and two counties. Eleven of these communities and both counties participated in the creation of this watershed plan and will be analyzed further in this section. Table 3.13 identifies the participating communities and their respective populations and land areas within the watershed.64

Table 3.13 Watershed area (acres) and population of participating entities within the lower Huron River Watershed Population % Total Area of % Total Community in Watershed Entity in Watershed Area Watershed Population Watershed Berlin Charter 1,105 2.6 1,959 5.0 Township Brownstown Township 10,833 25.1 5,714 14.7

City of Flat Rock 8,488 19.7 4,216 10.8

City of Gibraltar 22 0.1 364 0.9

Huron Township 8,893 20.6 11,832 30.4

City of Rockwood 3,442 8.0 1,698 4.4

City of Romulus 1,456 3.4 1,552 4.0 Village of South 1,070 2.5 985 2.5 Rockwood Sumpter Township 2,145 5.0 2,468 6.3 Van Buren Charter 5,237 12.1 6,654 17.1 Township City of Woodhaven 456 1.1 564 1.4

Wayne County 796 2.0 Woodhaven- Brownstown School 132 0.3 District Total 43,147 100.0 38,934 100.0 Source: Population estimates from SEMCOG in October 2003 and are based on 2000 U.S. Bureau of the Census; Areas are based on “Wayne County Communities by Watershed Table” (Sept. 5, 2003) prepared by the Wayne County Department of Environment, Watershed Management Division

Does not include: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority; Wayne County Airport Authority; and Wayne County May include: Monroe County Includes all Village of South Rockwood as required in Certificate of Coverage

Note: Area and population figures in the community profiles correspond to the figures in Table 3.13 above so Ash Township (560 residents and 3,011 acres) and City of Belleville (2,264 residents and 437 acres) figures are not included in the totals.

Lower Huron River Watershed 71 Management Plan

Berlin Charter Township Berlin Charter Township is the most downstream community on the south side of the Huron River, and one of three Monroe County communities in the lower Huron River Watershed. At 1,959 acres, Berlin Charter Township represents 5% of the watershed area. However, the township impacts multiple waterways as it either drains directly to the Huron River or to portions of three tributaries to the Huron River that flow through the township: Noles Drain; Wagner-Pink Drain; and Port Creek.

Riparian wetlands in the river’s floodplain are, perhaps, the most important sensitive area in the township. Hydric soils are found extensively throughout township but few other wetlands remain. Only a handful of forested stands remain. The inventory of natural areas in the Huron River Watershed, the Bioreserve Map, indicates that a wetland in the western part of the township and riparian wetlands along the Huron River are “medium” priority for protection. A few other areas have lower protection priority.

The most current land use data (2000) indicate that one-third of the community within the watershed is residential, predominantly single family and low density, with a single high density census block (70 people or more). The remaining land area is divided roughly equally between agricultural and fallow fields/open space.

Berlin Charter Township population with the lower Huron River Watershed comprises only 2.6% of the watershed population, or 1,105 residents. In the entire township, population rose 35% during the years 1990 to 2004 and it’s projected to increase nearly 60% by 2030 to nearly 10,000 residents. While the size of families decreases, the number of households is expected to skyrocket 88% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 50%.65

Brownstown Township Brownstown Township is the most downstream community on the north side of the Huron River, and is intersected by the communities of Flat Rock, Gibraltar and Rockwood creating three sections. The township represents 14.7% of the watershed area, or 5,714 acres, making it the third largest community by size. Most of Brownstown Township drains to tributaries of Silver Creek. The northern section of the township mostly drains to the Silver #2 tributary and partially to the eastern portion of the Silver #3 tributary. The middle section of the township drains Cass Drain of the Silver #2 tributary. The southern section of the township drains the middle and downstream reaches of the Silver #1 tributary.

The most important sensitive natural feature of Brownstown Township is the Sibley Lakeplain Prairie, the last remaining ecological community of its type in southeastern Michigan. Several listed plant and animal species have been identified in the Prairie. The southern and western portions of the Prairie are situated in the Huron River watershed while the remainder is situated in the Combined Downriver Watershed. Extensive areas of wetland and hydric soils remain throughout the township in the Lower Huron River Watershed. A significant portion of the township near the mouth of the Huron River is floodplain and those estuaries are home to several threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Approximately 2,500 acres in the township are identified for protection priority. Sibley Prairie and other extensive wetland complexes are protection priorities of the highest ranking.66

Lower Huron River Watershed 72 Management Plan

In 2000, approximately half of Brownstown Township in the Lower Huron River Watershed was residential, varying from low density areas along the western border of township to mostly medium density neighborhoods east of Arsenal Road and along the eastern boundary with Flat Rock to high density areas along the southern border with Flat Rock (see Appendix A, Map 14 for census information). The remaining land was open space with a few pockets of active agricultural and commercial clustered along Telegraph Rd The 1,607-acre Lake Erie Metropark, situated on Lake Erie at the mouth of the Huron River, boasts three miles of lake shoreline and abundant coastal marsh, and a premier birding site particularly for birds of prey, and migrating waterfowl in spring and fall.

Brownstown Township is the most populated community in the watershed with 10,833 residents or 25% of the watershed population. In all of Brownstown Township, population rose 49% during the years 1990 to 2004 and it’s projected to increase by 56% by 2030 to 43,700 residents. The number of households is expected to skyrocket 74% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 63%.67

City of Flat Rock The City of Flat Rock sits on north side of the Huron River carved out of Brownstown Township, and is one of only two communities located entirely within the Lower Huron River Watershed (City of Rockwood is the other). Flat Rock occupies 4,216 acres, or 10.8% of the area of the Lower Huron River Watershed. Land in the City drains to three tributaries that run northwesterly to southeasterly through Flat Rock: direct drainage to the Huron River to the west; the Silver #2 tributary to the east; and Silver #3 tributary sandwiched between the other two waterways. Flat Rock Dam, the most downstream dam on the Huron River, is located in the City.

In Flat Rock, as is true for most of the Lower Huron River Watershed, hydric soils are located extensively throughout. Some large wetlands, although fragmented, remain, particularly in the central and eastern portions of the City. Large floodplains and riparian wetlands are found along the Huron River. Only a few isolated forested stands remain in Flat Rock. More than 800 acres of natural areas are priorities for protection including medium priority for riparian wetlands areas.68 Several threatened and endangered plant and animal species have been identified in the City and in the Huron River corridor.

The land use, as of 2000, was approximately one-quarter active agricultural and open with generally equal areas of residential, commercial and industrial. Industry is clustered around arterial roads like Telegraph Road.

The City of Flat Rock is the third most populated community in the Lower Huron River Watershed with 8,488 residents or 19.7% of the watershed population. Population rose 31% during the years 1990 to 2004 and it’s projected to increase by 37% by 2030 to more than 13,000 residents. Medium density neighborhoods typify the residential nature of the city with a few higher density pockets in those neighborhoods, particularly north of Vreeland Road. The number of households is expected to increase 56% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 33%.69

Lower Huron River Watershed 73 Management Plan

City of Gibraltar The southwestern corner of the City of Gibraltar is located within the Huron River Watershed on the north side of Huron River but does not border the river. A mere 364 acres of the City fall within the watershed making it the community with smallest area in the Lower Huron River Watershed. The headwaters of the Silver #1 tributary flow through the City of Gibraltar.

The most significant natural feature in this region of the city is a 734-acre wetlands complex that has received the highest protection priority.70

As of 2000, the portion of the City located within the Lower Huron River Watershed is mostly undeveloped, with small commercial and transportation-related areas.

Only approximately 22 Lower Huron River Watershed residents live in Gibraltar. For the city as a whole, population rose 15% during the years 1990 to 2004 to nearly 5,000 residents but it’s projected to decrease by more than 19% by 2030, which makes Gibraltar one of two Lower Huron communities facing a downturn in population. Population density is low according to 2000 census. The number of households is expected to decrease as well by nearly 12% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 32%.71

Huron Township Huron Township plays a pivotal role in current and future condition of the Lower Huron River Watershed. The township, at 11,832 acres, has the largest land area of any community with nearly 70% of Huron Township being located in the Lower Huron River Watershed. Furthermore, one-third of all Lower Huron River Watershed acres fall within Huron Township. Approximately 15 river miles of the Huron River flow through the township as the river runs diagonally from the northwest to the southeast. Eight sub- basins drain Huron Township. Many tributaries are located entirely within the township while others have their headwaters in the township and flow into the Huron River outside of the township boundaries. Regan, Hale, Warner, and Vandecar tributaries are located entirely within the township. Port, Wagner-Pink, Silver #2, and Silver #3 tributaries have their headwaters in the township.

In terms of key sensitive natural features, most of Huron Township is wetland or hydric soils. However, due to the agricultural past of the township, intact forested stands are absent, save for a couple of areas. Protection priorities have been granted to 6,180 acres due to their environmental importance ranging from lower to medium to highest priorities. Riparian wetland complexes compose some of the largest areas identified for protection.72 Several threatened or endangered plant and animal species have been identified in the township primarily within the Huron River corridor.

Land use in Huron Township is characterized as approximately half open, one-quarter in active agriculture, and one-quarter in residential use with scattered commercial and industrial pockets. Large tracts of open areas are actually the Willow and Oakwoods Metroparks located along the Huron River, and the riverside Michigan Memorial Park Cemetery.

Lower Huron River Watershed 74 Management Plan

The 8,893 watershed residents in Huron Township represent 20.6% of the Lower Huron River Watershed population, making it the second most populated community. For all of Huron Township, population rose 48% during the years 1990 to 2004 and it’s projected to increase another 58% by 2030 to more than 24,400 residents. According to the 2000 Census, the population is spread out in a low density pattern except for medium density neighborhoods in the vicinity of Sibley and Waltz roads, Inkster and West roads, and Will Carleton and Inkster roads. The number of households is expected to increase 78% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 53%.73

City of Rockwood The City of Rockwood is situated along the north side of the Huron River entirely within the Lower Huron River Watershed. Its 1,698 acres represent 4.4% of the total land in the watershed. The City, in addition to being located in the direct drainage to the Huron River, drains parts of the Silver Creek #2 and Silver Creek #3 tributaries.

Sensitive natural features of note are woodlands in the northwest portion of City, wetlands that transverse the central and eastern parts of the City, and riparian wetlands along the Huron River. Plants of special concern have been identified in Rockwood. More than 800 acres are identified as “low” or “medium” protection priorities.74

Recent land use data shows Rockwood to be quartered into industrial and commercial areas, residential areas, open spaces, and active agricultural. Extensive extraction activity in the form of silica pits is located on the strip of land north of the Huron River and south of Silver Creek.

Rockwood residents, of which recent data shows there are 3,442, comprise 8% of the total population in the Lower Huron River Watershed. The city’s population increased slightly by 7% during the years 1990 to 2004 to 3,375 residents but is expected to decrease by 3.6% over the next 25 years. However, the number of households still is expected to increase by almost 10% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 23%.75 Medium density characterizes most of the residential areas of Rockwood although some higher density areas are located between Vreeland and Van Horn roads.

City of Romulus Only the western edge of Romulus is located within the Lower Huron River Watershed. The City of Romulus covers 1,552 acres, or 4%, of the watershed. Those acres drain the most northeasterly part of the watershed, McBride tributary, as well as direct drainage to the Huron River around the Lower Huron Metropark.

In terms of sensitive natural features, more than half of the nearly 1,500 city acres in the watershed contain features important to healthy functioning of the watershed such as wetlands and woodlands. Three areas, all at headwaters of tributaries, have been identified as highest protection priority, and measure approximately 415 acres.76

Recent land use data show that half of Romulus’s claim in the watershed is open space, one-quarter is residential, and one-quarter is commercial and industrial, with small remnants of active agricultural usage making up the balance. Most of the city is low density residential areas with medium density neighborhoods located near Hannan and

Lower Huron River Watershed 75 Management Plan

Wabash roads and near Ozga and Grant roads. The northeast corner of the watershed is dominated by the presence of the I-94 and I-275 interchange.

The 1,456 residents who live in this region of Romulus compose 3.4% of watershed residents. As far as population trends for the entire City, population rose a modest 3% during the years 1990 to 2004 to more than 23,500 residents and is projected to increase at a slighter higher rate of almost 5% by 2030. The number of households is expected to rise by 25% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 13%.77

Village of South Rockwood The Village of South Rockwood is located on the south side of the Huron River close to the river’s confluence with Lake Erie and is carved out of Berlin Township. The village is one of three Lower Huron River Watershed communities located in Monroe County. The northern 985 acres of the village comprise 2.5% of the watershed area. Port Creek and Noles Drain empty into the Huron River within the Village. So the Village drains to the downstream portions of the Port Creek and Noles Drain subwatersheds, as well as directly to the Huron River. The southern portion of the village lies in a hydrologically separate subwatershed, called the Lake Erie subwatershed in this plan, which is not in the Huron River Watershed but included in the plan per MDEQ’s direction.

A large riparian wetlands complex along Huron River with extensive floodplains is a key sensitive natural feature in the village. The highest protection priority is given to 121 acres of riparian wetlands, along with 200 acres of medium priority and 112 acres of lower priority.78

Land use data indicates mostly active agriculture and open space in South Rockwood, with residential parcels lining up along Huron River Drive, and some commercial and industrial activities along Dixie Highway.

Approximately 1,070 residents live in the village, which contributes 2.5% to the watershed’s total population. Population increased 23% during the years 1990 to 2004 and is expected to increase 29% by 2030 to nearly 2,000 residents. The number of households is expected to rise 38% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 40%.79 Residential density is low throughout the village except for the medium density neighborhoods north of Huron River Drive and Brandon Road.

Sumpter Township The northern edge of Sumpter Township is located in the upstream portion in the watershed; only Van Buren Township, Belleville and Romulus are farther upstream. The central portion of the township drains to Griggs Drain, while the eastern portion drains to Brook Drain; in fact most of Brook Drain is located in Sumpter Township. A slice of land on the eastern border drains directly to the Huron River. The township contributes 2,468 acres to the watershed, or 6.3% of total watershed area.

Sumpter Township hosts over 1,000 acres of wetlands with a notable wetland complex in the northeastern corner of the township. Other sensitive natural features are the riparian corridors along tributaries and the Huron River, including the Huron floodplain located in the extreme northeast corner of the township. All or portions of eight areas

Lower Huron River Watershed 76 Management Plan

have been identified as protection priorities; approximately 525 acres are considered highest priority and another 550 acres are medium priority.80

Roughly half of the land within the watershed in the township is open (pasture, old agriculture or parks), with residential and agriculture each occupying one-quarter of the remaining land. HCMA owns the Lower Huron Metropark property in the northeast corner of the township. A few isolated commercial properties are located in this portion of the township. Three water level control structures, or dams, are located on Brook Drain within the HCMA property. Upper Pond, Middle Pond and Lower Pond are small reservoirs formed by the dams.

Current watershed population in Sumpter Township is 2,145 or 5% of total watershed population. For the entire township, population rose 11% during the years 1990 to 2004 to slightly more than 12,000 residents but is projected to skyrocket 64% by 2030 to nearly 20,000 residents. The number of households is expected to rise by more than 82% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased a more modest 15%.81 Low density describes the settlement patterns in the township according to the 2000 Census.

Van Buren Charter Township Van Buren Charter Township, at 6,654 acres, represents 17.1% of total watershed area making it the 2nd largest community in the Lower Huron River Watershed. The township is situated within five drainages: the extreme southwest corner of McBride Drain; most of Bunton Drain; most of Griggs Drain; the northern portion of Brook Drain; and directly to the Huron River along the eastern boundary of the township. Van Buren Charter Township occupies the most upstream location in the watershed as the French Landing Dam, the hydrologic demarcation that distinguishes the Lower Huron River from the rest of the Huron River, is located here.

The Huron River and its riparian corridor provide the township with most of its sensitive natural features. The riverbanks are lush and thick with trees, broken occasionally by the few areas of private property or by the Metropark golf courses. Woodlands are concentrated in the riparian zone along the Huron River with a few woodlands along Griggs Drain. Wetlands and hydric soils are found throughout the watershed in the township. More than 1,218 acres are identified for protection priority with five parcels totaling 525 acres receiving the highest priority, and another 535 acres receiving medium protection priority.82 The Huron River corridor provides the location for all sightings of listed species in the township. Five listings are for plant species with four Threatened listings and one Special Concern listing; one Endangered animal species listing; and one Community listing.

Land use in the township is roughly equal parts agriculture, residential and open space with a few isolated industrial and commercial parcels. HCMA owns the 1,258 acres of Lower Huron Metropark, which follows the Huron River on the east side of the township.

Van Buren Charter Township’s 5,237 watershed residents contribute 12.1% of the watershed population and make it the 4th most populated community. For the entire township, population rose 27% during the years 1990 to 2004 to more than 26,000 residents but that rate is expected to slow to 10% by 2030. The residential character is mostly low density with medium density residential areas focused around the City of

Lower Huron River Watershed 77 Management Plan

Belleville, and a medium and high density residential area south of Martz Road and west of Lohr Road. The number of households is expected to rise by 31% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, households increased 46%.83 Township planners have voiced their feelings that the community is facing increasing development pressure.

City of Woodhaven The City of Woodhaven, specifically 564 acres of its southwestern corner, is located on the north edge of the Lower Huron River Watershed between Brownstown Township and the City of Gibraltar. Woodhaven represents 1.4% of total watershed area. The city drains to two tributaries in the Silver Creek #2 subwatershed.

Very few natural features remain in this portion of the city. In fact, fewer than five wetlands are located here and no forested stands of note remain.84

Recent land use data indicates that commercial and industrial properties comprise half of Woodhaven’s claim in the watershed, with active agriculture, residential and open space occupying the remaining land. The residential areas in this part of the city are medium density and are located north of Van Horn Road near I-75, and south of Van Horn Road and east of Peters Road.

Woodhaven, with 456 residents in the watershed, contributes 1.1% to total population of the Lower Huron River Watershed. For the entire city, population increased 8% during the years 1990 to 2004 to more than 12,500 residents and that rate is expected to be maintained until 2030. However, the number of households is expected to rise 13% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, the number of households rose 26%.85

Charter County of Wayne and Monroe County Most of the lower Huron River Watershed falls within Wayne County. Approximately 87% of the lower Huron River Watershed is located in Wayne County, or 41,347 acres, while the remaining 13% is in Monroe County. Wayne County owns 796 acres in the watershed itself. The community profiles, land use and growth trends of the neighboring counties differ greatly.

Land use data from 2000 shows that nearly half of the land area in Wayne County is used for residential purposes, yet 20% of the county still remains as open or woodland or wetland. Only 7% of active agricultural land remains. Commercial and industrial areas comprise 15% and 13% of the County, respectively.86

For the entire county, population decreased 5% during the years 1990 to 2004 to 2.01 million residents but is expected to maintain itself until 2030. The number of households is expected to rise 4% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, the number of households dipped 3%.

Recent land use data for Monroe County indicates that more than 60% of the land area is in active agriculture, while 17% of the county remains as open or woodland or wetland. Residential areas occupy 15% of the county. Commercial and industrial areas comprise 4% and 3% of the county, respectively.

Lower Huron River Watershed 78 Management Plan

For the entire Monroe County, population increased 15% during the years 1990 to 2004 to just over 153,000 residents and is projected to increase slightly more than 28% until 2030. The number of households is expected to jump 44% from 2004 to 2030. During the previous 15 years, the number of households increased by 25%.

3.9 POINT SOURCES Facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are regulated by the state of Michigan and the U.S. EPA to discharge certain approved pollutants to surface waters. The number of permitted point sources is not static due to old permits expiring and new permits commencing. At the writing of this document, the State of Michigan issued a total of 33 permits to facilities and municipalities that discharge to the lower Huron River Watershed (Tables 3.14 and 3.15). Of those 33 active permits, 21 are NDPES storm water permits and 12 are individual and general NPDES permittees, including 6 permits for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) (Appendix A, Map 15).87

Table 3.14 NPDES Storm Water Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of December, 2004 Expiration Designated Name Permit No. Facility Type City Date Ajax Mat Corp Plt 9-Rockwood MIS410186 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Rockwood Auto Alliance-Flat Rock MIS410182 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Flat Rock Bonsal American-New Boston MIS420016 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only New Boston Brownstown Auto-Romulus MIS410135 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Romulus Castrol Industrial NA MIS410498 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only New Boston Contract Welding & Fabricating MIS410350 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Belleville Gibraltar Boat Yard MIS410220 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Rockwood Grand Trunk Western-Flat Rock MIS410183 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Flat Rock Humbug Too Marina-Gibraltar MIS410184 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Rockwood Huron Valley Steel-Belleville MIS410354 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Belleville J & V-Oakwood Farms Estates MIR108097 9/14/2009 Construction Sites Unknown Levy-Clawson Concrete Plt 6 MIS410405 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Romulus LKQ of Mich Inc-Belleville MIS410432 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Belleville Messina Concrete Inc-Flat Rock MIS410081 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Flat Rock MicroTect-Belleville MIS410530 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Belleville New Boston Fiberglass MIS410406 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only New Boston New Boston Forge MIS410455 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only New Boston RJ Marshall-Rockwood MIS410139 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Rockwood S & H Auto Parts-New Boston MIS410440 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only New Boston Scheels Concrete Inc-Flat Rock MIS410187 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Flat Rock Wellington Ind-Belleville MIS410408 4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only Belleville

Lower Huron River Watershed 79 Management Plan

Table 3.15 NPDES Individual and General Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of December, 2004 Expiration Designated Name Permit No. Facility Type City Date Americana MHP MI0029122 10/1/2008 Non-Industrial Sanitary Flat Rock Wastewater Berlin Twp MS4-Monroe MIG610357 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm Newport Sewer System Huron River MHP & Marina MIG570202 4/1/2005 Non-Industrial Sanitary South Wastewater Rockwood Orchards MHP MI0055263 10/1/2008 Non-Industrial Sanitary Carleton Wastewater South Rockwood MS4-Monroe MIG610358 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm South Sewer System Rockwood Central Wayne Co San Auth LF MI0045110 10/1/2008 Standard (All others) Flat Rock

Flat Rock MS4-Wayne MIG610360 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm Flat Rock Sewer System Rockwood MS4-Wayne MIG610361 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm Rockwood Sewer System Rockwood WWTP MI0021181 10/1/2008 Non-Industrial Sanitary Rockwood Wastewater US Silica Co MI0001368 10/1/1997 Standard (All others) Rockwood

Van Buren Twp MS4-Wayne MIG610021 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm Belleville Sewer System Woodhaven MS4-Wayne MIG610354 4/1/2008 Municipal Separate Storm Woodhaven Sewer System

3.10 SEWER SERVICE AREAS AND PRIVATELY OWNED SEPTIC SYSTEMS Sanitary sewers rely on the connection of pipes from residential, commercial, and industrial sites that ultimately are received at a WWTP where treatments are applied before discharge. Privately owned on-site septic systems, or septic tanks, allow wastewater from a single (sometimes multiple) entity to be treated via biological and infiltration processes. Both technologies are effective methods of wastewater treatment if maintained and operated properly; however, impairments do occur.

Improperly functioning sewer systems and privately-owned septic systems can have a profound impact on the water quality. By carrying nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), bacteria, pharmaceutical agents, and other pollutants to waterbodies with little or no treatment, impaired systems can result in unhealthful conditions to humans (i.e., bacterial contamination) and to aquatic organisms (i.e., low dissolved oxygen from plant growth).

If either system is designed, constructed, or maintained improperly, it can be a significant source of water pollution and a threat to public health. The Environmental Health departments of Wayne and Monroe counties regulate the design, installation, and repair of privately-owned septic systems. Wayne County is among a handful of Michigan

Lower Huron River Watershed 80 Management Plan

counties that requires regular maintenance and inspection to assure proper functioning of these systems, which occurs at time of property sale. Through implementation of the time of sale program, Wayne County has determined that 21% of privately-owned septic systems in the county are failing and require repair.

Sanitary sewer systems can suffer from improper installation and maintenance. For instance, in many older developments sanitary sewer pipes can be inadvertently connected to stormwater drainage systems, causing what is termed an “illicit discharge.” These discharges can have an even greater impact on water quality than impaired septic systems, depending on the type, volume, and frequency of the activity. Wayne County has an active program to identify and eliminate such connections through the Illicit Discharge and Elimination Program (IDEP). NPDES Phase II storm water permit holders are required to identify and eliminate illicit discharges in their communities.

The lower Huron River Watershed has a mix of households with waste discharges that are treated by publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) or on-site decentralized wastewater systems (privately-owned septic systems). Households currently served by sanitary sewers are located in all communities with the exception of Sumpter Township, where residents rely solely on on-site septic systems. See Map 16 in Appendix A for location of sewered areas. As of 2000, approximately 32,722 (68%) of the 47,919 individuals in the watershed rely on sanitary sewer systems for wastewater treatment. The remaining 15,197 residents use approximately 5,845 on-site septic systems for wastewater treatment.

Lower Huron River Watershed 81 Management Plan

CHAPTER 4: LAND USE PLANNING AND WATERSHED

Smith Creek, tributary to Huron River ANALYSIS Brownstown Township, Michigan — photo: HRWC file

Land use planning and watershed analysis tools were employed in the lower Huron River Watershed to provide information that is consistent across the watershed and provides intra-subwatershed comparisons whereas information provided in Chapter 3 is site-specific. These analysis tools are the Impervious Cover model, the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) model, and the “simple” model. These models are described below. The results of the models, along with other factors, were applied in the exercise of selecting critical areas in the lower Huron River Watershed.

4.1 IMPERVIOUS COVER MODEL When natural open spaces are converted to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, the result is an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. Roads, parking lots, rooftops, and, to a lesser degree, managed lawns, all add to the amount of these surfaces in a watershed. Many impervious surfaces can be directly-connected—areas that drain directly to surface waters—without the benefit of water quality-improving treatment such as detention or infiltration. In general, as land is developed, stream flows become “flashy,” with increased volume and velocity of flow, which impact water quality and can affect infrastructure and property (Table 4.1). Development also impacts groundwater hydrology by decreasing the amount of pervious area available for infiltration of rainwater. Less infiltration results in less recharge as baseflow for rivers and lakes, meaning lower lake levels and river flows.

Lower Huron River Watershed 82 Management Plan

Table 4.1 Impacts of development on hydrological conditions

Storm 24-Hour Rainfall Estimated Runoff Runoff as Percentage Frequency (yr) (in) (in) of Rainfall

2 2.8 0.14 5

10 4.0 0.53 13 Forest Forest

Half-acre Half-acre 100 5.0 1.4 24 2 2.8 0.60 21

10 4.0 1.33 33

Half-acre Half-acre

Residential Residential 100 5.0 2.64 66 Source: Lower One Subwatershed Advisory Group. 2001. Lower One Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan.

The amount of impervious surface in a watershed is directly related to its water quality. It is well-documented that as the amount of these surfaces increases in a watershed the velocity, volume, and pollution of surface runoff also increases.88 Subsequently, flooding, erosion, and pollutant loads in receiving waters also tend to increase while groundwater recharge areas and water tables decline, streambeds and flows are altered, and aquatic habitats are lost.

Table 4.2 presents typical pollutant concentrations from stormwater runoff in southeast Michigan. Developed land uses such as residential, commercial, and roads have noticeably higher concentrations of pollutants compared to managed and unmanaged open space.

Table 4.2 Typical pollutant concentration from land uses

Land Use Pollutant (mg/L)

Total Total Total Biological Lead Phosphorus Nitrogen Suspended Oxygen Sediment Demand Road 0.43 1.82 141 24 0.014 Commercial 0.33 1.74 77 21 0.049 Industrial 0.32 2.08 149 24 0.072 Low Density 0.52 3.32 70 38 0.057 Residential High Density 0.24 1.17 97 14 0.041 Residential Forest 0.11 0.94 51 3 0.000 Urban Open 0.11 0.94 51 3 0.014 Pasture/Agriculture 0.37 1.92 145 3 0.000 Source: Cave, K., T. Quasebarth, and E. Harold. 1994. Selection of Stormwater Pollutant Loading Factors. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.

Lower Huron River Watershed 83 Management Plan

Stream research generally indicates that certain zones of stream quality exist, most notably at about 10% impervious cover, where sensitive stream elements are lost from the system. However, the Huron River is slightly more sensitive; research of the Huron River Watershed reveals that water quality degradation is first notable as impervious surfaces achieve 8% of the total landscape.89 When the watershed reaches this threshold, the impacts of incremental increases in surface runoff noticeably affect the aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish populations and, subsequently, water-based recreation activities. A second threshold appears to exist at around 25 to 30% impervious cover, where most indicators of stream quality consistently shift to a poor condition (e.g., diminished aquatic diversity, water quality, and habitat scores).

A simple urban stream classification scheme can be based on impervious cover and stream quality. This simple classification system contains three stream categories, based on the percentage of impervious cover. The model classifies streams into one of three categories: sensitive, impacted, and non-supporting.90 Each stream category can be expected to have unique characteristics as follows:

Sensitive Streams. These streams typically have a watershed impervious cover of zero to less than 10%. Consequently, sensitive streams are of high quality, and are typified by stable channels, excellent habitat structure, good to excellent water quality, and diverse communities of both fish and aquatic insects. Since impervious cover is so low, they do not experience frequent flooding and other hydrological changes that accompany urbanization. It should be noted that some sensitive streams located in rural areas may have been impacted by prior poor grazing and cropping practices that may have severely altered the riparian zone, and consequently, may not have all the properties of a sensitive stream. Once riparian management improves, however these streams are often expected to recover.

Impacted Streams. Streams in this category possess a watershed impervious cover ranging from above 10% to 25%, and show clear signs of degradation due to watershed urbanization. The elevated storm flows begin to alter stream geometry. Both erosion and channel widening are clearly evident. Streams banks become unstable, and physical habitat in the stream declines noticeably. Stream water quality shifts into the fair/good category during both storms and dry weather periods. Stream biodiversity declines to fair levels, with most sensitive fish and aquatic insects disappearing from the stream.

Non-Supporting Streams. Once watershed impervious cover exceeds 25%, stream quality crosses a second threshold. Streams in this category essentially become conduits for conveying stormwater flows, and can no longer support a diverse stream community. The stream channel becomes highly unstable, and many stream segments experience severe widening, downcutting, and streambank erosion. Pool and riffle structure needed to sustain fish is diminished or eliminated and the substrate can no longer provide habitat for aquatic insects, or spawning areas for fish. Water quality is consistently rated as fair to poor, and water recreation is no longer possible due to the presence of high bacterial levels. Subwatersheds in the non-supporting category will generally display increases in nutrient loads to downstream receiving waters, even if effective urban BMPs are installed and maintained. The biological quality of non- supporting streams is generally considered poor, and is dominated by pollution tolerant insects and fish.

Lower Huron River Watershed 84 Management Plan

The Impervious Cover Model is designed for use in smaller urban streams from first to third order. This limitation reflects the fact that most of the research has been conducted at the subwatershed level (0.2 to 10 square mile area), and that the influence of impervious cover is strongest at these spatial scales. In larger watersheds and basins, other land uses, pollution sources and disturbances often dominate the quality and dynamics of streams and rivers. The model was applied to 29 subwatersheds in the lower Huron River Watershed in both the current and future scenarios; the future scenario is derived from build out based on community master plans (Table 4.3 and Maps 17 and 18 in Appendix A).

Table 4.3 Percent impervious cover based on current land use (2000) and build out based on community master plans Impervious Current surface % Does Current Future Subwatershed impervious if current category category category surface % master plan change? is realized Brook 14 Impacted 20 Impacted no Bunton 17 Impacted 28 Nonsupporting yes Griggs 10 Impacted 26 Nonsupporting yes Hale 8 Sensitive 14 Impacted yes McBride 35 Nonsupporting 51 Nonsupporting no Bancroft-Noles 9 Sensitive 22 Impacted yes Port 11 Impacted 18 Impacted no Regan 26 Nonsupporting 42 Nonsupporting no River#1 13 Impacted 39 Nonsupporting yes River#1a 10 Impacted 17 Impacted no River#3 14 Impacted 20 Impacted no River#3a 10 Impacted 38 Nonsupporting yes River#3b 15 Impacted 17 Impacted no River#3c 9 Sensitive 15 Impacted yes Flat Rock 18 Impacted 32 Nonsupporting yes River#3e 11 Impacted 17 Impacted no River#3f 17 Impacted 29 Nonsupporting yes River#3g 17 Impacted 22 Impacted no River#3h 17 Impacted 19 Impacted no River#4 16 Impacted 30 Nonsupporting yes River#4a 6 Sensitive 26 Nonsupporting yes, by 2 River#4b 22 Impacted 45 Nonsupporting yes Morrison 14 Impacted 39 Nonsupporting yes Smith 27 Nonsupporting 48 Nonsupporting no Silver 17 Impacted 32 Nonsupporting yes Lake Erie 9 Sensitive 41 Nonsupporting yes, by 2 Vandecar 11 Impacted 21 Impacted no Wagner-Pink 18 Impacted 34 Nonsupporting yes Warner 9 Sensitive 18 Impacted yes

Lower Huron River Watershed 85 Management Plan

As of 2000, six subwatersheds were classified as “sensitive” with percentages ranging from 6% to 9%. Three subwatersheds were classified as “nonsupporting” due to impervious cover percentages that range from 26% to 35%. The remaining 20 subwatersheds were classified as “impacted.”

If the lower Huron River Watershed communities fulfill their build out scenarios as presented in their master plans, then significant increases in impervious cover will occur. No “sensitive” subwatersheds will remain; in fact, two subwatersheds (River #4a and Lake Erie) will surpass the “impacted” category altogether and become “nonsupporting.” Seventeen of the 29 subwatersheds will change stream categories. Most of the change will come from 11 subwatersheds moving from “impacted” to “nonsupporting.” Some of the largest increases in impervious cover percentage are in the Lake Erie subwatershed in South Rockwood (31% increase), and in the Morrison subwatershed in Brownstown Township and Gibraltar (26% increase). Finally, McBride subwatershed in Romulus is expected to become more than 50% impervious at build out, which is the highest percentage of any subwatershed in the lower Huron River Watershed. However, future economic and population trends, and leadership, can alter the numbers presented here either by increasing or decreasing the impervious cover percentages. In addition, placement of stormwater Best Management Practices can slightly mitigate the impacts of impervious surfaces.

Model limitations The Impervious Cover Model is intended to predict potential rather than actual stream quality, so an individual stream may depart from the model for various reasons. Also, it assigns one impervious surface percentage for each general land use, while the actual impervious surface percentage on any given piece of land may differ within the same land use category. For instance, for the 2000 impervious cover analysis, all single family residential areas receive an impervious surface coefficient of 20%, because the source data does not distinguish different densities of single family residential. This level of impervious surface corresponds to a density of one density unit per acre, but there is a wide range of densities in the watershed, which would therefore have different levels of imperviousness. 4.2 LONG-TERM HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Long-Term Hydrological Impact Assessment, or L-THIA, models runoff and pollutant loading in the lower Huron River Watershed. The model uses GIS to combine land use and soil hydrological group grids with long term precipitation data to create grids estimating runoff depth and pollutant loads. Purdue University and the U.S. EPA developed L-THIA.

For the lower Huron River Watershed planning project, staff created land use grids from 2000 SEMCOG land use data, presettlement land use data from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and future land use data from each community master plan. The presettlement data is derived from notes made by land surveyors who walked the whole state of Michigan during the 1830s. The model allows use of eight land use classifications: water; forest; grass/pasture; industrial; commercial; agricultural; “high density residential” (8 density units per acre); and “low density residential” (4 density units per acre). The model overlays a grid of these land use classifications on a grid of soil hydrological groups (A, B, C, D) to give a grid of runoff curve numbers (CN numbers)

Lower Huron River Watershed 86 Management Plan

derived from the Soil Conservation Service TR55 manual. Using the CN grid, the model then computes a grid of the average runoff depth over a year, and from that, average runoff volume. Using a table of event mean concentrations (EMCs) of various pollutants developed by the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project for land uses in southeast Michigan (Table 4.2), the model then computes grids of various pollutant loads. The model was applied to 29 subwatersheds in the lower Huron River Watershed.

Project staff ran the model for land use conditions as of 2000, conditions circa 1830s before significant European settlement occurred, and conditions as of build out. Build out maps were created by combining current land uses already built with future land use designations from each community’s master plan for land as yet undeveloped. Tables 4.4 and 4.5, and Maps 19 – 33 in Appendix A, show the results for all three time periods for runoff depth, total phosphorus and total suspended solids from the 1830s to 2000 and the future.

Lower Huron River Watershed 87 Management Plan

Table 4.4 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and presettlement land uses/cover 2000 1830s 2000 1830s 2000 1830s Sub- Runoff per Runoff per TP per TP per TSS per TSS per watershed acre acre acre acre acre acre (in) (in) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Bancroft- Noles 14.31 5.00 0.28 0.03 88.97 13.27 Brook 2.48 1.69 0.05 0.01 12.82 4.48 Bunton 5.73 0.00 0.11 0.00 30.26 0.00 Flat Rock 8.64 2.58 0.17 0.01 41.92 6.85 Griggs 4.49 0.02 0.09 0.00 25.26 0.06 Hale 3.72 1.47 0.07 0.01 21.29 3.91 Lake Erie 21.96 5.43 0.39 0.03 155.93 14.39 McBride 11.05 1.48 0.19 0.01 74.65 3.91 Morrison 10.54 4.59 0.19 0.03 54.06 12.19 Port 11.84 2.34 0.24 0.01 71.31 6.20 Regan 5.32 0.04 0.09 0.00 37.07 0.09 River#1 9.17 3.87 0.20 0.02 43.70 10.28 River#1a 9.35 1.52 0.17 0.01 61.11 4.05 River#3 3.49 1.67 0.06 0.01 18.12 4.43 River#3a 2.06 1.47 0.04 0.01 8.96 3.89 River#3b 2.10 0.92 0.05 0.01 7.51 2.43 River#3c 1.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 3.28 0.00 River#3e 2.43 0.66 0.03 0.00 8.45 1.75 River#3f 3.44 0.51 0.06 0.00 17.20 1.36 River#3g 5.61 2.93 0.09 0.02 23.36 7.77 River#3h 3.61 2.95 0.08 0.02 13.61 7.83 River#4 1.35 1.14 0.02 0.01 8.05 3.02 River#4a 0.54 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.76 0.00 River#4b 8.48 0.00 0.14 0.00 57.38 0.00 Silver 8.16 1.33 0.16 0.01 42.61 3.54 Smith 15.61 3.03 0.29 0.02 85.64 8.05 Vandecar 3.39 0.66 0.07 0.00 16.20 1.75 Wagner- Pink 11.26 3.83 0.20 0.02 72.94 10.16 Warner 4.39 1.63 0.08 0.01 22.21 4.31

Lower Huron River Watershed 88 Management Plan

Table 4.5 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and future land uses/cover 2000 Future 2000 2000 Future Future TP Sub- Runoff per Runoff per TP per TSS per TSS per per acre watershed acre acre acre acre acre (lbs) (in) (in) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Bancroft- Noles 14.31 13.53 0.28 0.19 88.97 51.72 Brook 2.48 3.02 0.05 0.06 12.82 11.87 Bunton 5.73 10.48 0.11 0.25 30.26 44.33 Flat Rock 8.64 9.37 0.17 0.20 41.92 40.99 Griggs 4.49 7.01 0.09 0.16 25.26 35.28 Hale 3.72 3.07 0.07 0.04 21.29 6.00 Lake Erie 21.96 29.30 0.39 0.56 155.93 187.42 McBride 11.05 12.96 0.19 0.24 74.65 82.90 Morrison 10.54 16.06 0.19 0.36 54.06 71.48 Port 11.84 11.630.24 0.19 71.31 43.65 Regan 5.32 6.10 0.09 0.11 37.07 39.01 River#1 9.17 13.36 0.20 0.30 43.70 58.02 River#1a 9.35 10.83 0.17 0.21 61.11 66.81 River#3 3.49 4.09 0.06 0.07 18.12 19.20 River#3a 2.06 5.61 0.04 0.15 8.96 20.26 River#3b 2.10 2.20 0.05 0.05 7.51 6.22 River#3c 1.07 1.16 0.02 0.01 3.28 2.65 River#3e 2.43 2.62 0.03 0.04 8.45 9.04 River#3f 3.44 3.82 0.06 0.07 17.20 17.22 River#3g 5.61 5.85 0.09 0.11 23.36 23.03 River#3h 3.61 4.12 0.08 0.09 13.61 15.29 River#4 1.35 4.99 0.02 0.11 8.05 22.01 River#4a 0.54 5.10 0.01 0.13 2.76 18.43 River#4b 8.48 12.42 0.14 0.25 57.38 68.20 Silver 8.16 10.47 0.16 0.21 42.61 48.25 Smith 15.61 21.17 0.29 0.44 85.64 111.79 Vandecar 3.39 3.59 0.07 0.09 16.20 12.36 Wagner- Pink 11.26 13.73 0.20 0.25 72.94 75.28 Warner 4.39 4.40 0.08 0.08 22.21 13.48

Model limitations Note that the model is not calibrated to actual data so the L-THIA results should be considered only in relation from one subwatershed to another. As with the Impervious Cover Model, land uses that may, on a parcel by parcel basis, have different characteristics and therefore different CN values, were grouped together because of the data source and because L-THIA only allows 8 land use classifications. For instance, all commercial land uses were grouped together despite differing levels of impervious surface, and therefore CN value (for instance, a shopping mall may have more impervious surface than a research and development campus). The model also only allows classification of soil data into 4 hydrological soil groups, A through D. Soils classified by the USDA, NRCS County soil maps include A/D, B/D, and C/D classes,

Lower Huron River Watershed 89 Management Plan

which represents soils that had been D until they were drained, after which they behaved as A, B, or C. These soils were all grouped with D soils.

4.3 THE SIMPLE METHOD

The Simple Method is a simple spreadsheet model that uses land use data, impervious surface percentages associated with that land use data, and annual rainfall data to determine runoff volume. The spreadsheet includes event mean concentrations (EMCs) of various pollutants developed by the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project for land uses in southeast Michigan (Table 4.2), for which it computes pollutant loads for each land use inputted.

The Simple Method uses the following equations to estimate pollutant loads91:

L = 0.226*R*C*A

Where: L = Annual load (lbs)

R = Annual runoff (inches) = P*Pj*Rv

P = Annual rainfall (inches)

Pj = Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (usually 0.9)

Rv = Runoff coefficient (calculated based on impervious cover percentage (Rv=0.05+0.9*Imp%))

C = Pollutant concentration (mg/l)

A = Area (acres)

0.226 = Unit conversion factor The model was applied to 29 subwatersheds in the lower Huron River Watershed in both the current and future scenarios; the future scenario is derived from build out based on community master plans (Table 4.6 and Maps 34 through 39). Appendix D provides tables that give the current and future estimated runoff and pollutant loads for each subwatershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 90 Management Plan

Table 4.6 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by the Simple Method, based on current land use (2000) and build out based on community master plans Future Runoff per Future Future Sub- Runoff per TSS/ac/yr TP/ac/yr acre TSS/ac/yr TP/ac/yr watershed acre (lbs) (lbs) (acre-ft) (lbs) (lbs) (acre-ft) Bancroft- Noles 1.037 5.8 85.7 111.5 0.342 0.618 Brook 4.487 7.0 83.8 133.8 0.427 0.684 Bunton 5.772 11.5 121.3 244.8 0.533 0.886 Flat Rock 5.670 8.2 108.2 144.9 0.534 0.843 Griggs 3.813 8.5 78.5 173.6 0.335 0.731 Hale 3.262 4.6 62 72.8 0.271 0.521 Lake Erie 4.311 14.3 100 419.3 0.316 1.054 McBride 10.201 15.3 283 78.1 0.903 1.151 Morrison 5.045 9.9 95 210.6 0.430 0.743 Port 3.814 6.1 89 111.4 0.313 0.617 Regan 7.914 12.0 231 348.8 0.628 0.986 River #1 4.683 8.3 86 152.2 0.450 0.785 River #1a 5.173 5.0 83 83.9 0.300 0.337 River #3 4.737 5.6 89 111.9 0.356 0.490 River #3a 3.940 9.1 62 174.5 0.385 0.714 River #3b 5.130 6.6 80 105.2 0.566 0.780 River #3c 3.732 4.5 52 69.2 0.293 0.480 River #3e 4.462 4.7 66 73.0 0.349 0.406 River #3f 5.593 7.6 109 155.7 0.486 0.638 River #3g 5.740 6.9 98 120.5 0.460 0.661 River #3h 5.866 7.6 93 121.5 0.641 0.835 River #4 5.274 11.0 113 242.4 0.467 0.855 River #4a 2.953 11.2 46 233.8 0.233 0.726 River #4b 6.984 11.7 196 295.5 0.520 0.792 Silver 5.483 9.4 119 209.4 0.481 0.810 Smith 7.467 12.9 174 320.1 0.646 0.993 Vandecar 4.078 6.8 75 112.6 0.422 0.786 Wagner- Pink 5.750 9.8 153 244.2 0.468 0.807 Warner 3.900 6.7 71 109.3 0.362 0.763

Model limitations As with the two previous models, the Simple Method assigns one impervious surface percentage for each general land use, while the actual impervious surface percentage on any given piece of land may differ within the same land use category. It is most appropriate for assessing and comparing the relative pollutant load changes of different land use scenarios (such as current vs. future land uses). The Simple Method provides estimates of stormwater pollutant export that are probably close to the "true" but unknown value for a subwatershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 91 Management Plan

Model comparisons Note that the values for runoff, total phosphorus, and total suspended sediments differ, sometimes dramatically, for the same subwatersheds, depending on the model used.

After an extensive review of the different models available whose data requirements were consistent with data available about the lower Huron River Watershed, it was decided to use the two described above. They were selected because, while they both were quick and simple to use, the factors that were the major determinants of their results differed. L-THIA relies on the CN number, which was derived empirically by the NRCS by observations of different land uses, and the Simple Method relies on the impervious surface percentage assigned to each land use. The Simple Method does not take soil types of pervious areas into account, while the CN numbers used by L-THIA may overemphasize runoff from agricultural fields, while under representing the amount of runoff that can result from residential development. Take note that, while the loads themselves vary between the two models, the end result – the ranking of the subwatersheds based on the loads from either model – differs little, as discussed in the next section. 4.4 IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL AREA Field observations, aerial photography and geographic information, scientific reports and watershed modeling were combined to identify critical areas of the watershed that, taken together, contribute the majority of pollutants to the river. Focusing on these critical areas targets management efforts on these “hot spots” rather than considering all parts of the watershed equally important. Prioritization of critical areas is essential since staff and financial resources at the local level are limited.

Critical areas are those parts of the lower Huron River Watershed that have been identified due to the type and estimated amount of pollutants they contribute to the river system. The methodology employed to locate them is based on these factors: (1) current impervious cover and impervious cover at build out of master plan; (2) relative nutrient, sediment and runoff output utilizing the L-THIA model; (3) relative nutrient, sediment and runoff output utilizing the PLOAD model; (4) problems identified during the stream crossing inventory; (5) presence of NPDES-permitted facilities; and (6) presence of a TMDL (Figure 4.1). These factors were weighted and applied to each of the 29 subwatersheds to generate a score for each subwatershed. Each subwatershed fell in one of three categories depending on their overall impact: low; moderate; or high.

Lower Huron River Watershed 92 Management Plan

Figure 4.1 Components of the critical area methodology

L-THIA model

Field reconnaissance

Delineation of 29 Impervious Cover model Critical subwatersheds areas

NPDES facilities

TMDL

Simple Method

The critical areas of the lower Huron River Watershed derived from this methodology are the subwatersheds presented in Table 4.7 and Map 40 in Appendix A. The ten subwatersheds in Map 40 were identified as the critical areas as they ranked “high” in the methodology used to weight the impacts of all 29 subwatersheds. Watershed restoration and protection efforts targeted to these subwatersheds ostensibly will produce the most cost-effective improvements toward meeting the goals of this plan. All subwatersheds are presented below with their impact categories. Additional information about the methodology used for this procedure is provided in Appendix D.

Lower Huron River Watershed 93 Management Plan

Table 4.7 Critical subwatersheds (high impact category) of the lower Huron River Watershed

Impact Subwatershed Category Wagner-Pink Smith McBride Lake Erie Morrison

High Silver Flat Rock Regan River #4b Port River #1 Bancroft-Noles Bunton Griggs Moderate River #1a River #4 River #3g River #4a Warner River #3f Hale River #3a River #3h Low River #3 Vandecar Brook River#3b River #3c River #3e

Lower Huron River Watershed 94 Management Plan

A second definition of critical area is in play in this watershed management plan that pertains to the natural features. Certain parts of the watershed are critical due to their ecological contributions without which the watershed would not function as well and expensive mitigation measures would need to be employed to fill the gap left by the once-present natural features. These areas are important to maintaining the natural water cycle. Functions include storing, cleansing and filtering water runoff, and moderating temperatures and flow rates in streams and the river.

Floodplains Floods are a natural part of the water cycle. A floodplain is the land area next to a river, stream or creek that may be covered with water following a heavy rain storm. When a river overflows its banks, the floodplain holds the excess water and slowly releases it back into the river system. Sediment also is deposited in floodplains, keeping it out of the river.

Wetlands As with floodplains, some wetlands preserve space for rivers and steams to expand during high water. Wetlands act like sponges and help moderate high and low flows of water. Wetlands absorb spring melt water and rain water, gradually releasing it throughout the year. Wetlands also filter out pollutants and excess nutrients which would otherwise enter the river system and decrease water quality. Additionally, wetlands provide vital habitat for a variety if plants and animals, many of which are adapted only to live in this unique environment.

Shorelines and Streambanks Shoreline development along inland lakes, rivers and streams affects the appearance, character and property values of an area. Increased runoff, leaks from failing septic systems, and streambank erosion caused by shoreline development degrade water quality. Shoreline vegetation is essential to reducing these impacts. Plants filter pollutants and protect water quality while stabilizing shorelines against erosion better than constructed walls or fill. Natural shorelines and streambanks also stimulate local economies because their scenic beauty encourages wildlife viewing, fishing, boating and other recreational activities.

Stream courses A “stream course” is the path and speed at which a river or stream flows through the land. The Huron and its tributaries have undergone a variety of modifications which alter their natural courses. Floodplains and wetlands were filled in when dams were built to create lakes, ponds, hydropower and water level controls. Dams disturb natural variations in water levels, disrupting fish spawning and habitat, and allowing invasive plant species to flourish. Dredged channels create deeper or wider areas for faster water flow or the passage of boats.

Faster flows caused by stream course alterations undercut banks and increase sedimentation. Pollutants bound to sediment are released into the system when dredging occurs. Ironically, such changes usually are made to “solve” problems, such as flooding or poor drainage. In fact, stream course alterations negatively impact the river

Lower Huron River Watershed 95 Management Plan

system by compromising its natural ecology, biological diversity, visual appeal, water flow patterns and water quality.

Open spaces Open spaces like forests and fields help protect water quality by absorbing rainwater and filtering it through plants and soils prior to discharge into ground and surface water sources.

Critical natural areas should be protected, replacing their natural functions with engineered solutions is cumbersome and cost prohibitive. Significantly, natural systems do a better job regulating and cleansing water runoff than engineered alternatives.

Lower Huron River Watershed 96 Management Plan

CHAPTER 5: LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED ACTION PLAN

Huron River flooding its banks City of Flat Rock, Michigan — photo: HRWC file

Watershed management planning provides the opportunity for communities and other stakeholders to assess the current condition of the watershed and peer into the future to see what the watershed will look like if the status quo is maintained. The quality of life desired by the community for future residents often is not in step with the realities of where the community is headed. The LHRWIC identified how residents’ expectations were not being met due to degraded conditions in the lower Huron River Watershed and prioritized the impairments to the water resource, as well as the sources and causes of them.

5.1 DESIGNATED AND DESIRED USES According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the primary criterion for water quality is whether the waterbody meets designated uses. Designated uses are recognized uses of water established by state and federal water quality programs. In Michigan, the goal is to have all waters of the state meet all designated uses. It is important to note that not all of the uses listed below may be attainable, but they may serve as goals toward which the watershed can move.

All surface waters of the state of Michigan are designated for and shall be protected for all of the following uses.92 Those that apply to the lower Huron River Watershed are in boldface:

ƒ Agriculture ƒ Industrial water supply ƒ Public water supply at the point of intake ƒ Navigation ƒ Warmwater fishery ƒ Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife ƒ Partial body contact recreation ƒ Total body contact recreation between May 1 and October 31 ƒ Coldwater fishery

Lower Huron River Watershed 97 Management Plan

Not all of the designated uses are fulfilled due to anthropogenic impacts to the lower Huron River Watershed. Partial body contact recreation is impaired, while warmwater fishery use and other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife use are threatened along a stretch of Wagner-Pink Drain due to elevated E. coli counts resulting from partially treated sewage releases from failing septic systems. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife use is threatened in Port Creek where the biota is considered poor. Stressors to the aquatic system in the lower Huron River Watershed threaten the designated uses of warmwater fishery, other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife, partial body contact recreation, and total body contact recreation.

In addition to designated uses are uses of the watershed that are desired by its residents but not yet achieved. Desired uses specific to each community were generated and are presented in Appendix F. The LHRWIC identified the following desired uses:

ƒ Recreation Areas and Greenways Potential exists for an enhanced and expanded recreation experience for residents and visitors through greenways, trails and parks as well as water-based recreation.

ƒ Wetlands, Open Space and Natural Features Protect and enhance natural features, including wetlands, floodplains and stream channels and riparian corridors that regulate the flow of stormwater runoff, protect against downstream flooding, and curb erosion and sedimentation.

ƒ Unique Habitats and Species, and Natural Buffers Several dozen federal and state listed plant and animal species and unique habitats on which they depend are found in the lower Huron River Watershed and require protection.

ƒ Stormwater and Flood Management Existing “natural infrastructure” regulates the flow of stormwater and protects against downstream flooding. Yet structural and vegetative options need to be added to the mix of management tools since the natural infrastructure of wetlands, floodplains and riparian corridors have been diminished by development.

ƒ Native Vegetation Native plants, trees, shrubs and grasses are adapted to local soils, pests, and moisture conditions. Their extensive, deep root systems hold rain and survive drought much better than non-native plants and turf grass, and are resistant to disease. Restoration of native landscapes and preservation of what remains is needed in the watershed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 98 Management Plan

5.2 SUMMARY OF WATERSHED IMPAIRMENTS, SOURCES AND CAUSES The LHRWIC spent one year gathering the information necessary to understand what are the impairments, or pollutants, to the watershed, and their sources and causes. Analysis of existing data and the stream inventory indicate that the lower Huron River Watershed has stretches of medium- and low-quality stretches that require mitigation of existing impairments. Although the LHRWIC intends to address all of these challenges in the long term with targeted programs, it has been important to prioritize and identify the most pressing concerns in the watershed so that resources can be spent cost-effectively in a phased approach. The impairments have been prioritized based upon the results of the stream crossing inventory, analysis of existing data, Project Team observations, and contributions from citizens and the LHRWIC. This information was used to prioritize the impairments from greatest threat to least threat. The sources and causes are not prioritized but known causes (k) are listed above *suspected causes (s). As additional information is obtained that indicates a lower ranked impairment, source or cause should be elevated in priority the ranking should be adjusted to reflect the new information. Table 5.1 presents the prioritized listing of impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed. This section summarizes current impairments in the watershed and identifies sources and causes of those impairments.

*In cases where impairments, sources or causes were suspected, effort was made to gather the information needed to determine whether or not a problem needed to be addressed. Methods to collect information ranged from field work to desktop analyses utilizing computer-based models and spatial analyses and aerial photos. The Stream Crossing Survey was a means to clarify whether more could be known about particular impairments, sources and causes. While much data and information was compiled to eliminate most suspected items in the table below, some impairments require further investigation. High water temperatures and pesticides require further monitoring to determine the extent to which these pollutants are impairing the lower Huron River system.

5.2.1 Altered Hydrology Hydrology refers to the study of water quantity and flow characteristics in a river system. How much and at what rate water flows through a river system, and how these factors compare to the system’s historic or “pristine” state, are critical in determining the long- term health of the waterway. In a natural river system, precipitation in the form of rain or snow is intercepted by the leaves of plants, absorbed by plant roots, infiltrated into groundwater, soaked up by wetlands, and is slowly released into the surface water system. Very little rainwater and snowmelt flows directly into waterways via surface runoff because there are so many natural barriers in between.

High stormwater flows are a concern throughout the system in both rural and developed communities. In less developed areas, this stormwater runoff flows either into roadside ditches that drain to the creek, or, in the more densely developed areas, it flows into a system of storm drainpipes that eventually outlet to the creek. Agricultural drain tile systems coupled with county drains are adept at moving water away from productive farm fields thereby creating high stormwater flows in headwaters and main branches alike. When vegetated areas are replaced by roads, rooftops, sidewalks, and lawns, a

Lower Huron River Watershed 99 Management Plan

larger proportion of rainwater and snowmelt falls onto impervious (hard) surfaces. During a rain event, this increased runoff causes the flow rate of the creek to increase dramatically over a short period of time, resulting in what is referred to as “flashy flow.”

In addition to rapidly increasing flows during storm events, the increase in impervious surface also decreases base flows during non-storm conditions because less water infiltrates into the ground and is slowly released into the creek via groundwater seeps. Extreme flashiness can lead to rapid erosion of streambanks (especially in areas where the streambank vegetation has been removed or altered) and sedimentation. These impacts create unstable conditions for the macroinvertebrates and fish that inhabit the creek. (Imperviousness is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.) Directly- connected impervious landscapes pose a significant problem to hydrology. An example of a directly-connected impervious surface is a rooftop connected to a driveway via a downspout that is then connected to the street where stormwater ultimately flows into the storm drain and into local creeks and streams.

Due to the historic and continued alteration of flow in the river and tributaries that is a driving factor in the amount of sediment and nutrients in the lower Huron River system, high stormwater peak flows is the number one challenge to address. The lower Huron River has been altered substantially by wetlands drainage, stream channelization, dam construction, deforestation, and urbanization. These activities have affected the river’s hydrology, including flow and flow stability, and its channel morphology, including channel gradient and shape. The extensive network of engineered drains, dams, developed areas, and construction sites all play a role in producing the flashy, sediment-laden flows that the river experiences. Increased flow rates and velocities can lead to flooding, bank erosion, sedimentation, loss of aesthetics, increased stormwater pollution and loss of aquatic habitat.

In less developed areas, mitigation of the effect of impervious surfaces often utilizes the preservation of natural features, incorporating detention ponds or infiltration basins, and other on-site stormwater control systems. In developed areas, managing this flow is difficult, since there is usually limited land on which to build a detention pond or other on- site management system. In urban areas, underground storage systems as well as smaller on-site systems (such as residential rain barrels) can be used to control flow.

5.2.2 Sediment While some sedimentation in a river is natural, as the streambank in one area erodes and the soil is deposited downstream, the lower Huron River experiences heavier-than-normal sediment loads in the main stem and tributaries. Impacts of soil erosion and sedimentation on downstream water resources include decrease of aesthetic quality with an increase of turbidity, decreased light penetration and decreased plant growth, and decrease in aquatic habitat with increased Road work is a source of soil erosion to the sediment islands blocking fish migration and watershed. Photo: HRWC sediment covering and clogging gills of fish and aquatic insects. In addition, nutrients and other pollutants often bond with soil particles, increasing the detrimental impact of sedimentation on water resources.

Lower Huron River Watershed 100 Management Plan

In the lower Huron River Watershed, sediment is identified as one of the major pollutants of concern. It appears to impair the macroinvertebrate and fish communities in a number of locations. The MDEQ identified two river locations where elevated TDS levels have prompted the call for further investigation of the source and cause. Soil erosion and sedimentation is the most significant problem on Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority properties along the Huron River. Finally, residents in close proximity to Flat Rock Dam are concerned about the levels of sedimentation in the impoundment.

Many streambeds in the Huron River system are sandy naturally, but a problem arises when a dramatic shift from gravel and rocks to more fine sediments occurs. Silt, which is fine-grained sediment, is an important factor when considering a creek’s quality. Silt is smaller than sand and larger than clay. Dramatic fine sediment increases suggest unnaturally high erosion rates. Researchers have measured significant increases in fine sediment in Port Creek.

Increased stormwater flows result in increased sediment loadings for a variety of reasons. Soil particles are picked up by stormwater as it flows over roads, through ditches, and off of bridges into surface waters. Increased flows from stormwater runoff or dam discharge have enough energy to scour soils and destabilize stream banks, carrying bank sediments downstream. Evidence of channel downcutting indicates destabilizing flows in the watershed. In addition, runoff from some construction sites are sources of sediment if proper soil erosion and sedimentation controls are not in place on bare soil that has been exposed during the construction process. Sediment enters the water at bridges as a result of inadequate construction and maintenance practices, and via road ditches, which convey sediment from unpaved roads into the stream. Other sources of sediments include sediments washed off of paved streets and parking lots. Active agricultural land may be a source of concern in the rural areas of the watershed since traditional farming practices leave soil bare and tilled at certain times of the year which leaves soil vulnerable to wind and water erosion.

5.2.3 Excess Nutrients A certain amount of nutrients are found in freshwater systems naturally. In excess, nutrients can cause aquatic systems, both flowing and impounded, to become out of balance favoring certain organisms over others and changing the function, use and look of creeks, ponds and rivers. Phosphorus (P) is the primary nutrient of concern in the lower Huron River Watershed because, in Michigan aquatic ecosystems, P is the limiting growth factor for algae and other nuisance plants. When excess P enters waterways from excess fertilizer or other sources, it encourages the accelerated growth of plants and algae. Decomposing plants and algae reduce the dissolved oxygen and light entering the water and create an environment where it is difficult for most fish and aquatic insects to live. High nutrient concentrations interfere with recreation and aesthetic enjoyment of waterbodies by causing reduced water clarity, unpleasant swimming conditions, foul odors, blooms of toxic and nontoxic organisms, and interference with boating.

Sources of phosphorus in the watershed include fertilizers from lawns, golf courses, and croplands, failing septic systems, pet/livestock/wildlife wastes, illicit connections between sanitary sewers and storm drains, wastewater treatment plants, and contributions from upstream of French Landing Dam. Eroded soils can serve as a main source of phosphorus to the Creek since the nutrient adsorbs to particles in the soil.

Lower Huron River Watershed 101 Management Plan

5.2.4 Pathogens Impacts of pathogens on freshwater systems include loss of recreational opportunities such as wading and canoeing due to public health concerns. Major sources of pathogens include failing On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDS), or septic systems, and illicit discharges of sanitary waste into storm sewers that are mostly located in older, urban areas. The Wayne County On-Site Sewage Disposal System Evaluation program finds that 21% of septic systems in the county are failing and require repair.

Most available data on pathogens in the watershed, and specifically E. coli, pertains to the failure of septic systems along Wagner-Pink Drain where a TMDL is in effect. A TMDL is a pollutant loading “budget” designed to restore the health of the waterbody in question by specifying maximum amounts of a pollutant that the waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. In Michigan, the MDEQ must set dates by which TMDLs must be established for listed waterbodies, as well as set dates by which the waterbody must meet the designated TMDLs.

Pet, livestock and wildlife wastes are also sources of pathogens, but it is very difficult to measure the magnitude of these sources as compared to the sources listed above. At this time, it is not clear whether pathogen contribution from a lack of adequate septage facilities is Pet waste is one source of E. coli in the lower Huron River. Photo: HRWC a problem.

5.2.5 Organic Compounds and Heavy Metals Organic compounds (PCBs, PAHs, DDT, etc.) and heavy metals (lead, copper, mercury, zinc, chromium, cadmium, etc.) can potentially cause adverse impacts on river systems. These chemicals and metals can disrupt the physiology of aquatic organisms and can accumulate in their fatty tissues. The contamination of fish tissues with organic chemicals and heavy metals, particularly PCBs and mercury, has resulted in the issuance of fish consumption health advisories in the Huron River watershed and Lake Erie. Organic chemicals such as PCBs are by-products of manufacturing processes and the combustion of fossil fuels. They are also present in automobile fluids such as gasoline and oils. Other organic chemicals are found in pesticides and herbicides. Heavy metals are also a common by-product of manufacturing, but these contaminants are also common in agricultural and road runoff.

Mercury levels in the lower Huron River exceed state water quality standards. The 3-mile reach of the river downstream of Rockwood will receive further evaluation by the MDEQ to determine whether elevated mercury levels are persisting and, if so, investigate the sources and causes. In the watershed, potential sources of organic compounds and heavy metals are urban areas, roads, permitted industries, existing in-stream contamination from historic activities, chemicals from lawns, and runoff from agricultural operations.

Lower Huron River Watershed 102 Management Plan

5.2.6 Elevated Water Temperature Water temperature directly affects many physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of a river. Temperature affects the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in the water; the rate of photosynthesis by algae and larger aquatic plants; the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms; and the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, parasites, and diseases. These factors limit the type of macroinvertebrate and fish communities that can live in a stream. The parts of the lower Huron River system where temperature has been measured indicate that the average summer temperatures range from 69° F to 72° F in the tributaries to 75° F in the main stem. As temperatures warm in the water many cooler water fish and insects are excluded. Moreover, temperatures fluctuations of 11° F have been measured in the lower Huron River system may be decreasing the biodiversity at those sites.

5.2.7 Debris and Litter Observations from the stream crossing inventory indicate that debris and litter is a pervasive problem throughout the lower Huron River Watershed as nearly half of the sites were degraded by debris and/or litter. Furthermore, residents along the Huron River cite extensive regular clean-up efforts to remove litter from the streambanks. Debris refers to broken down pieces of materials such as those used in construction while litter refers to strewn trash and wastepaper. The presence of debris and litter reduces the aesthetic value of water resources as well as poses potential hazards to humans and wildlife. Field observations indicate that the sources of debris and litter include roadways, residential areas, parks, urban areas. More information is needed to determine whether construction sites are a source of debris.

Lower Huron River Watershed 103 Management Plan

Table 5.1 Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed (k = known; s = suspected) Sources Causes 1. Engineered drains and 1. Loss of connection between stream and floodplain from streams (k) channelization and dredging (k) 2. Removal of riparian buffer (k) 3. Drain maintenance (k) 4. Rerouting channel for development (k) 2. Dams: French Landing Dam operations/construction (k) Dam; Flat Rock Dam (k) 3. Developed areas (k) 1. Removal of woodland/forest and wetlands, pervious areas (k) 2. Lack of BMPs at existing developed areas (k) 3. Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration/increase runoff (k) 4. Problems with road/bridge crossings (k) 4. Construction sites (k) 1. Removal of woodland/forest and wetlands, pervious areas (k) 2. Rerouting channel for development (k)

1. Impairment: Altered Hydrology (k) Altered 1. Impairment: 3. Poor drain maintenance (s) 4. Deviation from County stormwater standards (s) 5. Site exemptions (s) Sources Causes 1. Eroding stream banks 1. Altered hydrology: flashy flows; dam discharge (k) and channels (k) 2. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 3. Drain maintenance (k) 4. Channelization (k) 5. Culvert problems (k) 6. Eroding crossing embankments (k) 7. Eroding road ditch (k) 8. Livestock in streams (s) 2. Construction sites (k) 1. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 2. Lack of soil erosion BMPs and BMPs education (s) 3. Drain maintenance (s) 4. Exposed soils (s) 5. Lack of resources for enforcement/inspection (s) 6. Site exemptions (s)

2. Impairment: Sediment (k) Sediment 2. Impairment: 3. Developed areas (k) 1. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k) 2. Lack of BMPs at existing developed areas (k) 3. Impervious surfaces (k) 4. Dirt/gravel roads and 1. Poorly designed/maintained road stream crossings (k) bridges (k) 2. Poor road maintenance (s) 5. Agricultural field runoff 1. Lack of BMPs (upland and riparian buffers) (s) (s) 2. Exposed soils (s) (continued on next page)

Lower Huron River Watershed 104 Management Plan

Sources Causes 1. Developed areas and 1. Existing development pre-dates stormwater management construction sites (k) standards (k) 2. Soil erosion and sedimentation (k) 3. Impervious surfaces (k) 2. Fertilizers from (new) 1. Overuse of fertilizers (improper application/ storage) (k) residential, commercial, 2. Lack of riparian buffers (k) and golf courses (k) 3. Lack of appropriate ordinances (k) 3. Illicit discharges (k) 1. Aging development sanitary sewer infrastructure (k) 2. Inadequate inspection/detection and repair due to cost (s)

3. Lack of homeowner education (s) 4. Illegal septic application and trailer waste disposal (s) 4. Failing septic tanks (k) 1. Old units are too small or don’t meet codes (s) 2. Poor maintenance/lack of homeowner education (s)

3. Lack of a required maintenance program (s) 5. Huron River upstream Multiple causes (k) (k) 3. Impairment: Excess Nutrients (k) (k) Nutrients Excess 3. Impairment: 6. Agricultural runoff (s) 1. Lack of BMPs (upland and riparian buffers) (s) 2. Livestock access to surface waters (s) 7. Pet and wildlife waste 1. Improper disposal of pet waste (s) (s) 3. Ponds increase habitat for waterfowl, wildlife (s)

8. NPDES permitted Permits are concentration-based instead of load-based (s) sources (s) Sources Causes 1. Failing septic tanks (k) 1. Old units are too small or don’t meet codes (k) 2. Inadequate enforcement by DPH (k) 3. Lack of a required maintenance program (k) 4. Poor maintenance/lack of homeowner education (s) 2. Illicit discharges (k) 1. Aging development sanitary sewer infrastructure (k) 2. Inadequate inspection/detection and repair due to cost (s) 3. Lack of education (s) 4. Illegal septic application and trailer waste disposal (s) 3. Pet and wildlife waste 1. Improper disposal of pet waste (runoff from paved areas) (s) (s) 2. Ponds increase habitat for waterfowl, wildlife (s) 4. Livestock waste from Lack of BMPs (s) 4. Impairment: Pathogens (k) Pathogens 4. Impairment: agricultural operations (s) 5. Lack of adequate Illegal/improper septage application (s) septage facilities (s) (continued on next page)

Lower Huron River Watershed 105 Management Plan

Sources Causes 1. Roads (k) 1. Automobile emissions (k) 2. Poor road maintenance (s) 3. Lack of BMPs during de-icing of roads (s) 2. Developed areas (k) 1. Lack of stormwater BMPs (k) 2. Illegal dumping (s) 3. Turfgrass chemicals 1. Improper lawn care (s) from residential, 2. Illegal dumping (s) commercial lawns (s) 4. Agricultural runoff (s) Lack of upland and riparian BMPs (s) 5. NPDES permitted Inadequate inspection (s) and Heavy Metals (k) Metals and Heavy facilities (s) 6. Existing instream 1. Illegal dumping (s)

5. Impairment: Organic Compounds Compounds Organic 5. Impairment: pollution (s) 2. Wayne Co airport/Pinnacle AeroPark property (s)

Sources Causes ) k ( 1. Developed areas (k) Directly-connected impervious surfaces that heat stormwater (k)

2. Eroded soil areas (k) 1. Soil erosion from channel and upland (k) erature erature p 2. Lack of vegetated canopy in riparian buffer (k) 6. Impairment: Elevated Water Elevated Water Tem

Sources Causes 1. Roadways (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Unsecured vehicle/truck loads (s)

3. Poor road maintenance (s) 2. Parks (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Inadequate refuse containers (s) 3. Urban areas (k) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s) 2. Unsecured garbage (s) 4. Residential areas (k) 2. Unsecured garbage (s) 1. Illegal littering/dumping (s)

7. Impairment: Debris/Litter (k) Debris/Litter 7. Impairment: 5. Construction sites (s) 2. Poor site clean-up (s) 1. Lack of adequate riparian buffers (s)

The LHRWIC identified several overarching challenges to the watershed that play some role in generating the seven impairments discussed above. Addressing these challenges is a prerequisite to mitigating the sources and causes of the impairments in order to reach the designated and desired uses in the lower Huron River Watershed.

Land Use Changes Perhaps the greatest concern and threat to water quality degradation in the watershed is land use change. Between 1982 and 1992, Michigan lost approximately 854,000 acres of farmland to suburban development, which is comparable to losing the area of 3.75 Michigan townships per year.93 Moreover, the conversion of farmland to other uses accelerated from 1992 to 1997 by 67% over the previous 5-year period.94 The economic

Lower Huron River Watershed 106 Management Plan

impact of such changes in land use is potentially significant. In fact, the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable (2001) estimates that the state loses $66 billion of economic output annually from decreased tourism and recreation, farming, forestry, and mining due to poorly planned suburbanization. The U.S. Department of Agriculture considers much of southeast Michigan to be high-quality farmland facing high development pressure.95

New development along surface waters often increases the amount of nonpoint sources of pollution When land is converted from natural areas in the waterbody. Photo: HRWC and low-density use as in a rural area, to a more intensive use such as medium density residential or commercial land use, water quality and quantity can be negatively impacted. Increased flow rates and velocities, increased stormwater pollutants, as well as a decrease of natural areas can lead to sedimentation, stream bank erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, water temperature increase, algal blooms, decreased dissolved oxygen and other impacts. Many of the challenges listed below (high stormwater flows, excess nutrients, erosion and sedimentation, loss of natural features) are actually subsets of these land use change concerns.

Loss of Natural Features The loss of natural features often comes hand in hand with new development. Natural features - including groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, wetlands, watercourses, permeable soils, vegetative buffers, and steep slopes – provide many natural functions in the landscape with regard to protecting water quality, regulating water quantity and providing wildlife habitat to receiving watercourses. In natural areas, most of the stormwater is infiltrated and utilized where it falls, allowing most pollutants to be filtered through soils. When these areas are lost, and their functions are not replaced (with infiltration, detention or restoration measures), nearby water resources are impacted negatively with increased flow and increased pollutant loads. As reported earlier in the Stream Crossing Survey summary, areas where riparian vegetation is still fairly in tact should be prioritized for preservation and restoration based on the critical importance of this natural feature to the whole Huron River watershed. Riparian vegetation has many benefits to water resources, including stream bank stabilization, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat structure, and shading and cooling of water. The impacts of losing riparian vegetation include the increase of stream bank erosion, loss of habitat and warmer water, which could threaten the survival of fish and aquatic insects.

Studies indicate that half of the state's inland wetlands and 70% of the coastal wetlands no longer exist.96 Permitted fills for commercial and industrial development, housing, roads, agriculture, and logging claim an estimated 500 acres of wetlands statewide each year. The Huron River Watershed has lost approximately 66% of its wetlands to human activities. This great change in the landscape has the potential to contribute to increased flooding, loss of property values, water pollution, and diminished and fragmented wildlife habitat. Wetlands smaller than 5 acres or not within 500 feet of another waterbody are not regulated by the state. Such wetlands often serve as many or more important functions than do the larger wetlands.97 Therefore, local protection of these systems is needed.

Lower Huron River Watershed 107 Management Plan

Need for Public Awareness and Action A general misperception exists about who contributes to the pollution of the river. These misperceptions or lack of awareness has in turn caused a lack of community-based action to protect and restore local water resources. The impact of this lack of awareness and action has direct and indirect consequences. Directly, these misperceptions or complacent attitudes toward, or lack of understanding about, the river encourages the further degradation of the resource by allowing debris and pollutants to enter stormdrains and the river. Indirectly, lack of public awareness and action can lead to a lack of interest by local decision-makers and thus lack of initiatives, programs, policies and funding to either protect or restore water resources.

Need for Administrative Support and Institutional and Financial Arrangements The members of the LHRWIC have made commitments to protect and restore water resources with a broad spectrum of short term and long term projects and programs. There is a corresponding need for additional support within these communities in order to implement, document and report on the various aspects of these increased responsibilities. Some communities have responded to this need to integrate stormwater projects and education into their regular activities by contracting with a consultant or hiring new personnel. With this need for additional support comes a need for additional funding. Creative partnerships, new fees, and grant funds need to be explored. The potential impact of inadequate program support, financial resources and institutional arrangements is the failure to create and implement programs, policies and projects that ensure the designated and desired uses.

Monitoring Programs and Data Integrated and coordinated water quality monitoring needs to be more firmly established within the watershed. Review of readily available and relevant data reveals a number of concerns. In some cases, studies and data significant to water quality decisions was only minimally distributed within the area of interest. In other cases, existing datasets are not complete enough to be used as a basis for watershed decisions. Other datasets are nearly non-existent, especially those dealing with sediment contamination, and emerging issues such as the presence or absence of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in the water, sediments, and biota. EDCs are chemicals that interfere with the normal function of the endocrine system, which includes endocrine glands (e.g., pituitary, thyroid, and pancreas) and the hormones produced from these glands. The wide range of EDCs includes birth control pills, steroids, pesticides, inorganics, and industrial chemicals. In addition, the quality of some of the existing data causes concerns given that the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols of sampling parties is unknown. The type of data that has been historically collected is often not useful for answering the key questions about the watershed. Moreover, the lack of time-series data prohibits the detection of trends.

Lower Huron River Watershed 108 Management Plan

5.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE LOWER HURON RIVER WATERSHED The LHRWIC presents this vision statement as the condition to which it strives to achieve through long-term implementation of this watershed management plan:

A lower Huron River Watershed and riverine corridor system that is aesthetically pleasant, clean, healthy and safe so that watershed residents and visitors can enjoy an improved quality of life, with reduced risk of flooding and better coordination of stormwater management throughout the region.

The designated and desired uses for the lower Huron River Watershed provide a basis from which to build long-term goals and objectives. Long-term goals describe the future condition of the watershed toward which the LHRWIC will work. Long-term goals are not expected to be met within the first three years of plan implementation, but are to be met at some time beyond the first three years of implementation. The long-term goals have been developed on a watershed-wide basis. No single community or agency is responsible for achieving all of the goals or any one of the goals on its own. The goals represent the desired end product of many individual actions, which will collectively and synergistically protect and improve the water quality, water quantity and biology of the river. The members of the LHRWIC will strive together to meet these long term goals to the maximum extent practicable, by implementing a variety of BMPs over time, as applicable to the individual communities and agencies, relative to their specific priorities, their individual jurisdictions, their authority and their resources.

Due to the complex ecological nature of the response of watersheds to stormwater management, it is difficult to predict when these goals will be met. Some of the administrative long-term goals might realistically be met in the next few years, whereas some of the ecological goals will require more study and improvements, and may take ten to twenty years to achieve, or more. Rather than attempting to predict when these goals will be achieved, the LHRWIC will continuously strive to meet these goals by implementing various best management practices (BMPs) that are recommended for addressing the various goals. The LHRWIC will understand what progress is being made to achieve these goals by using an iterative process of implementing BMPs and evaluating the effects of these BMPs by regularly monitoring the river for change and degree of improvement.

The long-term goals and objectives as agreed upon by the LHRWIC are presented in Table 5.2. The committee prioritized the goals employing a pair-wise comparison exercise. Short-term objectives are presented for each goal, and will be partially or wholly fulfilled within the first three years of plan implementation. Long-term objectives are developed for some of the goals, and may be partially fulfilled during the first three years of plan implementation but realistically will be fulfilled in subsequent implementation phases.

Lower Huron River Watershed 109 Management Plan

Table 5.2 Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated and desired uses they address Long-Term Goal Short-Term Objective Uses(s) Addressed 1 Establish — Increase the general public’s awareness All information and and knowledge of the Watershed and the education efforts interconnectedness of the system to raise — Increase activities that result in watershed preservation, restoration and protection of the awareness system — Increase participation in Watershed stewardship and recreation Long-Term Objective — Reduce pollution that impacts the lower Huron River Watershed by providing practical knowledge to key audiences 2 Protect and Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; mitigate loss of — Increase protections for natural features Aquatic life and natural features through policy and educational measures wildlife; Native — Improve mapping of natural features and vegetation; Open distribution of such maps space, wetlands, — Conduct field work to refine natural and natural features information and prioritize for features; Unique protection habitat and species, — Inventory the aquatic community and natural buffers; — Inventory listed species and communities Recreation and — Identify the type and extent of non-native greenways; Public species water supply Long-Term Objective — Increase areas of natural features including wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, riparian buffers and open spaces — Maintain or improve the aquatic community — Preserve listed species and communities — Prevent/regulate spread of non-native species 3 Establish Short-Term Objective All financial and — Develop long-term funding plans institutional — Create representative group to guide WMP arrangements for implementation WMP fulfillment — Prioritize specific projects for funding and establish estimated costs — Identify options for institutions to guide WMP implementation — Increase local community awareness about progress of plan implementation 4 Reduce flow Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; variability/ — Protect and increase storage in wetlands, Aquatic life and stabilize flows floodplains, groundwater and other pervious wildlife; areas with infiltration capacity Open space, — Establish current stream flow dynamics wetlands, and through established monitoring strategy (see natural features; Goal 9) Stormwater and — Increase the use of Low Impact flood management; Development design Native vegetation

Lower Huron River Watershed 110 Management Plan

5 Reduce soil Short-Term Objective Warmwater fishery; erosion and — Establish baseline data for sediment fines Aquatic life and sedimentation in monitored streams through established wildlife; Industrial monitoring strategy (see Goal 9) water supply; Public — Increase education of BMPs among water supply; property owners and the building community Unique habitat and — Improve application and enforcement of species, and natural Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls buffers; Stormwater (SESC) and flood Long-Term Objective management; Native — Increase clarity in surface waters based on vegetation; Open MDEQ Stream Crossing Watershed Survey space, wetlands, and natural features 6 Reduce nutrient Short-Term Objective Partial and total loading — Establish baseline data for nutrient body contact concentrations and loading in surface waters recreation; through established monitoring strategy (see Warmwater fishery; Goal 9) Aquatic life and — Reduce incidences of Separate Sewer wildlife; Overflows Stormwater/Flood Management 7 Reduce Short-Term Objective Partial and total pathogen (E. coli) — Decrease bacteria contributions to Wagner- body contact loading Pink Drain to meet the MI WQS for E. coli recreation; (TMDL) Warmwater fishery; — Establish baseline data for bacteria through Aquatic life and established monitoring strategy (see Goal 9) wildlife — Implement and maintain Illicit Discharge Elimination Program investigations — Reduce incidences of Separate Sewer Overflows 8 Increase Short-Term Objective All adoption of — Integrate stormwater management in the BMPs for Low planning and land use approval process Impact — Educate land use decision makers on Development development impacts and LID tools (LID) design — Increase coordinated land use planning principles and development standards among the communities in the Watershed 9 Increase water Short-Term Objective All quality, water — Develop a monitoring strategy quantity and — Secure funding and develop partnerships biological to conduct short-term and long-term monitoring monitoring of key indicators — Develop QAPPs for applicable parameters — Increase coordination of monitoring through development of a monitoring strategy 10 Increase Short-Term Objective Open space, opportunities for — Improve public access to land- and water- wetlands, and recreational uses based recreational opportunities natural features; — Expand Greenways Trails Network Recreation and greenways; Partial and total body contact recreation

Lower Huron River Watershed 111 Management Plan

5.4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Once the LHRWIC identified the current conditions of the lower Huron River Watershed and the direction in which they want the watershed to go (the designated and desired uses), they reviewed their existing management approaches to understand where gaps and inconsistencies may exist. Understanding current management provides a starting point for identifying alternatives to improve protection of critical sensitive areas and mitigation of critical degraded areas. The LHRWIC utilized two tools to inventory their current management strategies, the Codes and Ordinances Worksheet and the Best Management Practices Menu. Both of these tools are described in this chapter.

5.4.1 Analysis of Community Development Codes and Ordinances If the watershed communities would like to protect the quality of the water resources and the character of the landscape under a continued growth scenario, then local governments, developers, and site designers alike must fundamentally change the way land is developed. Deciding where to allow or encourage development, promote redevelopment, or protect natural resources are difficult issues jurisdictions have to balance. While effective zoning and comprehensive planning are critical, communities should also be exploring ways to minimize the impact of impervious cover, maintain natural hydrology, and preserve contiguous open space on development sites.

An in-depth review of local development standards, ordinances and building codes that shape how development occurs in a community was completed by most members of the LHRWIC. The review utilized a Codes & Ordinances Worksheet (COW) adapted by the HRWC for Huron River Watershed communities from the original developed by the Center for Watershed Protection. The COW is a useful guide to review development rules, and serves as a basis for determining where future improvements can be made.

The responses to the COW were compared to the set of Model Development Principles (which are described in the publication Better Site Design). These Principles, taken together, reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas and prevent stormwater pollution from new development, while maintaining quality of life within a community. The LHRWIC members received individual community results, prioritized recommendations for improving codes and ordinances to address stormwater, and supporting materials about how to begin implementing the recommendations. The model development principles upon which Better Site Design is based are merely benchmarks; each community should adapt relevant principles and refine recommendations appropriate to local circumstance. Almost every community can alter some part of its subdivision and development codes to foster development that better protects environmental resources and is economically advantageous for the development community.

Lower Huron River Watershed 112 Management Plan

Benefits of Applying the Model Development Principles The model land development principles have documented benefits for both the natural environment and the community. Communities implementing the model principles have realized the following benefits: ƒ Protected the quality of local streams, lakes, and estuaries ƒ Resulted in a more attractive landscape ƒ Reduced car speed on residential streets ƒ Generated smaller loads of stormwater pollutants ƒ Allowed for more sensible locations for stormwater facilities ƒ Helped to reduce soil erosion during construction ƒ Reduced development costs ƒ Increased local property tax revenues ƒ Increased property values ƒ Facilitated compliance with wetlands and other regulations ƒ Created more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods ƒ Provided open space for recreation ƒ Promoted neighborhood designs that provide a sense of community ƒ Protected sensitive forests, wetlands, and habitats from clearing ƒ Preserved urban wildlife habitat

Source: Center for Watershed Protection

Recommended alternative policies and programs deemed to yield the most benefit for the cost are included in the Action Plan. Based on the responses, the following opportunities exist for enhancing current standards within the watershed:

• Wetland and stream buffer requirements, education, and maintenance activities; • Stormwater management in the site plan review process; • Floodplain and wetland (<5 acres in size) protection criteria & standards; • Impervious surface reduction through promoting incentives for clustering, reducing residential street widths and lengths, reducing setbacks, and reducing cul-de-sac radii; • Open space requirements/encouragement (consolidation, use/alteration restrictions); • Native landscaping techniques, soil testing, and integrated pest management; • Enhanced soil erosion control standards and enforcement (e.g., based on site specific particle size analysis); and • Rewarding the use of ecological landscaping design (e.g., capture of smaller and more frequent storms, disconnection of downspouts, utilization of bioretention, recycling of captured stormwater for on-site irrigation, reduced grading and alteration of natural slope, etc.).

More details on the LHRWIC’s January 2005 discussion of how to implement the COW recommendations are provided in Appendix E, including the results and recommendations for each lower Huron River Watershed community.

Lower Huron River Watershed 113 Management Plan

5.4.2 Selection of Management Alternatives In the field of watershed management, management alternatives to address the sources and causes of the challenges are called Best Management Practices, or BMPs. BMPs cover a broad range of activities that vary in cost, effectiveness, and feasibility, depending on a set of complex factors. A stormwater best management practice is a technique, measure or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff in the most cost effective manner.

BMPs fall into one of three categories: Structural: engineered and constructed systems that improve the quality and/or control the quantity of runoff such as detention ponds and constructed wetlands Vegetative: natural processes that preserves existing vegetation or establishes ground cover to minimize soil erosion Managerial: institutional, education or pollution prevention practices designed to limit the generation of stormwater runoff or reduce the amounts of pollutants contained in the runoff

No single BMP can address all stormwater problems. Each practice has certain limitations based on drainage area served, available land space, cost, pollutant removal efficiency, as well as a variety of site specific factors such as soil types, slopes, depth of groundwater table, etc. Careful consideration of these factors is necessary in order to select the appropriate group of BMPs for a particular location or situation.

The LHRWIC took steps to determine which BMPs are more environmentally effective and more cost effective toward meeting the goals for the lower Huron River Watershed. An extensive, but not exhaustive, list of possible BMPs, and their potential effectiveness, cost, and feasibility, was discussed and additions were included based on ideas generated at meetings. The LHRWIC members considered which BMPs would (1) best address their priorities for the watershed in their locality, (2) be among the more environmentally effective, and (3) be more likely to be implemented. They determined which BMPs are to be implemented in the short term (defined as those to be initiated within 1-3 years) and long term (defined as those to be initiated after 3 years) actions that would be recommended for the Action Plan. These lists were shared among the LHRWIC members in order to coordinate ideas and resources, as well as offer suggestions among participants, identify gaps and ensure that watershed goals were being addressed adequately. These steps have resulted in the development of the Action Plan (Table 5.5).

The watershed is comprised of diverse communities, from rural townships to urban centers. Consequently, a variety of structural and non-structural management alternatives, or practices could be considered across the watershed. The alternatives listed below may apply to one community but not to another, and so it is important to note that each of the alternatives is a unique solution to a specific pollution source or problem. This diversity of applications is described both in the Action Plan and in each individual SWPPI to be submitted after this plan is complete. Although each of these alternatives will most likely apply to at least one of the communities or agencies in the watershed, not all of them apply to every community. Although it is not an exhaustive list of all of the possible management alternatives that could be considered, the recommended management alternatives for the watershed are summarized below.

Structural Practices Structural stormwater BMPs are physical systems that are constructed for a development – new or existing – that reduce the stormwater impact of development. Such systems can range from

Lower Huron River Watershed 114 Management Plan

underground, in-line storage vaults to manage peak flows, to slightly graded swales vegetated with wildflowers to slow flows as well as treat pollutants. Structural BMPs can be designed to meet a variety of goals, depending on the needs of the practitioner. In existing urbanized areas and for new developments, structural BMPs can be implemented to address a range of water quantity and quality considerations. Because the effect of these physical systems can often be quantitatively measured by monitoring inflow and outflow parameters, recent studies have suggested certain pollutant removal efficiencies of various BMPs. These data are summarized in table 5.3.

Residential stormwater BMPs, most of which are designed to reduce stormwater runoff via capture and later use by homeowners or via enhanced onsite infiltration, have several advantages. For instance, these practices can be readily applied in older development areas where space for drainage area BMPs is often limited, often low in cost, easily installed and maintained, and act as an educational vehicle for pollution reduction. Some examples of such practices include rain barrels (cisterns), rainwater gardens, concrete grid (porous pavers) walkways, and vegetated roofs. The application of individual homeowner BMPs can sometimes be variable and with uncertain pollutant removal rates. However, the importance of individual homeowner BMPs and managerial BMPs should not be discounted, and recommendations for implementation are provided below.

No single BMP type is ideally suited for every situation and each brings with it various performance, maintenance and environmental advantages and disadvantages. BMPs which consistently achieve moderate to high levels of removal for particulate and soluble pollutants include: wet ponds, sand filters, and infiltration trenches. Wet ponds have demonstrated a general ability to continue to function as designed for relatively long periods of time with routine maintenance. BMPs which require improvement or modification before providing reliable pollution reduction include: infiltration basins, grass filters and swales, and oil/grit separators.98

Non-structural Practices Non-structural BMPs include managerial, educational, regulatory and vegetative practices designed to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater runoff or reduce the volume of stormwater requiring management. These BMPs include education programs, public involvement programs, land use planning, natural resource protection, regulations, operation and maintenance or any other initiative that does not involve designing and building a physical stormwater management mechanism. Most of these non-structural BMPs are difficult to measure quantitatively in terms of overall pollutant reduction and other stormwater parameters. However, research demonstrates that these BMPs have a large impact on changing policy, enforcing protection standards, improving operating procedures and changing public awareness and behaviors to improve water quality and quantity in a watershed over the long term. Moreover, they target source control which has been shown to be more cost effective than end- of-the-pipe solutions. Therefore, these BMPs should not be overlooked, and in some cases, should be the emphasis of a stormwater management program.

Note: Appendix G provides performance and siting considerations for the some of the recommended BMPs. The following table presents performance information primarily for BMPs located in urban and suburban areas.

Lower Huron River Watershed 115 Management Plan

Table 5.3 Pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater best management practices

Pollutant Removal Efficiencies Management Total Total Oil and TSS Metals Bacteria Practice Phosphorus Nitrogen Grease High-powered street 30-90% 45-90% sweeping forested: forested: 23- 85%; grass: Riparian buffers 42%; grass: grass: 17- 63-89% 39-78% 99% Note: 70-100% runoff reduction, 40-50% of winter rainfall. 60% temperature Vegetated roofs reduction. Structural addition of plants over a traditional roof system. Vegetated filter 40-80% 20-80% 40-90% strips (150ft strip) Bioretention 65-98% 49% 81% 51-71% Wet extended 48 - 90% 31-90% 50-99% 29-73% 38-100% 66% detention pond (-80)- Constructed wetland 39-83% 56% 69% 76% 63% Infiltration trench 50-100% 42-100% 50-100%

Infiltration basin 60-100% 50-100% 50-100% 85-90% 90% (-50) - Grassed swales 15-77% 15 - 45% 65-95% 14-71% (-25)% Catch basin inlet 30-40% 30-90% devices sand filter Sand and organic 26- 41-84% 22-54% 63-109% (-23) - 98% filter 100% Stabilize soils on 80-90% construction sites Sediment basins or traps at construction 65% sites

Sources: Claytor, R. and T. R. Schueler. 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Ferguson, T., R. Gignac, M. Stoffan, A. Ibrahim and J. Aldrich. 1997. Cost Estimating Guidelines, Best Management Practices and Engineered Controls. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Brown, W. and T. Schueler. 1997. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater BMPs. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Schueler, T. R. and H. K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Tetra Tech MPS. 2002. Stormwater BMP Prioritization Analysis for the Kent and Brighton Lake Sub-Basins, Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan. Tilton and Associates, Inc. 2002. Stormwater Management Structural Best Management Practices – Potential Systems for Millers Creek Restoration. Ann Arbor, MI. U.S. EPA. 2002. National Menu for Best Management Practices for Storm water Phase II.

Lower Huron River Watershed 116 Management Plan

Information regarding the pollutant removal efficiency, costs, and designs of structural stormwater management alternatives is evolving and improving constantly. As a result, information contained in this table is dynamic and subject to change. While potential locations are recommended for some management alternatives in the Action Plan, general guidelines can be consulted for their common sense placement. The location guidelines shown in table 5.4 are adapted from the Rapid Watershed Assessment Protocol of the Center for Watershed Protection.

Table 5.4 General guidelines for locating BMPs

Amount of Undeveloped Developing Developed Development

Philosophy Preserve Protect Retrofit

Amount of < 10 % >10 - 25 % > 25 % Impervious Surface

Water quality Good Fair Fair-Poor

Stream biodiversity Good-Excellent Fair-Good Poor

Channel stability Stable Unstable Highly unstable Minimize pollutant Stream Protection Preserve biodiversity; Maintain key elements of loads delivered to Objectives channel stability stream quality downstream waters Water quality Sediment and temperature Nutrients and metals Bacteria objectives Maximize pollutant Maintain pre-development Maintain pre-development removal and quantity hydrology hydrology control BMP selection and Minimize stream warming Maximize pollutant removal, design criteria and sediment remove nutrients Remove nutrients, metals and toxics Emphasize filtering systems Emphasize filtering systems

Suburban and developing Subwatersheds in Example locations Rural headwater areas areas like Griggs Drain Flat Rock, Rockwood High-powered street Land preservation; riparian Riparian buffers; infiltration sweeping; sand and Example BMPs buffers; constructed or trenches; wet extended organic filters; restored wetlands detention ponds bioretention

Lower Huron River Watershed 117 Management Plan

5.5 LOWER HURON RIVER ACTION PLAN To prepare the Action Plan (Table 5.5), LHRWIC members assessed the information available about types of management alternatives and their appropriateness and efficiencies, the recommendations from the Codes & Ordinances Worksheet, the goals and objectives developed for the lower Huron River Watershed, and their existing policies and programs. The management alternatives that are listed in the Action Plan encompass actions ranging from activities that entities are ready to implement to activities that are desired but that necessarily will be implemented in the long term. The management alternatives presented in the Action Plan are described briefly below in the order that they appear on the Action Plan.

The LHRWIC recognizes that the activities of entities holding jurisdictional stormwater permits within the lower Huron River Watershed affect the integrity of the watershed and, therefore, influences the degree of success in meeting the goals and objectives. Entities with jurisdictional stormwater permits in the watershed are City of Belleville, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Monroe County Road Commission, and Monroe County Drain Commissioner. These entities are required to develop their own action plans to meet the minimum requirements of the NPDES Phase II Stormwater program but those actions need not be reflected in this watershed management plan.

5.5.1 Recommended Actions to Achieve Lower Huron River Watershed Goals and Objectives

5.5.1.1 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: ILLICIT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION

Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges Illicit discharge detection and elimination requires: 1) the prevention, detection and removal of all physical connections to the storm water drainage system that conveys any material other than storm water; 2) the implementation of measures to detect, correct and enforce against illegal dumping of materials into to streets, storm drains and streams; and 3) implementation of spill prevention, containment, cleanup and disposal techniques of spilled materials to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into storm water. Dye-testing at the time of Certificate of Occupancy and time of home sale may be added to a community’s program. Crews must be trained on how to identify illicit discharges and locate illicit connections. Although this effort can be labor intensive, the pay off is a reduction in the amount sanitary sewage and chemicals that enters surface waters.

Specific activities within an Illicit Discharge Identification and Elimination program include:

ƒ 1. Conduct Outfall Screening Program

ƒ 2. Perform Smoke/Dye Testing

ƒ 3. Develop Reporting System/ Follow-up Plan for Illicit Connections

ƒ 4. Trace Illicit Discharges

ƒ 5. Enforcement for Non-correction of Illicit Discharges

Lower Huron River Watershed 118 Management Plan

ƒ 6. Train Staff to Identify Illicit Discharges

ƒ 7. Minimize Seepage from Sanitary Sewers

ƒ 8. Minimize Seepage from On-site Sewage Disposal Systems

ƒ 9. Update Outfall and/or Drainage Map

ƒ 10. Develop and Implement Method to Identify and Record Outfalls from New Construction

Illicit discharge identification and elimination activities implemented by the communities in the lower Huron River Watershed will dovetail with each community’s MDEQ-approved Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan.

5.5.1.2 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: PUBLIC INFORMATION & EDUCATION

The number one goal for the lower Huron River Watershed is to establish information and education efforts to raise watershed awareness. A key action to fulfilling that goal is the implementation of a coordinated information and education campaign throughout the watershed. An estimated 75% of the nonpoint source pollutants in the Huron River Watershed are the result of individual practices. Audiences need to include homeowners, local governments, riparian landowners, lake and home associations, commercial lawn care businesses, businesses, and institutions. It is critical that these target audiences understand and respond to their impacts on the River system. Preventing pollutants from reaching the River is far more cost effective than waiting until restoration is required.

This project should target nonpoint source pollution prevention through traditional marketing outlets including print advertising, direct mail and retail promotions. Behaviors addressed by the campaign should include: proper lawn care practices; home toxics disposal; septic system maintenance; water conservation; storm drain awareness; and pet waste. Market research would be used to determine core behavioral motivations and how to use these motivations to inspire behavior change. Messages would focus on items of interest to the homeowner, such as savings in time and money, with water quality protection positioned as an “added benefit.” Individual impacts should be stressed to empower homeowners with the message that “their actions do make a difference.” Consistency of messages across the watershed and repetition will be crucial to success of the campaign.

Specific actions that can help fulfill the objectives for this goal are:

ƒ 11. Conduct Homeowner Education about Septic System Maintenance

ƒ 12. Provide Watershed Education Materials to Residents

ƒ 13. Provide Trash Management Information and Education to Public

ƒ 14. Provide Information and Education Program to Homeowners on Yard and Lawn Care, and Native Landscapes

Lower Huron River Watershed 119 Management Plan

ƒ 15. Provide Information and Education Program to Homeowners on Proper Pet Waste Management

ƒ 16. Provide Information and Education Program to Farmers

ƒ 17. Conduct Recreational Vehicle (RV) Waste Disposal Education This program seeks to prevent the illicit discharge of black water from RVs. The plan can educate RV owners about proper waste disposal to prevent illicit discharges through signs and fliers. The plan may prohibit RVs from parking overnight in parking lots, except in parking lots posted for RV parking.

ƒ 18. Environmental Information Line and Pollution Complaint Hotline

ƒ 19. Submit Regular Stormwater-Related Information to Cable TV

ƒ 20. Send Watershed Press Releases to Local Media Outlets

ƒ 21. Submit Watershed-related Articles to Community Newspapers

ƒ 22. Watershed-related News and Materials on Entity Website

ƒ 23. Maintain Lower Huron River Watershed Webpage

ƒ 24. Develop and Distribute Materials on LID Tools for Land Use Decision Makers

ƒ 25. Promote Reporting System for Illicit Discharges

ƒ 26. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site/Day

ƒ 27. Yard Waste Collection and/or Recycling

ƒ 28. Watershed and River Crossing Signage

Increased watershed education and watershed ethic among watershed residents is needed along with a coordinated information and education campaign. Public participation and involvement programs are meant to be activities where people learn about the watershed and/or work together to control stormwater pollution. These programs would be based on the following four objectives: 1) promote a clear identification and understanding of the problem and solutions; 2) identify responsible parties/target audiences; 3) promote community ownership of the problems and solutions; and 4) integrate public feedback into program implementation. To achieve these objectives the audience needs to be identified, the program carefully designed and the program effectiveness periodically reviewed.

Public participation and involvement programs can include the following activities: • Adopt-A-Stream programs – trained citizen volunteers conduct benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat monitoring on a regular basis • Program identity – program message, logo and tag line • Collateral material – newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, posters

Lower Huron River Watershed 120 Management Plan

• Coordinating committees – focus groups, stewardship/protection groups that meet regularly • Residential programs – storm drain stenciling, demonstration lawns and gardens, rain barrels • Presentations – environmental booths, speakers’ bureau and special events • School education – facility tours, contests and curriculum, outdoor education, schoolyard habitats • Southeast Michigan Stewardship Network –brings together volunteer stewards to share their experiences and learn from each other about how to protect and restore natural areas in and around their neighborhoods. Volunteers study creeks, remove invasive species, collect seed from native plants, map the land around waterways, burn prairies, and participate in many other activities

Public information and education activities implemented by the communities in the lower Huron River Watershed will dovetail with each community’s MDEQ-approved Public Education Plan.

5.5.1.3 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: ORDINANCES AND POLICIES

29. Adopt Phosphorus Fertilizer Reduction Ordinance or Policy Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients are necessary to maintain optimum growth of lawns and most gardens. While phosphorus is a naturally occurring nutrient in Michigan waters, human activities such as turfgrass fertilizing contribute excess amounts of phosphorus to lakes and rivers. Over-nutrification of freshwater systems can create nuisance algal blooms that deplete oxygen needed by aquatic organisms, which can lead to fish kills, and prevent water-based recreation. A local phosphorus fertilizer reduction ordinance can address the proper selection, use, application, storage and disposal of fertilizers, and incentives to reduce residential and commercial herbicide/fertilizer use. The ordinance should be combined with a coordinated information and education campaign to communicate the need for the ordinance. Research has shown that phosphorus is not needed as a soil additive in most areas within southeast Michigan. Hamburg Township, West Bloomfield Township and Commerce Township have implemented such ordinances, and the City of Ann Arbor will be implementing its own in the near future.

30. Adopt Native Landscaping Ordinance or Policy Most of the native plants and shrubs of the lower Huron River Watershed have been converted to crops and turfgrass, both of which require intensive cultivation and application of chemicals. Native plant and shrub species are adapted to this area and require less water and less maintenance because of their deep root system and resistance to disease. Natives improve stormwater infiltration and stabilize soils by replacing turf grass or other introduced cover with native grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees. In addition, native species provide habitat and food to insects and wildlife. Native landscaping resources are available in southeast Michigan from plant sources to landscaping consultants. A native landscaping ordinance would promote planting of native species and remove any existing obstacles to growing these plants on residential and commercial lands.

31. Adopt No Dumping Ordinance or Policy More than half of the communities in the lower Huron River Watershed have enacted ordinances that address the dumping of substances in surface waters and wetlands. The ordinance can address a variety of substances from toxics to organic waste such as leaves. Residents of the watershed have stressed the prevalence of litter in the lower Huron River so

Lower Huron River Watershed 121 Management Plan

this ordinance may go a long way toward reducing it if enforcement and education mechanisms are included.

32. Adopt Pet Waste Ordinance or Policy Pet waste can be washed into nearby surface waters and wetlands via direct runoff or storm water systems, thereby adding E. coli and nutrients to these freshwater systems. An ordinance that states proper pet waste management practices and provides for education, enforcement and necessary infrastructure (e.g., bag dispensers) can reduce the incidences of pet waste entering the watershed.

33. Adopt Private Roads Ordinance or Policy A private roads ordinance complements efforts to reduce directly connected impervious surfaces by permitting roads to be built that are narrower than county road standards. Narrower roads produce a smaller area of impervious surface. The ordinance can promote rural character by allowing narrow roads in certain developments in order to preserve open space. Census data shows that most lower Huron River Watershed communities will experience an increase in population and development, so this ordinance can be a preemptive means of protecting water resources. Sample ordinance language is available through county planning departments and the Huron River Watershed Council.

34. Adopt Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance This type of ordinance, known as PDR, is a public or private government initiative that acquires the development rights of property to limit development and protect natural features, open space or agricultural land. The ordinance is a tool for guiding growth away from sensitive resources and toward delineated development centers. Identify areas that should be protected through conservation easements or purchased for public ownership either outright or through PDR. Keep in mind potential greenway corridors for wildlife and recreation. Communities in southeast Michigan have adopted PDR ordinances and garnered the resources to purchase important parcels of land for preservation in perpetuity. A related land conservation tool is the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) that a community could consider employing through a non-continuous Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.).

35. Adopt Stormwater Management Ordinance Regulations that can guide land development with regard to protecting the water quality, water quantity and biological integrity of the receiving surface water are important in undeveloped and soon-to-be-developed areas. This regulation can use existing data to determine the development impact that can be tolerated by the surface waters before that system will become degraded. Future development or redevelopment can be guided to control runoff so that local streams and water resources are not negatively affected by the development to the greatest extent practicable. The ordinance can incorporate requirements for managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff from new development sites, including residential, commercial and institutional sites. Adopting the Rules of the County Drain Commissioner’s Office or Wayne County Department of Environment can be an element of the ordinance in order to be protective of local water resources. Modifications to existing Engineering and Design Standards for stormwater management BMPs is a necessary element of this activity.

36. Adopt Local Wetlands Ordinances with Natural Features Setback Wetlands serve as giant sponges, which soak up storm water during wet weather events allowing the water to infiltrate into the soil instead of running off directly to surface waters. As the stormwater infiltrates into the soil, pollutants are filtered out before it reaches groundwater. Wetlands serve to reduce storm water velocities, reduce peak flows and to filter out storm water

Lower Huron River Watershed 122 Management Plan

pollutants, they also provide habitat for numerous wildlife species. A subset of all wetlands are regulated by state and federal authorities, i.e. in counties with 100,000 people or more, wetlands 5 acres or larger and wetlands within 500 feet of a waterbody are regulated. A wetlands ordinance that is more protective than the state or federal government requires is necessary to protect those smaller, isolated wetlands deemed important to a community. A model wetlands ordinance is available to local communities from the Huron River Watershed Council and the Michigan Coastal Zone Program of the MDEQ. Conduct Municipal Mapping of Wetlands -- A current wetlands map is a required component of a local wetlands ordinance. Ground-truthing wetlands that appear on maps, that is assessing them in the field, improves municipal information about the size, type, performance, and delineation of wetlands. This information then can be incorporated into maps that the municipality can use to improve protection and preservation of the wetlands, as well as to assess the future impacts to a wetland from a proposed development.

37. Support County On-site Sewage Disposal System Ordinance Septic tank and sanitary sewer maintenance measures can be used to prevent, detect and control spills, leaks, overflows and seepage from occurring in the sanitary system. Identify dry weather inflow and infiltration problems first within the sanitary system. Wet weather flows, which are more difficult to locate, can then be located using smoke testing, sewer televising and/or dye testing. On-site sewage disposal systems should be designed, sited, operated and maintained properly to prevent nutrient/pathogen loadings to surface waters and to reduce loadings to groundwater. Septic tanks should be pumped at least every three years depending on the size of the family or group using the tank. Educational materials should be distributed to new and current homeowners that maintain septic tanks so that pollution prevention is emphasized.

38. Adopt Overlay Zoning for Riparian Corridor (as part of Natural Features Ordinance) In order to direct land development while protecting key local natural resources, local ordinances that clarify why the protection of certain features is important and how they will be protected under the law are necessary. These local ordinances can be more protective than state or federal law and can better reflect the priorities of a local community. The Code and Ordinance Worksheet process identified the following components that local communities could consider in a Natural Features Ordinance: woodlands, preserve specimen trees, natural features setback, floodplains, provide preservation and conservation options in development code such as develop land conservation incentives; adopt and implement a farmland preservation ordinance, and establish open space management requirements. Plans for natural features buffer maintenance and management should be included in the ordinances. Sample language is available from resource agencies and organizations such as the Huron River Watershed Council and Wayne County Planning.

39. Disallow Occupancy Permits Pending Inspection for Illicit Connections This program mandates the dye testing of storm sewers associated with new development or redevelopment areas. The inspection is done to confirm that these storm sewers have no illicit connections, and are subsequently free of non-storm discharges. The program reduces the chance of illicit discharge to the Huron River. This testing process shall take place whenever a certificate of occupancy (or equivalent) is issued and has no end date.

40. Enhance Site Plan Review Requirements Community site plan review standards can be revised to include, if applicable, the 100-year floodplain, location of waterbodies and their associated watersheds, location of slopes over 12

Lower Huron River Watershed 123 Management Plan

percent, site soil types, location of landmark trees, groundwater recharge areas, vegetation types within 25 feet of waterbodies, woodlands and other vegetation on site, and site topography.

41. Incorporate Low Impact Development Principles Land use planning and management involves a comprehensive planning process to promote Low Impact Development (LID) and control or prevent runoff from developed land uses. LID is a low cost alternative to traditional structural stormwater BMPs. It combines resource conservation and a hydrologically functional site design with pollution prevention measures to reduce development impacts to better replicate natural watershed hydrology and water quality. Through a variety of small-scale site design techniques, LID reduces the creation of runoff, volume, and frequency. Essentially, LID strives to mimic pre-development runoff conditions. This micro-management source control concept is quite different from conventional end-of-pipe treatment or conservation techniques. The LID planning process involves the following steps: 1) determine water quality and quantity goals with respect of human health, aquatic life and recreation; 2) identify planning area and gather pertinent hydrological, chemical and biological data; 3) determine and prioritize the water quality needs as they relate to land use and the proposed development; 4) develop recommendations for low impact development to address the problems and needs that have been previously determined; 5) present recommendations to a political body for acceptance and 6) implement adopted recommendations. The communities of the lower Huron River Watershed identified this activity as one that should be implemented watershed-wide.

42. Implement Septic System Inspection at Time-of-Sale A Wayne County-wide program was developed and implemented that identifies and corrects failing on-site septic systems. The "Time of Sale" Program protects public health and safety by ensuring safe and adequate water supplies and proper disposal of human sewage. The Program requires the inspection and evaluation of septic systems and/or wells before residential property changes ownership. Inspection reports are filed with the Wayne County Department of Environmental Health. These reports include the following components: a description of the water supply and septic system construction; a summary of functional status; and recommendations. The County generates a written notice either authorizing the transfer of property or requiring corrections. Authorization must be issued before the deed can be transferred. Corrective action plans to be submitted within 30 days in cases of non- conformance. All necessary corrections to be completed within 180 days. Local communities can develop and implement their own Septic System Inspection program to be more rigorous than the county program so that inspections are done at a specified regular time interval.

43. Improve Enforcement of Litter Laws and Nuisance Properties According to surveys by Keep America Beautiful, litter is caused by any of the following: pedestrians, motorists, uncovered trucks, loading docks, construction sites, improper residential refuse set-out, and improper commercial refuse set-out. Of all litter, 40 percent is accidental, such as something blowing out of a dump truck, while much of the 60 percent that's intentional occurs in places where litter has already accumulated.

44. Improve Enforcement of/ Review and Revise Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Policies/ 45. Improve Enforcement of Construction Site Inspections Regular inspection of control measures is essential to maintain the effectiveness of during construction and post-construction stormwater best management practices. Generally, inspection and maintenance of practices can be categorized into two groups—expected routine

Lower Huron River Watershed 124 Management Plan

maintenance and non-routine (repair) maintenance. Routine maintenance refers to checks performed on a regular basis to keep the practice in good working order. In addition, routine inspection and maintenance is an efficient way to prevent potential nuisance situations (odors, mosquitoes, weeds, etc.), reduce the need for repair maintenance, and reduce the chance of polluting stormwater runoff by finding and correcting problems before the next rain. In addition to maintaining the effectiveness of stormwater BMPs and reducing the incidence of pests, proper inspection and maintenance is essential to avoid the health and safety threats inherent in BMP neglect. The failure of structural storm water BMPs can lead to downstream flooding, causing property damage, injury, and even death.99

46. Minimize Total Impervious Cover in Zoning Ordinance Utilizing a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan for new developments can reduce directly connected impervious surfaces. LID plans combine a hydrologically functional site design with pollution prevention measures to compensate for land development impacts on hydrology and water quality. The result will be a reduction in storm water peak discharge, a reduction in runoff volume and the removal of storm water pollutants. LID principles can apply to new residential, commercial and industrial developments. Under the umbrella of LID are specific options such as reducing street widths, right of ways, minimum cul-de-sac radius, driveway widths and parking ratios, allowing for pervious materials to be used in spillover parking areas, and establishing a minimum percentage of parking lot area that is required to be landscaped (with native plants, preferably). Communities are encouraged to minimize the total impervious cover in Zoning Ordinances to protect water resources in the build out scenario.

47. Promote Open Space Preservation in Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan Zoning maps may be amended to increase protection for water resources. Inclusion of natural features and open space zoning are two of the most common and useful ways. Allowing for compact development design increases the ability to preserve a significant amount of open, undeveloped land by grouping buildings and paved surfaces to provide more compact developments while maintaining open spaces.

48. Review and Revise Grading and Land Clearing Practices It is desirable for the protection of the Huron River that as much of a site be conserved in a natural state as possible. Areas of a site that are preserved in their natural state retain their natural hydrology and do not erode during construction. In general, grading and clearing ought to be restricted to the minimum area required for building footprints, construction access, and fire safety setbacks. Several tools may be adapted to limit clearing, including the soil erosion and sediment control ordinance, grading ordinances, tree or forest protection ordinances, and open space development.

49. Revise Parking Standards for New Developments and Redevelopments The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity would be enforced as both a maximum and minimum in order to curb excess parking space construction. Parking codes would be revised to lower parking requirements where mass transit is available or enforceable shared parking arrangements are made. Reduce overall imperviousness of parking lots by providing compact car spaces, minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes and using pervious materials in spillover parking areas.

50. Revise Stormwater Management Standards for Pond Landscaping This plan is meant to reduce nuisance geese habitat at storm water ponds by the installation of shoreline buffer planting or other means. The plan is utilized each time the storm water system

Lower Huron River Watershed 125 Management Plan

is reviewed or equivalent, with no end date. Parks departments may become involved to employ the same strategy near public water features.

5.5.1.4 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: PRACTICES

52. Incorporate Results of Conservation Planning Analysis into Local Ordinances and Policies In order to help state and local planning agencies, land conservancies, and local communities make better decisions about where to encourage growth and where to target preservation and restoration efforts, the HRWC created a preliminary conservation planning map of the remaining natural areas in the watershed. The results of the analysis need to be reviewed and then incorporated into each community’s maps and land use decision making processes in order to protect the ranked priority areas.

53. Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces After strategies have been employed to reduce overall site imperviousness in new developments and redevelopment, additional environmental benefits can be achieved and hydrologic impacts reduced by disconnecting impervious areas. Strategies include: ƒ Disconnecting roof drains and directing flows to vegetated areas or to dry wells ƒ Directing flows from paved areas such as driveways to stabilized vegetated areas ƒ Breaking up flow directions from large paved surfaces ƒ Encouraging sheet flow through vegetated areas ƒ Carefully locating impervious areas so that they drain to natural systems, vegetated buffers, natural resource areas, or permeable zones/soils. Ensure that flow velocities are maintained so as to not degrade the natural, vegetated filtering system.

In some cases, disconnecting impervious areas can reduce the effective impervious cover in a watershed by 20-50%.100 In urban communities, especially older areas, there may be opportunities to disconnect impervious areas through downspout disconnection and the discharge of footing drains /sump pumps to green space rather than to stormwater conveyance systems.

54. Increase Amount of Refuse Containers and Review Distribution Some littering and dumping occurs for the simple reason that a refuse container was not in close proximity. According to surveys by Keep America Beautiful, litter is caused by any of the following: pedestrians, motorists, uncovered trucks, loading docks, construction sites, improper residential refuse set-out, and improper commercial refuse set-out. Of all litter, 40% is accidental, such as something blowing out of a dump truck, while much of the 60% that's intentional occurs in places where litter has already accumulated.

55. Practice High-Powered Street and Paved Area Sweeping High-powered street sweeping is a management measure that involves pavement cleaning practices on a regular basis to minimize pollutant export to receiving waters. These cleaning practices are designed to remove sediment debris and other pollutants from road and parking lot surfaces that are a potential source of pollution impacting urban streams. Recent improvements in street sweeper technology (e.g., regenerative air or vacuum assisted systems) have enhanced the ability of the current generation of street sweeper machines to pick up the fine grained sediment particles that carry a substantial portion of the stormwater pollutant load. Many of today's sweepers can now dramatically reduce the amount of street dirt entering

Lower Huron River Watershed 126 Management Plan

streams and rivers. Street sweeping is recommended in cold climate areas during, or prior, to spring snowmelt as a pollution prevention measure.

56. Practice Nutrient Management This BMP involves managing the amount, source, form, placement and timing of the application of nutrients and soil amendments on agricultural lands. In rural areas, smaller agricultural establishments and small horse farms may contribute to higher nutrient concentrations and bacteria counts if manure is not managed properly. State agencies have the authority to control agricultural practices through voluntary measures called Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices, or GAAMPs. GAAMPs provide agricultural landowners guidelines to follow with regard to nutrient and pesticide application and storage, manure management, groundwater protection, and a host of other agricultural BMPs to protect surface and groundwater as well as habitat. There are established outreach programs for landowners to educate about these recommended practices through the County Conservation District, which should be utilized as much as possible to control potential pollutants from this land use.

57. Provide Pet Waste Bags in Parks and Public Areas This program provides bags for pet waste clean up in order to reduce pet waste in parks, subsequently reducing the amount of E. coli entering the Huron River from pet waste.

58. Practice Alternative Drain Practices that Rehabilitate Stream and Riparian Habitats The channelization of the lower Huron River system to drain the land is the root of many problems in the watershed today. While the responsibilities of County Drain Offices continues to include maintenance of drains to prevent flooding by removing obstructive vegetation and sediment, opportunities to return stretches of drains to their more natural condition should be identified. Locations where agricultural uses have given way to development are candidates for alternative drain practices and rehabilitation. Breaking of drainage tiles in developing areas can be pursued in conjunction with rehabilitation of drains in order to increase the opportunity to restore hydrologic function to the river system. This practice should be done in conjunction with development, rather than after the fact. Often the tiles are not part of the Drain, but are torn up as a result of development.

59. Practice Storm Drain/Catch Basin Marking The purpose of storm water drain marking is to eliminate waste entering the Huron River through storm drains, by means of creating public awareness of the danger of dumping into these drains. Storm drains are marked with a warning stating that any waste entering the drain goes straight to the Huron River. Along with the marking, the project places educational fliers on the doors of residences in the vicinity of newly marked drains. Markers are continuously placed on drains and replaced every few years when old markers begin to fade or fall off.

60. Expand Greenways Trails Network The development of the first phase of a canoe and kayak trail, the Heritage Water Trail, is underway for the lower Huron and Detroit rivers. This water trail can be incorporated into the overall enhanced trails network in the lower Huron River Watershed that includes greenways and blueways.

Lower Huron River Watershed 127 Management Plan

5.5.1.5 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: STUDIES AND INVENTORIES

61. Develop or Adapt Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for Applicable Parameters A Quality Assurance Project Plan is a written document that provides the framework for how environmental data will be collected to achieve specific project objectives and describes the procedures that will be implemented to obtain data of known and adequate quality. The U.S. EPA and State of Michigan require QAPPs be completed and approved prior to beginning monitoring using state or federal funds. In general, there are 12 major components of a QAPP. These components are: ƒ A description of the project and the elements that make up the project, including the person(s) responsible for carrying out the project ƒ Quality assurance objectives for measurement data ƒ Sampling and other operating procedures ƒ Sample custody procedures ƒ Equipment calibration procedures and frequency ƒ Analytical procedures ƒ Internal quality control checks ƒ Data reduction, validation, and reporting ƒ Performance and system audits to verify adherence to quality assurance/quality control ƒ programs ƒ Preventative maintenance on equipment and instrumentation ƒ Data quality assessment ƒ Corrective action for analytical and field equipment problems and quality assurance/quality control noncompliance problems

62. Develop and Implement Coordinated Monitoring Strategy to Measure Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Biota A consistent dataset of water quality parameters, biotic indicators and stream flow is needed for a better understanding of conditions in the lower Huron River Watershed and to use as baseline when measuring conditions following implementation of recommended management alternatives. Further, pollutant removal efficiencies should be measured as part of any implementation project since the literature remains incomplete. Monitoring needs to include dry and wet weather events and seasonal variation over multiple years. Some of the monitoring could be conducted by trained volunteers affiliated with the Huron River Watershed Council’s Adopt-A-Stream program or the Stream Team.

63. Initiate Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies A comprehensive study of the hydrology of the lower Huron River system would provide an understanding of the interaction of precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, stream flow rates, water storage, and water use and diversions. A hydraulics study would yield information about the river’s velocity, flow depth, flood elevations, channel erosion, storm drains, culverts, bridges and dams. Information resulting from these studies would provide greater detail on the sources and causes of problems related to hydrology-induced erosion. The studies are prerequisite to identify the most appropriate management alternatives and best locations for practices that can restore the hydrology of the river and its tributaries.

64. Inventory and Stabilize Eroding Streambanks Streambank stabilization measures are treatments used to stabilize and protect banks of streams or constructed channels, and shorelines of lakes, reservoirs, or estuaries. Understanding the cause of the erosion problem is paramount to implementing any streambank stabilization measure. If the cause is extreme peak storm water flows, then first address peak

Lower Huron River Watershed 128 Management Plan

flow problems before stabilization measures can be expected to succeed. Streambank stabilization measures work by either reducing the force of flowing water and/or by increasing the resistance of the bank to erosion. Vegetating streambanks also provides important ecological benefits such as shading water and providing crucial habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. Three types of streambank stabilization methods exist: engineered, bioengineered and biotechnical. Engineered structures include riprap, A-Jacks, gabions, deflectors and revetments. Bioengineering refers to the use of live plants that are embedded and arranged in the ground where they serve as soil reinforcement, hydraulic drains, and barriers to the earth movement and/or hydraulic pumps. Examples of bioengineering techniques include: live stakes, live fascines, brush mattresses, live cribwall and branch packing. Biotechnical measures include the integrated use of plants and inert structural components to stabilize channel slopes, prevent erosion and provide a natural appearance. Examples of biotechnical techniques include: joint plantings, vegetated gabion mattresses, vegetated cellular grids and reinforced grass systems. Bioengineered or biotechnical methods should be implemented in lieu of engineered methods, where possible, so as to increase habitat and aesthetics.

65. Inventory Areas Lacking Stormwater Management for Retrofit Opportunities Urban areas and older subdivisions in the watershed were developed in an era where the dominant philosophy was to move all water off-site. Now, armed with our current understanding of the need to manage stormwater on-site, older developments need to be inventoried for the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial locations for management alternatives.

66. Investigate Opportunities for Recreation Areas In order to encourage public awareness and concern for rivers, streams and wetlands, it is important to increase opportunities for people to access these water resources. If provided with aesthetic and accessible, well-advertised recreational areas - be it a canoe livery, a fishing pier, or a trail system - the public will be able to experience the human benefits that the water offers and in turn, may want to work to protect the resource. First, the designated and desired uses must be restored so that it is safe for the public to use the resource in the manner it is intended; i.e., reduce sediment in order to promote a canoe livery. Then, the recreational amenity can be planned, built and promoted.

67. Measure Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of BMPs Measuring pollutant removal effectiveness of stormwater best management practices is a growing area of study. Research continues at local, national and global levels to identify pollutant removal effectiveness under the full range of site, atmospheric and performance conditions. Each management alternative implemented in the watershed, specifically vegetative and structural practices, should be treated to studies that measure the pre-installation and post- installation conditions. These studies will increase the body of knowledge in the area of stormwater BMPs’ effectiveness at improving water quality and water quantity.

68. Conduct Field Work to Refine Natural Features Information and Develop a Methodology to Prioritize for Protection Natural features information in the lower Huron River Watershed pertains only to the MetroParks managed by the HCMA; the Michigan Natural Features Inventory produced inventories and management recommendations for each park. The composition and condition of natural features throughout the rest of the watershed is virtually unknown. Conducting 69. Natural Features Inventories is the typical approach to gathering natural features information. Several dozen state-listed and federally-listed plant and animal species have been sighted in the watershed. The distribution and status of those species should be surveyed and

Lower Huron River Watershed 129 Management Plan

management plans for their survival and sustainability developed. These species and the habitats that they need for survival can serve as bellwethers for how management of the lower Huron River Watershed is proceeding.

70. Establish BMP Case Studies Brief and concise case studies can be written to accompany stormwater management alternatives that are implemented in the watershed using the information gained from measuring pollutant removal effectiveness of stormwater best management practices.

71. Study Drainage around Cogswell and Make Improvements This project is specific to a neighborhood in Romulus that has experienced drainage problems and requires improvements.

5.5.1.6 MANAGERIAL ACTIONS: COORDINATION AND FUNDING

74. Establish and Maintain Long-term Committee of Community/Entity Representatives to Promote Implementation of the Watershed Management Plan Watersheds are formed by hydrologic boundaries, not political boundaries. Therefore, some level of institutional arrangements must be established so that the various local, county, state and federal jurisdictions of the watershed are coordinated. Watersheds are often broken down into sub-watersheds or tributary groups that consist of 10-15 parties so as to have a more manageable working group. These sub-watersheds then have a representative at the watershed level to coordinate watershed-wide initiatives and decisions. Local examples of watershed groups working on implementation of watershed management plans include the Rouge Assembly, the Middle Huron Watershed Partnership, and the Malletts Creek Coordinating Committee (a Huron River tributary in Washtenaw County). Program maturity and funding sources will help to determine which institutional arrangements will work best to continue restoration and protection efforts. Among the main functions of the committee will be to 81. Conduct Work Sessions to Prioritize Specific Projects for Funding, Establish Estimated Costs, and Identify Funding Mechanisms.

An activity of the Committee should be to 72. Ensure Consistency of Ordinances Among the lower Huron River Watershed Communities. The LHRWIC expressed interest during the review of community development codes and ordinances in achieving consistent codes and ordinances to the maximum extent feasible that reduce stormwater runoff and thereby protect the watershed. Additional activities of the Committee could include 80. Reviewing Annual Reports from Committee members and other NPDES permittees in the lower Huron River Watershed. Reviewing reports will allow the participants to learn about the recent activities of the other permittees, communicate their own progress, and report out on challenges to implementing activities and upcoming activities.

73. Improve Drain Maintenance Coordination with County Drain Offices and Road Commissions and/or MDOT This activity will be necessary in order to make progress on another activity to be undertaken by the LHRWIC members that was described earlier, Practice Alternative Drain Practices that Rehabilitate Stream and Riparian Habitats.

75. Create and Maintain Partnerships with Institutions, Schools, and Private Sector to Promote a Collaborative Effort in Watershed Management

Lower Huron River Watershed 130 Management Plan

76. Seek Alternative Funding Sources Integrating stormwater management programs into the daily procedures of a community will generate new costs. In many cases, communities and agencies will need to explore creative solutions to finance new staff, new programs, or new commitments. Specifically, 82. Secure Funding and Develop Partnerships to Conduct Monitoring. Grants may be available, often with a local match involved, but these grants usually are short term solutions for one-time projects. Long terms solutions that have been tested in other areas include the following: implementing a stormwater utility fee incurred by users of the stormwater system; using impervious cover as basis for user fees; giving credits to fees if private detention/retention practices exist; assessing a one-time septic system installation fee; establishing forest and wetland mitigation banking system; creating a Buffer Restoration Incentive Program that provides $500/acre payment to landowners; purchasing environmental easements by the private sector; and participating in a statewide Purchase/Transferable Development Right Bank (PDR/TDR). The LHRWIC has expressed interest in 77. Creating a Funding Source for Land Acquisition and Protection, which it may pursue in the long term. Another long term activity will be to 78. Create Law to Allow Illicit Discharge Enforcement as a Source of Revenue.

83. Become a Government Member of the Huron River Watershed Council HRWC is a council of the local governmental units that have jurisdiction over property in the watershed. Membership to HRWC is voluntary for governments located within the Huron River Watershed. Of the seven counties and 67 townships, villages and cities located wholly or partially within the watershed, most have chosen to join HRWC. Services available to member governments include water quality monitoring and education, technical assistance and policy development, and regional, state and federal representation. HRWC provides member governments with a forum for the resolution of inter-governmental disputes or inter-jurisdictional problems arising from the management of shared water resources.

5.5.1.7 VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

84. Construct Stormwater Wetlands Stormwater wetlands, or constructed wetlands, are structural practices similar to wet ponds that incorporate wetland plants into the design. As stormwater runoff flows through the wetland, pollutant removal is achieved through settling and biological uptake within the practice. Wetlands are among the most effective stormwater practices in terms of pollutant removal and they also offer aesthetic value. Although natural wetlands can sometimes be used to treat stormwater runoff that has been properly pretreated, stormwater wetlands are fundamentally different from natural wetland systems. Stormwater wetlands are designed specifically for the purpose of treating stormwater runoff, and typically have less biodiversity than natural wetlands in terms of both plant and animal life. Several design variations of the stormwater wetland exist, each design differing in the relative amounts of shallow and deep water, and dry storage above the wetland.101

Lower Huron River Watershed 131 Management Plan

85. Create and Maintain Grassed Waterways A grassed waterway is a natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions and established with suitable vegetation. This practice is used primarily on agricultural lands. On agricultural lands, land owners can be eligible for USDA programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to help pay for the practice. Local NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

86. Install and Maintain Vegetated Filter Strips This BMP is a strip of grass or other permanent vegetation designed to treat sheet flow from adjacent surfaces. Filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities and filtering out sediment and other pollutants, and by providing some infiltration into underlying soils. A Cross Wind Trap Strip – Grassed waterway. Photo: Washtenaw Field, a type of filter strip, is an herbaceous cover resistant to Co. Conservation District wind erosion, established in one or more strips across the prevailing wind erosion direction. A Cross Wind Trap Strip – Filter, another type, is an herbaceous cover resistant to wind erosion, established adjacent to surface drainage ditches across the prevailing wind erosion direction. This practice is used primarily on agricultural lands. On agricultural lands, land owners can be eligible for USDA programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to help pay for the practice. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

87. Plant and Maintain Riparian Buffers with Native Vegetation The effects of urbanization on low order stream (1st-3rd order) are well documented, and include alterations that results in degraded stream habitat and aquatic communities. Riparian buffer systems are streamside ecosystems managed for the enhancement of water quality through control of nonpoint source pollution and protection of the stream environment. These systems may be placed along a shoreline, stream or wetland. The primary function of the practice is to physically protect and separate the natural feature from future disturbance or encroachment by development. Buffers remove stormwater pollutants such as sediment, nutrients and bacteria, and slow runoff velocities. The degree to which buffer systems remove pollutants is dependent on loading rates from upland land uses, stream order and size, and the successful establishment and sustainability of the practice.102 Design and Riparian buffer. Photo: USDA NRCS size of the buffer also plays a large role in effectiveness. The three-tiered system recommended by the Center for Watershed Protection is detailed in the publication Better Site Design. On agricultural lands, land owners can be eligible for USDA programs that help pay for the practices. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

Lower Huron River Watershed 132 Management Plan

88. Install and Maintain Bioretention Systems in Developed/ Redeveloping Areas Bioretention areas are landscaping features commonly located in parking lot islands or within small pockets of residential land uses that are adapted to provide on-site treatment of stormwater runoff. Surface runoff is directed into shallow landscaped depressions where it pools above the mulch and soil in the system, then filters through the mulch to underdrain systems and a prepared soil bed. Typically, filtered runoff is collected in a perforated underdrain and returned to the storm drain system. Emergency overflow outlets are provided to direct flows in excess of the system’s capacity to the stormwater conveyance system during large storm events.

89. Install Grassed Swales Grassed swales are open channel management practices designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff. As stormwater runoff flows through these channels, it is filtered first by the vegetation in the channel, then through a subsoil matrix, and finally infiltrates into the underlying soils. Grassed swales are improvements on the traditional drainage ditch and Bioretention System. Photo: Center for are well suited for treating highway or residential road runoff. Watershed Protection Grassed channels are the most similar to a conventional drainage ditch, with the major differences being flatter side and longitudinal slopes and a slower design velocity for water quality treatment of small storm events. The type and coverage of vegetation grown in the swales will influence pollutant treatment. Pollutant reduction values in this analysis assume the use of well-established turf grasses consistent with traditional residential settings. Other plantings may provide greater pollutant reduction, but may also alter conveyance hydraulics.

90. Install Pond Buffer Native Plantings This activity diminishes turfgrass cover at pond’s edge and replaces it with native tall grasses and flowering plants that are suited to wet conditions. Native plantings discourage and displace foraging geese, subsequently reducing bacteria contributions to surface waters from bird droppings. Native plantings also slow stormwater runoff and filter out pollutants in the runoff prior to the water entering the pond.

91. Install and Maintain Vegetated (“Green”) Roofs The green roof concept is akin to the popular, but traditionally heavy and difficult to maintain, garden roofs found atop buildings worldwide. Essentially, a green roof is the structural addition of plants over a traditional roof system. Green roofs reduce stormwater runoff and increase energy efficiency. In the past there were many concerns regarding the safety and durability of these structures; however, recent advances have dramatically and successfully addressed these concerns. A recent, highly visible green roof was installed on the roof of a large building at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Dearborn, Michigan. Examples of smaller residential and municipal green roofs are present in Washtenaw County.

92. Practice Agricultural Conservation Cover This BMP involves establishing and maintaining permanent vegetative cover to protect soil and water resources. This practice is used primarily on agricultural lands. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

Lower Huron River Watershed 133 Management Plan

93. Practice Conservation Crop Rotation with Cover Crop and Mulch/No-till This BMP involves a system of three individual practices. Conservation crop rotation describes the practice of growing crops in a recurring sequence on the same field. The crops may be grasses, legumes, forbs or other herbaceous plants established for seasonal cover and conservation purposes. Residue management as mulch till is the practice of managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year-round, while growing crops where the entire field is tilled prior to planting. Residue Management as no-till and/or strip till is the practice of managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year-around, while growing crops in previously untilled soil and residue. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

94. Restore Wetlands -- Recreate Storage No-till crop. Photo: Washtenaw Co. A restored wetland is the rehabilitation of a drained or degraded Conservation District wetland where the soils, hydrology, vegetative community, and biological habitat are returned to the natural conditions to the greatest extent possible. A constructed wetland is a man-made wetland with more than 50% of its surface area covered by wetland vegetation. It is ideal for large, regional tributary areas (10 to 300 acres) where there is a need to achieve high levels of particulate and nutrient removal. Wetland size and configuration, hydrologic sources, and vegetation selection must be considered during the design phase. Constructed wetlands provide a suspended solid removal of approximately 70%, while nutrient removal ranges widely due to a lack of standard design criteria, but is in the range of 40-80%. These wetlands also benefit the area by providing fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefits.

95. Install and Maintain Rain Gardens The term "rain garden" refers to a constructed depressional area that is used as a landscape tool to improve water quality. Rain gardens should be placed strategically to intercept water runoff, and typically are placed beside impervious surfaces such as driveways, sidewalks, or below downspouts. Rain gardens are designed to allow for ponding first flush and increased infiltration. Nutrient removal occurs as the water comes in contact with the soil and the roots of the trees, shrubs or other vegetation, as such plant choices should center on native wildflowers and grasses that are adapted to local conditions. A rain garden can be as simple to establish and maintain as a traditional garden.

96. Reduce Turf with Shrubs and Trees Replacing turfgrass with native trees, shrubs and grasses can improve the ability of stormwater to infiltrate due to natives extensive, deep root systems. Research of stormwater runoff from various land surfaces indicates that runoff coefficients from turfgrass can more closely resemble runoff coefficients for paved areas due to the shallow root structure of turfgrass and more compacted soils in which it grows. A popular technique for reducing turf is to use native landscaping for attractive borders. Because native plants have adapted to local soils and pests, they require less watering and need no chemicals or fertilizers to protect them. So less turfgrass can mean cost savings.

Lower Huron River Watershed 134 Management Plan

97. Evaluate Areas for Instream Habitat Restoration Techniques Habitat restoration techniques include instream structures that may be used to correct and/or improve fish and wildlife habitat deficiencies over a broad range of conditions. Examples of these techniques include: channel blocks, boulder clusters, covered logs, tree cover, bank cribs, log and bank shelters, channel constrictors, cross logs and revetment and wedge and “K” dams.103 The majority of these structures require trained installation with hand labor and tools. After construction, a maintenance program must be implemented to ensure long-term success of the habitat structures. In areas that experience high stormwater peak flows, instream habitat restoration should be installed after desired flow target is reached so as to ensure the success of the habitat improvement project.

98. Stabilize Soils at Crossing Embankments Soil erosion control is the process of stabilizing soils and slopes in an effort to prevent or reduce erosion due to storm water runoff. Source areas are construction sites where soil has been disturbed and exposed, streambanks that are eroding due to lack of vegetation and an excess of peak flows during storm events, and road crossing over streams where the integrity of the structure is compromised or where the road itself contributes gravel or dirt. Soils can be stabilized by various physical or vegetative methods, while slopes are stabilized by reshaping the ground to grades, which will improve surface drainage and reduce the amount of soil eroding from a site. In areas where development activity is underway, it is important to emphasize the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance inspection and enforcement, which often entails hiring an adequate number of field staff.

5.5.1.8 STRUCTURAL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

99. Install and Maintain Infiltration Trenches and Basins An infiltration trench is a rock-filled trench with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff must pass through a pre-treatment measure, such as a swale or detention basin, to remove or reduce the amount of suspended solids prior to reaching the infiltration trench. Within the trench, runoff is stored in the voids of the stones and infiltrates through the bottom where it is again filtered by the underlying soils. Trenches are appropriate in most residential areas where curb and gutter would be considered.

Stormwater infiltration basins are any stormwater device or system, which causes the majority of runoff from small storms to infiltrate into the ground rather than be discharged to a stream. Most infiltration devices also remove waterborne pollutants by filtering water through the soil. Stormwater Infiltration trench. Photo: Center for infiltration can provide a means of maintaining the hydrologic Watershed Protection balance by reducing impervious areas. Infiltration devices can include any of the following: basins, trenches, permeable pavement, modular pavement or other systems that collect runoff and discharge it into the ground. Infiltration devices should only be used on locations with gentle slopes, permeable soils and relatively deep water tables and bedrock levels. In new developments, permeable soil areas should be preserved and utilized as stormwater infiltration areas.

Lower Huron River Watershed 135 Management Plan

100. Construct and Maintain Extended Wet Detention Ponds Wet ponds, or extended wet detention basins, are constructed basins designed to contain a permanent pool of water in order to detain and settle stormwater runoff. The primary pollutant removal mechanism is settling as stormwater resides in the pool and pollutant uptake occurs through biological activity in the pond. Wet ponds are among the most cost-effective and widely used stormwater practices.

Wet detention ponds are small man-made ponds or shallower areas with emergent wetland vegetation around the banks designed to capture and remove particulate and certain dissolved constituents. Wet ponds and wetlands are ideal for large, regional tributary areas (10 to 300 acres) where there is a need to achieve high levels of particulate and some dissolved nutrient removal. They can be used on individual sites, as well. The pond or wetland should be sized to treat runoff, accumulate sediment and route floods. The outlet should be sized based on the design method. The pond should be configured for aesthetics, safety and maintenance. Landscaping design requirements should include a natural vegetated buffer around the pond/wetland to reduce pollutants entering the area as well as decrease goose habitat, and increase aesthetics. Floating vegetation should be used in the pond to shade water and prevent algae blooms as opposed to chemical herbicides. It should be noted that the successful establishment of emergent and other wetland plants, and specific wetland hydrology, will only be achieved with proper monitoring and maintenance for approximately five to ten years after construction. Design the practice to meet or exceed the Wayne County Stormwater Rules and allow for water infiltration or evaporation where possible. A sediment forebay should be used as system with detention ponds as it allows for settling of sediments without clogging outlets, and facilitates maintenance of the pond. Nutrient removal studies indicate that wet ponds may outperform dry ponds.

101. Install BAT to Reduce Nutrients at Permitted Point Sources Best Available Technology (BAT) to reduce nutrients, pathogens and other pollutants in permitted point source effluent should be used to minimize contributions to surface waters. LHRWIC members can work with MDEQ and NPDES point source dischargers in their communities to determine whether the facilities’ effluent would benefit from increased pollutant removal technology. Due to the decreasing rate of return for ever increasing technological standards, the more cost effective approach to improving water quality will be to prevent pollution in stormwater runoff in the first place.

102. Install and Maintain Catch-basin Inserts A catch-basin is an inlet to the storm drain system that typically includes a grate or curb inlet and a sump to capture sediment, debris, and associated pollutants. A number of proprietary technologies are now available to augment the pollutant capture of these systems. These technologies generally employ additional sump chambers to enhance the capture of solids, and many employ filtering media to capture additional pollutants or fractions of the pollutant inflows. The generic term “catch-basin inserts” is used here to describe a variety of in-sump or in-line designs.

103. Install Grade Stabilization Structures A grade stabilization structure is used to control the grade and head cutting in natural or artificial channels (like a grassed waterway). This practice is used primarily on agricultural lands. On agricultural lands, land owners can be eligible for USDA programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to help pay for the practice. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this practice.

Lower Huron River Watershed 136 Management Plan

104. Install Porous Pavement Porous pavement can be made of concrete, stone or plastic and promote the absorption of rain and snowmelt. The most common type of porous pavement is paving blocks and grids which are modular systems that contain openings filled with sand and/or soil. Some pavers can support grass or other suitable vegetation providing a green appearance. Porous pavement can be effective in reducing the quantity of surface runoff for small to moderate-sized storms, and may also reduce the amount of pollutants associated with these events. Typically, these systems will work better when overlaid on sandy, permeable soils (as opposed to less permeable clay soils). Effectiveness of these pavements can be improved by maximizing the opening in the paving material and providing a sub-layer of at least 12 inches. This type of pavement is particularly applicable for overflow and special event parking, driveways, utility and access roads, emergency access lanes, fire lanes and alleys.

105. Install and Maintain Media/Sand and Organic Filters A media filter is essentially a settling basin followed by a sand filter for particulate removal. Other filters may be used to provide dissolved pollutant removal. The most common media utilized is sand, while some use a peat/sand mixture. Filters are usually two-chambered storm water practices; the first is a settling chamber, and the second is a filter bed filled with sand or another filtering media. As stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as storm water flows through the filtering medium. Modifications include surface sand filter, underground sand filter, perimeter sand filter, organic media filter, and multi-chamber treatment train.

106. Install and Maintain Sediment Trapping Devices Sediment trapping devices such as a barrier, basin or other devices are designed to remove sediment from runoff. Sediment basins should be located at the downstream end of drainage areas larger than 5 acres, and before a treatment train of other BMPs such as a wet detention pond or constructed wetland that is built to treat excess sediments and other pollutants. Dikes, temporary channels and pipes should be used to divert runoff from disturbed areas into the basin and runoff from undisturbed areas around the basin. Simpler devices for areas less than 5 acres include a sediment trap and sand bag barrier, silt fences and straw bales. Silt fences and straw bales can be placed along level contours downstream of exposed areas where only sheet flow is anticipated. Sediment trapping devices can also be used on storm drain inlets and can include filter fabric, excavated drop traps, gravel filters and sandbags. Maintenance is a key requirement of any of these soil erosion control BMPs. Sediment traps, barriers, basins and filters should be inspected frequently for repairs and sediment removal.

107. Construct and Maintain Waste Storage Facilities Waste storage facilities are impoundments made by constructing an embankment and/or excavating a pit or dugout, or by fabricating a structure to store liquid and/or solid waste on a temporary basis, until land spreading takes place. On agricultural lands, land owners can be eligible for USDA programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to help pay for the practice. Local NRCS Conservation Districts can provide expertise for this Waste storage facility. Photo: Washtenaw Co. practice. Conservation District

Lower Huron River Watershed 137 Management Plan

108. Repair Undersized Culverts/Repair Misaligned or Obstructed Culverts During the Stream Crossing inventory, several sites were found to have erosion problems in the stream due to undersized culverts or because of culverts that are poorly aligned with the current channel shape or that are obstructed by an instream object. Where undersized culverts are the cause of the problem, the proper size culvert will need to be determined by the County Road Commissions in order to accommodate existing and anticipated future flows. Where misalignment or obstruction are the problems, the remedy may not be as straightforward as replacing the culvert. Changes in hydrology from upstream development or from an instream obstruction will need to be determined in order to find the appropriate solution. Local units of government, specifically the townships, will need to work through the county governments to implement this practice.

109. Stabilize Eroding Road and Bridge Surfaces Many county roads in the watershed are unpaved. The gravel and sand/gravel composite used for road surface can be the source of sediment pollution to surface waters when precipitation washes it into the stream or when road grading builds piles of the surface along the sides of the road. Stabilization of the eroding road and bridge surfaces at the sites identified in the field inventory may involve structural techniques such as retrofitting the bridge to prevent runoff from entering the stream or managerial techniques such as altering grading practices and selecting a different road and bridge surface. Local units of government, specifically the townships, will need to work through the county governments to implement this practice.

Additional information on stormwater management alternatives can be found at the following web-based resources:

International Stormwater BMP Database: http://www.bmpdatabase.org/

Low Impact Development Center: http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/

MDEQ’s Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3716-103496--,00.html

MDEQ’s Index of Individual BMPs: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,%207-135-3313_3682_3714-13186--,00.html

MDOT Approved BMPs: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/SWMP_05_MDOT_v_4_120609_7.0_Appendix_D.pdf

The Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center: http://www.stormwatercenter.net/

US EPA’s National Menu of BMPs for Stormwater Phase II: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm

Lower Huron River Watershed 138 Management Plan

Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

Lower Huron River Watershed 139 Management Plan Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Illicit Discharge Elimination $100/staff investigation per 1 Conduct outfall screening program sewered areas property b

$600/dye test b 2 Perform smoke/dye testing sewered areas $30/manhole for smoke testing a

3 Develop reporting system/ follow-up plan for illicit connections 13 entities $100/hr per municipal staff a

$100/staff investigation per 4 Trace illicit discharges sewered areas property b 5 Enforcement for non-correction of illicit discharges sewered areas $5k-15k per property b 6 Train staff to identify illicit discharges 6 entities $100/hr municipal staff a

$1-2/lineal ft for TV inspection c 7 Minimize seepage from sanitary sewers sewered areas and design/construction costs

8 Minimize seepage from on-site sewage disposal systems 2 entities 9 Update outfall and/or drainage map 5 entities $100/hr per municipal staff a consultant assistance Develop and implement method to identify and record outfalls from in cooperation w/ County 10 sewered areas $100/hr per municipal staff a new construction government

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Public Information & Education communities with $0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece I/E materials from HRWC; SE MI 11 Homeowner education about septic system maintenance c septics for print and mail Partners for Clean Water $0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece I/E materials from HRWC; SE MI 12 Provide watershed education materials to residents community-wide for print and mail c Partners for Clean Water $0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece 13 Provide Trash management information and education to public community-wide for print and mail c Provide Information and education program to homeowners on yard $0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece I/E materials from HRWC; SE MI 14 community-wide and lawn care, native landscapes for print and mail c Partners for Clean Water Provide Information and education program to homeowners on $0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece I/E materials from HRWC; SE MI 15 sewered areas proper pet waste management for print and mail c Partners for Clean Water agricultural 16 Provide Information and education to farmers communities Materials from SEMCOG; SE MI 17 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Waste Disposal Education public facilities counties 18 Environmental Information Line and Pollution Complaint Hotline watershed-wide provided through Wayne County $100/hr+cost for cable TV, 19 Regular storm water-related information on cable TV community-wide c consult w/ local media 20 Send watershed press releases to local media outlets community-wide $100/release + printing costs 21 Watershed-related articles in community newsletters community-wide $50-100/hr d

22 Watershed-related news and I & E materials on entity website community-wide $50-100/hr to update website a,c

23 Maintain Lower Huron River Watershed Webpage 3-5 hrs/month $100/hr d Develop and distribute education materials on LID tools for land use 24 community-wide decision makers $100/hr +cost for cable TV, 25 Promote reporting system for illicit discharges community-wide consult w/ local media c

26 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site/Day per community Recycling station expenses e

27 Yard Waste Collection and/or Recycling per community Recycling station expenses e

strategic locations in coordination w/ county road 28 Watershed and River crossing signage along road ROW commissions, SEMCOG and public facilities

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Ordinances and Policies 29 Adopt fertilizer reduction ordinance or policy 7 entities $10k obtain sample ordinances 30 Adopt native landscaping ordinance or policy 10 entities $5k-10k obtain sample ordinances 31 Adopt no dumping ordinance or policy 12 entities $5k-10k obtain sample ordinances 32 Adopt pet waste ordinance or policy 5 entities $5k-10k obtain sample ordinances 33 Adopt private roads ordinance or policy 6 entities $5k-10k obtain sample ordinances 34 Adopt Purchase of Development Rights ordinance 3 entities $5k-10k d obtain sample ordinances 35 Adopt stormwater management ordinance (e.g., Wayne Co.) 10 entities $5k-10k a Adopt wetlands ordinance w/ natural features setback; create local obtain HRWC model ordinance; 36 9 entities $5k-10k map of wetlands GIS, GPS capabilities 37 Support County OSDS Ordinance 5 entities $3k-5k d 38 Adopt overlay zoning for riparian corridor 8 entities 39 Disallow Occupancy Permits pending inspection for illicit connections 8 entities

40 Enhance site plan review requirements 11 entities $5k-10k d County Drain Offices; HRWC 41 Incorporate Low Impact Development principles watershed-wide 42 Implement septic system inspection at time-of-sale 4 entities $5k-10k a $300/ inspection 43 Improve enforcement of litter laws and nuisance properties 11 entities 44 Improve enforcement of SESC policies 4 entities 45 Improve enforcement of construction site inspections 11 entities 46 Minimize total impervious cover in zoning ordinance 10 entities $5k-10k obtain sample ordinances Promote open space preservation in zoning ordinance and master 47 10 entities $5k-10k a plan 48 Review and revise grading and land clearing policies 11 entities $5k-10k a obtain sample standards 49 Review and revise SESC policies and practices 7 entities $5k-10k a obtain sample standards 50 Revise parking standards for new development/ redevelop. 11 entities $5k-10k a obtain sample standards 51 Revise Stormwater Management Standards - pond landscaping 10 entities County Drain Offices

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Practices Incorporate results of conservation planning analyses into local utilizing HRWC's conservation 52 watershed-wide $3k-5k d ordinances and policies planning analysis 8 entities 1st: new 53 Reduce directly connected impervious surfaces $50/house b development; 2nd: retrofits

54 Increase amount of refuse containers and review their distribution 8 entities in coordination w/ HCMA

7 entities; every 1-2 $30-65/curb mile in coordination w/ MDOT; County 55 Practice high-powered street and paved area sweeping wks except during $100k-200k a,b $10-20/cubic yd Road Commissions freeze disposal 56 Practice nutrient management on agricultural land 4 entities $10/acre $10/acre USDA programs: EQIP; CRP 57 Provide pet waste bags in parks and public areas public facilities $100/station d some maintenance Practice alternative drain practices that rehabilitate stream and in coordination w/ County Drain 58 watershed-wide $5k-10k riparian habitats Offices $1.50/Lexan marker Volunteers apply markers and 59 Storm drain/catch basin marking sewered areas $3/ crystal coated marker hang educational fliers in coordination w/ Metropolitan 60 Expand Greenways Trails Network 9 entities Affairs Coalition

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Studies and Inventories

61 Develop or adapt QAPPs for applicable parameters as needed $100/hr MDEQ, HRWC

in coordination w/ county Develop and implement a coordinated monitoring strategy to governments; HRWC Adopt-A- 62 watershed-wide $50k-100k measure water quality, water quantity and biota Stream; MDEQ; MDNR; Stream Team

63 Initiate hydrologic and hydraulic studies watershed-wide $35k-75k d $10k-25k MDEQ; USGS; consultant services

$1k/mile inventory a, f $1.50-3/pp live stake $2-9/pp joint planting stake $5-9/ft live fascine in coordination w/ County Drain 64 Inventory and stabilize eroding streambanks as needed $10-25/sq ft live cribwall Offices $25-35/sq yd 8" rip-rap $30-45/sq yd 16" rip-rap $20-30/ft gabion baskets $30-75/lineal ft A-Jacks Inventory areas lacking stormwater management for retrofit 65 $100/hr per municipal staff consultant services opportunities 66 Investigate opportunities for recreation areas $100/hr per municipal staff 67 Measure pollutant removal efficiencies of BMPs

MI Natural Features Inventory; Conduct field work to refine natural features information and develop 68 watershed-wide universities; consultants; SE MI a methodology to prioritize for protection Stewardship Network; HRWC

MI Natural Features Inventory; 69 Conduct natural features inventories watershed-wide universities; consultants; SE MI Stewardship Network; HRWC

70 Establish BMP case studies 71 Study drainage around Cogswell and make improvements

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Managerial: Coordination and Funding Ensure consistency of ordinances among the lower Huron River $100/hr per municipal staff 72 a Watershed communities $200/hr legal review in coordination w/ County Drain 73 Improve drain maintenance coordination with County and/or MDOT $10k-15k Offices; MDOT Establish and maintain long-term committee of community/entity in coordination w/ existing 74 representatives to promote implementation of the Watershed 4 hrs/month $100/hr per municipal staff LHRWIC members Management Plan Create and maintain partnerships with institutions, schools, and 75 private sector to promote a collaborative effort in watershed 4 hrs/month $100/hr per municipal staff management 76 Seek alternative funding sources 5 hrs/month $100/hr per municipal staff $150/hr for development a 77 Create a funding source for land acquisition and protection legal assistance $200/hr legal review Create law to allow illicit discharge enforcement as a source of $100/hr for municipal staff 78 8 entities a legal assistance revenue $200/hr legal review Establish enforcement program of O&M component of county $100/hr for municipal staff 79 legal assistance stormwater ordinance $200/hr legal review a Review annual reports from LHRWIC members and other NPDES 80 quarterly meetings $100/hr per municipal staff permittees Conduct work sessions to prioritize specific projects for funding, through long-term committee 81 4 hrs/month establish estimated costs, and identify funding mechanisms implementing WMP

through long-term committee 82 Secure funding and develop partnerships to conduct monitoring as needed implementing WMP 83 Become a government member of the HRWC 9 entities $400 +

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Vegetative

USDA programs; USFWS; Ducks 84 Construct stormwater wetlands where feasible $30k-50k/acre f 2-4% of construction Unlimited; County Drain Offices; consultant services $3.5k/acre USDA programs: EQIP; CRP; 85 Create and maintain grassed waterways 4 entities b $70-90/acre $4k/acre w/ tile NRCS USDA programs: EQIP; CRP; 86 Create and maintain vegetated filter strips 6 entities $200/acre $4/acre NRCS 87 Plant and maintain riparian buffer with native vegetation 10 entities $350/acre b 1-2% of installation USDA programs; NRCS 88 Install bioretention systems in developed/redeveloping areas where feasible $6.80/cubic ft b 2% for O & M 89 Install grassed swales, where feasible 11 entities 90 Install pond buffer native plantings 10 entities $350/acre b 1-2% of installation 91 Install vegetated roofs 6 entities $12-24/sq ft USDA programs: EQIP; CRP; 92 Practice agricultural conservation cover 4 entities $225/acre $11.15/acre NRCS

$170/acre Cover Crop $170/acre Cover Crop USDA programs: EQIP; CRP; 93 Practice conservation crop rotation with cover crop and mulch/no-till 2 entities $10-15/acre Mulch/No- $10-15/acre Mulch/No-till NRCS till

USFWS; USDA; Ducks Unlimited; 94 Restore wetlands, recreate storage 6 entities $700-2k/acre b 2-4% of construction County Drain Offices $500/homesite, or $3-5/sq ft up residential sites w/ 95 Install rain gardens to $10-12/sq ft for professional 4% of construction appropriate soils work 96 Reduce turf with shrubs and trees 10 entities Evaluate areas for installing woody debris or habitat structures and 97 5 entities $60/ft f consultant services install per Lower Huron in coordination w/ County Drain 98 Stabilize soils at crossing embankments Stream Crossing Offices; County Road Inventory Commissions; MDOT

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997 Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan

KEY: currently doing planned for short-term planned for long-term = will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments not planned currently not applicable

Goals Addresssed Cost Entities

# Management Alternative Level of Effort Technical/Financial Resources Capital Annual Berlin TwpBerlin Twp Brownstown Flat Rock Gibraltar Twp Huron Rockwood Romulus Rockwood South Sumpter Twp Twp Charter Buren Van County Wayne Woodhaven District School W-B 1 Public Info & Ed Features Natural 2 Protect Fulfillment 3 WMP 4 Reduce Flow Variability Erosion/Sediment 5 Soil 6 Reduce Nutrients Pathogens 7 Reduce Development 8 Low Impact Monitoring 9 Increase Uses 10 Recreational Structural

at strategic locations 99 Construct infiltration basins/trenches $2-5/cubic ft b <5% of construction consultant assistance in 9 entities variable, depends Construct retention/wet extended detention ponds for new on amount of in coordination w/ County Drain 100 developments development/ Offices redevelopment Install best available technology to reduce nutrients at permitted point NPDES facilities in 5 varies depending on technology 101 sources entities and pollutant 102 Install catch basin inserts sewered areas $50-800 each f $20-40/each $5k-6k geotextile 103 Install grade stabilization structures for agricultural operations 2 entities $50-95/each $8.5k-9k fabricated

at appropriate new 104 Install porous pavement developments and $40k-80k/acre f $200/acre redevelopments

1st: new 105 Install sand and organic filters development; 2nd: $5/cubic ft $0.54/cubic ft retrofits 106 Install sediment traps or basins at construction sites All sites $6k b 10% of installation 107 Install waste storage facilities where feasible $100k-250k b $2k-5k USDA programs: EQIP; CRP

as identified in County Road Commissions; 108 Repair misaligned/obstructed culverts Lower Huron Stream $150k-200k/site MDOT; consultant assistance Crossing Inventory

as identified in County Road Commissions; 109 Stabilize road/bridge surfaces Lower Huron Stream MDOT; consultant assistance Crossing Inventory

a Combined Downriver WMP b Mill Creek WMP c Middle 1 Rouge SWMP d HRWC Estimate e Lower Grand WMP f RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997

5.6 EVALUATION METHODS FOR MEASURING SUCCESS So how to measure whether the management alternatives listed in the Action Plan have been successful at reducing pollutants? That is to say, have changes in behavior occurred among target audiences, how many management practices have been implemented, or have documented improvements in water quality occurred? There are a number of different ways to measure progress towards meeting the goals for the lower Huron River Watershed. Objective markers or milestones will be used to track the progress and effectiveness of the management practices in reducing pollutants to the maximum extent possible (see Table 5.8). Evaluating the management practices that are implemented help establish a baseline against which future progress at reducing pollutants can be measured. The U.S. EPA identifies the following general categories for measuring progress:

1. Tracking implementation over time. Where a BMP is continually implemented over the permit term, a measurable goal can be developed to track how often, or where, this BMP is implemented. 2. Measuring progress in implementing the BMP. Some BMPs are developed over time, and a measurable goal can be used to track this progress until BMP implementation is completed. 3. Tracking total numbers of BMPs implemented. Measurable goals also can be used to track BMP implementation numerically, e.g., the number of wet detention basins in place or the number of people changing their behavior due to the receipt of educational materials. 4. Tracking program/BMP effectiveness. Measurable goals can be developed to evaluate BMP effectiveness, for example, by evaluating a structural BMP's effectiveness at reducing pollutant loadings, or evaluating a public education campaign's effectiveness at reaching and informing the target audience to determine whether it reduces pollutants to the MEP. A measurable goal can also be a BMP design objective or a performance standard. 5. Tracking environmental improvement. The ultimate goal of the NPDES storm water program is environmental improvement, which can be a measurable goal. Achievement of environmental improvement can be assessed and documented by ascertaining whether state water quality standards are being met for the receiving waterbody or by tracking trends or improvements in water quality (chemical, physical, and biological) and other indicators, such as the hydrologic or habitat condition of the waterbody or watershed. Although achievement of water quality standards is the goal of plan implementation, the LHRWIC members need to use other means to ascertain what effects individual and collective BMPs have on water quality and associated indicators. Instream monitoring, such as physical, chemical, and biological monitoring, is ideal because it allows direct measurement of environmental improvements resulting from management efforts. Targeted monitoring to evaluate BMP-specific effectiveness is another option, whereas ambient monitoring can be used to determine overall program effectiveness. Alternatives to monitoring include using programmatic, social, physical, and hydrological indicators. Finally, environmental indicators can be used to quantify the effectiveness of BMPs.

Environmental indicators are relatively easy-to-measure surrogates that can be used to demonstrate the actual health of the environment based on the implementation of various

Lower Huron River Watershed 140 Management Plan

programs or individual program elements. Some indicators are more useful than others in providing assessments of individual program areas or insight into overall program success. Useful indicators are often indirect or surrogate measurements where the presence of the indicator points to likelihood that the activity was successful. Indicators can be a cost-effective method of assessing the effectiveness of a program because direct measurements sometimes can be too costly or time-consuming to be practical. A well-known example is the use of fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator of the presence of human pathogens in drinking water. This indicator dates back more than 100 years and is still in widespread use for the protection of public health from waterborne, disease-causing organisms.

Table 5.6 presents environmental indicators that have been developed specifically for assessing stormwater programs.104 Water quality indicators 1 through 16—physical, hydrological, and biological indicators—can be integrated into an overall assessment of the program and used as a basis for the long term evaluation of program success. Indicators 17 through 26 correspond more closely to the administrative and programmatic indicators as well as the practice-specific indicators.

Lower Huron River Watershed 141 Management Plan

Table 5.6 Stormwater indicators Category # Indicator Name

Water Quality Indicators 1 Water quality pollutant constituent monitoring

This group of indicators measures 2 Toxicity testing specific water quality or chemistry 3 Loadings parameters. 4 Exceedence frequencies of water quality standards

5 Sediment contamination

6 Human health criteria

Physical and Hydrological Indicators 7 Stream widening/downcutting

This group of indicators measures 8 Physical habitat monitoring changes to or impacts on the physical environment. 9 Impacted dry weather flows 10 Increased flooding frequency

11 Stream temperature monitoring

Biological Indicators 12 Fish assemblage

This group of indicators uses biological 13 Macroinvertebrate assemblage communities to measure changes to or 14 Single species indicator impacts on biological parameters. 15 Composite indicator

16 Other biological indicators

Social Indicators 17 Public attitude surveys

This group of indicators uses responses 18 Industrial/commercial pollution prevention to surveys, questionnaires, and the like to assess various parameters. 19 Public involvement and monitoring 20 User perception

Programmatic Indicators 21 Number of illicit connections identified/corrected

This group of indicators quantifies 22 Number of BMPs installed, inspected and maintained various non-aquatic parameters for 23 Permitting and compliance measuring program activities. 24 Growth and development

Site Indicators 25 BMP performance monitoring This group of indicators assesses specific conditions at the site level. 26 Industrial site compliance monitoring

Measurement and evaluation are important parts of planning because they can indicate whether or not efforts are successful and provide a feedback loop for improving project implementation as new information is gathered. If the LHRWIC is able to show results, then the plan likely will gain more support from the partnering communities and agencies, as well as local decision makers, and increase the likelihood of project sustainability and success. Monitoring and

Lower Huron River Watershed 142 Management Plan

measuring progress in the watershed necessarily will be conducted at the local level by individual agencies and communities, as well as at the watershed level, in order to assess the ecological affects of the collective entity actions on the health of the lower Huron River and its tributaries.

Monitoring and measuring progress in the watershed will be two-tiered. First, individual agencies and communities will monitor certain projects and programs on the agency and community levels to establish effectiveness. For example, a community-based lawn fertilizer education workshop will be assessed and evaluated by that community. Also, with the implementation of a community project such as the retrofitting of detention ponds, the individual community responsible for the implementation of that task may monitor water quality/quantity parameters before and after the retrofit to establish the improvements. Secondly, there will be a need to monitor progress and effectiveness on a regional – subwatershed or watershed – level in order to assess the ecological affects of the collective community and agency actions on the health of the river and its tributaries.

The LHRWIC recognizes the importance of a collaborative, long-term water quality, quantity and biological monitoring program to determine where they should focus resources as they progress toward meeting collective goals. These physical parameters will reflect improvements on a regional scale. The monitoring program should be established on a watershed scale since this approach is the most cost effective and consistent if sampling is done by one entity for an entire region.

5.6.1 Qualitative Evaluation Techniques: Tier 1 As seen in the lower Huron River Action Plan, as well as the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiatives (SWPPIs) of each individual entity, there are and will be many programs and projects implemented to improve water quality, water quantity and habitat in the lower Huron River Watershed over the short- and long-term through many different types of programs – from physical instream improvements to public education programs. Finding creative ways to measure the effectiveness of each of these individual and often unique programs will be recorded for each task under the individual SWPPIs.

A set of qualitative evaluation criteria can be used to determine whether pollutant loading reductions are being achieved over time and whether substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards in the watershed. Conversely, the criteria can be used for determining whether this Watershed Management Plan needs to be revised at a future time in order to meet standards. A summary (Table 5.7) of the methods provides an indication of how these programs might be measured and monitored to evaluate success in both the short and the long term. Some of these evaluations may be implemented on a watershed basis, such as a public awareness survey to evaluate public education efforts, but most of these activities will be measured at the local level. By evaluating the effectiveness of these programs, communities and agencies will be better informed about public response and success of the programs, how to improve the programs and which programs to continue. Although these methods of measuring progress are not tied directly to measurements in the river, it is fair to assume that the success of these actions and programs, collectively and over time, will impact positively on the instream conditions and measurements of the river system.

Lower Huron River Watershed 143 Management Plan

Table 5.7 Summary of qualitative evaluation techniques for the lower Huron River Watershed Evaluation Program/Project What is Measured Pros and Cons Implementation Method Public education Awareness; Moderate cost. Pre- and post- surveys or involvement Knowledge; Low response recommended. By mail, program/project Behaviors; Attitudes; rate. telephone or group Public Surveys Concerns setting. Repetition on regular basis can show trends. Appropriate for local or watershed basis. Public meeting or Awareness; Good response Post-event participants group education Knowledge rate. Low cost. complete brief or involvement evaluations that ask what Written project was learned, what was Evaluations missing, what could be done better. Evaluations completed on-site. Identify riparian Habitat; Flow; Current and first- Identify parameters to and aquatic Erosion; Recreation hand information. evaluate. Use form, such improvements. potential; Impacts Time-consuming. as Stream Crossing Stream Surveys Identify Low or moderate Inventory, to record recreational cost. observations. Summarize opportunities. findings to identify sites needing observation. Structural and Aesthetics. Pre- and Easy to Provides visual evidence. vegetative BMP post- conditions. implement. Low Photographs can be used installations, cost. Good, but in public communication Visual retrofits limited, form of materials. Documentation communication.

Education efforts, Number and types of Subjective Answer phone, letter, Phone call/ advertising of concerns of public. information from emails and track nature Complaint contact number Location of problem limited number of of calls and concerns. records for complaints/ areas. people. concerns

Public Number of people Low cost. Easy to Track participation by involvement and participating. track and counting people, education projects Geographic understand. materials collected and Participation distribution of having sign-in/evaluation Tracking participants. Amount sheets. of waste collected, e.g. hazardous waste collection Information and Awareness; Medium to high Select random sample of education Knowledge; cost to do well. population as programs Perceptions; Instant participants. 6-8 people Focus Groups Behaviors identification of per group. Plan motivators and questions, facilitate. barriers to Record and transcribe behavior change. discussion. Adapted from: Lower One SWAG, 2001

Lower Huron River Watershed 144 Management Plan

5.6.2 Quantitative Evaluation Techniques: Tier 2 In addition to measuring the effectiveness of certain specific programs and projects within communities or agencies, it is beneficial to monitor the long-term progress and effectiveness of the cumulative watershed efforts in terms of water quality, water quantity and biological monitoring. Watershed-wide long-term monitoring will address many objectives established for the lower Huron River Watershed, and Goal 9 to Increase water quality, water quantity and biological monitoring. A monitoring program at the watershed level will require a regional perspective and county or state support. Communities and agencies in the watershed agree that there has not been adequate data collection (number of sites or frequency) to most effectively manage the watershed. Wet and dry weather water quality, stream flow, biological and other monitoring will afford communities and agencies better decision making abilities based on more data as implementation of this plan continues. Suggestions for the monitoring program are presented below. Details for the monitoring program will be decided and approved by the LHRWIC.

Parameters and Establishing Targets for River Monitoring Upon reviewing the data collected for the Watershed Management Plan, the LHRWIC members recognize the need to augment the type of parameters monitored, the number of locations in the watershed, and the frequency of wet weather monitoring. A holistic monitoring program will help communities and agencies to identify more accurately water quality and water quantity impairments and their sources, as well as how these impairments are impacting the biological communities that serve as indicators of improvements. Implementation for some of the monitoring program already has begun through existing programs of partner organizations. New programs likely will begin in the 2006 or 2007 field season when a specific plan has been determined.

Parameters Establish a long-term monitoring program so that progress can be measured over time that includes the following components:

• Increase stream flow monitoring to determine baseflows and track preservation and restoration activities upstream. Include as physical and hydrological indicators: stream widening/downcutting; physical habitat monitoring; impacted dry weather flows; increased flooding frequency; and stream temperature monitoring.

• Collect wet and dry weather water quality data in the watershed to better identify specific pollution source areas within the watershed, and measure impacts of preservation and restoration activities upstream. Include as water quality indicators: water quality pollutant constituent monitoring; loadings; exceedence frequencies of water quality standards; sediment contamination; and human health criteria.

• Increase biological data monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates, and mussels) and use these as indicators of the potential quality and health of the stream ecosystem. Include as biological indicators: fish assemblage; macroinvertebrate assemblage; single species indicator; composite indicator; and other biological indicators.

• Identify significant riparian corridors and other natural areas in order to plan for recreational opportunities, restoration and linkages.

• Review and revise currently established benchmarks and dates based on new data.

Lower Huron River Watershed 145 Management Plan

• Increase the use of volunteers where possible, for monitoring program (habitat, macroinvertebrates) to encourage involvement and stewardship.

Based on the goals of the watershed, the monitoring plan should measure Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Bacteria (E. coli), Phosphorus (P) and its forms, total suspended solids (TSS), sediments, stream flow, conductivity, fisheries and aquatic macroinvertebrates, temperature, physical habitat, wetlands, and recreation potential. Pesticides and herbicides should be monitored, as well, and the specific compounds to be monitored should be selected by the LHRWIC.

Establishing Targets Measuring parameters to evaluate progress toward a goal requires the establishment of targets against which observed measurements are compared. These targets are not necessarily goals themselves, because some of them may not be obtainable realistically. However, the targets do define either Water Quality Standards, as set forth by the State of Michigan, or scientifically- supported numbers that suggest measurements for achieving water quality, water quantity and biological parameters to support state designated uses such as partial or total body contact, and fisheries and wildlife. Using these scientifically-based numbers as targets for success will assist the LHRWIC in deciding how to improve programs to reach both restoration and preservation goals and know when these goals have been achieved. These targets are described below.

Dissolved Oxygen: The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has established state standards for Dissolved Oxygen (DO). The requirement is no less than 5.0 mg/l as a daily average for all warm water fisheries. The Administrative Rules state:

. . . for waters of the state designated for use for warmwater fish and other aquatic life, except for inland lakes as prescribed in R 323.1065, the dissolved oxygen shall not be lowered below a minimum of 4 milligrams per liter, or below 5 milligrams per liter as a daily average, at the design flow during the warm weather season in accordance with R 323.1090(3) and (4). At the design flows during other seasonal periods as provided in R 323.1090(4), a minimum of 5 milligrams per liter shall be maintained. At flows greater than the design flows, dissolved oxygen shall be higher than the respective minimum values specified in this subdivision. (Michigan State Legislature. 1999)

Bacteria: State standards are established for Bacteria (E. coli) by the MDEQ. For the designated use of total body contact (swimming), the state requires measurements of no more than 130 E. coli per 100 milliliters as a 30-day geometric mean during 5 or more sampling events representatively spread over a 30-day period. For partial body contact (wading, fishing, and canoeing) the state requires measurements of no more than 1000 E. coli per 100 milliliters based on the geometric mean of 3 or more samples, taken during the same sampling event. These uses and standards will be appropriate for and applied to the creek and those tributaries with a base flow of, or greater than, 2 cubic feet per second.

Phosphorus: The state phosphorus (P) concentration limit is 0.05 mg/L for surface waters in order to prevent nuisance plant growth in receiving lakes and impoundments. The state requires that “nutrients shall be limited to the extent necessary to prevent stimulation of growth of aquatic rooted, attached, suspended, and floating plants, fungi or bacteria which are or may become injurious to the designated uses of the waters of the state.” Monitoring frequency and number of

Lower Huron River Watershed 146 Management Plan

sites for phosphorus and nitrogen needs to be increased to capture seasonal variation and dry and wet weather conditions.

Total Suspended Solids/Sediment: No numerical standard has been set by the state for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for surface waters. However, the state requires that “the addition of any dissolved solids shall not exceed concentrations which are or may become injurious to any designated use.” To protect the designated uses of fisheries and wildlife habitat, as well as the desired recreational and aesthetic uses of the surface waters in the watershed, there are recommended targets established on a scientific basis. From an aesthetics standpoint, it is recommended that TSS less than 25 mg/l is “good”, TSS 25-80 mg/l is “fair” and TSS greater than 80 mg/l is “poor.” The TSS target, therefore, will be to maintain TSS below 80 mg/l in dry weather conditions. Another measurement that can be used to determine sediment load is to determine the extent of embeddedness of the substrate (how much of the stream bottom is covered with fine silts) and the bottom deposition (what percentage of the bottom is covered with soft muck, indicating deposition of fine silts). These are measurements taken by the SWQAS protocol habitat assessment conducted by MDEQ every five years, and by the Adopt- A-Stream program more frequently. Rating categories are from “poor” to “excellent.” The target should be to maintain SWQAS designations of “excellent” at sites where they are attained currently, “good” at sites where they are attained currently, improve “fair” sites to “good,” and improve “poor” to “good” through the implementation of this plan.

Stream Discharge: Stream flow, or discharge, for surface waters do not have a numerical standard set by the state. Using the health of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities as the ultimate indicators of stream and river health is most useful in assessing appropriate flow. Recommended flow targets for the river and its tributaries will be established once the necessary research has been conducted that will determine the natural, pre-development hydrology and current hydrology. Peak flow data is needed to compare more accurately observed flow to the target flow. No USGS stream gage is located within the lower Huron River Watershed to provide continuous measurement of discharge. The feasibility of installing a stream gage station in cooperation with watershed partners and the USGS should be investigated since data generated at the station would assist in establishing an appropriate flow target and assessing any progress made toward that goal.

Conductivity: Conductivity measures the amount of dissolved ions in the water column and is considered an indicator for the relative amount of suspended material in the stream. The scientifically-established standard for conductivity in a healthy Michigan stream is 800 microSiemens (µS), which should be the goal for the lower Huron River and its tributaries. Levels higher than the standard indicate the presence of stormwater runoff-generated suspended materials.

Fisheries: Numerical or fish community standards have not been set by the state. However, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has developed a system to estimate the health of the predicted fish communities through the GLEAS 51 (Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section) sampling protocol. This method collects fish at various sites and is based on whether or not certain expected fish species are present, as well as other habitat parameters; fish communities are assessed as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The state conducts this protocol every five years in the Huron River Watershed. The target should be to maintain GLEAS 51 scores of “excellent” at sites where they are attained currently, “good” at sites where they are attained currently, improve “fair” sites to “good,” and improve “poor” to “good” through the implementation of this plan. The GLEAS 51 protocol also identifies whether or not there are sensitive species present in the creek, which would indicate a healthy ecosystem. Certain

Lower Huron River Watershed 147 Management Plan

species are especially useful for demonstrating improving conditions. These species tend to be sensitive to turbidity, prefer cleaner, cooler water, and their distribution in the Huron Watershed is currently limited. The target is to continue to find species currently found, assuming that stable or increasing numbers mean that habitat and water quality is maintained or improved.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Similar to the assessment of fish communities, the state employs the GLEAS 51 protocol for assessing macroinvertebrate communities on a five-year cycle for the Huron River Watershed. The Adopt-A-Stream program of the Huron River Watershed Council currently monitors macroinvertebrate health and physical habitat on 3 sites on the lower Huron River system using an adaptation of the GLEAS 51 procedure. The sites are monitored for macroinvertebrates three times each year and periodically for physical habitat health. The monitoring target for macroinvertebrate communities will be to increase MDEQ and Adopt-A- Stream monitoring sites to improve the existing database and attain GLEAS 51 scores of at least “fair” at sites that currently are “poor,” and improve “fair” sites to “good,” and maintain the “good” and “excellent” conditions at the remaining sites.

Temperature: The state standard lists temperature standards only for point source discharges and mixing zones – not ambient water temperatures in surface water. However, recommendations for water temperature can be generated by assessing fish species’ tolerance to temperature change and these guidelines are found within the statute. Temperature studies need to be conducted for the lower Huron River system in order to determine the average monthly temperatures and whether increased temperatures are a problem for stream health.

Wetlands: A wetland review may need to be conducted to determine a baseline acreage and number of wetlands. An annual review should be done of MDEQ wetland permit information and local records in order to track wetland fills, mitigations, restoration and protection to establish net loss or gain in wetlands in the watershed. The target for this parameter is to track the net acres of wetland in the watershed to determine action for further protection or restoration activities.

Aesthetics/Recreation Potential: State standards do not exist for aesthetics or recreation potential. However, an area with high aesthetic qualities will add, in either a passive or active context, recreational opportunities for the public and a greater appreciation or awareness of the watershed’s natural resources.

Aesthetics: Measuring aesthetics of an area is inherently a qualitative effort. However, progress toward attaining aesthetically pleasing places can be measured and evaluated effectively using a standard tool, such as a survey, at regular intervals in time. A visual field survey would include regular field investigations of specific sites in the watershed where aesthetics are of most concern, such as a park area or future park area, most likely along a stretch of the river or a tributary. Measurements in the survey, dependent upon community and watershed priorities, should include assessing water clarity, ambient odors, vegetative diversity, wildlife use, streambank erosion, debris, evidence of public use, and other parameters that indicate positive or negative aesthetic qualities. Aesthetics monitoring could be added to an inventory such as the Stream Crossing Inventory. These efforts will be used to develop a program across the watershed. Volunteers and/or community field staff will most likely be utilized for this effort.

Recreation Potential: Measuring and mapping areas with recreation potential should be a community and a watershed effort and should be done by or closely with local or county parks departments and staff. The first component of this effort is a one-time

Lower Huron River Watershed 148 Management Plan

recreational opportunities study of the watershed to determine where opportunities and access can be improved. The goal is to identify areas in the watershed, both along the riparian corridor and on the landscape that can provide passive recreation or active recreation. Within the watershed, these areas should be linked where possible to provide linear corridors that connect, or greenways, for both people (hiking, biking trails) and wildlife. This activity would begin with mapping existing areas dedicated to recreation or preservation, and then completing a stream walk to record information including: evidence of current public use, potential for public access, linkages to other natural areas (greenways potential), ownership of property, vegetation types (forested, wetland area, in need of riparian cover, etc.), excessive woody debris, etc. This survey would include photographs of potential recreation areas and would assist communities in prioritizing new areas for preservation and recreation for the public, offering the public more opportunity for using and appreciating the Huron River’s natural resources. Finally, these activities should lead to the identification of funding mechanisms for purchase of land and conservation easements, as well as any necessary infrastructure (construction of trails, boardwalks, canoe livery, etc.) that would support new or improved recreational opportunities.

A detailed monitoring strategy with responsible parties, monitoring standards, sampling sites, and frequency of monitoring will need to be defined and approved by the LHRWIC and integrated into individual SWPPIs.

Table 5.8 presents milestones and evaluation methods that will be used to track the progress and effectiveness of the management alternatives–presented in the Action Plan–in reducing pollutants and impairments to the maximum extent possible.

Lower Huron River Watershed 149 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Managerial: Illicit Discharge Elimination Conduct outfall screening As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of illicit connections 1 program Discharge Elimination Plan identified and corrected Perform smoke/dye testing As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of illicit connections 2 Discharge Elimination Plan identified and corrected Develop reporting system/ As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of illicit connections 3 follow-up plan for illicit Discharge Elimination Plan identified and corrected connections Trace illicit discharges As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of illicit connections 4 Discharge Elimination Plan identified and corrected Enforcement for non-correction As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of illicit connections 5 of illicit discharges Discharge Elimination Plan identified and corrected; Track amount of fines collected Train staff to identify illicit As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of staff trained; Track # 6 discharges Discharge Elimination Plan of illicit connections identified and corrected Minimize seepage from As stated in each entity's Illicit Stream surveys 7 sanitary sewers Discharge Elimination Plan Minimize seepage from on-site As stated in each entity's Illicit Stream surveys 8 sewage disposal systems Discharge Elimination Plan Update outfall and/or drainage As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of maps updated 9 map Discharge Elimination Plan Develop and implement As stated in each entity's Illicit Track # of entities employing method to identify and record Discharge Elimination Plan method in new construction; 10 outfalls from new construction Track # of illicit connections identified and corrected Managerial: Public Information & Education Homeowner education about As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 11 septic system maintenance Public Education and public participation; Stream Participation Plan surveys Provide watershed education As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys 12 materials to residents Public Education and Participation Plan Provide trash management As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track information and education to Public Education and items and households from 13 public Participation Plan clean-up events; Stream surveys Provide information and As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track education program to Public Education and public participation; stream 14 homeowners on yard and lawn Participation Plan surveys care, native landscapes Provide information and As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track education program to Public Education and public participation; Stream 15 homeowners on proper pet Participation Plan surveys waste management Provide information and As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 16 education to farmers Public Education and participation; stream surveys Participation Plan

Lower Huron River Watershed 150 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Recreational vehicle (RV) As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 17 waste disposal education Public Education and participation; Stream surveys Participation Plan Environmental information line As stated in each entity's Track # of calls 18 and pollution complaint hotline Public Education and Participation Plan Regular stormwater-related To be established in upcoming Track # of televised spots; information on cable TV permit cycle Track participation in events 19 and practices; Conduct public surveys Send watershed press To be established in upcoming Track # of printed press releases to local media outlets permit cycle releases; Track participation in 20 events and practices; Conduct public surveys Watershed-related articles in As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 21 community newsletters Public Education and public participation Participation Plan Watershed-related news and I As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 22 & E materials on entity website Public Education and public participation Participation Plan Maintain lower Huron River N/A Conduct public surveys; Track 23 Watershed webpage public participation Develop and distribute To be established in upcoming Conduct focus groups; education materials on LID permit cycle Comparative analysis of 24 tools for land use decision developments pre- and post- makers implementation of LID campaign Promote reporting system for As stated in each entity's Track # of illicit connections 25 illicit discharges Public Education and identified and corrected; Track Participation Plan # of complaints Household hazardous waste As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 26 collection site/day Public Education and public participation Participation Plan Yard waste collection and/or As stated in each entity's Conduct public surveys; Track 27 recycling Public Education and public participation Participation Plan Watershed and river crossing To be established in upcoming Conduct public surveys; Track 28 signage permit cycle # of signs erected Managerial: Ordinances and Policies Adopt fertilizer reduction To be established in upcoming Track # of fertilizer reduction 29 ordinance or policy permit cycle ordinances/policies adopted Adopt native landscaping 2 new adopted ordinances by Track # of native landscaping 30 ordinance or policy year 2 ordinances/policies adopted Adopt no dumping ordinance or 2 new adopted ordinances by Track # of no dumping 31 policy year 2 ordinances/policies adopted Adopt pet waste ordinance or To be established in upcoming Track # of pet waste 32 policy permit cycle ordinances/policies adopted Adopt private roads ordinance To be established in upcoming Track # of private roads 33 or policy permit cycle ordinances/policies adopted

Lower Huron River Watershed 151 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Adopt Purchase of To be established in upcoming Track # of PDR ordinances 34 Development Rights (PDR) permit cycle adopted ordinance Adopt stormwater management 2 new adopted ordinances by Track # of stormwater 35 ordinance (e.g., Wayne Co.) year 2 management ordinances adopted Adopt wetlands ordinance w/ 3 new adopted ordinances by Track # of wetlands ordinances 36 natural features setback; year 2 adopted create local map of wetlands Support County OSDS 3 new adopted ordinances by Track # of OSDS ordinances 37 Ordinance year 2 adopted Adopt overlay zoning for 3 new adopted ordinances by Track # of ordinances adopted 38 riparian corridor year 2 Disallow Occupancy Permits To be established in upcoming Track # of illicit connections 39 pending inspection for illicit permit cycle identified and corrected connections Enhance site plan review 3 new adopted ordinances by Survey communities to 40 requirements year 2 compare pre- and post-site plan review enhancements Incorporate Low Impact Draft of coordinated standards Develop manual of coordinated 41 Development principles manual by year 3 standards for watershed Implement septic system To be established in upcoming Track # of time-of-sale 42 inspection at time-of-sale permit cycle programs Improve enforcement of litter To be established in upcoming Track # of complaints and 43 laws and nuisance properties permit cycle amount of litter collected Improve enforcement of Soil To be established in upcoming Track # of soil erosion and 44 Erosion and Sedimentation permit cycle sedimentation violations and Control policies corrections Improve enforcement of 4 entities with improved Track installation and construction site inspections inspection enforcement by maintenance of construction 45 year 2 site BMPs and # of violations and corrections Minimize total impervious cover 2 enhanced ordinances by Track # of zoning ordinances in zoning ordinance year 2 with measures to minimize 46 impervious cover; Reduce build out scenario impervious levels Promote open space 1 enhanced ordinance and Track # of zoning ordinances 47 preservation in zoning master plan by year 2 and master plans that promote ordinance and master plan open space preservation Review and revise grading and 3 enhanced policies by year 2 Track # of BMPs employed 48 land clearing policies and maintained Review and revise SESC To be established in upcoming Track # of soil erosion and 49 policies and practices permit cycle sedimentation violations and corrections

Lower Huron River Watershed 152 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Revise parking standards for 3 enhanced ordinances by Track # of zoning ordinances 50 new development/ year 2 with measures to minimize redevelopment impervious cover Revise Stormwater To be established in upcoming Track # of entities with 51 Management Standards - pond permit cycle enhanced pond landscaping landscaping requirements Managerial: Practices Incorporate results of Incorporation by 50% of Track # of local ordinances conservation planning analyses entities by year 2 and policies incorporating 52 into local ordinances and conservation planning policies Reduce directly connected Initiate reductions by year 2 Track # of homes with 53 impervious surfaces disconnected downspouts Increase amount of refuse To be established in upcoming Conduct public surveys to 54 containers and review their permit cycle measure pre- and post- distribution measure public participation Practice high-powered street 1 new entity by year 3 Track # of lineal feet swept and 55 and paved area sweeping amount of debris removed Practice nutrient management 100% of total agricultural acres Track # of acres employing 56 on agricultural land practice Provide pet waste bags in To be established in upcoming Conduct public surveys; Track 57 parks and public areas permit cycle public participation Practice alternative drain To be established in upcoming Track BMPs established 58 practices that rehabilitate permit cycle throughout riparian corridor stream and riparian habitats Storm drain/catch basin 75% sewered areas marked Track # of storm drains 59 marking by year 3 marked; Track public participation Expand Greenways Trails To be established in upcoming Track # of completed river Network permit cycle miles in Heritage River Trail; 60 Track # of stream miles and miles marked as recreation trails Managerial: Studies and Inventories Develop or adapt QAPPs for Draft QAPPs in year 1 Track development of QAPPs, 61 applicable parameters and approval from MDEQ Develop and implement a Draft monitoring strategy in Track development of coordinated monitoring year 1 monitoring strategy 62 strategy to measure water quality, water quantity and biota Initiate hydrologic and Initiate studies in year 1 Track data generated from 63 hydraulic studies studies; Rating curves developed

Lower Huron River Watershed 153 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress

Inventory and stabilize eroding To be established in upcoming Stream inventories (Bank streambanks permit cycle Erosion Hazard Index); Records of all inventoried 64 streambanks; Track # of linear feet of stabilized banks and pollutant load reductions calculated Inventory areas lacking To be established in upcoming Track completed inventories 65 stormwater management for permit cycle and BMP retrofit opportunities retrofit opportunities identified Investigate opportunities for To be established in upcoming Conduct public surveys; Track 66 recreation areas permit cycle acres of potential recreation area Measure pollutant removal To be established in upcoming Many evaluation methods, 67 efficiencies of BMPs permit cycle depends on type of practice Conduct field work to refine Initiate field work in year 1 Natural features observations; natural features information method selected to make 68 and develop a methodology to protection priorities prioritize for protection Conduct natural features Initiative inventories in year 1 Track # of inventories 69 inventories Establish BMP case studies To be established in upcoming Track # of case studies written 70 permit cycle Study drainage around Cogswell To be established in entity's Completed drainage study; list 71 (Romulus) and make SWPPI of recommendations improvements Managerial: Coordination and Funding Ensure consistency of Complete top 3 ordinances (as Track # of ordinances ordinances among the lower determined by LHRWIC) by reviewed and revised for 72 Huron River Watershed year 3 consistency communities Improve drain maintenance Establish prioritized list of Track # of meetings with coordination with County shared priorities among parties LHRWIC, County and/or MDOT by year 3 governments, and MDOT; 73 Track BMPs established throughout jurisdiction; conduct public surveys Establish and maintain long- Schedule of regular (e.g., Track implementation of WMP; term committee of entity monthly) meetings for years 1- Track # of committee representatives to promote 3 of WMP implementation meetings; Track consistent 74 implementation of the participation of representatives Watershed Management Plan (WMP)

Lower Huron River Watershed 154 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress

Create and maintain Regular attendance by Number of partnerships partnerships with institutions, partners at committee established and maintained; schools, and private sector to meetings Number of people reached 75 promote a collaborative effort through partnerships; Track in watershed management BMPs established across partnerships Seek alternative funding Establish prioritized list of Track number of proposals 76 sources alternative funding sources in submitted; Track dollars and yr 1 match raised Create a funding source for To be established in upcoming Track dollars raised for land 77 land acquisition and protection permit cycle acquisition and protection Create law to allow illicit To be established in upcoming Track progress of bill creation 78 discharge enforcement as a permit cycle source of revenue

Establish enforcement program of To be established in upcoming Implementation of enforcement 79 O&M component of county permit cycle program stormwater ordinance Review annual reports from Establish regular meetings of Track participation in report 80 LHRWIC members and other the LHRWIC in year 1 during review NPDES permittees which reports can be reviewed Conduct work sessions to Schedule of regular (e.g., Track prioritization for project prioritize specific projects for monthly) meetings for years 1- funding, project cost estimates, 81 funding, establish estimated 3 of WMP implementation and funding mechanisms; costs, and identify funding Track implementation of WMP; mechanisms Track # of work sessions

Secure funding and develop Initiate monitoring in year 1 Implementation of monitoring 82 partnerships to conduct program monitoring Become a government To be established in upcoming Track # of new government 83 member of the HRWC permit cycle members, and renewing members Vegetative Construct stormwater wetlands To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track acres of 84 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Create and maintain grassed To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 85 waterways permit cycle practice throughout watershed Create and maintain vegetated To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 86 filter strips permit cycle practice throughout watershed Plant and maintain riparian To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 87 buffer with native vegetation permit cycle practice throughout watershed Install bioretention systems in To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 88 developed/redeveloping areas permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency

Lower Huron River Watershed 155 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Install grassed swales To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 89 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install pond buffer native To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 90 plantings permit cycle practice throughout watershed Install vegetated roofs To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 91 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Practice agricultural To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track acres of 92 conservation cover permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Practice conservation crop To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track acres of 93 rotation with cover crop and permit cycle practice throughout watershed; mulch/no-till Pollutant removal efficiency Restore wetlands, recreate To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track acres of 94 storage permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install rain gardens To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 95 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency

Reduce turf with shrubs and To be established in upcoming Track area of practice 96 trees permit cycle throughout watershed Evaluate areas for installing To be established in upcoming Records of all inventoried woody debris or habitat permit cycle surface waters; Track area of 97 structures and install practice throughout watershed; Stream surveys

Stabilize soils at crossing To be established in upcoming Baseline and ongoing embankments permit cycle embeddedness/stream habitat studies; Track completed road 98 stream crossings; Track stabilized road stream crossings; Pollutant removal efficiency Structural Construct infiltration To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 99 basins/trenches permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Construct retention/wet To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 100 extended detention ponds for permit cycle practice throughout watershed; new developments Pollutant removal efficiency Install best available To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track # of technology to reduce nutrients permit cycle eligible and participating point 101 at permitted point sources sources; Pollutant removal efficiency

Lower Huron River Watershed 156 Management Plan Table 5.8 Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed

Method of Evaluating # Management Alternative Interim Milestone Progress Install catch basin inserts To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track # of 102 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install grade stabilization To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track # of 103 structures for agricultural permit cycle practice throughout watershed; operations Pollutant removal efficiency Install porous pavement To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 104 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install sand and organic filters To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 105 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install sediment traps or basins To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 106 at construction sites permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Install waste storage facilities To be established in upcoming Stream surveys; Track area of 107 permit cycle practice throughout watershed; Pollutant removal efficiency Repair misaligned/obstructed To be established in upcoming Baseline and ongoing culverts permit cycle embeddedness/stream habitat 108 studies; Track completed culverts; Pollutant removal efficiency Stabilize road/bridge surfaces To be established in upcoming Baseline and ongoing permit cycle embeddedness/stream habitat 109 studies; Track stabilized road/brige surfaces; Pollutant removal efficiency

Lower Huron River Watershed 157 Management Plan

REFERENCES

1 Brown, E., A. Peterson, R. Kline-Roback, K. Smith, and L. Wolfson. February, 2000. Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality; and Introductory Guide, Institute for Water Research, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, P.10.45 R323.1100 of Part 4, Part 31 of PA 451, 1994, revised 4/2/99. 2 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Fisheries Division. revised 2002. Huron River Plan. Lansing, MI: MDNR 3 Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., P. Seelbach, G. Whelen, and D. Jester. 1995. Huron River Watershed Assessment. Lansing, MI: MDNR, Fisheries Division. 4 Albert, Dennis A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/rlandscp/rlandscp.htm (Version 03JUN98). 5 Eichenlaub et al. in Albert. 6 Rentschler, P. in J. Knott, and K. Taylor ed. 2000. The Huron River: Voices from the Watershed. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 7 Albert. 8 Dorr and Eschman 1984, Milstein 1987, in Albert. 9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Wayne County Area, Michigan. 10 Swallow, D. March 2005. Personal communication. Van Buren Charter Township Environmental Director. 11 Hay-Chmielewski et al 12 Aiello, C. 2004. Michigan Water Chemistry Monitoring, Great Lake Tributaries, 2002 Report. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 13 Hay-Chmielewski et al 14 Knighton 1984 in Hay-Chmielewski et al 15 Hay-Chmielewski et al 16 Hay-Chmielewski et al 17 Riggs, E. H. W. and D. Weiker. 2003. A Field Inventory of the Mill Creek Subwatershed. Ann Arbor, MI: Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC). 18 Larson, R. W., W. B. Allen, and S. D. Hanson. 1975. Water Resources of the Huron River Basin, Southeastern Michigan. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-514. Reston, VA: U. S. Geological Survey. 19 Hay-Chmielewski et al 20 Rentschler, P. in Knott et al 21 Knott et al 22 MDNR. 2000. National Inventory of Dams database. Lansing, MI: MDNR. 23 Albert 24 Kost, M.A., J. G. Cohen, R. P. O’Connor, and H. D. Enander. March 31, 2005. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Huron Meadows and Lake Erie Metroparks. Report Number 2005-05. Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 25 P. Muelle. Chief Naturalist, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. March 2005. Personal communication. 26 Michigan Natural Features Inventory website at http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/. 2005. Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 27 Olsson, K. 2002. Conservation Planning in the Huron River Watershed Final Report submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Great Lakes National Program Office. Ann Arbor, MI: HRWC. 28 MDEQ, Water Bureau website http://www.michigan.gov/deq. 2005. Lansing, MI: MDEQ. 29 Alexander, C. April 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load for Escherichia coli for Wagner-Pink Drain, Monroe County, Michigan. Lansing, MI: MDEQ, Water Division. 30 Dakin, T. D., and J. S. Martin. 2003. The Quality of a Hidden Treasure: The Davis Creek Report. Ann Arbor, MI: HRWC. 31 Adopt-A-Stream monitoring reports. Ann Arbor, MI: HRWC.

Lower Huron River Watershed 158 Management Plan

32 MDEQ as reported to the Storage and Retrieval Water Quality Database (STORET): http://www.epa.gov/ow. accessed 2004. Washington, D.C.: USEPA, Office of Water. 33 Michigan State Legislature. Part 4. Water Quality Standards. Promulgated pursuant to Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. 34 Aiello. 35 Sunday, E. August 2003. Dissolved Oxygen and Total Dissolved Solids Study of the Huron River at Flat Rock and Rockwood. MDEQ, Water Division. 36 USEPA, Office of Water website: http://epa.gov/ow. accessed March 2005. 37 MDEQ, Water Bureau website 38 Aiello. 39 Michigan State Legislature. 40 MDEQ as reported in STORET. 41 MDEQ, Water Bureau website. 42 Aiello. 43 Bosch, N. 2004. Personal communication. 44 Dakin and Martin. 2003a. 45 Wehrly, et. al. 2003. in Huron River Watershed Council, Winter-Spring Monitoring Gazette, 2003. 46 Michigan State Legislature. 47 Aiello. 48 Michigan State Legislature. 49 Aiello. 50 Adopt-A-Stream monitoring reports. 51 Kenaga, D. 1983. A Water, Sediment Chemistry and Biological Survey of the Huron River Downstream of Belleville Lake to Lake Erie, Wayne and Monroe counties, Sept. 1979 and June and Aug. 1982. Lansing, MI: MDEQ, Surface Water Quality Division. 52 Hay-Chmielewski et al. 53 ibid. 54 Braunscheidel, J. 2000. Huron River at Flat Rock, Wayne County Fisheries Survey, February 26-April 25, 2000. Lansing, MI: MDNR. 55 Hay-Chmielewski et al. 56 ibid. 57 Schultz, D. 1986. Fish Field Notes on August 15, 1986. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. 58 Hay-Chmielewski et al. 59 Wykes, G.P. in Knott et al. 60 van der Schalie 1958; Jessup 1993 in Hay-Chmielewski et al. 61 Bauer, C., G. Goudy, S. Hanshue, G. Kohlhepp, M. McMahon, and R. Reznick. 2002. Stream Crossing Watershed Survey Procedure. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division. June 26, 2002. 62 Knott et al. 63 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) website at http://semcog.org. accessed 2005. 64 U. S Bureau of the Census website at http://www.census.gov. accessed 2004. 65 SEMCOG website: Community Profiles. accessed 2004. 66 Olsson. 67 SEMCOG. 68 Olsson. 69 SEMCOG. 70 Olsson. 71 SEMCOG. 72 Olsson. 73 SEMCOG. 74 Olsson. 75 SEMCOG. 76 Olsson. 77 SEMCOG.

Lower Huron River Watershed 159 Management Plan

78 Olsson. 79 SEMCOG. 80 Olsson. 81 SEMCOG. 82 Olsson. 83 SEMCOG. 84 Olsson. 85 SEMCOG. 86 ibid. 87 MDEQ, Water Bureau. 88 Schueler, T. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Subwatershed Protection Techniques 1 (Fall 1994). Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 89 Wiley, M. and J. Martin. 1999. Current Conditions, Recent Changes, and Major Threats to the Huron River: A Report on Eight Years of an Ongoing Study. Ann Arbor, MI: Huron River Watershed Council. 90 Center for Watershed Protection. 1995. Assessing the Potential for Urban Watershed Restoration. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(4): 166-172. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 91 Center for Watershed Protection. “The Simple Method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads.” http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm 92 Brown, E., A. Peterson, R. Kline-Roback, K. Smith, and L. Wolfson. February, 2000. Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality; and Introductory Guide, Institute for Water Research, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, P.10.45 R323.1100 of Part 4, Part 31 of PA 451, 1994, revised 4/2/99. 93 American Farmland Trust. 2001. Protecting farmland makes fiscal sense for two townships in Calhoun County. AFT, East Lansing, MI. 94 American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the edge. Washington, D.C.: American Farmland Trust. 95 Ibid. 96 Michigan Land Use Institute. 1999. Evidence of deep ideological attack on the state wetlands law. MLUI. Winter 1999 Great Lakes Bulletin. 97 Olsson, K., and E. Worzalla. 1999. Advance Identification of Wetlands: Enhancing Community Wetlands Protection and Restoration in the North Fork, Mill Creek. Final Report Submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI: Huron River Watershed Council. 98 Galli, J. August 1992. Analysis of Urban BMP Performance and Longevity in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Department of Environmental Programs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 99 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, NPDES Program, Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices, June 2005. 100 Claytor, R., and T. R. Schueler. 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 101 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, NPDES Program, Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices, June 2005. 102 Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W. Staver, W. Lucas and A. H. Todd. 1997. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffers in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 687-712. 103 Lower One Subwatershed Advisory Group. 2001. Lower One Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan. Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 104 Claytor, R. in Schueler, T. R. and H. K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD: The Center for Watershed Protection.

Lower Huron River Watershed 160 Management Plan

REFERENCES for Table 5.5 Action Plan a Combined Downriver Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee. 2005. Combined Downriver Watershed Management Plan - draft. b Riggs, E.H.W. 2003. Mill Creek Subwatershed Management Plan. Ann Arbor, MI: Huron River Watershed Council for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. c Middle One Subwatershed Advisory Group. 2001. Middle One Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan. Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project. d Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. for Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. 2004. Lower Grand River Watershed Management Plan. e Ferguson, T., R. Gignac, M. Stoffan, A. Ibrahim, and J. Aldrich. 1997. Cost Estimating Guidelines – Best Management Practices and Engineered Controls. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.

Lower Huron River Watershed 161 Management Plan