Lower Huron River
Watershed
Management Plan
Prepared
by
the
Lower
Huron
Watershed
Advisory
Group
and
the
Alliance
of
Downriver
Watersheds:
City
of
Belleville
Berlin
Township
Brownstown
Township
City
of
Flat
Rock
City
of
Gibraltar
Huron
Township
City
of
Rockwood
City
of
Romulus
South
Rockwood
Sumpter
Township
Van
Buren
Charter
Township
Wayne
County
City
of
Woodhaven
Woodhaven
‐
Brownstown
School
District
Assistance
provided
by:
In
association
with
WadeTrim
i
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
... i
Introduction
... 1‐11.1 Overview of the lower Huron River Watershed ... 1‐2
1.2 Watershed Management Plan Purpose ... 1‐2
1.3 Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group ... 1‐5
1.4 Coordination with Federal Water Quality Programs ... 1‐5
1.5 Public Participation ... 1‐5
Watershed Characteristics ...
2‐12.1 Watershed Boundaries ... 2‐1 2.2 Climate ... 2‐2
2.3 Geology and Soils ... 2‐3
2.4 Topography ... 2‐8
2.5 Ecology ... 2‐10
2.6 Land Use/Land Cover ... 2‐19
2.7 Political Jurisdictions ... 2‐26
2.8 NPDES Permittees ... 2‐29
2.9 Sanitary Sewer Service Areas and Privately Owned Systems ... 2‐32
2.10 Recreation ... 2‐34
1
2
Huron River near S. Huron River Drive, Village of South Rockwood, Michigan — photo: F. Wenzel
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Watershed Condition
... 3‐1 3.1 Overview of Subwatersheds ... 3‐3 3.2 Stream Flow ... 3‐5 3.3 Geomorphology ... 3‐13 3.4 Biological Communities ... 3‐21 3.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ... 3‐21 3.4.2 Fish…………. ... 3‐33 3.4.3 Mussels ... 3‐353.5 Water Quality Indicators ... 3‐38
3.5.1 Total Phosphorus ... 3‐38
3.5.2 Pathogens (Bacteria) ... 3‐41
3.5.3 Total Suspended Solids ... 3‐43
3.5.4 Conductivity ... 3‐46
3.5.5 Stream Temperature ... 3‐48
3.5.6 Dissolved Oxygen ... 3‐51
3.5.7 Mercury ... 3‐52
3.5.8 Impervious Cover ... 3‐52
3.6 Field Inventory Summary ... 3‐56
Challenges & Goals
... 4‐14.1 Designated Uses and Desired Uses ... 4‐1
4.2 Threats to the Watershed, their Sources and Causes ... 4‐4
4.3 Watershed Management Goals and Objectives ... 4‐13
Management Alternatives
... 5‐15.1 Information Gathering ... 5‐1
5.1.1 LHRWIC Meetings & Workshops ... 5‐1
5.1.2 Public Meetings ... 5‐2
5.1.3 Individual Community/Entity Interest ... 5‐2
2011 Watershed Management Plan Update ... 5‐3
Codes & Ordinances Worksheet ... 5‐3
5.2 Analysis of Existing Policies & Programs ... 5‐3
5.2.1 Minimizing Impervious Land Area ... 5‐5
5.2.2 Preserving Natural Areas... 5‐6
5.2.3 Treating Runoff ... 5‐7
5.3 Description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) ... 5‐8
5.4 Identification of Critical Areas ... 5‐16
5.4.1 Critical Areas Identified by the 2006 Method ... 5‐17
5.4.2. Critical Areas for Preservation & Conservation ... 5‐20
5.4.3 Critical Areas based on MDEQ Landscape Level Wetland Functional Assessment ... 5‐25
5.4.4 Critical Areas based upon Pollutant Loads/Field ... 5‐29
5.5 Estimated Pollutant Load Reductions ... 5‐39
3
4
5
iii
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Watershed Action Plan
... 6‐16.1 Management Practices ... 6‐1
6.2 Management Practices by Community/Entity ... 6‐16
Measuring Progress
... 7‐17.1 Qualitative Evaluation Techniques ... 7‐5
7.2 Quantitative Evaluation Techniques ... 7‐7
7.3 Watershed Management Plan Review and Revision ... 7‐7
Sustainability
... 8‐18.1 Lower Huron River WAG ... 8‐2
8.2 NPDES Stormwater Phase II Regulations ... 8‐2
8.3 Lower Huron River Watershed Inter‐Municipality Committee ... 8‐3
8.4 Alliance of Downriver Watersheds ... 8‐3
8.5 Sustainability ... 8‐4
6
7
8
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
List of Tables
1‐1 Land Area of Watershed by Community ... 1‐6
2‐1 Rare Species in the Main Stem Subwatershed ... 2‐11
2‐2 Rare Species in the Wood Creek Subwatershed ... 2‐12
2‐3 Rare Species in the Silver Creek Subwatershed ... 2‐13
2‐4 Rare Species in the Mouth of the Huron River ... 2‐14
2‐5 Current Land Uses ... 2‐21
2‐6 Watershed Area and Population by Community ... 2‐26
2‐7 NPDES Permits ... 2‐29
3‐1 Summary of Water Quality Indicators ... 3‐2
3‐2 Daily Discharge Statistics for Grow Zone Sites ... 3‐7
3‐3 Flashiness Index for Lower Huron River Sites ... 3‐12
3‐4 Inventoried Dams ... 3‐15
3‐5 Tractive Force Calculations for ADW Sites ... 3‐18
3‐6 Stream Quality Index Ratings for Select Sites ... 3‐32
3‐7 Freshwater Mussel Species ... 3‐35
3‐8 Freshwater Mussel Species 1938 ... 3‐36
3‐9 Total Phosphorus Monitoring Results, Wayne County ... 3‐39
3‐10 Total Phosphorus Monitoring Results, Woods Creek Friends... 3‐39
3‐11 Total Phosphorus Results for Select Sites ... 3‐40
3‐12 E. coli Monitoring Results, Wayne County ... 3‐41
3‐13 E. coli Results for Select Sites ... 3‐41
3‐14 Total Suspended Solids Monitoring Results, Wayne County ... 3‐44
3‐15 Total Suspended Solids Results for Select Sites ... 3‐45
3‐16 Conductivity Monitoring Results, Wayne County ... 3‐46
3‐17 Conductivity Results for Select Sites ... 3‐47
3‐18 Stream Temperature Monitoring Results, HRWC Adopt‐A‐Stream ... 3‐48
3‐19 Stream Temperature Results for Select Sites ... 3‐50
3‐20 Ratio of Green and Grey Infrastructure ... 3‐55
4‐1 State and Local Status of Designated Uses ... 4‐3
4‐2 Lower Huron River Watershed Uses and Pollutants/Impairments ... 4‐5
4‐3 Pollutants/Impairments, Sources and Causes in the Watershed... 4‐9
4‐4 Goals and Objectives for the Watershed ... 4‐14
5‐1 Wetlands Resources and Trends ... 5‐25
5‐2 Watershed Treatment Model Pollutant Sources ... 5‐31
5‐3 Management Practices in the Watershed Treatment Model ... 5‐32
5‐4 Modeled Runoff Values Comparison ... 5‐33
5‐5 Modeled Total Phosphorus Values Comparison ... 5‐34
5‐6 Modeled Total Suspended Solids Values Comparison ... 5‐35
5‐7 Observed Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids Values ... 5‐36
5‐8 Estimated Pollutant Load Reductions w/ Future Practices ... 5‐40
6‐1 Prioritized Target Audiences per Communication Strategy ... 6‐6
6‐2 Five‐Year Monitoring Plan Summary ... 6‐13
6‐3 Best Management Practices by Community/Entity ... 6‐16
6‐4 Best Management Practices by Community/Entity ... 6‐22
7‐1 Indicators for Assessing Water Quality Programs ... 7‐4
7‐2 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Techniques ... 7‐6
v
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
List of Maps
(italics)and Figures
1‐1 Huron River Watershed ... 1‐2
1‐2 Alliance of Downriver Watersheds ... 1‐2
1‐3 Area of Community in Watershed ... 1‐7
1‐4 Watershed Management Plan Elements ... 1‐10
2‐1 Potential Impacts of Climate Variation by Sector ... 2‐3
2‐2 Glacial Geology ... 2‐5
2‐3 Hydrologic Soil Groups ... 2‐6
2‐4 Soil Permeability ... 2‐8
2‐5 Southern Michigan Glacial Geology and Landscape Ecosystems ... 2‐9
2‐6 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ... 2‐15
2‐7 Bioreserve Sites ... 2‐18
2‐8 Ecosystems circa 1830s ... 2‐20
2‐9 Land Use 2008 ... 2‐23
2‐10 Future Land Use (Master Plans 2030) ... 2‐25
2‐11 Population Density ... 2‐28
2‐12 NPDES Facilities ... 2‐31
2‐13 Sanitary Sewer Service Areas ... 2‐33
3‐1 Subwatersheds ... 3‐4
3‐2 Hydrograph for Huron River at River Road (1982‐1991) ... 3‐5
3‐3 Flow Monitoring Locations ... 3‐6
3‐4 Hydrographs for Woods Creek ... 3‐8
3‐5 Woods Creek Storm‐Event Discharge ... 3‐9
3‐6 Mean Daily Water Levels for Bancroft‐Noles Drain ... 3‐10
3‐7 Daily Mean Discharge for Silver Creek ... 3‐11
3‐8 Silver Creek Storm‐Event Discharge ... 3‐11
3‐9 Stream Channel Sites with Tractive Force Stability ... 3‐17
3‐10 Woods Creek Channel Profile ... 3‐19
3‐11 Silver Creek Channel Profile ... 3‐20
3‐12 Woods Creek Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐22
3‐13 Woods Creek EPT Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐23
3‐14 Woods Creek Sensitive Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results... 3‐23
3‐15 Huron River Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐24
3‐16 Huron River EPT Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐25
3‐17 Huron River Sensitive Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐25
3‐18 Port Creek Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐26
3‐19 Port Creek EPT Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐26
3‐20 Port Creek Sensitive Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results ... 3‐27
3‐21 Stream Quality Index Results for Spring Monitoring ... 3‐28
3‐22 Stream Quality Index Results for Spring Monitoring ... 3‐28
3‐23 Total Taxa Diversity Results for Spring Monitoring ... 3‐29
3‐24 Total Taxa Diversity Results for Spring Monitoring ... 3‐29
3‐25 Stream Quality Index Results for Fall Monitoring ... 3‐30
3‐26 Stream Quality Index Results for Fall Monitoring ... 3‐30
3‐27 Total Taxa Diversity Results for Fall Monitoring ... 3‐31
3‐28 Total Taxa Diversity Results for Fall Monitoring ... 3‐31
3‐29 Woods Creek Stream Temperature, July‐Aug 2010 ... 3‐49
3‐30 2008 Land Cover for ADW ... 3‐53
3‐31 2008 Land Cover in lower Huron River watershed ... 3‐54
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
5‐1 Components of the 2006 Critical Area Methodology ... 5‐17
5‐2 Critical Subwatersheds based on 2006 Methodology ... 5‐16
5‐3 Critical Areas from Impaired Waters List and Field Observations ... 5‐19
5‐4 Priority Areas for Preservation and Conservation ... 5‐24
5‐5 Existing and Potential Wetland Restoration Areas in the LLFWA ... 5‐27
5‐6 Priority Wetland Areas for Preservation in Critical Subwatersheds ... 5‐28
5‐7 Model Structure of the Watershed Treatment Model ... 5‐31
5‐8 Critical Areas Based on Water Quality Indicators ... 5‐38
6‐1 Potential Project Locations in the Lower Huron River Watershed ... 6‐20
7‐1 Forces Affecting Integrated Watershed Management ... 7‐1
7‐2 Steps of Watershed Management Planning ... 7‐7
8‐1 ADW History Timeline ... 8‐5
Appendices
(Appendices available on CD)bold indicates in 2006 version
Appendix A TMDL for E. coli in Pink‐Wagner Drain
Appendix B Stream Crossing Watershed Survey w Field Photos
Appendix C 2006 Critical Area Methodology
Appendix D Codes & Ordinances Worksheet Results and Recommendations
Appendix E Conservation Planning in the Huron River Watershed (Bioreserve Project)
Appendix F Pollutant Load Analysis (WTM analysis update)
Appendix G Communications from the LHRWIC
Appendix H Model Ordinances and Development Principles
Appendix I SEMCOG Survey Results for Downriver Area
vii
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Abbreviations
BMP: Best Management Practice
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GIS: Geographic Information System
HCMA: Huron‐Clinton Metropolitan Authority HRWC: Huron River Watershed Council IDEP: Illicit Discharge Elimination Program
Lower Huron River WAG: Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group
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 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 WTM: Watershed Treatment Model WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Executive Summary
Introduction
to
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 (Hydrologic Unit Code 04090005) 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 1‐1). 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, representing approximately
8% of the 908‐square‐mile Huron River basin (Figure 1‐1). 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.
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 2010 counted 58,000 individuals living in the census blocks of the lower Huron River
Watershed.
Smith Creek,
Brownstown Township, Michigan
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
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.
Purpose
of
the
Watershed
Management
Plan
The Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan assesses current conditions of freshwater
resources, identifies current and future threats to those resources, sets goals for watershed
management, and presents a robust strategy for implementation of management practices. The Lower
Huron River WAG would like to see this plan become integrated into the future decisions of local
governments, position communities to be eligible for state and federal implementation funds in order to
address the priorities identified in the plan, and foster stewardship of watershed resources at the local
level. This effort arose from the recognition that a holistic, cross‐jurisdictional approach is essential for
the long‐term health of this watershed.
A comprehensive Watershed Management Plan addresses the following elements:
Elements of the Watershed Management Plan
o Watershed Condition
o Challenges and Goals
o Identify Management Alternatives
o Watershed Action Plan
o Methods and Milestones to Measure Progress.
o Future Organizational Structure
o Public Involvement
The goal of the Watershed Management Plan is to create a tool that the entities within the watershed
can use to guide implementation of action items that will help achieve long‐term goals of the
watershed, including addressing the TMDL for pathogens. The Lower Huron River Watershed Inter‐
Municipality Committee (LHRWIC) developed a Watershed Management Plan in 2006 that was
approved (CMI) by the State in 2007. This document is an update to the 2006 Watershed Management
Plan to include activities and data that have since been collected and/or developed. The plan was also
updated to achieve section 319 approval from the State.
Lower
Huron
River
Watershed
Advisory
Group
In June 2003, the municipalities and/or political subdivisions located within the lower Huron River
watershed formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) 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
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
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.
The Lower Huron River WAG still assembles on an as‐needed basis. Its members meet quarterly with the
members of the neighboring watersheds, Combined Downriver and Ecorse Creek, via the Alliance of
Downriver Watersheds (ADW), which serves as the regional watershed organization. ADW members
have been formally and informally working together for several years to manage the area’s water
resources on a watershed basis and to comply with federal regulations regarding the discharge of storm
water.
Formation
of
the
Alliance
of
Downriver
Watersheds
The Alliance of Downriver Watershed (ADW) members have been formally and informally working
together for several years to manage the area’s water resources on a watershed basis and to comply
with federal regulations regarding the discharge of storm water. The ADW is a permanent watershed
organization formed under Public Act 517 of the Public Laws of 2004. The ADW was formed in January
2007 and consists of 26 public agencies in the Ecorse Creek, Combined Downriver, and Lower Huron
River Watersheds in southeast Michigan. The agencies and communities that comprise the ADW believe
there are substantial benefits that can be derived by joining together and cooperatively managing the
rivers, lakes, and streams within the watersheds and in providing mutual assistance in meeting state
water discharge permit requirements of the members. The ADW is relatively urban in nature with more
open and rural lands as you move south within the watershed boundaries. Based on 2000 Census data,
approximately 453,436 people reside within the watershed boundaries. Article III of the ADW Bylaws
details the assessment of cost to members’ methodology. The members of the ADW developed a cost
allocation methodology based on each member’s total area (acres) in all three watersheds and total
population in all three watersheds. Among other things, the annual membership dues provided by each
member have been successful in serving as local match and leveraging several hundred thousand dollars
in grant funds.
Watershed
Condition
The current condition of the lower Huron River Watershed was determined through a review of existing
reports, water quality sampling data and field investigations. The information reviewed came from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the
U.S. Geological Survey, Huron River Watershed Council, Alliance of Downriver Watersheds, Wayne
County Department of Public Services and other sources. MDEQ also completed a Wetlands Landscape
Level Functional Assessment for the watershed to identify functions provided by wetlands and
opportunities for restoration.
The entire Huron River watershed is listed on the 2010 Integrated Report from the MDEQ as failing to
meet water quality standards for mercury. The watershed is identified on Michigan’s list of water‐
quality limited or threatened waters as failing to meet Michigan water quality standards for the
protection of other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife. The State will conduct a comprehensive review
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
in that review. Previous Integrated Reports listed portions of the lower Huron River watershed as
impaired due to pathogens (bacteria), specifically in the Pink‐Wagner Drain.
Assessments of the biological communities and other key parameters with the potential to impact the
aquatic habitat and life were evaluated. The specific water quality indicators and a summary of the
rating/observation for each are listed below:
Water Quality Indicator Rating/Observation
Biological communities Fair to Good
Sedimentation/Total Suspended Solids Fair to Good
Hydrology Low flashiness on studied tributaries
Imperviousness (current ratio of Green
and Grey Infrastructure)
Ratios range from 2.4 to 11.7 across the 16
subwatersheds
Total Phosphorus Up to 4 times the recommended value of 0.03125
mg/L TP as max. monthly avg
Dissolved oxygen Not enough data
Conductivity Up to 4 times the recommended value of <800
S/cm
Pathogens (E. coli) Exceedences of the recommended max. of 130
cts/100 mL as a 30‐day geometric mean
Designated
and
Desired
Uses
and
Pollutants
All surface waters in Michigan are designated for and protected for a variety of uses. The designated
uses that are applicable to the lower Huron River Watershed are shown in the following table. In
addition to the designated uses, certain desired uses were identified for the watershed. The desired
uses are also shown in the table below.
Some of the uses are considered impaired, meaning the use is not being met. Threatened indicates that
the use is being met. However, the use could become impaired in the future under a Business as Usual
scenario. For those uses recognized as impaired, the ADW identified known (k) and suspected (s)
pollutants. Sources and causes for the pollutants were also identified.
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Lower Huron River Watershed Uses and Pollutants/Impairments
Impaired Uses Known and Suspected Pollutants/Impairments
(in order of priority for each use)
Partial Body Contact Recreation E. coli and other pathogens (K)
Other Indigenous Aquatic Life/Wildlife
Lack of stable flow (K) Lack of habitat (K)
Sediment (K)
Elevated stream temperature (K)
Nutrients (K)
Total Body Contact Recreation E. coliand other pathogens (K)
Nutrients (K)
Stressed Uses Known and Suspected Pollutants/Impairments
Warmwater Fishery
Lack of stable flow (K) Lack of habitat (K)
Sediment (K)
Elevated stream temperature (K)
Nutrients (K)
Desired Uses Known and Suspected Pollutants/Impairments
Recreation Areas, Greenways, and Blueways E. coli and other pathogens (K)
Wetlands and Natural Areas
Inadequate protection measures (K)
Lack of habitat (K)
Invasive Species (K)
Stormwater and Flood Management
Lack of stable flow (K)
Inadequate protection measures (K)
Loss of wetlands (K)
Increase of impervious surfaces (K)
Unique Species and Habitats
Inadequate protection measures (K)
Lack of habitat (K)
Invasive Species (K) Native Vegetation
Inadequate protection measures (K)
Lack of habitat (K)
Invasive Species (K)
Note: (K) refers to known pollutants and (S) refers to suspected pollutants
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Goals and Objectives
Once the LHRWIC identified the designated and desired uses, determined pollutants and their sources
and causes, and considered plan maintenance and sustainability issues, goals and objectives for the
watershed were developed. A goal is a long‐term qualitative description of a desired future condition
stated in general terms without criteria of achievement. An objective is an action that can be either
short‐term or long‐term that will reduce pollution from a source to protect or restore a designated or
desired use. The LHRWIC’s goals and the associated objectives are shown in the following table.
Goal:
Reduce
flow
variability
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Maintain or improve the ratio of Green
Infrastructure to Grey Infrastructure Restore wetlands and increase floodplains
and other pervious areas with infiltration
capacity for floodwater control Increase adoption of Low Impact
Development design principles in new
developments and retrofits
Create short‐list of potential locations for
regional stormwater storage and
treatment facility
Modify operations of dams, barriers and
pursue opportunities for removal of
selected structures
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Reach halfway point to meeting Grey
Infrastructure reductions in key
subwatersheds
Create more storage for floodwaters in
wetlands, floodplains, and other pervious
areas with infiltration capacity
Designated Use(s) Addressed:
Warmwater fishery
Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife
Desired Use(s) Addressed:
Unique habitat and species
Stormwater and flood management
1
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Goal:
Protect
and
mitigate
loss
of
natural
features
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Maintain or improve the ratio of Green
Infrastructure to Grey Infrastructure Enact policies in at least 3 communities to
protect critical natural areas especially
riparian corridors
Increase extent of contiguous protected
land through conservation agreements,
acquisition, and other land protection tools
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Enact policies in all watershed
communities to protect natural areas
especially riparian corridors
Reach halfway point to meeting Grey
Infrastructure reductions in key
subwatersheds
Restore a minimum of 150 acres of
previously converted wetlands, and
maintain network of existing wetlands
Designated Use(s) Addressed:
Warmwater fishery
Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife Partial and total body contact recreation
Desired Use(s) Addressed:
Native vegetation
Wetlands and natural areas Unique habitat and species
Goal:
Reduce
pathogen
(
E.
coli
)
loading
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Continue to detect and correct improper
connections to stormwater infrastructure
through Illicit Discharge Elimination
Programs
Eliminate failing septic systems in Wagner‐
Pink Drain
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Continue to detect and correct improper
connections to stormwater infrastructure
through Illicit Discharge Elimination
Programs
Designated Use(s) Addressed:
Partial and total body contact recreation
Desired Use(s) Addressed:
Recreation areas and greenways
2
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Goal:
Reduce
nutrient
loading
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Continue to detect and correct improper
connections to stormwater infrastructure
through Illicit Discharge Elimination
Programs
Message soil testing and proper lawn
fertilization with homeowners
Enact policies in at least 3 communities to
protect critical natural areas especially
riparian corridors
Improve application and enforcement of
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
Preserve and restore wetlands and open
space
Reduce contributions from effluent at
NPDES permitted facilities Increase adoption of Low Impact
Development design principles to 10% of
new developments and retrofits
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Enact policies in all watershed
communities to protect natural areas
especially riparian corridors
Continue to detect and correct improper
connections to stormwater infrastructure
through Illicit Discharge Elimination
Programs
Designated Use(s) Addressed:
Partial and total body contact recreation Warmwater fishery
Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife
Desired Use(s) Addressed:
Unique habitat and species Recreation areas and greenway
Goal:
Reduce
soil
erosion
and
sedimentation
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Improve application and enforcement of
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
Increase adoption of Low Impact
Development design principles to 10% of
new developments and retrofits Integrate storm water management in
planning and land use approval process
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Increase use of Low Impact Development
design principles to 50% of new
developments and retrofits
Designated Use(s) Addressed:
Partial body contact recreation Warmwater fishery
Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife
Desired Use(s) Addressed:
Unique habitat and species
4
5
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Goal:
Educated,
informed,
and
involved
watershed
citizenry
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Increase watershed residents’ awareness
and knowledge of the Huron River system Increase opportunities for public
involvement in protecting watershed
resources
Increase participation in watershed
stewardship
Increase the number of households that
report taking some type of action to
protect water resources. (SEMCOG 2004
Regional Water Quality Survey – 32%
indicate having done so).
Educate decision makers on impacts of
development and best practices
Designated Use(s) Addressed: All
Desired Use(s) Addressed: All
Goal:
Coordinated
long
‐
term
watershed
monitoring
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Secure funding and develop partnerships
to continue monitoring of key indicators Implement 5‐year monitoring plan Regularly report monitoring results to
watershed governments and public
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Revise 5‐year monitoring plan following an
adaptive management process Integrate monitoring results into
watershed management plan and short‐
term strategy revisions
Designated Use(s) Addressed: All
Desired Use(s) Addressed: All
Goal:
Sustainable
watershed
management
Objectives: Short‐Term (1‐5 yrs)
Establish institutional relationships to
ensure plan implementation Develop long‐term funding plans
Develop a climate action plan for the ADW
Objective: Long‐Term (5+ yrs)
Continue adaptive and iterative
management
Update Lower Huron River Watershed
Management Plan
Designated Use(s) Addressed: All
Desired Use(s) Addressed: All
6
8
7
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Management Strategy
After establishing goals and objectives for the watershed, the LHRWIC discussed various
management alternatives that could be employed to fulfill them. Management alternatives are
presented in the Action Plan in Chapter 6 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.
Management Activities
Chapter 6 presents the management practices and potential best practices. These practices were
added to the Watershed Treatment model and estimated pollutant reductions are shown in
Table 5‐8.Practices were identified by the LHRWIC, many of which are currently being performed
or will be performed by a number of entities as part of their individual Phase II storm water
permits. The remaining BMPs are in addition to the requirements of the Phase II storm water
regulations and thus may qualify for future Clean Michigan Initiative funding and EPA section 319
funding.
The best practices selected were gathered through the following means: LHRWIC Meetings and Workshops
Public Meetings
Individual Community/Entity Interviews Management Activity Selection Sheet Code & Ordinance Worksheet (COW) Field Observations
Potential reductions in annual loads stemming from the implementation of select actions and
practices were estimated using information provided by members of the ADW, published
reports, and geographical information analysis and modeling using the Watershed Treatment
Model.
The estimated load reductions are based off of a 15‐year timeline (2012‐2026). As Chapter 6
details, watershed communities identified specific projects that they wish to implement over the
near term (2012‐2016) in addition to best practices needed to address problems observed in the
field and to attain designated and desired uses. The acreage, number of installations, miles, etc.
of these projects desired in the near term were extrapolated an additional ten years with the
assumption that projects would continue to be implemented at the same rate. In addition to best
practices on public properties, it has been assumed that practices on privately‐owned properties
will occur at the same rate. These reductions represent a 2% to 9% decrease (depending on
parameter) in existing loads to surface waters for the first five years ‐‐ a significant step in the
right direction to meeting the goals of this watershed management plan.
The practices modeled should not be considered the only best practices that will assist
communities in progress toward meeting water quality goals. Public education, policy review and
implementation of new or revise d ordinances, demonstration of porous parking and paver
materials, retrofitting stormwater treatment controls in areas of redevelopment, and other
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Partnering with the general public, Wayne County Department of Public Services, The Stream
Team, Huron River Watershed Council, the Woodhaven‐Brownstown School District and other
entities active within the region will help stretch available funding and maximize the benefit to
the watershed. Activities that these organizations can accomplish at relatively low cost to the
communities include volunteer monitoring, bank stabilization, wetland plantings, IDEP activities
and the promotion of watershed education and awareness.
Measuring Progress
The Watershed Management Plan includes ideas on how to measure the effectiveness of the
various BMPs. Measuring progress will be done by both qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Qualitative measures include: public surveys, ordinances passed, stream surveys, written
evaluations following watershed activities, visual documentation, complaint records and citizen
participation. Quantitative techniques include: public surveys, stream surveys, aquatic life,
suspended solids, pathogens/bacteria, dissolved oxygen, geomorphology, flow stability and
method and frequency of monitoring activities.
The ADW tracks and reports on progress with the Annual Report submitted to the MDEQ each
November.
Sustainability
Sustainability is a required element of the Watershed Management Plan. It is important that
implementation of the action items or BMPs occurs throughout the watershed, and that the
effectiveness of the implemented activities is measured and evaluated. The evaluation results
will help determine if future modification to the Plan are needed, so that revisions can be
accomplished in a timely manner. Working together as a team for the development of this
Watershed Management Plan, the communities, Wayne County and the Wayne County Airport
Authority have realized many benefits. Sharing technical and financial resources resulted in
development of a more affordable and comprehensive plan addressing the goals of all involved.
Similarly, when implementing the plan, it is anticipated that the entities will continue to realize
the many positive benefits. The Alliance of Downriver Watersheds provides the means for
continuing efforts to work together to benefit the watershed as a whole and comply with permit
requirements.
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
1. Introduction
1.1
Overview
of
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 (Hydrologic Unit Code 04090005) 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 1‐1). 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
105 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, representing
approximately 8% of the 908‐square‐mile Huron River basin (Figure 1‐2). 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
Huron River behind Flat Rock Dam,
City of Flat Rock, Michigan — photo: D. Edmondson
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
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. Nearly 3,000 acres of wetlands remain in the watershed as of 2005.
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
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Figure 1‐1. Huron River Watershed
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
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 Woods Creek 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 2010 counted 58,643
individuals living in the census blocks of the lower Huron River Watershed, an increase of
10,000 people from the 2000 U.S. Census. Projections by the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG) estimate a 42% average increase in total households in 2030 from
2004 levels.
If business‐as‐usual development practices are used 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. While development has
slowed in recent years, positive economic changes will likely result in build‐out into open
spaces once again. Much of this projected conversion of undeveloped land will occur in the
lower Huron River Watershed. 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 proximity of activities from within the lower Huron River watershed directly impact this
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Table 1‐1 Land Area of Watershed by Community
Community/Entity Total Area of
Community Total Area of Community in Watershed Percent of Community in Watershed Percent of Total Watershed Acres Acres Ash Township 22,263 2,995 13.4% 6.4% City of Belleville 746 426 57.1% 0.9% Berlin Township 19,217 1,959 10.2% 4.2% Brownstown Township 14,768 5,714 38.7% 12.3%
City of Flat Rock 4,216 4,216 100.0% 9.1%
City of Gibraltar 2,334 364 15.6% 0.8% Huron Township 22,973 11,832 51.5% 25.5% Huron‐Clinton Metropolitan Authority N/A 4,701 10.1% City of Rockwood 1,698 1,698 100.0% 3.7% City of Romulus 23,018 1,552 6.7% 3.3% Village of South Rockwood 1,534 985 64.2% 2.1% Sumpter Township 23,976 2,468 10.3% 5.3%
Van Buren Charter
Township
23,084 6,654 28.8% 14.3%
Wayne County N/A 796 1.7%
Woodhaven‐
Brownstown Schools
N/A 132 0.3%
Total 100.0%
Source: Wayne County Dept of Environment, 2003
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Figure 1‐3 Area of Community in Watershed (Acres)
Source: Wayne County Dept of Environment, 2003
1.2
Watershed
Management
Plan
Purpose
The Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan assesses current conditions of
freshwater resources, identifies current and future threats to those resources, sets goals for
watershed management, and presents a robust strategy for implementation of management
practices. The Lower Huron River WAG would like to see this plan become integrated into
the future decisions of local governments, position communities to be eligible for state and
federal implementation funds in order to address the priorities identified in the plan, and
foster stewardship of watershed resources at the local level. This effort arose from the
recognition that a holistic, cross‐jurisdictional approach is essential for the long‐term health
of this watershed.
The Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan developed in 2006 was part of an
effort undertaken by the communities 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 addressed the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) 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 TMDL. To date, a TMDL for pathogens (E. coli) was established in 2003 for 0.5 miles
of Wagner‐Pink Drain. Since a dedicated TMDL implementation plan was not produced for
this pollutant, the WMP serves as the vehicle for conveying progress on meeting the TMDL.
No parts of the lower Huron River watershed, specifically, are listed as impaired or
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
listed as impaired by mercury as is much of the state of Michigan and will be addressed
under the MDEQ’s strategy to address mercury reaching the state from atmospheric
deposition.
Since 1990 the State of Michigan has pursued the development of watershed management
plans for Michigan rivers as the best approach for their protection and restoration in
accordance with the federal Clean Water Act (1972). Watershed management plans are
necessarily holistic, in that they assess the full range of stressors and opportunities, and
cross‐jurisdictional since a rain drop cares not about political abstractions like county lines.
The State of Michigan supports watershed management planning at the local level through
grant funding from the U.S. EPA and through technical support from its own staff. Funding
for updating the Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan was awarded to Wayne
County and the ADW via federal Clean Water Act §319 funding.
In Michigan, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the NPDES
program. A Watershed Management Plan is necessary in order to satisfy requirements of the
State of Michigan Phase II Watershed Based Storm Water General Permit (MIG619000). In
order for the Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan to be approved by the State
of Michigan, it must contain the following:
The geographic scope of the watershed.
The designated uses and desired uses of the watershed.
The water quality threats or impairments in the watershed.
The causes of the impairments or threats, including pollutants.
A clear statement of the water quality improvement or protection goals of the
watershed management plan.
The sources of the pollutants causing the impairments or threats and the sources
that are critical to control in order to meet water quality standards or other water
quality goals.
The tasks that need to be completed to prevent or control the critical sources of
pollution or address causes of impairment, including, as appropriate, all of the
following:
o The best management practices needed.
o Revisions needed or proposed to local zoning ordinances and other land
use management tools.
o Informational and educational activities.
o Activities needed to institutionalize watershed protection.
The estimated cost of implementing the best management practices needed.
A summary of the public participation process, including the opportunity for public
comment, during watershed management plan development and the partners that
were involved in the development of the watershed management plan.
The estimated periods of time needed to complete each task and the proposed
sequence of task completion.
A description of the process that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
implementing the plan and achieving its goals.
Moreover, in order for the activities in this WMP to be eligible for federal funding through
the Clean Water Act section 319 program in Michigan and the Clean Michigan Initiative, it
must meet the following nine minimum elements:
1. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will
need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed‐
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
2. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures
described in element (c) below
3. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented
to achieve the load reductions estimated in element (b) above, and an identification
(using a map or a description) of the critical areas in which those measures will be
needed to implement this plan
4. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated
costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this
plan
5. An information/education component that will be used to enhance public
understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation
in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures that will
be implemented
6. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in this plan
that is reasonably expeditious
7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS
management measures or other control actions are being implemented
8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are
being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made towards attaining
water quality standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether this
watershed based plan needs to be revised.
9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under item (h)
immediately above
Figure 1‐4 illustrates the various components and elements that went into the development
of this Watershed Management Plan.
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
Figure 1‐4
Watershed Management Plan Elements
1.3
Lower
Huron
River
Watershed
Advisory
Group
The Lower Huron River Watershed Advisory Group was formed in June 2003, by the
municipalities within the lower Huron River watershed (Berlin Township, Brownstown
Township, Huron Township, Sumpter Township, Van Buren Charter Township, Flat Rock,
Gibraltar, Rockwood, Romulus, Woodhaven, South Rockwood, along with Wayne County and
the Woodhaven‐Brownstown School District). The mission of Lower Huron River WAG was:
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 order to move toward fulfilling this mission, the municipalities, Wayne County and the
School District filed an application with the MDEQ to proceed with the NPDES Phase II
Stormwater Permit compliance pursuant to applicable federal and state law. An initial
requirement of this compliance was to study, develop, prepare and file a Lower Huron River
Watershed Management Plan within approximately two (2) years following the date of
issuance of the Certificate of Coverage (2003).
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed to formalize the group and establish
financial responsibility and by‐laws. Each municipality, Wayne County and the School District
adopted the MOA and then formed the Lower Huron River Watershed Inter‐Municipality
Committee (LHRWIC) in December 2003. The function of the LHRWIC was to coordinate and
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
required NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit compliance. The LHRWIC submitted the Lower
Huron River Watershed Management Plan to the MDEQ on November 1, 2005 for review. In
February of 2006, MDEQ provided written comments on the WMP. A revised WMP for the
Lower Huron River Watershed was submitted to the MDEQ in May 2006. The WMP was
approved by the MDEQ (for the purpose of the CMI Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grant
Program) on February 2, 2007. The LHRWIC maintained a website documenting the
existence of the LHRWIC and the development of the WMP. The website
(www.lowerhuronriver.net) remains active.
Alliance of Downriver Watersheds
The Inter‐Municipality Committees for the Ecorse Creek, Combined Downriver and Lower
Huron River Watersheds successfully worked as independent groups for several years. In
October 2005 and January 2006, at a joint meeting between the Committees, options for
institutional arrangements for continuing collaboration on storm water permit compliance
and watershed management issues were discussed. There was broad interest in forming a
permanent watershed organization under the new Watershed Alliance legislation (PA 517 of
2004). A subcommittee composed of members of the ECIC, CDWIC, and LHRWIC was formed
to draft bylaws as required under the statute. The LHRWIC formally recommended that the
Bylaws be presented to the respective governing bodies for adoption in May 2006, the
CDWIC and ECIC followed with the same recommendation in June 2006. The ADW was
officially formed when the bylaws were adopted by the governing bodies of 51% of the
entities within the ADW boundaries.
Article III of the Bylaws details the methodology for the assessment of cost to members. The
members of the ADW developed a cost allocation methodology based on each member’s
total area (acres) in all 3 watersheds and total population in all 3 watersheds. Approximately
$300,000 is generated from the members in dues annually to implement priority projects.
Moreover, the annual membership dues leverage several hundred thousand dollars in grant
funds.
The Alliance of Downriver Watersheds (ADW) members have been
