Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan

Transcription

Lower
Huron River
Watershed
Management
Plan
Enhanced image of a
photograph by M. Kost
of floodplain forest in
Oakwoods Metropark,
Huron River
Prepared by the Lower Huron River
Watershed Inter-Municipality Committee
with technical assistance from the
Huron River Watershed Council
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
Management Plan
2
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
Management Plan
3
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
Management Plan
4
Lower Huron River Watershed Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Chapter 2 Introduction
11
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
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
Management Plan
5
29
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
Management Plan
158
6
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.
Management Plan
7
LIST OF TABLES
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Flow (cfs) of the Huron River and select tributaries
Inventoried dams of the lower Huron River Watershed
Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Griggs Creek
subwatershed and upstream portion of the lower Huron River
Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the main stem
subwatershed of the lower Huron River
Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the Silver Creek
subwatershed of the lower Huron River
Threatened, endangered and special concern occurrences in the mouth of the Huron
River
pH ranges that support freshwater biology
Temperature data for 3 lower Huron River Watershed sites
Summary of relative abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates found in the Huron River
from below Belleville Lakes to Lake Erie, 1978-1982
Fish stocking history in lower Huron River by MDNR
Excerpt of synoptic table showing distribution of Naiads (mussels) by collecting stations
in the Huron River (1938)
Distribution of current land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed by community
Watershed area (acres) and population of participating entities within the lower Huron
River Watershed
NPDES Storm Water Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of December, 2004
NPDES Individual and General Permits in the lower Huron River Watershed as of
December, 2004
Impacts of development on hydrological conditions
Typical pollutant concentration from land uses
Percent impervious cover based on current land uses (2000) and build out based on
community master plans
Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and
presettlement land uses/cover
Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed for 2000 and
future land uses/cover
Runoff and pollutant loads computed by the Simple Method, based on current land use
(2000) and build out based on community master plans
Critical subwatersheds (high impact category) of the lower Huron River Watershed
Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed
Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated and
desired uses they address
Pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater best management practices
General guidelines for locating BMPs
Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan
Stormwater indicators
Summary of qualitative evaluation techniques for the lower Huron River Watershed
Methods of evaluating progress and interim milestones for the watershed management
alternatives in the Action Plan for the lower Huron River Watershed
Management Plan
8
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
Watersheds of Michigan (A), Watersheds of southeast Michigan (B), and the Huron
River Watershed with lower Huron River Watershed (C)
Average flow (cfs) by month from 1982-1991 of the Huron River at River Road, near the
mouth
Huron River hydrograph using flow measured at STORET #580364 downstream of
Rockwood
Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Griggs Creek
Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in the Huron River at Flat
Rock
Trend in number of benthic macroinvertebrate families found in Port Creek at Armstrong
Road
Components of the critical areas methodology
Note: Maps are found in Appendix A.
Management Plan
9
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
Management Plan
10
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Huron River near S. Huron River Drive,
Village of South Rockwood, Michigan — photo: F. Wenzel
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
Management Plan
11
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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Management Plan
12
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.
Management Plan
13
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.
Management Plan
14
2. Impairment: Sediment (k)
1. Impairment: Altered Hydrology (k)
Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed
Sources
Causes
1. Engineered drains and
streams (k)
1. Loss of connection between stream and floodplain from
channelization and dredging (k)
2. Dams: French Landing
Dam; Flat Rock Dam (k)
3. Developed areas (k)
2. Removal of riparian buffer (k)
3. Drain maintenance (k)
4. Rerouting channel for development (k)
Dam operations/construction (k)
4. Construction sites (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)
3. Poor drain maintenance (s)
4. Deviation from County stormwater standards (s)
5. Site exemptions (s)
Sources
Causes
1. Eroding stream banks
and channels (k)
1. Altered hydrology: flashy flows; dam discharge (k)
2. Clear cutting/lack of riparian buffers (k)
4. Channelization (k)
5. Culvert problems (k)
6. Eroding crossing embankments (k)
7. Eroding road ditch (k)
8. Livestock in streams (s)
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)
3. Impervious surfaces (k)
1. Poorly designed/maintained road stream crossings (k)
2. Poor road maintenance (s)
1. Lack of BMPs (upland and riparian buffers) (s)
4. Dirt/gravel roads and
bridges (k)
5. Agricultural field runoff
(s)
Management Plan
15
3. Impairment: Excess Nutrients (k)
(continued) Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed
Sources
Causes
1. Developed areas and
construction sites (k)
1. Existing development pre-dates stormwater management
standards (k)
2. Fertilizers from (new)
residential, commercial,
and golf courses (k)
3. Illicit discharges (k)
4. Failing septic tanks (k)
5. Huron River upstream
(k)
6. Agricultural runoff (s)
7. Pet and wildlife waste
(s)
4. Impairment: Pathogens (k)
8. NPDES permitted
sources (s)
Sources
(s)
4. Livestock waste from
agricultural operations (s)
5. Lack of adequate
septage facilities (s)
Management Plan
2. Soil erosion and sedimentation (k)
1. Overuse of fertilizers (improper application/ storage) (k)
2. Lack of riparian buffers (k)
3. Lack of appropriate ordinances (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)
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)
Multiple causes (k)
2. Livestock access to surface waters (s)
1. Improper disposal of pet waste (s)
3. Ponds increase habitat for waterfowl, wildlife (s)
Permits are concentration-based instead of load-based (s)
Causes
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)
3. Lack of education (s)
1. Improper disposal of pet waste (runoff from paved areas) (s)
Lack of BMPs (s)
Illegal/improper septage application (s)
16
7. Impairment: Debris/Litter (k)
6. Impairment:
Elevated Water
Temperature (k)
5. Impairment: Organic Compounds
and Heavy Metals (k)
(continued) Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed
Sources
Causes
1. Roads (k)
1. Automobile emissions (k)
3. Lack of BMPs during de-icing of roads (s)
1. Lack of stormwater BMPs (k)
2. Illegal dumping (s)
1. Improper lawn care (s)
3. Turfgrass chemicals
from residential,
commercial lawns (s)
5. NPDES permitted
facilities (s)
6. Existing instream
pollution (s)
Lack of upland and riparian BMPs (s)
Inadequate inspection (s)
2. Wayne Co airport/Pinnacle AeroPark property (s)
Sources
Causes
Directly-connected impervious surfaces that heat stormwater (k)
2. Eroded soil areas (k)
1. Soil erosion from channel and upland (k)
2. Lack of vegetated canopy in riparian buffer (k)
Sources
Causes
1. Roadways (k)
1. Illegal littering/dumping (s)
2. Unsecured vehicle/truck loads (s)
2. Inadequate refuse containers (s)
2. Unsecured garbage (s)
2. Poor site clean-up (s)
1. Lack of adequate riparian buffers (s)
2. Parks (k)
3. Urban areas (k)
4. Residential areas (k)
5. Construction sites (s)
Management Plan
17
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. Shortterm 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.
Management Plan
18
Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated and
desired uses they address
1
2
Long-Term Goal
Establish
information and
education efforts
to raise
watershed
awareness
Short-Term Objective
— Increase the general public’s awareness
and knowledge of the Watershed and the
interconnectedness of the system
— Increase activities that result in
preservation, restoration and protection of the
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
Uses(s) Addressed
All
Protect and
mitigate loss of
natural features
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife; Native
vegetation; Open
space, wetlands,
and natural
features; Unique
habitat and species,
and natural buffers;
Recreation and
greenways; Public
water supply
3
Establish
financial and
institutional
arrangements for
WMP fulfillment
4
Reduce flow
variability/
stabilize flows
— Increase protections for natural features
through policy and educational measures
— Improve mapping of natural features and
distribution of such maps
— Conduct field work to refine natural
features information and prioritize for
protection
— Inventory the aquatic community
— Inventory listed species and communities
— Identify the type and extent of non-native
species
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
— Develop long-term funding plans
— Create representative group to guide WMP
implementation
— 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
— Protect and increase storage in wetlands,
floodplains, groundwater and other pervious
areas with infiltration capacity
— Establish current stream flow dynamics
through established monitoring strategy (see
Goal 9)
— Increase the use of Low Impact
Development design
Management Plan
19
All
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife;
Open space,
wetlands, and
natural features;
Stormwater and
flood management;
Native vegetation
5
Reduce soil
erosion and
sedimentation
— Establish baseline data for sediment fines
in monitored streams through established
monitoring strategy (see Goal 9)
— Increase education of BMPs among
property owners and the building community
— Improve application and enforcement of
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
(SESC)
Long-Term Objective
— Increase clarity in surface waters based on
MDEQ Stream Crossing Watershed Survey
6
Reduce nutrient
loading
— Establish baseline data for nutrient
concentrations and loading in surface waters
Goal 9)
— Reduce incidences of Separate Sewer
Overflows
7
Reduce
pathogen (E. coli)
loading
8
Increase
adoption of
BMPs for Low
Impact
Development
(LID) design
principles
— Decrease bacteria contributions to WagnerPink Drain to meet the MI WQS for E. coli
(TMDL)
— Establish baseline data for bacteria through
established monitoring strategy (see Goal 9)
— Implement and maintain Illicit Discharge
Elimination Program investigations
Overflows
9
Increase water
quality, water
quantity and
biological
monitoring
10
Increase
opportunities for
recreational uses
— Integrate stormwater management in the
planning and land use approval process
— Educate land use decision makers on
development impacts and LID tools
— Increase coordinated land use planning
and development standards among the
communities in the Watershed
— Develop a monitoring strategy
— Secure funding and develop partnerships
to conduct short-term and long-term
monitoring of key indicators
— Develop QAPPs for applicable parameters
— Increase coordination of monitoring through
development of a monitoring strategy
— Improve public access to land- and waterbased recreational opportunities
— Expand Greenways Trails Network
Management Plan
20
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife; Industrial
water supply; Public
water supply;
Unique habitat and
species, and natural
buffers; Stormwater
and flood
management; Native
vegetation; Open
space, wetlands,
and natural features
Partial and total
body contact
recreation;
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife;
Stormwater/Flood
Management
Partial and total
body contact
recreation;
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife
All
All
Open space,
wetlands, and
natural features;
Recreation and
greenways; Partial
and total body
contact recreation
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 watershedwide 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
practices, revise
recommended
standards, and/or
programs
2. Identify and implement
practices, standards,
and/or programs
3. Assess
attainment/maintenance
of water quality targets or
plan goals
Management Plan
21
Continue
practices,
standards, and/or
programs
implementation
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
Management Plan
22
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.
Management Plan
23
Figure 2.1
Watersheds of Michigan (A), Watersheds of southeast Michigan (B),
and the Huron River Watershed with lower Huron River Watershed (C)
A
B
Lake Superior
FLINT
CLINTON
SHIAWASSEE
UPPER
GRAND
Lake
H
ROUGE/
DETROIT
Lake
Mich
igan
uron
HURON
STONY
L
La
ke
Eri
e
RAISIN
N
C
INGHAM
LIVINGSTON
OAKLAND
Huron River
Watershed
WAYNE
lower Huron River
Watershed
WASHTENAW
5
0
5
MONROE
10 Miles
Source: Michigan Resource Information System; SEMCOG
Management Plan
24
Lake Er
ie
JACKSON
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.
Management Plan
25
Members of the LHRWIC are from the following municipalities and/or political subdivisions:
Village of South Rockwood
Sumpter Township
Van Buren Charter Township
City of Woodhaven
Charter County of Wayne
Woodhaven-Brownstown School District
Berlin Charter Township
Brownstown Township
City of Flat Rock
City of Gibraltar
Huron Township
City of Rockwood
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.
Management Plan
26
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 WagnerPink 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 WagnerPink 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.
Management Plan
27
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.
Management Plan
28
CHAPTER 3:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
IN THE LOWER
HURON RIVER
WATERSHED
Great Blue Heron, Huron River at Willow Metropark,
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
Management Plan
29
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
Management Plan
30
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 runof-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
Management Plan
31
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
Griggs
Creek
at Metropark
2002 Baseflow
2002 Wet
weather
Summer 2001
Monitoring Stations
Wagner-Pink
Port Creek
Huron River
Drain at Wil
at Armstrong
d/s
Carleton Dr
Rd
Rockwood
0.3
474
0.1
0.4 (n=1)
Fall 2000
Fall 1997
Huron River
at River
Road
0.7 (n=1)
1.8 (n=1)
1991-1982
Baseflow
349 (n=40)
1991-1982 Wet
weather
1038 (n=40)
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.
Management Plan
32
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
flow (cfs)
2,000
1985
1986
1,500
1987
1988
1,000
1989
1990
500
1991
Au
gu
Se
st
pt
em
be
r
O
ct
ob
er
No
ve
m
be
De
r
ce
m
be
r
Ju
ly
Ju
ne
ay
M
Ap
ril
Ja
nu
a
Fe ry
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
0
Source: STORET as reported by MDEQ
Management Plan
33
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.
Management Plan
34
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 lowgradient, 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 instream 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
Management Plan
35
Larson and others18 measured the river channel gradients of lower Huron River and
tributaries:
Gradient 0-4.9 ft/mi:
Characterized by low to modest hydraulic diversity, mostly run habitat with some
riffles
Found in Silver Creek and the main stem of the Huron River
Gradient 5.0-9.9 ft/mi:
Characterized by riffle-pool sequences with good hydraulic diversity
Found in Griggs Drain
Gradient 10-69.9 ft/mi:
Characterized by established, regular riffle-pool sequences with excellent
hydraulic diversity
Found in tributaries south of main stem, including Regan Drain, Port, WagnerPink (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
Management Plan
36
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
Flat Rock Dam
and Weir
(MI00556)
Waterway
Community
Owner
Huron River
City of Flat
Rock
City of Flat
Rock
Dam Name
(w/ Identification Number)
Lower
Middle
Upper Pond
Pond
Pond
(MI01888)
(MI01887)
(MI02392)
Brook
Brook
Brook Drain
Drain
Drain
Sumpter
Sumpter
Sumpter
Township
Township
Township
Washago
Pond
(MI00760)
Regan Drain
Huron
Township
HCMA
HCMA
HCMA
HCMA
Downstream
Hazard
Potential
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Purpose
Retired
Hydropower
Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Dam Type
Gravity/Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Gravity/Earth
Date Built
Dam Height (ft)
Crest Length;
Spill Width (ft)
Pond Surface
Area (ft)
1924
16
pre-1901
0
pre-1901
0
pre-1901
0
1979
11
650; 490
50; 4
0
50; 4
100; 4
316
1
1
1
13
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 acrefeet 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.
Management Plan
37
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 beechsugar 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:
Management Plan
38
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.
Management Plan
39
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
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
Speyeria idalia (A)
Regal Fritillary
E
Stylurus laurae (A)
Laura's Clubtail
SC
LE
E
Southern floodplain forest ( C)
Source: Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Management Plan
40
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
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State 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
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
Management Plan
41
LE
E
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
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State Status
Angelica venenosa (P)
Hairy Angelica
SC
Wild-hyacinth
T
Carex frankii (P)
Frank's Sedge
SC
Carex squarrosa (P)
Sedge
SC
Purple Wartyback
SC
Cyperus flavescens (P)
Yellow Nut-grass
SC
Elaphe vulpina gloydi (A)
Eastern Fox Snake
T
Snuffbox
E
Euphyes dukesi (A)
Dukes' Skipper
T
Gymnocladus dioicus (P)
Kentucky Coffee-tree
SC
Hibiscus moscheutos (P)
Swamp Rose-mallow
SC
Hydrastis canadensis (P)
Goldenseal
T
Water-willow
T
Lampsilis fasciola (A)
Alkaline Tallgrass Prairie,
Midwest Type
Wavy-rayed Lampmussel
T
Seedbox
SC
Morus rubra (P)
Red Mulberry
T
Myotis sodalis (A)
Nelumbo lutea (P)
Indiana Bat or Indiana
Myotis
American Lotus
Pugnose Minnow
E
Channel Darter
E
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
Cup-plant
T
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (A)
Eastern Massasauga
Trailing Wild Bean
SC
Villosa fabalis (A)
Rayed Bean
E
Zizania aquatica var. aquatica (P)
Wild-rice
T
Great Lakes marsh ( C)
Lakeplain oak openings ( C)
Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie ( C)
Management Plan
42
LE
E
T
C
SC
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
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State Status
Wild-hyacinth
T
Carex squarrosa (P)
Sedge
SC
Purple Wartyback
SC
Elaphe vulpina gloydi (A)
Eastern Fox Snake
T
Snuffbox
E
Hibiscus moscheutos (P)
Swamp Rose-mallow
SC
Water-willow
T
Seedbox
SC
Morus rubra (P)
Red Mulberry
T
Nelumbo lutea (P)
American Lotus
T
Obovaria subrotunda (A)
Round Hickorynut
E
Pugnose Minnow
E
Channel Darter
E
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
Cup-plant
T
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (A)
Eastern Massasauga
Trailing Wild Bean
SC
Zizania aquatica var. aquatica (P)
Wild-rice
T
C
SC
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.
Management Plan
43
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
Management Plan
44
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 (FebruaryNovember) 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
Management Plan
45
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 3mile 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
Management Plan
46
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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Neutral
7
8
9
10
11
Most Basic
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 phosphoruscontaining 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.
Management Plan
47
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.
Management Plan
48
Table 3.8
Temperature data for 3 lower Huron River Watershed sites
Griggs Creek
at Metropark
Huron River
at Flat Rock
Port Creek
at Armstrong Road
Average
Temperature
71.8
75.8
69.2
Average Maximum
77.4
79.7
75.1
Average Minimum
66.2
71.8
63.2
11.1
7.8
11.9
83.3
80.4
80.0
61.3
70.7
54.0
Difference between
Max. and Min.
Maximum of
Maximum
Minimum of
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
Management Plan
49
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.
Management Plan
50
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 pronggilled 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
Number of Families
8
6
4
INSECTS
2
EPT_SCORE
0
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
Management Plan
51
SENSITIVE
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
in the Huron River at Flat Rock
16
14
12
10
Number of Families
8
6
4
INSECTS
2
EPT_SCORE
0
1996.75 1997.75 1998.75 1999.75 2000.75 2001.75 2002.75
SENSITIVE
1997.33 1998.33 1999.33 2000.33 2001.33 2002.33 2003.75
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
in Port Creek at Armstrong Road
16
14
12
10
Number of Families
8
6
4
INSECTS
2
EPT_SCORE
0
2000.33
SENSITIVE
2001.33
2000.75
2002.33
2001.75
2003.33
2002.75
2003.75
Management Plan
52
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
Benthic Taxa
Mean # of Taxa
Representative Taxa
Stations Sampled
French Landing Dam
10
8.5
Midges, caddisflies,
blackflies
S. Metropolitan Pkwy
10.6
8.6
Caddisflies, midges,
blackflies
Waltz Rd at New Boston
13
11.5
Willow Rd
15
12.8
Above Flat Rock WWTP
14
12
Below Flat Rock WWTP
13.3
11
Above Rockwood
10.3
8
Mayflies, beetles, scuds,
damselflies
Below Rockwood WWTP
10.5
8
Mayflies, scuds, midges
Gastropods, caddisflies,
midges, sponges, scuds
Damselflies, mayflies,
caddisflies, midges,
blackflies, gastropods
Mayflies, caddisflies,
midges
Mayflies, caddisflies,
Source: Kenaga, D. 1983.
Fisheries
Fish depend upon aquatic insects for food, and good quality stream habitat and freeflowing 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
Management Plan
53
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.
Management Plan
54
Table 3.10
Fish stocking history in lower Huron River by MDNR
Common name
Stocking
location
Years
Numbers
Comments
Coho Salmon
Huron R.
Metropark
1981-85, 88
679,103
No run
established
Coho Salmon
Huron R. Flat
rock
1986-87, 89
464,684
No run
established
Rainbow Trout
Huron R.
Metropark
1981-88
227,131
No run
established
Rainbow trout
Huron R. Flat
Rock
1989-present
20,000 (historic)150,000
On-going
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 parttime 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.
Management Plan
55
Table 3.11
Excerpt of synoptic table showing distribution of Naiads (mussels)
by collecting stations in the Huron River (1938)
Strophitus rugosus
Anodonta grandis
x
Anondonta imbeciliis
Anodontoides
ferrussaciana
Lasmigona costata
x
x
x
x
Lasmigona complanata
Alasmidonta marginata
Ptychobranchus fasciolare
x
Obovaria subrotunda
Actinonaias carinata
x
x
x
Micromya iris
x
x
x
x
x
x
Micromya fabalis
Ligumia recta latissima
Lampsilis fasciola
Lampsilis siliquoidea
x
Lampsilis ventricosa
Truncilla truncata
x
Dyssnomia triquetra
Fusconaia flava
Carunoulina parva
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Huron River
Park
Below French
Landing Dam
x
Near Willow
Rd, New
Boston
x
x
2 mi. E. of
Willow
x
x
x
x
x
x
1 mi E. of
Willow
Elliptio dilatatus
x
x
x
Flat Rock
Cyclonaias tuberculata
1/2 mi above
Rockwood
Quadrula pustulosa
Rockwood
Mussels
E. Rockwood
Station (mouth to French Landing Dam)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
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.
Management Plan
56
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
Management Plan
57
•
•
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 1030 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
Management Plan
58
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
Management Plan
59
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
Management Plan
60
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,
Management Plan
61
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
Management Plan
62
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
Management Plan
63
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
Management Plan
64
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.
Management Plan
65
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
Management Plan
66
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.
Management Plan
67
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:

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%

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

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.

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.
Management Plan
68
Table 3.12
Distribution of current land uses in the lower Huron River Watershed
by community
Land Use ( in acres)
Active Agriculture
Commercial
Industrial
Ash Twp
1,925
46
240
267
533
0
Belleville
4
52
45
80
252
4
808
23
46
436
619
28
Brownstown Twp
944
238
265
2,816
1,956
270
Flat Rock
291
623
737
1,541
1,085
89
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
2,189
65
199
3,230
1,844
38
106
95
234
177
171
4
Berlin Charter
Twp
Gibraltar
Van Buren
Charter Twp
Woodhaven
Open
Residential
Total Acres
10,236
1,524
2,925
20,576
11,354
% of lower
Huron River
21.6%
3.2%
6.2%
43.5%
24.0%
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
Water
699
1.5%
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.
Management Plan
69
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 lowor 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.
Management Plan
70
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
Community
Population
in
Watershed
Berlin Charter
Township
% Total
Watershed
Population
Area of
Entity in
Watershed
% Total
Watershed Area
1,105
2.6
1,959
5.0
10,833
25.1
5,714
14.7
8,488
19.7
4,216
10.8
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
Rockwood
1,070
2.5
985
2.5
Sumpter Township
2,145
5.0
2,468
6.3
Van Buren Charter
Township
5,237
12.1
6,654
17.1
City of Woodhaven
456
1.1
564
1.4
Wayne County
796
2.0
WoodhavenBrownstown School
District
132
0.3
38,934
100.0
Brownstown Township
City of Flat Rock
City of Gibraltar
Total
43,147
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.
Management Plan
71
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
Management Plan
72
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
Management Plan
73
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 subbasins 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.
Management Plan
74
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
Management Plan
75
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
Management Plan
76
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
Management Plan
77
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.
Management Plan
78
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
Date
Designated Name
Permit No.
Ajax Mat Corp Plt 9-Rockwood
MIS410186
4/1/2009 Industrial Storm Water Only
Rockwood
Auto Alliance-Flat Rock
MIS410182
Flat Rock
Bonsal American-New Boston
MIS420016
New Boston
Brownstown Auto-Romulus
MIS410135
Romulus
Castrol Industrial NA
MIS410498
New Boston
Contract Welding & Fabricating
MIS410350
Belleville
Gibraltar Boat Yard
MIS410220
Rockwood
Grand Trunk Western-Flat Rock
MIS410183
Flat Rock
Humbug Too Marina-Gibraltar
MIS410184
Rockwood
Huron Valley Steel-Belleville
MIS410354
Belleville
J & V-Oakwood Farms Estates
MIR108097
Levy-Clawson Concrete Plt 6
MIS410405
Romulus
LKQ of Mich Inc-Belleville
MIS410432
Belleville
Messina Concrete Inc-Flat Rock
MIS410081
Flat Rock
MicroTect-Belleville
MIS410530
Belleville
New Boston Fiberglass
MIS410406
New Boston
New Boston Forge
MIS410455
New Boston
RJ Marshall-Rockwood
MIS410139
Rockwood
S & H Auto Parts-New Boston
MIS410440
New Boston
Scheels Concrete Inc-Flat Rock
MIS410187
Flat Rock
Wellington Ind-Belleville
MIS410408
Belleville
Management Plan
79
Facility Type
9/14/2009 Construction Sites
City
Unknown
Table 3.15
NPDES Individual and General Permits in the lower Huron River
Watershed as of December, 2004
Americana MHP
Expiration
Date
MI0029122 10/1/2008
Berlin Twp MS4-Monroe
MIG610357 4/1/2008
Huron River MHP & Marina
MIG570202 4/1/2005
Orchards MHP
MI0055263 10/1/2008
South Rockwood MS4-Monroe
MIG610358 4/1/2008
Central Wayne Co San Auth LF
MI0045110 10/1/2008
Flat Rock MS4-Wayne
MIG610360 4/1/2008
Rockwood MS4-Wayne
MIG610361 4/1/2008
Rockwood WWTP
MI0021181 10/1/2008
US Silica Co
MI0001368 10/1/1997
Van Buren Twp MS4-Wayne
MIG610021 4/1/2008
Woodhaven MS4-Wayne
MIG610354 4/1/2008
Designated Name
Permit No.
Facility Type
City
Non-Industrial Sanitary
Wastewater
Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System
Wastewater
Wastewater
Sewer System
Standard (All others)
Flat Rock
Sewer System
Sewer System
Wastewater
Standard (All others)
Flat Rock
Sewer System
Sewer System
Newport
South
Rockwood
Carleton
South
Rockwood
Flat Rock
Rockwood
Rockwood
Rockwood
Belleville
Woodhaven
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
Management Plan
80
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.
Management Plan
81
CHAPTER 4:
LAND USE
PLANNING
AND
WATERSHED
ANALYSIS
Smith Creek, tributary to Huron River
— photo: HRWC file
Brownstown Township, Michigan
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.
Management Plan
82
Table 4.1 Impacts of development on hydrological conditions
Half-acre
Residential
Half-acre
Forest
Storm
Frequency (yr)
24-Hour Rainfall
(in)
Estimated Runoff
(in)
Runoff as Percentage
of Rainfall
2
2.8
0.14
5
10
4.0
0.53
13
100
5.0
1.4
24
2.8
0.60
21
4.0
1.33
33
5.0
2.64
66
2
10
100
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
Phosphorus
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Suspended
Sediment
141
Biological
Oxygen
Demand
24
Lead
Road
0.43
1.82
0.014
Commercial
0.33
1.74
77
21
0.049
Industrial
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Forest
0.32
2.08
149
24
0.072
0.52
3.32
70
38
0.057
0.24
1.17
97
14
0.041
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.
Management Plan
83
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 nonsupporting streams is generally considered poor, and is dominated by pollution tolerant
insects and fish.
Management Plan
84
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
Subwatershed
Current
impervious
surface %
Current
category
Brook
Bunton
Griggs
Hale
McBride
Bancroft-Noles
Port
Regan
River#1
River#1a
River#3
River#3a
River#3b
River#3c
Flat Rock
River#3e
River#3f
River#3g
River#3h
River#4
River#4a
River#4b
Morrison
Smith
Silver
Lake Erie
Vandecar
Wagner-Pink
Warner
14
17
10
8
35
9
11
26
13
10
14
10
15
9
18
11
17
17
17
16
6
22
14
27
17
9
11
18
9
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Sensitive
Nonsupporting
Sensitive
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Sensitive
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Impacted
Sensitive
Impacted
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Sensitive
Impacted
Impacted
Sensitive
Management Plan
85
Impervious
surface %
if current
master plan
is realized
20
28
26
14
51
22
18
42
39
17
20
38
17
15
32
17
29
22
19
30
26
45
39
48
32
41
21
34
18
Future
category
Does
category
change?
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Nonsupporting
Impacted
Nonsupporting
Impacted
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes, by 2
yes
yes
no
yes
yes, by 2
no
yes
yes
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)
Management Plan
86
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.
Management Plan
87
Table 4.4 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed
for 2000 and presettlement land uses/cover
Subwatershed
BancroftNoles
Brook
Bunton
Flat Rock
Griggs
Hale
Lake Erie
McBride
Morrison
Port
Regan
River#1
River#1a
River#3
River#3a
River#3b
River#3c
River#3e
River#3f
River#3g
River#3h
River#4
River#4a
River#4b
Silver
Smith
Vandecar
WagnerPink
Warner
2000
Runoff per
acre
(in)
1830s
Runoff per
acre
(in)
2000
TP per
acre
(lbs)
1830s
TP per
acre
(lbs)
2000
TSS per
acre
(lbs)
1830s
TSS per
acre
(lbs)
14.31
2.48
5.73
8.64
4.49
3.72
21.96
11.05
10.54
11.84
5.32
9.17
9.35
3.49
2.06
2.10
1.07
2.43
3.44
5.61
3.61
1.35
0.54
8.48
8.16
15.61
3.39
5.00
1.69
0.00
2.58
0.02
1.47
5.43
1.48
4.59
2.34
0.04
3.87
1.52
1.67
1.47
0.92
0.00
0.66
0.51
2.93
2.95
1.14
0.00
0.00
1.33
3.03
0.66
0.28
0.05
0.11
0.17
0.09
0.07
0.39
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.09
0.20
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.16
0.29
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
88.97
12.82
30.26
41.92
25.26
21.29
155.93
74.65
54.06
71.31
37.07
43.70
61.11
18.12
8.96
7.51
3.28
8.45
17.20
23.36
13.61
8.05
2.76
57.38
42.61
85.64
16.20
13.27
4.48
0.00
6.85
0.06
3.91
14.39
3.91
12.19
6.20
0.09
10.28
4.05
4.43
3.89
2.43
0.00
1.75
1.36
7.77
7.83
3.02
0.00
0.00
3.54
8.05
1.75
11.26
4.39
3.83
1.63
0.20
0.08
0.02
0.01
72.94
22.21
10.16
4.31
Management Plan
88
Table 4.5 Runoff and pollutant loads computed by L-THIA for each subwatershed
for 2000 and future land uses/cover
Subwatershed
2000
Runoff per
acre
(in)
BancroftNoles
Brook
Bunton
Flat Rock
Griggs
Hale
Lake Erie
McBride
Morrison
Port
Regan
River#1
River#1a
River#3
River#3a
River#3b
River#3c
River#3e
River#3f
River#3g
River#3h
River#4
River#4a
River#4b
Silver
Smith
Vandecar
WagnerPink
Warner
Future
Runoff per
acre
(in)
2000
TP per
acre
(lbs)
Future TP
per acre
(lbs)
2000
TSS per
acre
(lbs)
Future
TSS per
acre
(lbs)
14.31
2.48
5.73
8.64
4.49
3.72
21.96
11.05
10.54
11.84
5.32
9.17
9.35
3.49
2.06
2.10
1.07
2.43
3.44
5.61
3.61
1.35
0.54
8.48
8.16
15.61
3.39
13.53
3.02
10.48
9.37
7.01
3.07
29.30
12.96
16.06
11.63
6.10
13.36
10.83
4.09
5.61
2.20
1.16
2.62
3.82
5.85
4.12
4.99
5.10
12.42
10.47
21.17
3.59
0.28
0.05
0.11
0.17
0.09
0.07
0.39
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.09
0.20
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.16
0.29
0.07
0.19
0.06
0.25
0.20
0.16
0.04
0.56
0.24
0.36
0.19
0.11
0.30
0.21
0.07
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.25
0.21
0.44
0.09
88.97
12.82
30.26
41.92
25.26
21.29
155.93
74.65
54.06
71.31
37.07
43.70
61.11
18.12
8.96
7.51
3.28
8.45
17.20
23.36
13.61
8.05
2.76
57.38
42.61
85.64
16.20
51.72
11.87
44.33
40.99
35.28
6.00
187.42
82.90
71.48
43.65
39.01
58.02
66.81
19.20
20.26
6.22
2.65
9.04
17.22
23.03
15.29
22.01
18.43
68.20
48.25
111.79
12.36
11.26
4.39
13.73
4.40
0.20
0.08
0.25
0.08
72.94
22.21
75.28
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,
Management Plan
89
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.
Management Plan
90
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
Subwatershed
BancroftNoles
Brook
Bunton
Flat Rock
Griggs
Hale
Lake Erie
McBride
Morrison
Port
Regan
River #1
River #1a
River #3
River #3a
River #3b
River #3c
River #3e
River #3f
River #3g
River #3h
River #4
River #4a
River #4b
Silver
Smith
Vandecar
WagnerPink
Warner
Runoff per
acre
(acre-ft)
Future
Runoff per
acre
(acre-ft)
TSS/ac/yr
(lbs)
Future
TSS/ac/yr
(lbs)
TP/ac/yr
(lbs)
Future
TP/ac/yr
(lbs)
1.037
4.487
5.772
5.670
3.813
3.262
4.311
10.201
5.045
3.814
7.914
4.683
5.173
4.737
3.940
5.130
3.732
4.462
5.593
5.740
5.866
5.274
2.953
6.984
5.483
7.467
4.078
5.8
7.0
11.5
8.2
8.5
4.6
14.3
15.3
9.9
6.1
12.0
8.3
5.0
5.6
9.1
6.6
4.5
4.7
7.6
6.9
7.6
11.0
11.2
11.7
9.4
12.9
6.8
85.7
83.8
121.3
108.2
78.5
62
100
283
95
89
231
86
83
89
62
80
52
66
109
98
93
113
46
196
119
174
75
111.5
133.8
244.8
144.9
173.6
72.8
419.3
78.1
210.6
111.4
348.8
152.2
83.9
111.9
174.5
105.2
69.2
73.0
155.7
120.5
121.5
242.4
233.8
295.5
209.4
320.1
112.6
0.342
0.427
0.533
0.534
0.335
0.271
0.316
0.903
0.430
0.313
0.628
0.450
0.300
0.356
0.385
0.566
0.293
0.349
0.486
0.460
0.641
0.467
0.233
0.520
0.481
0.646
0.422
0.618
0.684
0.886
0.843
0.731
0.521
1.054
1.151
0.743
0.617
0.986
0.785
0.337
0.490
0.714
0.780
0.480
0.406
0.638
0.661
0.835
0.855
0.726
0.792
0.810
0.993
0.786
5.750
3.900
9.8
6.7
153
71
244.2
109.3
0.468
0.362
0.807
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.
Management Plan
91
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.
Management Plan
92
Figure 4.1 Components of the critical area methodology
L-THIA model
Field reconnaissance
Delineation of 29
subwatersheds
Impervious Cover model
Critical
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.
Management Plan
93
Table 4.7
Critical subwatersheds (high impact category) of the lower Huron
River Watershed
Impact
Category
Subwatershed
Wagner-Pink
Smith
McBride
High
Lake Erie
Morrison
Silver
Flat Rock
Regan
River #4b
Port
Moderate
River #1
Bancroft-Noles
Bunton
Griggs
River #1a
River #4
River #3g
River #4a
Warner
River #3f
Hale
Low
River #3a
River #3h
River #3
Vandecar
Brook
River#3b
River #3c
River #3e
Management Plan
94
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
Management Plan
95
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.
Management Plan
96
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:

Agriculture
Industrial water supply
Public water supply at the point of intake
Navigation
Warmwater fishery
Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife
Partial body contact recreation
Total body contact recreation between May 1 and October 31
Coldwater fishery
Management Plan
97
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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Management Plan
98
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 longterm 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
Management Plan
99
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.) Directlyconnected 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 onsite 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.
Management Plan
100
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.
Management Plan
101
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
a problem.
Pet waste is one source of E. coli in
the lower Huron River. Photo: HRWC
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.
Management Plan
102
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.
Management Plan
103
2. Impairment: Sediment (k)
1. Impairment: Altered Hydrology (k)
Table 5.1 Impairments, sources and causes in the lower Huron River Watershed
(k = known; s = suspected)
Sources
Causes
1. Engineered drains and
streams (k)
1. Loss of connection between stream and floodplain from
channelization and dredging (k)
2. Dams: French Landing
Dam; Flat Rock Dam (k)
2. Removal of riparian buffer (k)
Dam operations/construction (k)
3. Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration/increase runoff (k)
4. Problems with road/bridge crossings (k)
3. Poor drain maintenance (s)
4. Deviation from County stormwater standards (s)
Sources
Causes
1. Eroding stream banks
and channels (k)
1. Altered hydrology: flashy flows; dam discharge (k)
4. Channelization (k)
5. Culvert problems (k)
6. Eroding crossing embankments (k)
7. Eroding road ditch (k)
8. Livestock in streams (s)
2. Lack of soil erosion BMPs and BMPs education (s)
3. Drain maintenance (s)
5. Lack of resources for enforcement/inspection (s)
1. Poorly designed/maintained road stream crossings (k)
4. Dirt/gravel roads and
bridges (k)
5. Agricultural field runoff
(s)
(continued on next page)
Management Plan
104
3. Impairment: Excess Nutrients (k)
Sources
Causes
1. Developed areas and
construction sites (k)
1. Existing development pre-dates stormwater management
standards (k)
2. Fertilizers from (new)
residential, commercial,
and golf courses (k)
5. Huron River upstream
(k)
(s)
4. Impairment: Pathogens (k)
8. NPDES permitted
sources (s)
Sources
(s)
4. Livestock waste from
agricultural operations (s)
5. Lack of adequate
septage facilities (s)
2. Soil erosion and sedimentation (k)
1. Overuse of fertilizers (improper application/ storage) (k)
2. Lack of riparian buffers (k)
3. Lack of appropriate ordinances (k)
3. Lack of homeowner education (s)
1. Old units are too small or don’t meet codes (s)
3. Lack of a required maintenance program (s)
Multiple causes (k)
2. Livestock access to surface waters (s)
1. Improper disposal of pet waste (s)
Permits are concentration-based instead of load-based (s)
Causes
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)
3. Lack of education (s)
1. Improper disposal of pet waste (runoff from paved areas) (s)
Lack of BMPs (s)
Illegal/improper septage application (s)
(continued on next page)
Management Plan
105
5. Impairment: Organic Compounds
and Heavy Metals (k)
6. Impairment:
Elevated Water
Temperature (k)
7. Impairment: Debris/Litter (k)
Sources
Causes
1. Roads (k)
1. Automobile emissions (k)
3. Lack of BMPs during de-icing of roads (s)
1. Lack of stormwater BMPs (k)
1. Improper lawn care (s)
3. Turfgrass chemicals
from residential,
commercial lawns (s)
5. NPDES permitted
facilities (s)
6. Existing instream
pollution (s)
Lack of upland and riparian BMPs (s)
Inadequate inspection (s)
2. Wayne Co airport/Pinnacle AeroPark property (s)
Sources
Causes
Directly-connected impervious surfaces that heat stormwater (k)
2. Eroded soil areas (k)
1. Soil erosion from channel and upland (k)
2. Lack of vegetated canopy in riparian buffer (k)
Sources
Causes
1. Roadways (k)
2. Unsecured vehicle/truck loads (s)
2. Inadequate refuse containers (s)
2. Poor site clean-up (s)
1. Lack of adequate riparian buffers (s)
2. Parks (k)
3. Urban areas (k)
4. Residential areas (k)
5. Construction sites (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
Management Plan
106
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
in the waterbody. Photo: HRWC
When land is converted from natural areas
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.
Management Plan
107
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.
Management Plan
108
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.
Management Plan
109
Table 5.2 Goals and objectives for the lower Huron River Watershed, and the designated
and desired uses they address
1
2
Long-Term Goal
Establish
information and
education efforts
to raise
watershed
awareness
— Increase the general public’s awareness
and knowledge of the Watershed and the
interconnectedness of the system
— Increase activities that result in
preservation, restoration and protection of the
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
Uses(s) Addressed
All
Protect and
mitigate loss of
natural features
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife; Native
vegetation; Open
space, wetlands,
and natural
features; Unique
habitat and species,
and natural buffers;
Recreation and
greenways; Public
water supply
3
Establish
financial and
institutional
arrangements for
WMP fulfillment
4
Reduce flow
variability/
stabilize flows
— Increase protections for natural features
through policy and educational measures
— Improve mapping of natural features and
distribution of such maps
— Conduct field work to refine natural
features information and prioritize for
protection
— Inventory the aquatic community
— Inventory listed species and communities
— Identify the type and extent of non-native
species
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
— Develop long-term funding plans
— Create representative group to guide WMP
implementation
— 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
— Protect and increase storage in wetlands,
floodplains, groundwater and other pervious
areas with infiltration capacity
— Establish current stream flow dynamics
Goal 9)
— Increase the use of Low Impact
Development design
Management Plan
110
All
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife;
Open space,
wetlands, and
natural features;
Stormwater and
flood management;
Native vegetation
5
Reduce soil
erosion and
sedimentation
— Establish baseline data for sediment fines
in monitored streams through established
monitoring strategy (see Goal 9)
— Increase education of BMPs among
property owners and the building community
— Improve application and enforcement of
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
(SESC)
Long-Term Objective
— Increase clarity in surface waters based on
MDEQ Stream Crossing Watershed Survey
6
Reduce nutrient
loading
— Establish baseline data for nutrient
concentrations and loading in surface waters
Goal 9)
Overflows
7
Reduce
pathogen (E. coli)
loading
8
Increase
adoption of
BMPs for Low
Impact
Development
(LID) design
principles
— Decrease bacteria contributions to WagnerPink Drain to meet the MI WQS for E. coli
(TMDL)
— Establish baseline data for bacteria through
established monitoring strategy (see Goal 9)
— Implement and maintain Illicit Discharge
Elimination Program investigations
Overflows
9
Increase water
quality, water
quantity and
biological
monitoring
10
Increase
opportunities for
recreational uses
— Integrate stormwater management in the
planning and land use approval process
— Educate land use decision makers on
development impacts and LID tools
— Increase coordinated land use planning
and development standards among the
communities in the Watershed
— Develop a monitoring strategy
— Secure funding and develop partnerships
to conduct short-term and long-term
monitoring of key indicators
— Develop QAPPs for applicable parameters
— Increase coordination of monitoring through
development of a monitoring strategy
— Improve public access to land- and waterbased recreational opportunities
— Expand Greenways Trails Network
Management Plan
111
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife; Industrial
water supply; Public
water supply;
Unique habitat and
species, and natural
buffers; Stormwater
and flood
management; Native
vegetation; Open
space, wetlands,
and natural features
Partial and total
body contact
recreation;
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife;
Stormwater/Flood
Management
Partial and total
body contact
recreation;
Warmwater fishery;
Aquatic life and
wildlife
All
All
Open space,
wetlands, and
natural features;
Recreation and
greenways; Partial
and total body
contact recreation
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.
Management Plan
112
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:

Protected the quality of local streams, lakes, and estuaries
Resulted in a more attractive landscape
Reduced car speed on residential streets
Generated smaller loads of stormwater pollutants
Allowed for more sensible locations for stormwater facilities
Helped to reduce soil erosion during construction
Reduced development costs
Increased local property tax revenues
Increased property values
Facilitated compliance with wetlands and other regulations
Created more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods
Provided open space for recreation
Promoted neighborhood designs that provide a sense of community
Protected sensitive forests, wetlands, and habitats from clearing
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.
Management Plan
113
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
Management Plan
114
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 endof-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.
Management Plan
115
Table 5.3 Pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater best management practices
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Management
Practice
Total
Phosphorus
Total
Nitrogen
TSS
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and
Grease
High-powered street
sweeping
30-90%
Riparian buffers
forested: 2342%; grass:
39-78%
Vegetated roofs
Note: 70-100% runoff reduction, 40-50% of winter rainfall. 60% temperature
reduction. Structural addition of plants over a traditional roof system.
Vegetated filter
strips (150ft strip)
40-80%
20-80%
40-90%
Bioretention
65-98%
49%
81%
51-71%
Wet extended
detention pond
48 - 90%
31-90%
50-99%
29-73%
38-100%
Constructed wetland
39-83%
56%
69%
(-80)63%
76%
Infiltration trench
50-100%
42-100%
50-100%
Infiltration basin
60-100%
50-100%
50-100%
85-90%
90%
Grassed swales
15-77%
15 - 45%
65-95%
14-71%
(-50) (-25)%
30-40%
sand filter
30-90%
22-54%
63-109%
26100%
(-23) - 98%
Catch basin inlet
devices
Sand and organic
filter
41-84%
45-90%
forested:
85%;
grass: 1799%
grass:
63-89%
Stabilize soils on
construction sites
80-90%
Sediment basins or
traps at construction
sites
65%
66%
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.
Management Plan
116
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
Development
Undeveloped
Developing
Developed
Philosophy
Preserve
Protect
Retrofit
Amount of
Impervious Surface
< 10 %
>10 - 25 %
> 25 %
Water quality
Good
Fair
Fair-Poor
Stream biodiversity
Good-Excellent
Fair-Good
Poor
Channel stability
Stable
Unstable
Highly unstable
Stream Protection
Objectives
Preserve biodiversity;
channel stability
Maintain key elements of
stream quality
Minimize pollutant
loads delivered to
downstream waters
Water quality
objectives
Sediment and temperature
Nutrients and metals
Bacteria
Maintain pre-development
hydrology
Maintain pre-development
hydrology
Maximize pollutant
removal and quantity
control
Minimize stream warming
and sediment
Maximize pollutant removal,
remove nutrients
Emphasize filtering systems
Emphasize filtering systems
Example locations
Rural headwater areas
Suburban and developing
areas like Griggs Drain
Subwatersheds in
Flat Rock, Rockwood
Example BMPs
Land preservation; riparian
buffers; constructed or
restored wetlands
Riparian buffers; infiltration
trenches; wet extended
detention ponds
High-powered street
sweeping; sand and
organic filters;
bioretention
BMP selection and
design criteria
Management Plan
117
Remove nutrients,
metals and toxics
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:

1. Conduct Outfall Screening Program

2. Perform Smoke/Dye Testing

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

4. Trace Illicit Discharges

5. Enforcement for Non-correction of Illicit Discharges
Management Plan
118

6. Train Staff to Identify Illicit Discharges

7. Minimize Seepage from Sanitary Sewers

8. Minimize Seepage from On-site Sewage Disposal Systems

9. Update Outfall and/or Drainage Map

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:

11. Conduct Homeowner Education about Septic System Maintenance

12. Provide Watershed Education Materials to Residents

13. Provide Trash Management Information and Education to Public

14. Provide Information and Education Program to Homeowners on Yard and
Lawn Care, and Native Landscapes
Management Plan
119

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

16. Provide Information and Education Program to Farmers

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.

18. Environmental Information Line and Pollution Complaint Hotline

19. Submit Regular Stormwater-Related Information to Cable TV

20. Send Watershed Press Releases to Local Media Outlets

21. Submit Watershed-related Articles to Community Newspapers

22. Watershed-related News and Materials on Entity Website

23. Maintain Lower Huron River Watershed Webpage

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

25. Promote Reporting System for Illicit Discharges

26. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site/Day

27. Yard Waste Collection and/or Recycling

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
Management Plan
120
•
•
•
•
•
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
Management Plan
121
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
Management Plan
122
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
Management Plan
123
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 nonconformance. 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
Management Plan
124
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
Management Plan
125
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:
Disconnecting roof drains and directing flows to vegetated areas or to dry wells
Directing flows from paved areas such as driveways to stabilized vegetated areas
Breaking up flow directions from large paved surfaces
Encouraging sheet flow through vegetated areas
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
Management Plan
126
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.
Management Plan
127
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:
A description of the project and the elements that make up the project, including the
person(s) responsible for carrying out the project
Quality assurance objectives for measurement data
Sampling and other operating procedures
Sample custody procedures
Equipment calibration procedures and frequency
Analytical procedures
Internal quality control checks
Data reduction, validation, and reporting
Performance and system audits to verify adherence to quality assurance/quality control
programs
Preventative maintenance on equipment and instrumentation
Data quality assessment
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
Management Plan
128
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 postinstallation 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
Management Plan
129
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
Management Plan
130
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
Management Plan
131
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.
Management Plan
132
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
Bioretention System. Photo: Center for
swales are improvements on the traditional drainage ditch and
Watershed Protection
are well suited for treating highway or residential road runoff.
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
Management Plan
133
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
94. Restore Wetlands -- Recreate Storage
No-till crop. Photo: Washtenaw Co.
Conservation District
A restored wetland is the rehabilitation of a drained or degraded
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.
Management Plan
134
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
Watershed Protection
infiltration can provide a means of maintaining the hydrologic
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.
Management Plan
135
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.
Management Plan
136
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
practice.
Management Plan
137
Waste storage facility. Photo: Washtenaw Co.
Conservation District
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
Management Plan
138
Table 5.5 Lower Huron River Watershed Action Plan
Management Plan
139
KEY:
currently doing
planned for short-term
planned for long-term
not planned currently
not applicable
= will be reflected in SWPPIs, PEPs, and IDEPs as commitments
Managerial: Illicit Discharge Elimination
1
Conduct outfall screening program
sewered areas
$100/staff investigation per
b
property
2
Perform smoke/dye testing
sewered areas
$600/dye test
$30/manhole for smoke testing
3
Develop reporting system/ follow-up plan for illicit connections
13 entities
$100/hr per municipal staff
4
Trace illicit discharges
sewered areas
$100/staff investigation per
b
property
5
Enforcement for non-correction of illicit discharges
sewered areas
$5k-15k per property
6
Train staff to identify illicit discharges
6 entities
$100/hr municipal staff
7
Minimize seepage from sanitary sewers
sewered areas
$1-2/lineal ft for TV inspection
and design/construction costs
8
Minimize seepage from on-site sewage disposal systems
2 entities
9
Update outfall and/or drainage map
Develop and implement method to identify and record outfalls from
new construction
5 entities
a
sewered areas
a
b
10
a
Combined Downriver WMP
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
RPO Cost Estimating Guidelines 1997
b
a
a
b
a
c
consultant assistance
in cooperation w/ County
government
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Van Buren Charter Twp
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Technical/Financial Resources
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
10 Recreational Uses
9 Increase Monitoring
Cost
8 Low Impact Development
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
5 Soil Erosion/Sediment
4 Reduce Flow Variability
3 WMP Fulfillment
Management Alternative
2 Protect Natural Features
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Managerial: Public Information & Education
11 Homeowner education about septic system maintenance
communities with
septics
12 Provide watershed education materials to residents
community-wide
13 Provide Trash management information and education to public
community-wide
14
15
Provide Information and education program to homeowners on yard
and lawn care, native landscapes
Provide Information and education program to homeowners on
proper pet waste management
community-wide
sewered areas
$0.2/hh for print ads; $0.5/piece
c
for print and mail
c
for print and mail
c
for print and mail
for print and mail c
for print and mail c
I/E materials from HRWC; SE MI
Partners for Clean Water
16 Provide Information and education to farmers
agricultural
communities
17 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Waste Disposal Education
public facilities
Materials from SEMCOG; SE MI
counties
18 Environmental Information Line and Pollution Complaint Hotline
watershed-wide
provided through Wayne County
19 Regular storm water-related information on cable TV
community-wide
$100/hr+cost for cable TV,
c
consult w/ local media
20 Send watershed press releases to local media outlets
community-wide
$100/release + printing costs
21
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
23 Maintain Lower Huron River Watershed Webpage
3-5 hrs/month
$100/hr
24
Watershed-related articles in community newsletters
Develop and distribute education materials on LID tools for land use
decision makers
d
community-wide
25 Promote reporting system for illicit discharges
community-wide
$100/hr +cost for cable TV,
c
consult w/ local media
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
28 Watershed and River crossing signage
strategic locations
along road ROW
and public facilities
a
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
a,c
in coordination w/ county road
commissions, SEMCOG
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Managerial: Ordinances and Policies
29 Adopt fertilizer reduction ordinance or policy
30 Adopt native landscaping ordinance or policy
31 Adopt no dumping ordinance or policy
7 entities
$10k
obtain sample ordinances
10 entities
$5k-10k
12 entities
$5k-10k
32 Adopt pet waste ordinance or policy
33 Adopt private roads ordinance or policy
34 Adopt Purchase of Development Rights ordinance
5 entities
$5k-10k
6 entities
$5k-10k
3 entities
$5k-10k
35 Adopt stormwater management ordinance (e.g., Wayne Co.)
10 entities
$5k-10k a
9 entities
$5k-10k
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
36
Adopt wetlands ordinance w/ natural features setback; create local
map of wetlands
41 Incorporate Low Impact Development principles
watershed-wide
42 Implement septic system inspection at time-of-sale
4 entities
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
47
48
Promote open space preservation in zoning ordinance and master
plan
Review and revise grading and land clearing policies
d
obtain HRWC model ordinance;
GIS, GPS capabilities
$5k-10k d
$5k-10k a
$5k-10k
10 entities
$5k-10k
11 entities
$5k-10k a
obtain sample standards
a
7 entities
$5k-10k
11 entities
$5k-10k a
51
10 entities
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
$300/ inspection
50 Revise parking standards for new development/ redevelop.
a
County Drain Offices; HRWC
a
49 Review and revise SESC policies and practices
Revise Stormwater Management Standards - pond landscaping
County Drain Offices
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Managerial: Practices
Incorporate results of conservation planning analyses into local
ordinances and policies
52
utilizing HRWC's conservation
planning analysis
$3k-5k d
watershed-wide
53 Reduce directly connected impervious surfaces
8 entities
1st: new
development;
retrofits
54 Increase amount of refuse containers and review their distribution
8 entities
55 Practice high-powered street and paved area sweeping
7 entities; every 1-2
wks except during
$100k-200k
freeze
56 Practice nutrient management on agricultural land
57 Provide pet waste bags in parks and public areas
2nd:
$50/house
b
in coordination w/ HCMA
a,b
4 entities
$10/acre
public facilities
$100/station
watershed-wide
$5k-10k
59 Storm drain/catch basin marking
sewered areas
$1.50/Lexan marker
$3/ crystal coated marker
60 Expand Greenways Trails Network
9 entities
58
a
Practice alternative drain practices that rehabilitate stream and
riparian habitats
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
d
$30-65/curb mile
$10-20/cubic yd
disposal
in coordination w/ MDOT; County
Road Commissions
$10/acre
USDA programs: EQIP; CRP
some maintenance
in coordination w/ County Drain
Offices
Volunteers apply markers and
hang educational fliers
in coordination w/ Metropolitan
Affairs Coalition
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Managerial: Studies and Inventories
61 Develop or adapt QAPPs for applicable parameters
62
Develop and implement a coordinated monitoring strategy to
measure water quality, water quantity and biota
63 Initiate hydrologic and hydraulic studies
64 Inventory and stabilize eroding streambanks
65
as needed
watershed-wide
69 Conduct natural features inventories
70 Establish BMP case studies
71 Study drainage around Cogswell and make improvements
a
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
$50k-100k
in coordination w/ county
governments; HRWC Adopt-AStream; MDEQ; MDNR; Stream
Team
$10k-25k
MDEQ; USGS; consultant services
$35k-75k d
as needed
$1k/mile inventory a, f
$1.50-3/pp live stake
$2-9/pp joint planting stake
$5-9/ft live fascine
$10-25/sq ft live cribwall
$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
Offices
consultant services
Inventory areas lacking stormwater management for retrofit
opportunities
Conduct field work to refine natural features information and develop
a methodology to prioritize for protection
MDEQ, HRWC
watershed-wide
66 Investigate opportunities for recreation areas
67 Measure pollutant removal efficiencies of BMPs
68
$100/hr
watershed-wide
MI Natural Features Inventory;
universities; consultants; SE MI
Stewardship Network; HRWC
watershed-wide
MI Natural Features Inventory;
universities; consultants; SE MI
Stewardship Network; HRWC
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Managerial: Coordination and Funding
72
$200/hr legal review a
Ensure consistency of ordinances among the lower Huron River
Watershed communities
$10k-15k
Offices; MDOT
4 hrs/month
in coordination w/ existing
LHRWIC members
4 hrs/month
5 hrs/month
73 Improve drain maintenance coordination with County and/or MDOT
Establish and maintain long-term committee of community/entity
74 representatives to promote implementation of the Watershed
75
76
Management Plan
Create and maintain partnerships with institutions, schools, and
private sector to promote a collaborative effort in watershed
management
Seek alternative funding sources
a
77 Create a funding source for land acquisition and protection
$150/hr for development
$200/hr legal review
$100/hr for municipal staff
legal assistance
78
Create law to allow illicit discharge enforcement as a source of
revenue
79
Establish enforcement program of O&M component of county
stormwater ordinance
80
Review annual reports from LHRWIC members and other NPDES
permittees
quarterly meetings
81
Conduct work sessions to prioritize specific projects for funding,
establish estimated costs, and identify funding mechanisms
4 hrs/month
through long-term committee
implementing WMP
82 Secure funding and develop partnerships to conduct monitoring
as needed
through long-term committee
implementing WMP
83 Become a government member of the HRWC
9 entities
a
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
8 entities
legal assistance
$100/hr for municipal staff
legal assistance
$400 +
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Vegetative
f
84 Construct stormwater wetlands
where feasible
$30k-50k/acre
85 Create and maintain grassed waterways
4 entities
$3.5k/acre
b
$4k/acre w/ tile
$70-90/acre
86 Create and maintain vegetated filter strips
6 entities
$200/acre
$4/acre
b
2-4% of construction
USDA programs; USFWS; Ducks
Unlimited; County Drain Offices;
consultant services
USDA programs: EQIP; CRP;
NRCS
NRCS
USDA programs; NRCS
87 Plant and maintain riparian buffer with native vegetation
88 Install bioretention systems in developed/redeveloping areas
10 entities
$350/acre
where feasible
$6.80/cubic ft
89 Install grassed swales, where feasible
90 Install pond buffer native plantings
91 Install vegetated roofs
11 entities
10 entities
$350/acre
6 entities
$12-24/sq ft
92 Practice agricultural conservation cover
4 entities
$225/acre
$11.15/acre
93 Practice conservation crop rotation with cover crop and mulch/no-till
2 entities
$170/acre Cover Crop
$10-15/acre Mulch/No-till
$170/acre Cover Crop
$10-15/acre Mulch/NoNRCS
till
94 Restore wetlands, recreate storage
6 entities
$700-2k/acre
95 Install rain gardens
residential sites w/
appropriate soils
$500/homesite, or $3-5/sq ft up
to $10-12/sq ft for professional
work
96 Reduce turf with shrubs and trees
10 entities
97
Evaluate areas for installing woody debris or habitat structures and
install
98 Stabilize soils at crossing embankments
a
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
5 entities
per Lower Huron
Stream Crossing
Inventory
$60/ft f
1-2% of installation
b
b
2% for O & M
1-2% of installation
b
2-4% of construction
NRCS
USFWS; USDA; Ducks Unlimited;
County Drain Offices
4% of construction
consultant services
Offices; County Road
Commissions; MDOT
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
KEY:
currently doing
not applicable
Structural
99 Construct infiltration basins/trenches
Construct retention/wet extended detention ponds for new
100
developments
101
Install best available technology to reduce nutrients at permitted point
sources
at strategic locations
$2-5/cubic ft
in 9 entities
b
<5% of construction
variable, depends
on amount of
development/
redevelopment
consultant assistance
Offices
NPDES facilities in 5 varies depending on technology
entities
and pollutant
$50-800 each f
$5k-6k geotextile
$8.5k-9k fabricated
102 Install catch basin inserts
sewered areas
103 Install grade stabilization structures for agricultural operations
2 entities
104 Install porous pavement
at appropriate new
developments and
redevelopments
105 Install sand and organic filters
1st: new
development;
retrofits
106 Install sediment traps or basins at construction sites
All sites
$40k-80k/acre
f
2nd: $5/cubic ft
$20-40/each
$50-95/each
$200/acre
$0.54/cubic ft
$6k b
10% of installation
b
107 Install waste storage facilities
where feasible
108 Repair misaligned/obstructed culverts
as identified in
Lower Huron Stream $150k-200k/site
Crossing Inventory
County Road Commissions;
MDOT; consultant assistance
109 Stabilize road/bridge surfaces
as identified in
Lower Huron Stream
Crossing Inventory
County Road Commissions;
MDOT; consultant assistance
a
Mill Creek WMP
c
Middle 1 Rouge SWMP
d
HRWC Estimate
e
Lower Grand WMP
f
b
$100k-250k
$2k-5k
USDA programs: EQIP; CRP
W-B School District
Woodhaven
Wayne County
Sumpter Twp
South Rockwood
Romulus
Rockwood
Huron Twp
Annual
Gibraltar
Capital
Flat Rock
Level of Effort
Brownstown Twp
Entities
Berlin Twp
Cost
7 Reduce Pathogens
6 Reduce Nutrients
3 WMP Fulfillment
#
1 Public Info & Ed
Goals Addresssed
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
Management Plan
140
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.
Management Plan
141
Table 5.6 Stormwater indicators
Category
#
Indicator Name
Water Quality Indicators
1
Water quality pollutant constituent monitoring
This group of indicators measures
specific water quality or chemistry
parameters.
2
Toxicity testing
3
Loadings
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
changes to or impacts on the physical
environment.
8
Physical habitat monitoring
9
Impacted dry weather flows
10
Increased flooding frequency
11
Stream temperature monitoring
Biological Indicators
12
Fish assemblage
This group of indicators uses biological
communities to measure changes to or
impacts on biological parameters.
13
Macroinvertebrate assemblage
14
Single species indicator
15
Composite indicator
16
Other biological indicators
Social Indicators
17
Public attitude surveys
This group of indicators uses responses
to surveys, questionnaires, and the like
to assess various parameters.
18
Industrial/commercial pollution prevention
19
Public involvement and monitoring
20
User perception
Programmatic Indicators
21
Number of illicit connections identified/corrected
This group of indicators quantifies
various non-aquatic parameters for
measuring program activities.
22
Number of BMPs installed, inspected and maintained
23
Permitting and compliance
24
Growth and development
25
BMP performance monitoring
26
Industrial site compliance monitoring
Site Indicators
This group of indicators assesses
specific conditions at the site level.
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
Management Plan
142
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.
Management Plan
143
Table 5.7 Summary of qualitative evaluation techniques for the lower Huron River
Watershed
Evaluation
Method
Program/Project
Stream Surveys
Visual
Documentation
Phone call/
Complaint
records
Pros and Cons
Implementation
Public education
or involvement
program/project
Awareness;
Knowledge;
Behaviors; Attitudes;
Concerns
Moderate cost.
Low response
rate.
Public meeting or
group education
or involvement
project
Awareness;
Knowledge
Good response
rate. Low cost.
Identify riparian
and aquatic
improvements.
Identify
recreational
opportunities.
Habitat; Flow;
Erosion; Recreation
potential; Impacts
Current and firsthand information.
Time-consuming.
Low or moderate
cost.
Structural and
vegetative BMP
installations,
retrofits
Aesthetics. Pre- and
post- conditions.
Easy to
implement. Low
cost. Good, but
limited, form of
communication.
Education efforts,
advertising of
contact number
for complaints/
concerns
Number and types of
concerns of public.
Location of problem
areas.
Subjective
information from
limited number of
people.
Answer phone, letter,
emails and track nature
of calls and concerns.
Public
involvement and
education projects
Number of people
participating.
Geographic
distribution of
participants. Amount
of waste collected,
e.g. hazardous waste
collection
Awareness;
Knowledge;
Perceptions;
Behaviors
Low cost. Easy to
track and
understand.
Track participation by
counting people,
materials collected and
having sign-in/evaluation
sheets.
Medium to high
cost to do well.
Instant
identification of
motivators and
barriers to
behavior change.
Select random sample of
population as
participants. 6-8 people
per group. Plan
questions, facilitate.
Record and transcribe
discussion.
Public Surveys
Written
Evaluations
What is Measured
Participation
Tracking
Information and
education
programs
Focus Groups
Adapted from: Lower One SWAG, 2001
Management Plan
144
Pre- and post- surveys
recommended. By mail,
telephone or group
setting. Repetition on
regular basis can show
trends. Appropriate for
local or watershed basis.
Post-event participants
complete brief
evaluations that ask what
was learned, what was
missing, what could be
done better. Evaluations
completed on-site.
Identify parameters to
evaluate. Use form, such
as Stream Crossing
Inventory, to record
observations. Summarize
findings to identify sites
needing observation.
Provides visual evidence.
Photographs can be used
in public communication
materials.
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.
Management Plan
145
•
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 scientificallysupported 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
Management Plan
146
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 AdoptA-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
Management Plan
147
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-AStream 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
Management Plan
148
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.
Management Plan
149
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
#
Interim Milestone
Method of Evaluating
Progress
Managerial: Illicit Discharge Elimination
1
2
3
Conduct outfall screening
program
Perform smoke/dye testing
Develop reporting system/
follow-up plan for illicit
connections
Trace illicit discharges
As stated in each entity's Illicit
Discharge Elimination Plan
Track # of illicit connections
identified and corrected
identified and corrected; Track
amount of fines collected
5
Enforcement for non-correction
of illicit discharges
6
Train staff to identify illicit
discharges
Track # of staff trained; Track #
of illicit connections identified
and corrected
7
Minimize seepage from
sanitary sewers
Stream surveys
Minimize seepage from on-site
sewage disposal systems
Update outfall and/or drainage
map
Develop and implement
method to identify and record
outfalls from new construction
Stream surveys
4
8
9
10
Managerial: Public Information & Education
Homeowner education about
As stated in each entity's
Public Education and
11 septic system maintenance
Participation Plan
12
13
14
15
16
Provide watershed education
materials to residents
Provide trash management
information and education to
public
Provide information and
education program to
homeowners on yard and lawn
care, native landscapes
education program to
homeowners on proper pet
waste management
education to farmers
Management Plan
Participation Plan
Participation Plan
Track # of maps updated
Track # of entities employing
method in new construction;
Conduct public surveys; Track
public participation; Stream
surveys
Conduct public surveys
Participation Plan
items and households from
clean-up events; Stream
surveys
public participation; stream
surveys
Participation Plan
public participation; Stream
surveys
Participation Plan
participation; stream surveys
150
#
17
Recreational vehicle (RV)
waste disposal education
18
Environmental information line
and pollution complaint hotline
Interim Milestone
Regular stormwater-related
information on cable TV
Participation Plan
Participation Plan
To be established in upcoming
permit cycle
Send watershed press
releases to local media outlets
permit cycle
21
Watershed-related articles in
community newsletters
22
Watershed-related news and I
& E materials on entity website
23
Maintain lower Huron River
Watershed webpage
Participation Plan
Participation Plan
N/A
19
20
Progress
participation; Stream surveys
Track # of calls
Track # of televised spots;
Track participation in events
and practices; Conduct public
surveys
Track # of printed press
releases; Track participation in
events and practices; Conduct
public surveys
public participation
Develop and distribute
education materials on LID
tools for land use decision
makers
permit cycle
25
Promote reporting system for
illicit discharges
Participation Plan
26
Household hazardous waste
collection site/day
27
Yard waste collection and/or
recycling
Participation Plan
Participation Plan
permit cycle
32
Adopt fertilizer reduction
ordinance or policy
Adopt native landscaping
ordinance or policy
Adopt no dumping ordinance or
policy
Adopt pet waste ordinance or
policy
permit cycle
2 new adopted ordinances by
year 2
year 2
permit cycle
Track # of fertilizer reduction
ordinances/policies adopted
Track # of native landscaping
Track # of no dumping
Track # of pet waste
33
Adopt private roads ordinance
or policy
permit cycle
Track # of private roads
24
Watershed and river crossing
signage
Managerial: Ordinances and Policies
28
29
30
31
Management Plan
151
Conduct focus groups;
Comparative analysis of
developments pre- and postimplementation of LID
campaign
identified and corrected; Track
# of complaints
# of signs erected
#
Progress
Track # of PDR ordinances
adopted
Interim Milestone
Adopt Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR)
ordinance
Adopt stormwater management
ordinance (e.g., Wayne Co.)
permit cycle
Adopt wetlands ordinance w/
natural features setback;
create local map of wetlands
year 2
Support County OSDS
Ordinance
Adopt overlay zoning for
riparian corridor
Disallow Occupancy Permits
pending inspection for illicit
connections
year 2
year 2
permit cycle
Track # of OSDS ordinances
adopted
Track # of ordinances adopted
40
Enhance site plan review
requirements
year 2
Survey communities to
compare pre- and post-site
plan review enhancements
41
Incorporate Low Impact
Development principles
Draft of coordinated standards
manual by year 3
Develop manual of coordinated
standards for watershed
42
Implement septic system
inspection at time-of-sale
permit cycle
Track # of time-of-sale
programs
Improve enforcement of litter
laws and nuisance properties
Improve enforcement of Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation
Control policies
Improve enforcement of
construction site inspections
permit cycle
permit cycle
Track # of complaints and
amount of litter collected
Track # of soil erosion and
sedimentation violations and
corrections
Track installation and
maintenance of construction
site BMPs and # of violations
and corrections
Minimize total impervious cover
in zoning ordinance
2 enhanced ordinances by
year 2
Promote open space
preservation in zoning
ordinance and master plan
1 enhanced ordinance and
master plan by year 2
Review and revise grading and
land clearing policies
Review and revise SESC
policies and practices
3 enhanced policies by year 2
34
35
36
37
38
39
43
44
45
year 2
4 entities with improved
inspection enforcement by
year 2
46
47
48
49
Management Plan
permit cycle
152
Track # of stormwater
management ordinances
adopted
Track # of wetlands ordinances
adopted
Track # of zoning ordinances
with measures to minimize
impervious cover; Reduce
build out scenario impervious
levels
and master plans that promote
open space preservation
Track # of BMPs employed
and maintained
Track # of soil erosion and
sedimentation violations and
corrections
#
Revise parking standards for
new development/
redevelopment
Revise Stormwater
51 Management Standards - pond
landscaping
Managerial: Practices
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Interim Milestone
3 enhanced ordinances by
year 2
permit cycle
Progress
with measures to minimize
impervious cover
Track # of entities with
enhanced pond landscaping
requirements
Incorporate results of
conservation planning analyses
into local ordinances and
policies
Reduce directly connected
impervious surfaces
Increase amount of refuse
containers and review their
distribution
Incorporation by 50% of
entities by year 2
Track # of local ordinances
and policies incorporating
conservation planning
Initiate reductions by year 2
Track # of homes with
disconnected downspouts
Conduct public surveys to
measure pre- and postmeasure public participation
Practice high-powered street
and paved area sweeping
Practice nutrient management
on agricultural land
Provide pet waste bags in
parks and public areas
Practice alternative drain
practices that rehabilitate
stream and riparian habitats
1 new entity by year 3
Storm drain/catch basin
marking
75% sewered areas marked
by year 3
Expand Greenways Trails
Network
permit cycle
permit cycle
100% of total agricultural acres
permit cycle
permit cycle
60
Track # of lineal feet swept and
amount of debris removed
Track # of acres employing
practice
Track BMPs established
throughout riparian corridor
Track # of storm drains
marked; Track public
participation
Track # of completed river
miles in Heritage River Trail;
Track # of stream miles and
miles marked as recreation
trails
Managerial: Studies and Inventories
61
62
63
Develop or adapt QAPPs for
applicable parameters
Develop and implement a
coordinated monitoring
strategy to measure water
quality, water quantity and
biota
Initiate hydrologic and
hydraulic studies
Management Plan
Draft QAPPs in year 1
Draft monitoring strategy in
year 1
Initiate studies in year 1
153
Track development of QAPPs,
and approval from MDEQ
Track development of
monitoring strategy
Track data generated from
studies; Rating curves
developed
#
Interim Milestone
Inventory and stabilize eroding
streambanks
permit cycle
Inventory areas lacking
stormwater management for
retrofit opportunities
permit cycle
Investigate opportunities for
recreation areas
permit cycle
Measure pollutant removal
efficiencies of BMPs
Conduct field work to refine
natural features information
and develop a methodology to
prioritize for protection
permit cycle
Initiate field work in year 1
Conduct natural features
inventories
Establish BMP case studies
Initiative inventories in year 1
Track # of inventories
permit cycle
To be established in entity's
SWPPI
Track # of case studies written
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Progress
Study drainage around Cogswell
(Romulus) and make
improvements
Stream inventories (Bank
Erosion Hazard Index);
Records of all inventoried
streambanks; Track # of linear
feet of stabilized banks and
pollutant load reductions
calculated
Track completed inventories
and BMP retrofit opportunities
identified
acres of potential recreation
area
Many evaluation methods,
depends on type of practice
Natural features observations;
method selected to make
protection priorities
Completed drainage study; list
of recommendations
Managerial: Coordination and Funding
72
73
74
Ensure consistency of
ordinances among the lower
Huron River Watershed
communities
Improve drain maintenance
coordination with County
and/or MDOT
Complete top 3 ordinances (as
determined by LHRWIC) by
year 3
Track # of ordinances
reviewed and revised for
consistency
Establish prioritized list of
shared priorities among parties
by year 3
Track # of meetings with
LHRWIC, County
governments, and MDOT;
Track BMPs established
throughout jurisdiction; conduct
public surveys
Establish and maintain longterm committee of entity
representatives to promote
implementation of the
Watershed Management Plan
(WMP)
Schedule of regular (e.g.,
monthly) meetings for years 13 of WMP implementation
Track implementation of WMP;
Track # of committee
meetings; Track consistent
participation of representatives
Management Plan
154
#
Interim Milestone
Progress
Create and maintain
partnerships with institutions,
schools, and private sector to
promote a collaborative effort
in watershed management
Regular attendance by
partners at committee
meetings
Number of partnerships
established and maintained;
Number of people reached
through partnerships; Track
BMPs established across
partnerships
76
Seek alternative funding
sources
Establish prioritized list of
alternative funding sources in
yr 1
Track number of proposals
submitted; Track dollars and
match raised
77
Create a funding source for
land acquisition and protection
permit cycle
Track dollars raised for land
acquisition and protection
Create law to allow illicit
discharge enforcement as a
source of revenue
permit cycle
Track progress of bill creation
78
79
Establish enforcement program of
O&M component of county
stormwater ordinance
permit cycle
Implementation of enforcement
program
80
Review annual reports from
LHRWIC members and other
NPDES permittees
Establish regular meetings of
the LHRWIC in year 1 during
which reports can be reviewed
Track participation in report
review
81
Conduct work sessions to
prioritize specific projects for
funding, establish estimated
costs, and identify funding
mechanisms
Schedule of regular (e.g.,
monthly) meetings for years 13 of WMP implementation
Track prioritization for project
funding, project cost estimates,
and funding mechanisms;
Track implementation of WMP;
Track # of work sessions
Initiate monitoring in year 1
82
Secure funding and develop
partnerships to conduct
monitoring
Implementation of monitoring
program
Become a government
member of the HRWC
permit cycle
Track # of new government
members, and renewing
members
Construct stormwater wetlands
permit cycle
Stream surveys; Track acres of
practice throughout watershed;
Pollutant removal efficiency
Create and maintain grassed
waterways
Create and maintain vegetated
filter strips
Plant and maintain riparian
buffer with native vegetation
Install bioretention systems in
developed/redeveloping areas
permit cycle
permit cycle
permit cycle
permit cycle
Stream surveys; Track area of
practice throughout watershed
75
83
Vegetative
84
85
86
87
88
Management Plan
155
#
Interim Milestone
Progress
Install grassed swales
permit cycle
Install pond buffer native
plantings
Install vegetated roofs
permit cycle
permit cycle
Practice agricultural
conservation cover
permit cycle
Practice conservation crop
rotation with cover crop and
mulch/no-till
permit cycle
Restore wetlands, recreate
storage
permit cycle
Install rain gardens
permit cycle
96
Reduce turf with shrubs and
trees
permit cycle
Track area of practice
throughout watershed
97
Evaluate areas for installing
woody debris or habitat
structures and install
permit cycle
Records of all inventoried
surface waters; Track area of
Stream surveys
Stabilize soils at crossing
embankments
permit cycle
Baseline and ongoing
embeddedness/stream habitat
studies; Track completed road
stream crossings; Track
stabilized road stream
crossings; Pollutant removal
efficiency
Construct infiltration
basins/trenches
permit cycle
Construct retention/wet
extended detention ponds for
new developments
permit cycle
Install best available
technology to reduce nutrients
at permitted point sources
permit cycle
Stream surveys; Track # of
eligible and participating point
sources; Pollutant removal
efficiency
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
98
Structural
99
100
101
Management Plan
156
#
permit cycle
Install grade stabilization
structures for agricultural
operations
permit cycle
Install porous pavement
permit cycle
Install sand and organic filters
permit cycle
Install sediment traps or basins
at construction sites
permit cycle
Install waste storage facilities
permit cycle
Repair misaligned/obstructed
culverts
permit cycle
studies; Track completed
culverts; Pollutant removal
efficiency
Stabilize road/bridge surfaces
permit cycle
studies; Track stabilized
road/brige surfaces; Pollutant
removal efficiency
104
105
106
Progress
Install catch basin inserts
102
103
Interim Milestone
107
108
109
Management Plan
157
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
14
Knighton 1984 in Hay-Chmielewski et al
15
16
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
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.
Management Plan
158
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
47
Aiello.
48
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
56
ibid.
57
Schultz, D. 1986. Fish Field Notes on August 15, 1986. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology.
58
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.
Management Plan
159
78
Olsson.
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.
79
Management Plan
160
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.
Management Plan
161