Untitled - Richmond, MI

AnchorBay

Lake St. Clair

CANADA

LENOXTWP

RICHMONDTWP

CHESTERFIELDTWP

HARRISONTWP

NEW BALTIMORE

RICHMOND

NEWHAVENVILLAGE

CLAY TWP

CASCOTWP

ST. CLAIR TWP

CHINATWP

COLUMBUSTWP

IRATWP

COTTRELLVILLETWP

EASTCHINATWP

MARINECITY

ALGONAC

AnchorBay

Lake St. Clair

CANADA

LENOXTWP

RICHMONDTWP

CHESTERFIELDTWP

HARRISONTWP

NEW BALTIMORE

RICHMOND

NEWHAVENVILLAGE

CLAY TWP

CASCOTWP

ST. CLAIR TWP

CHINATWP

COLUMBUSTWP

IRATWP

COTTRELLVILLETWP

EASTCHINATWP

MARINECITY

ALGONAC

I:/GISdata/AnchorBay/AnchorBay--w-rivers-8.5x11

±

DataSources:MacombCountyDepartmentofPlanningandEconomicDevelopmentSt.ClairCountyMetropolitanPlanningCommission

4 0 42 Miles

MACOMBTWP

MTCLEMENS

CLINTONTWP

Acknowledgements

ANCHOR BAY

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

i

Participating Communities: City of Algonac Chesterfield Township Clay Township Clinton Township Cottrellville Township China Township Casco Township Harrison Township Ira Township Lenox Township Macomb County Macomb Township City of Marine City City of Mount Clemens City of New Baltimore Village of New Haven City of Richmond Richmond Township St. Clair County Prepared by the Anchor Bay Technical Committee: Jeff Bednar, representing the Village of New Haven Geoffrey Donaldson, St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission Amy Mangus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Chris McLeod representing Chesterfield Township, Clay Township, Harrison Township, Ira Township,

Mount Clemens, New Baltimore, and Richmond Township Kristen O’Reilly, St. Clair County Health Department Gerard Santoro, Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development Lynne Yustick, Macomb County Public Works Office With guidance from: Macomb/St. Clair Inter-County Watershed Management Advisory Group Anchor Bay Administrative Committee Anchor Bay Steering Committee Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. Michigan Department of Environment Funding from: Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 grant St. Clair County Drain Commissioners Office St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission St. Clair County Health Department St. Clair County Road Commission Macomb County Public Works Office Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development Macomb County Health Department Southeast Michigan Council of Governments For copies of this plan, contact: St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission Phone: 810-989-6950 Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development Phone: 586-469-5285 or go to www.awp.stclaircounty.org

St. Clair River Flats Credit: St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Table of Contents

ANCHOR BAY


ii

Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................iv CHAPTER ONE: STATE OF THE WATERSHED 1.0 Anchor Bay Watershed Overview..................................................................1 1.1 Anchor Bay Pollutants, Sources and Monitoring Data ..................................5 1.1.1 Bacteria ................................................................................................6 1.1.2 Soil erosion and Sedimentation.........................................................11 1.1.3 Nutrients .............................................................................................13 1.1.4 Flow Rates .........................................................................................14 1.1.5 Sediment Quality ...............................................................................15 1.1.6 Other Pollutants and their Sources ...................................................17 1.2 Watershed Desired Uses, Concerns, and Impairments ..............................19 1.2.1 Impairments .......................................................................................21 1.2.2 Additional Desired Uses and Concerns of the Public .......................23 1.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................25 CHAPTER TWO: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & EDUCATION 2.0 Public Participation ......................................................................................27 2.1 Public Education Strategy ...........................................................................32 CHAPTER THREE: WATERSHED GOALS 3.0 Designated Uses..........................................................................................35 3.1 Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................35 3.2 Desired Uses and Concerns........................................................................36 3.3 Long-Term Goals and Short-Term Objectives ............................................37 CHAPTER FOUR: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR POLLUNTANT REDUCTION 4.0 Best Management Practices (BMPs)...........................................................41 4.1 Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives............................................................44 4.2 BMP Watershed Loading Reduction Modeling ...........................................63 CHAPTER FIVE: COMMUNITY ACTION PLANS 5.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................66 5.1 Community Highlights ..................................................................................67 5.2 Gap Analysis ................................................................................................71 5.3 Cost Estimates.............................................................................................73 CHAPTER SIX: METHODS OF MEASURING PROGRESS.................................84

Table of Contents Continued

ANCHOR BAY


iii

List of Tables Table 1-12: Concerns and Desired Uses within the Watershed.....................................20 Table 3-1: Anchor Bay Watershed Impairments for Designed and Beneficial Uses ....39 Table 4-1: Menu of BMPs that Address Watershed Goals ...........................................63 Table 4-2: Types of BMPs used for Pollutant Load Reduction Study ...........................63 Table 4-3: Percentage Area for Various Model Runs ...................................................64 Table 4-4: Pollutant Load Reduction for Model Runs A-2 through A-5.........................64 Table 4-5: Percentage Areas Used and BMP Types in Model Run A-6.......................65 Table 4-6: Percentage Areas Used and BMP Types in Model Run A-7.......................65 Table 4-7: Pollutant Load Reduction for Model Run A-6 and A-7.................................67 Table 5-1: Community Interview Summary ...................................................................74 Table 5-2: Cost Estimates..............................................................................................80 Table 6-1: Evaluation Process.......................................................................................85 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Location of the Anchor Bay Watershed within the Great Lakes ....................1 Figure 1-3: 1990 Land Use for the Anchor Bay Watershed .............................................4 Figure 1-4: 2000 Land Use for the Anchor Bay Watershed .............................................5 Figure 1-8: Average Sediment Levels for TP, TKN, COD and Ammonia* .....................16 Figure 2-1: Anchor Bay Website Homepage ..................................................................31 Figure 5-1: Pet Waste Disposal Station in Algonac ........................................................68 Figure 5-2: The Pollution Solutions! Presentation is offered to schools in Both St. Clair & Macomb..............................................................................69 Figure 6-1: Evaluation Process as part of the Watershed Management Planning Cycle ..............................................................................................84 List of Appendices Appendix A: State of the Watershed Support Data Appendix B: Inventory of Typical Tributary Drains in the St. Clair Portion of the Anchor Bay Watershed Appendix C: Crapau Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Appendix D: Project Team Members Appendix E: Public Involvement Survey Appendix F: Community Surveys Appendix G: Macomb County’s Onsite Sewage Disposal and Onsite Water Supply Evaluation and Maintenance Ordinance Appendix H: Glossary and Acronyms Appendix I: References

ANCHOR BAY


iv

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

The Anchor Bay Watershed Management Plan recognizes the current conditions

impacting the water quality of Lake St. Clair, addresses actions needed to resolve

existing problems and identifies the steps to prevent future degradation. Over the past 2

years, representatives from both county and community agencies have worked together

to develop this plan by:

• Identifying stakeholders interested in protecting and improving water resources

• Gathering available water quality, storm water flow, and habitat information

• Identifying the known impairments to the uses of the inland streams and the bay

• Identifying and prioritizing the sources of the pollutants

• Obtaining input from community officials and the general public

• Establishing goals for the watershed

• Identifying the actions for which the communities would take responsibility

• Highlighting areas where gaps existed between the goals and the community

actions

• Developing a list of recommended activities to be implemented by the local

governmental agencies

• Presenting this information to stakeholders

This planning process resulted in a management plan that fulfills each county and

community’s requirements under the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ) Phase II Watershed-based Storm Water Permit. This plan also allows the

counties and communities to qualify for Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) grant funding for

implementation of the activities recommended in this plan.

BACKGROUND

The initial emphasis of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 was to control discharges from

industrial and large municipal wastewater treatment plants. Once these discharges were

substantially under control, it became apparent that the combined impact of various

Executive Summary

ANCHOR BAY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

v

smaller widespread (nonpoint) pollution sources was preventing many streams and

receiving waters from meeting state water quality standards. These diffuse sources

include failing septic systems, storm water runoff from residential lawns, agricultural

fields, parking lots, roadways and construction sites, illegal dumping, and airborne

deposition. Adequate control of all these point and nonpoint sources is necessary to

restore and maintain the use of the nation’s water resources.

St. Clair and Macomb Counties, as well as most of the communities in the Anchor Bay

Watershed, are regulated under the NPDES program and have applied for coverage

under Michigan’s Phase II Watershed-based Storm Water Permit. Instead of imposing

discharge limitations and storm water control programs, the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality is allowing local units of government to establish goals to improve

water quality through development and implementation of a watershed management plan.

By working together, these public agencies designed a watershed management plan that

is built on the strengths of existing programs and resources, and addresses local water

quality concerns in an integrated and cost effective manner.

The development of this management plan began when the St. Clair County Drain

Commissioner’s Office was awarded a Section 319 grant from the Environmental

Protection Agency on behalf of the Macomb/St. Clair Inter-County Watershed

Management Advisory Group to fund watershed planning efforts in Anchor Bay. Three

committees, which made up the project team, were formed to aid in the development of

the plan. The Administrative Committee, with members from various St. Clair and

Macomb County agencies, was responsible for policy development and oversight related

to the Section 319 grant. The Steering Committee, which included a representative from

each community and county located in the watershed, provided local governmental input

and decision-making guidance to the project. Twelve months into the project, the

Technical Committee was formed with representatives from county and local

governments. The Technical Committee provided feedback to the project consultant in

finalizing the plan.

Executive Summary


vi

WATERSHED OVERVIEW

The Anchor Bay watershed is part of the Lake St. Clair Drainage system. The bay

provides recreation and aesthetic beauty to residents of Macomb and St. Clair Counties,

as well as many visitors from throughout the United States and Canada. The watershed

encompasses 171 square miles (443

km2) in Macomb and St. Clair Counties.

In St. Clair County, the Anchor Bay

Watershed includes the Delta Islands

(Harsens and Dickinson Islands) as well

as all or part of Casco, China, Clay,

Cottrellville, and Ira Townships and the

Cities of Algonac and Marine City. In

Macomb County, the Anchor Bay

Watershed includes all of New Baltimore

and parts of Chesterfield, Clinton,

Harrison, Lenox, Macomb and Richmond

Townships, the Village of New Haven,

and Cities of Mt. Clemens and

Richmond. Although much of the flow to

the bay comes from the St. Clair River,

the major streams draining the watershed include Auvase Creek, Beaubien Creek,

Crapau Creek, Marsac Creek, Swan Creek, the Marine City Drain, and the Salt River.

Many people choose to live in southern St. Clair County and eastern Macomb County

because of the recreational opportunities presented by the Lake St. Clair system. Anchor

Bay plays host to ice-fishing and ice-sailing in the winter and is considered one of

Michigan’s premiere duck hunting areas. Fishing, boating and swimming activities in the

bay add to the quality of life and contribute to increased property values in the area.

The bay encompasses 38,000 acres of wetland habitat for fish and wildlife, including St.

Johns Marsh, a 2,500-acre coastal wetland located in Clay and Ira Townships. The bay

Anchor Bay

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

Lake St. Clair

Credit: St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Executive Summary


vii

also contains twelve varieties of submerged plant habitat for waterfowl and hosts one of

the largest populations of fish flies in the St. Clair-Detroit River System. The fish flies are

just one of the 300 species of insects that are a food source to the 117 fish species that

are residents or visitors in the bay.

LAND USE

Land use in a watershed has a direct impact on the water quality, which in turn, affects

the health and ecological diversity of the

aquatic system. Analysis of land use

trends between 1990 and 2000 reveals

an increase in residential, commercial,

and industrial areas resulting in a

decrease of woodlands/ wetlands,

cultivated, grassland, and shrub areas.

This trend is forecasted to continue on

into the future. Data from the Southeast

Michigan Council of Governments

(SEMCOG) indicates that the Anchor

Bay Watershed population will increase

40 percent and households will increase

by almost 58 percent between 2000 and 2030. The anticipated increase in

imperviousness and decrease in land areas, which provide natural treatment and storage

of storm water runoff, will tend to increase the harmful impacts on the watercourses with

respect to flow quantity, sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and chemical contaminants. This

development trend will also decrease available habitat for fish and wildlife within the

watershed, and will increase the stress on the limited remaining natural habitat.

Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented in the watershed

to slow and/or reverse these impacts.

POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES

Credit: St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Executive Summary


viii

The available water quality data for the watershed indicates that storm water runoff is

contributing elevated levels of nutrients and bacteria to Anchor Bay. This data coupled

with anecdotal information from public officials and the general public indicates that the

watershed has fallen victim to many of the same impairments as its more urban neighbors

have faced for decades. While these impairments may not

currently be as devastating to the receiving waters as in other watersheds,

environmentally sound land planning and remediation is necessary to halt the water

quality decline and restore Anchor Bay and its tributaries to their full potential. The table

below summarizes the pollutants that are adversely impacting the watershed and their

suspected and known sources.

Although all the pollutants identified in the watershed plan need to be addressed, priority

pollutants were identified to focus watershed remediation efforts. The priority pollutants

for the watershed are bacteria, sediment from soil erosion and sedimentation, nutrients,

and elevated storm water flow rates. This prioritization is based on the potential threat to

Pollutant or Impairment

Sources (k) known, (s) suspected

Bacteria • Failing septic systems (k) • Improper connections to the storm water collection system

(illicit connections) (s) • Improperly managed lagoon and package treatment plants

(s) • Agricultural runoff (s) • Pet and wildlife waste (s)

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

• Road/stream crossings (k) • Storm water flows (k) • Construction sites (k) • Agricultural runoff (k)

Nutrients • Over fertilization in residential areas (s) • Agricultural runoff (s)

Flow Rates • Increased impervious areas (s) Metals and Toxic Materials

• Historic industrial practices (s) • Household hazardous waste (s) • Industrial spills (s)

Pesticides • Airborne deposition (s) Aesthetics • Illegal dumping (k) Invasive Species

• Non-native plantings (s) • Ballast water (k)

Executive Summary


ix

human health, the impacts on habitat, available water quality data, and the desired uses

and concerns supplied by the public, the project team, and local governmental officials.

The MDEQ defines a critical area as the geographic portion (or land use type) of the

watershed that is contributing a majority of a specific pollutant and is having a significant

impact on water quality. Critical areas are defined to assist in targeting the corrective

action efforts of the watershed communities. The designation of critical areas for the

Anchor Bay watershed was constrained by a lack of local water quality/quantity data;

nevertheless they were defined for the four priority pollutants.

The bacteria data collected to date documents the known E. coli problems in the

watershed. Limited water quality data, local knowledge of the system, and input from the

general public suggest that nutrients, sediments, and excessive storm water flows rates

are also suspected problems. Therefore, the critical areas for the watershed are listed

below by priority pollutant:

• Bacteria - Crapau Creek, Salt River and the entire watershed

• Erosion and sedimentation - entire watershed

• Nutrients - entire watershed

• Flow rates - entire watershed

As regulatory agencies and local units of government collect additional data, the list of

priority pollutants and critical areas may be modified in future updates of the watershed

plan.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION

The priority pollutants generally come from widespread sources including: failing septic

systems, over fertilization of residential lawns and agricultural fields, improper disposal of

yard wastes, parking lots, roadways, construction sites, illegal dumping, and airborne

deposition. Although these sources are diffuse, their effects are cumulative and can only

be controlled through the actions of those living and working in the watershed. Therefore,

the counties and communities must educate the public about pollutant sources and how

Executive Summary


x

they can help eliminate them. To help guide and coordinate this effort, a public education

strategy was developed. (Chapter 2).

The public education strategy is a watershed-wide effort aimed at promoting water

resource stewardship and pollution prevention activities. Four educational issues were

selected to coincide with the priority pollutants. They were: Bacteria Control, Sediment

Control, Fertilizer Management, and Urban Runoff Management. Since the educational

elements are not unique to each community, they would be best implemented at the

watershed or county level.

Involving the public in watershed planning is another way to educate them about water

quality issues and more importantly gain input into what they see as the problems and

solutions.

Since changes in behavior are required to improve storm water quality, the project team

involved the public in the watershed planning process. Several meetings were held to

obtain public comment on the plan and gain insight into the problems facing the

watershed (Chapter 2). The concerns expressed by the general public reflect their

perception of what is wrong with Anchor Bay and Lake St. Clair. These concerns include:

beach closures, drinking water safety, loss of recreational opportunities, fish consumption

advisories, flooding and erosion, and habitat loss.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals and objectives contained in the watershed plan (Chapter 3) were developed

based on the concerns expressed by the public and the community officials, and the

water quality impairments in the watershed. The following goals and objectives were

established for the Anchor Bay Watershed:

Long-term Goal 1: Restore and enhance recreational uses

Objectives: 1a. Reduce bacterial loading

1b. Reduce nutrient loading

1c. Provide additional public access to water resources

Executive Summary


xi

Long-term Goal 2: Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat

Objectives: 2a. Protect and re-establish riparian and in-stream habitat

2b. Reduce soil erosion and sedimentation

2c. Reduce excess runoff

2d. Protect open space and natural areas within the

watershed

Long-term Goal 3: Protect public health

Objectives: 3a. Protect drinking water supply

3b. Reduce bacterial loading

3c. Reduce pollutants resulting in fish advisories

Long-term Goal 4: Reduce impacts from peak flows

Objectives: 4a. Establish target peak flows for the tributaries

4b. Develop water resource protection and management

ordinances to reduce runoff

4c. Reduce storm water runoff quantity

4d. Minimize post-storm in-stream flow velocities

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES & COMMUNITY ACTION PLANS

Numerous best management practices (BMPs) are described in Chapter 4 to aid

communities in achieving the established goals and objectives. Meetings were held with

each county and the local communities to determine which of these BMP activities they

were implementing or planning to implement (Chapter 5). From these meetings, the

project team compiled a list of the BMP activities for each community. This list should be

used during development of each agency’s storm water pollution prevention plan, which

details how each community/county will implement the recommendations in the

watershed plan. The development of these pollution prevention plans is required by the

MDEQ for Phase II communities.

Executive Summary


xii

Collectively, the lists of water quality projects were compared against the goals and

objectives of the plan to determine where gaps existed. This gap analysis, which is

summarized in the table below, was the basis for the activities that were recommended to

aid the municipalities in reaching the goals and objectives outlined in the plan. Unit costs

for each of the activities are included in Chapter 5.

METHODS FOR MEASURING PROGRESS

Every two years, the watershed communities and counties must review and update this

plan to add additional water quality data, evaluate the effectiveness of their actions and to

Category Activity

Financial Solutions • Apply for state and federal grants • Develop sustainable mechanisms to fund storm

water projects

Water Quality

Monitoring

• Facilitate volunteer monitoring programs • Sustain and expand watershed-wide monitoring

Illicit Discharges • Develop illicit discharge elimination plan template

Soil Erosion • Review Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

• Train municipal field staff on soil erosion practices • Perform streambank inventory • Perform geomorphology study

Public Education • Develop public education subcommittee • Train municipal staff on pollution prevention

practices • Develop public education plan template • Develop public education materials for watershed-

wide distribution

Infrastructure • Develop county/community storm water ordinance • Improve planning, inspection & maintenance of local

waste water treatment facilities

Habitat & Planning • Conduct natural features inventory • Develop natural features/wetlands ordinances • Modify community master plans • Implement streambank stabilization that will restore

habitat

Executive Summary


xiii

fulfill each agency’s obligations under their Phase II Storm Water Permit. To aid in this

review, an evaluation process was developed to assist the local units of government in

determining if water quality improvements are being attained (Chapter 6). The process

describes an evaluation method and target for each short-term objective. Each

community and county must track the status of the storm water improvement projects that

they are implementing. This information should be discussed at quarterly Steering

Committee meetings and should be submitted annually to the agency or consultant

charged with updating the plan. The implementation and tracking of the items listed in the

evaluation plan can be completed by the local communities, the counties, and/or through

a cooperative effort. Additional evaluation techniques may be required in each agency’s

storm water pollution prevention plan.

CONCLUSION

The actions and support of residents of the

Anchor Bay watershed are crucial in

protecting and improving the water quality

and habitat. The goals and objectives

identified in the plan can only be realized

through the cooperative efforts of the public,

counties and local communities located

within the watershed. The implementation of

the activities identified in the gap analysis will go a long way toward fulfilling the goals and

objectives of the plan. It is the responsibilities of the local units of government and the

public to ensure that these activities are implemented in an effective manner. It is the

hope of the project team that this plan provides guidance to local units of government on

how to restore and protect the waterways within the watershed for the health and benefit

of the public.

Chapter One


1

SSTTAATTEE OOFF TTHHEE WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD

Figure 1-1: Location of the Anchor Bay Watershed within the Great Lakes

Lake St. Clair

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

CANADA

MICHIGAN

St. Clair River

Detroit River

Anchor Bay

Anchor Bay Watershed

Lake St. Clair

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

CANADA

MICHIGAN

St. Clair River

Detroit River

Anchor Bay


I:/GISdata/Anchor Bay/Watershed Map-main

Data Sources:Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic DevelopmentSt. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

±

1.0 ANCHOR BAY WATERSHED OVERVIEW Location The Anchor Bay Watershed is part of the Lake St. Clair Drainage System and provides recreation and aesthetic beauty to residents of Macomb and St. Clair counties, as well as many visitors from throughout the United States and Canada (Figure 1-1). The watershed encompasses 171 square miles (443 km2), including the Delta islands (Harsens and Dickinson islands), in Macomb and St. Clair Counties. In St. Clair County, the Anchor Bay Watershed includes all or part of Casco, China, Clay, Cottrellville, and Ira Townships and the cities of Algonac and Marine City. In Macomb County, the Anchor Bay Watershed includes all of New Baltimore and parts of Chesterfield, Clinton, Harrison, Lenox, Macomb and Richmond Townships, the Village of New Haven, and the cities of Mt. Clemens and Richmond. Major tributary streams within the Anchor Bay Watershed include Auvase Creek, Beaubien Creek, Crapau Creek, Marsac Creek, Swan Creek, the Marine City Drain, the Salt River, and all contributing drains (see inside front cover). Hydrology The majority of the flow into Anchor Bay comes from the North Channel of the St. Clair River, from the northeast. Depending on wind conditions, flow from the Middle Channel, to the southeast can also enter Anchor Bay. Under certain climatic conditions, flow enters the bay from the Clinton River, to the south. The specific residence time in Anchor Bay will fluctuate depending on the circulation patterns, which vary according to the dominant wind and current. Information pertaining specifically to the Anchor Bay hydrology is essentially nonexistent. Additional studies and modeling are needed to provide accurate information regarding flow patterns in the bay under various climatic conditions.

State of the Watershed


2

Topography and Soils Topography of the Anchor Bay Watershed varies from level to gently sloping terrain. The majority of the watershed is characterized as lake plain with some limited glacial till in Macomb County. Although there is a limited area of sandy soil within the watershed, the soils are generally characterized as poorly drained with high clay content. History of the Watershed Lower reaches of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair generally remained unaltered until about 1900. The U.S. portion of the St. Clair basin, including Anchor Bay, was initially settled because the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair provided numerous resources, including a transportation corridor and an abundance of fish and wildlife. Throughout the 1800s, settlers changed the land from primarily deciduous forests and lakeplain prairies into land cleared for agriculture. The lake and river continued to serve as an important regional transportation corridor. In the late 1800s, two significant developments occurred that led to rapid alterations in land-use patterns: 1) passage of the federal Swamplands Act of 1850, and 2) introduction of new technology that vastly improved transportation. For many years, access to the land was limited by the very nature of the property. In 1815, the U.S. Surveyor General reported that a large part of southeastern Michigan was a swamp and practically worthless. As a result, the Swamplands Act of 1850 provided swampland to individuals at no cost if they agreed to drain the land and develop it into a useful parcel. This law stimulated settlers to drain and fill vast areas of wetlands along the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. By 1873, the land between the Detroit and Clinton rivers and Anchor Bay had been almost entirely converted to agriculture. In turn, improved transportation made drained land more accessible. The advent of electric and steam railways, along with a dredged shipping channel through Lake St. Clair, led to an increased human population, multiple private and public recreational activities, and industrial development along the St. Clair River. Development, particularly on the Michigan shoreline, intensified in the 1950s, and by the mid-1970s, much of Michigan’s Lake St. Clair shoreline was fully developed. To date, Anchor Bay’s recuperative powers have exceeded man’s ability to inflict harm. The rapid development of the Lake St. Clair shoreline stressed the ecosystem, but the lake proved to be resilient. Because much of the drainage area contributing to Anchor Bay remained undeveloped into the 1980s, the assimilative capacity of the contributing streams and the nearshore waters helped habitat remained intact. However, recent nearshore algae blooms and beach closings suggest that this capacity is now being tested. Recreational Opportunities Many people choose to live in southern St. Clair County and eastern Macomb County because recreational opportunities presented by Lake St. Clair add quality to their lives and value to their property. These recreational opportunities include:

• Boating, swimming and fishing, including wintertime ice fishing



3

• Hunting (Anchor Bay is one of southeast Michigan’s premiere duck hunting areas.) • Walking and bicycling along the Bridge to Bay Trail in St. Clair County and the

Macomb Orchard Trail in Macomb County (Plans are being discussed to link these trails.)

• Points of interest, such as Cherry Beach dock in Cottrellville Township; Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township; Algonac State Park; St. Clair Flats State Wildlife Area in Clay Township; Ira Township Park; Boat Launch in Chesterfield Township; Brandenburg Park along the bay and Pollard Park Nature Area on the Salt River in Chesterfield Township; and New Baltimore Beach and St. Johns Marsh in Clay and Ira Townships.

Because of these recreational opportunities, the health of Lake St. Clair and Anchor Bay is of tremendous importance to area residents. In many ways, Anchor Bay’s water quality is quite good. Ongoing development, however, continues to negatively impact these resources. Fish and Wildlife Habitat The Anchor Bay Watershed contains approximately 38,000 acres of ecologically sensitive land. Various wetland types include open-water wetlands, beach and shoreline wetlands, cattail wetlands, sedge wetlands, abandoned channel wetlands, wet meadow wetlands, and shrub wetlands (Figure 1-2 in Appendix A). Wetlands are critical if diverse populations of fish and wildlife unique to the area are to be preserved. St. Johns Marsh is one of the largest coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes. This 2,500-acre marsh in Clay and Ira Townships is within ¾ mile of the lakeshore and is directly influenced by water level changes in the bay. Compared to inland wetlands, coastal wetlands are more dynamic, display a greater diversity of landforms, and are less influenced by groundwater inflow. It is currently home to rare and endangered plants and wildlife, including fox snakes, prairie-fringed orchids and birds, such as the king rail. The diverse fish and wildlife species that inhabit Anchor Bay require more than simply a pollutant-free environment. They are dependent on the diverse food web that supports larger animals upon which so many sport recreational opportunities depend. At least 12 varieties of submerged plants in Anchor Bay provide an excellent habitat for waterfowl and 117 fish species that are either permanent residents or enter the system from Lake Huron and Lake Erie to spawn. Anchor Bay has one of the highest densities of fish flies in the St. Clair-Detroit River System. Fish flies, although sometimes viewed as a nuisance, provide food for fish and wildlife and are indicators of a healthy water body because they are intolerant of pollution. The fish fly larvae is just one of the 300 species of bugs, known as benthic macroinvertebrates, which live on or in the bottom of Anchor Bay. These bottom-dwelling plants and animals are the food source for larger sport fish and animals. Land Use Land use in a watershed has a direct impact on the water quality, which, in turn, affects the health of ecological diversity in the aquatic system. Between 1990 and 2000, the land use trend leaned towards an increase in residential, commercial, and industrial areas,



4

Figure 1-3: 1990 Land Use for the Anchor Bay Watershed

Figure 1-4: 2000 Land Use for the Anchor Bay Watershed

resulting in a decrease of woodlands, wetlands, cultivated grasslands, and shrub areas (Figures 1-3 and 1-4). This trend is predicted to continue. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) forecasts that the Anchor Bay Watershed population will increase 40 percent and households will increase by almost 58 percent between 2000 and 2030. The anticipated increase in impervious area and decrease in areas that provide natural treatment and reduction for such things as storm water runoff will tend to increase harmful impacts on the watercourses with respect to sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and chemical contaminants. This development trend will also decrease available habitat for fish and wildlife, increasing stress on the limited remaining natural habitat.

Commercial & Office

Institutional

Multi-family Residential

Water

Extractive

Residential (under

development)

Cultural, Outdoor Recreation, & Cemetery

Industrial

Transportation, Communication & Utility

Cultivated, Grassland &

Shrubs (includes active agriculture)

Woodland and Wetland

Single Family

Residential

Residential (under development)

Cultural, Outdoor Recreation, & Cemetery

Industrial

Commercial & Office

Institutional

Multi-family Residential

Water

Extractive

Cultivated, Grassland & Shrubs (includes active

agriculture)

Woodland and WetlandSingle Family

Residential

Transportation, Communication & Utility



5

1.1 ANCHOR BAY POLLUTANTS, SOURCES AND MONITORING DATA The major stresses, such as reduced habitat, increased contamination of habitat, elevated bacteria concentrations at beaches, limited public access, and increasing numbers of invasive species, are now generally associated with residential development and human impact, rather than industrial activities. The pollutants that once discharged from industrial outfalls are now controlled, but pollutants associated with construction, residential, and recreational activities continue to challenge Anchor Bay’s natural recuperative powers. Wastewater and Industrial Discharges Since the onset of environmental laws, a great deal of effort has gone into controlling pollutants associated with wastewater and industrial discharges, which are regulated under permits issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This program has been in place since the early 1960s and continues to be an effective mechanism for environmental control. Sixteen permitted point source discharges exist within the Anchor Bay Watershed (Table 1-1 in Appendix A). The vast majority of these are treated domestic wastewater discharges from municipalities or private developments, schools, and highway rest areas. MDEQ Personnel have indicated that permittees within the Anchor Bay Watershed are generally in compliance with discharge permits issued to them by the MDEQ under the Federal Clean Water Act and the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Much treated domestic wastewater also discharges to the Anchor Bay Watershed, and the number of these discharges is increasing as more development occurs outside of the established sewer service area. In addition to the discharges listed in Table 1-1, many industrial and municipal discharges within the St. Clair River Watershed have the potential to make a significant impact on the Anchor Bay area. These discharges are discussed in more detail in the St. Clair River Remedial Action Plan. Storm Water Runoff Like all urbanizing areas, pressure from development within the Anchor Bay Watershed has resulted in increased runoff due to reduced pervious area and development of storm water drainage systems. Changing land use patterns have dramatically altered the natural drainage throughout the area, and environmental degradation continues to result from an increased number of impervious areas, increased peak flows of storm water with resulting accelerated erosion, and decreased natural drainage and infiltration capacity. Although storm water runoff is a natural result of the hydrologic cycle, it does carry excessive pollutants of various types, including suspended solids, oils and greases, chemicals, nutrients, and bacteria. Little site-specific monitoring data exists regarding the quality and quantity of storm water being discharged to the Anchor Bay Watershed. However, data that is available shows that runoff contributes elevated levels of nutrients and bacteria directly to the bay. In addition, based on data available from similar rural and urban areas, it can be concluded that these discharges are, in fact, a significant source of local contamination within the watershed.



6

Many contaminants in storm water runoff are a result of day-to-day activities by watershed residents and visitors. A major source of nutrients in storm water runoff is from over-fertilization of residential lawns. Yard waste deposited in streams and drains by riparian property owners can elevate nutrients in the streams, cause aesthetic problems, and clog small tributary streams. Littering or improper waste disposal results in solids and floating materials that degrade the aesthetics and interfere with the flow in the bay and tributary streams. Careless disregard for domestic animal waste results in elevated bacteria contamination. Accumulated small overflows of petroleum products result in oil sheens on the bay and streams that cause aesthetic problems and interfere with oxygen transfer into the tributaries. Storm water runoff has traditionally been considered as a non-point source discharge to a watershed. However, because most runoff, particularly in urban areas, is diverted through a series of curbs, gutters, ditches, and pipes, most storm water discharges are now regulated as point sources. This change in philosophy has resulted in a storm water control program, known as the Phase I and Phase II NPDES Storm Water Permit Program. The major impact of this program in the Anchor Bay Watershed is under the Phase II program, which requires urbanized areas with a population greater than 10,000 people to develop a control program for their storm water discharges. These programs require implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will reduce the quantity and improve the quality of storm water discharged to watershed tributaries and directly to the bay. This program was adopted in March 2003 by the federal and state government in recognition of the facts that 1) storm water runoff is a significant contributor of pollution within watersheds, and 2) the traditional approach of controlling point source discharges from industrial facilities and municipal treatment plants and sewer systems would not accomplish the “fishable, swimmable, drinkable” goals established under the Clean Water Act. To be successful, the Anchor Bay Watershed Plan must establish a similar approach that looks at all sources within the watershed and develops goals, objectives, and actions that will mitigate any impacts from all sources. Otherwise, industrial and municipal discharges could be held to exceedingly stringent standards, while larger, less defined sources, such as storm water runoff, would go uncontrolled. This double standard could prevent the watershed from ever accomplishing needed corrections. 1.1.1. BACTERIA A. Bacteria Monitoring Programs The Macomb County Health Department (MCHD) was one of the first government agencies in Michigan to perform regular surface water monitoring to protect public health. Their program was established in 1990. Since then, the Macomb County Public Works Office (MCPWO), the St. Clair County Health Department (SCCHD), and the St. Clair County Drain Office (SCCDO) have established water quality monitoring programs. Over time, these programs have become better coordinated and expanded. The data collected in these programs form the baseline for this watershed management effort.



7

Macomb County In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the MCHD augmented their on-going monitoring efforts to include more detailed monitoring in the Anchor Bay Watershed. This monitoring program sampled for standard water quality parameters under wet and dry weather conditions (Table 1-2 in Appendix A). A limited number of sites with elevated bacteria levels were also identified. This monitoring program continued in 2001 and 2002. The results of the monitoring are published in the Lake St. Clair Water Quality Assessment. The 2001 report was distributed in 2002, and the 2002 report became available in 2003. Each year, the MCHD sampled during three periods – spring, summer and fall – taking samples from nearshore and offshore waters. In 1998, they also sampled inshore waters (Figure 1-5 in Appendix A). Fourteen parameters were sampled at these locations, although not all parameters were sampled all three years.

• Nearshore testing was conducted near outfalls entering the lake, including storm drains and river mouths.

• Offshore samples were taken approximately one-quarter mile from shore. • Inshore sampling, in wet and dry weather, was conducted upstream of nearshore

sites, generally one-quarter mile upstream from waterway discharge points. The MCHD performs surface water sampling at 10 locations in the watershed. One grab sample is collected at each location on a weekly basis. Sampling sites have been added as illicit discharges are suspected and as more resources become available (Table 1-3 in Appendix A). The Salt River and Crapau Creek sampling locations have routinely exceeded the daily maximum and 30-day geometric mean E. coli standards throughout the monitoring period. Table 1-4 in Appendix A, shows the results of sample analysis at these locations from 1995 through 2002. Table 1-5, in Appendix A, shows the sediment E. coli analysis from samples that were collected to determine if there was a correlation between sediment and water bacterial levels. These samples indicate no apparent correlation between the two media. MCPWO and MCHD received two Clean Michigan Initiative grants in 2001 to conduct an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program (IDEP) on county storm drains and waters of the state in the Lake St. Clair and Anchor Bay watersheds. As of June 2003, a survey of the county drain outfalls within the Anchor Bay Watershed has been completed and an inventory of outfalls entering waters of the state and open county drains is approximately 85 percent complete. The goal of this program is to locate sources of pollution entering the watercourses. This is accomplished through field crew surveys of inland watercourses, road ditches, county storm drains, and along the shoreline of Anchor Bay. These crews look for signs of failing onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS), illegal dumping, and pollutants from municipal storm sewers. In places where a source of E. coli contamination appears to be entering a watercourse, the MCPWO and MCHD have initiated a more extensive investigation that includes additional sampling and dye testing. They also work with local municipalities to locate and eliminate pollution sources.



8

St. Clair County The SCCHD collected water quality samples for E. coli analysis at several locations within the watershed in 2000 and 2001. Although the resultant data shows no exceedances of the Michigan Water Quality Standards for E. coli for partial body contact, the standards for total body contact recreation were exceeded in the Harsens Island Main Drain at the North Channel (Location #8), the Marine City Dredge Cut (Location # 9), and the waterway at Golf Course Lane and Cottage Lane on Harsens Island (Location #10) (Figure 1-5 in Appendix A). The SCCDO and SCCHD received two Clean Michigan Initiative grants in 2002 to conduct an IDEP on county drains, natural waterways, and road drains in the Anchor Bay and Pine River watersheds. As of June 2003, 87 percent of the Anchor Bay Watershed has been completed. The remaining area is located along the shoreline of Clay Township, City of Algonac, Cottrellville Township, and Marine City. To date, most septic system failures were found in Casco and Cottrellville Townships (Figure 1-6 in Appendix A), and the least number were found in Ira Township, which contains sewered areas. The majority of violations were found entering road drains and ditches. In March 2003, SCCHD sent 112 violation letters to Anchor Bay Watershed residents. As of June 2003, 90 percent of these residents responded to the violation letters and are working toward correcting violations. SCCHD IDEP staff noted that, although there were few problems found on Harsens Island, a weekend survey might be needed to assess discharges from seasonal homes. B. Potential Sources Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems The Anchor Bay Watershed is sewered in the developed western portion, but heavily dependent on septic systems, also known as onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS), in the more open, agricultural areas in its eastern portion. If properly sited, constructed, used, and maintained, these systems will provide reliable service over many years. However, MCHD and SCCHD personnel have indicated that soils in much of the watershed have generally very limited permeability for sewage disposal. Much of the area has a high water table and, as a result, onsite systems generally need to be specially designed and constructed to compensate for the soil types. The relatively impervious soils result in higher costs, higher failure rates, and shorter system life than in areas with highly pervious sands and gravels. To make matters worse, there are some areas, such as Harsens Island, where historic property division has left many sites without enough room for properly sized systems. This makes repair and replacement of any failed systems even more difficult. Failing onsite septic systems result in illicit discharges or a discharge of semi-treated or untreated sewage to a watercourse. These discharges often take the form of sewage seeping into a nearby improved drainage course or through “cheater pipes” that alleviate sewage backups caused by a failed drain field. To put the issue in perspective, the average residence uses 100 to 300 gallons of water daily, meaning that each failing system could contribute over 35,000 gallons of untreated



9

wastewater to its watershed annually. This, along with system failure rates higher than 25 percent in some areas, underscores the importance of local programs to assure proper installation and use of onsite systems. The SCCDO conducted a limited physical inventory of all or parts of 24 county drains within the St. Clair County portion of the watershed to determine sources of pollution and establish concerns. Detailed findings of this inventory can be found in Appendix B. This physical inventory substantiates that septic system failures are a considerable source of bacteria for county drains. It also highlights residents’ lack of action to correct illicit discharges as well as a variety of methods to temporarily relieve failures. Sewered Area Sources Three potential sources of contamination within sewered areas are illicit connections, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). An illicit connection is a sewer pipe connected to a storm drain rather than to a sanitary sewer. Typically, these are connected inadvertently at the time of construction and are difficult to isolate because they discharge intermittently. If left uncorrected, however, these intermittent discharges contribute a significant pollutant load. SSOs occur when sanitary sewers cannot carry all water that falls during a rain event. Rather than cause sewage backups into area basements, a pump or bypass structure diverts flow to a local tributary stream. Technically, sewer breaks or equipment malfunctions that result in overflows from sanitary sewers to streams/drains are also considered to be SSOs. While there are no known SSOs within the Anchor Bay Watershed, the age of some of the development within the Anchor Bay drainage area suggests that undetected SSOs could exist. Like SSOs, CSOs are caused by rain events. CSO discharges to the Anchor Bay Watershed come from the Clinton River, which is not part of the designated watershed. However, when certain wind and current conditions are present, contaminants from Clinton River sewer systems, such as bacteria, organic chemicals, and metals, can add sediment accumulations and loadings that contribute to decreased water quality. Lagoon Systems and Package Treatment Plants Proliferation of small lagoon systems and package wastewater treatment facilities discharging to the bay and its tributaries is a concern for many county and local government officials. Increased use of these facilities can result in degradation of local and watershed-wide water quality when facility operation and maintenance is not closely monitored and regulated. Likewise, negative cumulative effects can occur when monitored and regulated discharges from various facilities are not well coordinated. In the SCCDO physical inventory, “leaking valves and embankments at water treatment facilities” is noted as a problem (Appendix B). The impacts of these facilities on an individual and collective basis can include elevated E. coli bacteria densities and nutrient concentrations as well as aesthetic and water quality degradation from excessive algae and green discoloration in facility discharges. Although these impacts are not well



10

documented, proliferation of separate sewage treatment facilities that utilize lagoons or low-volume secondary treatment plants (package plants) is becoming an increasing concern to public officials, regulators, and the general public. Agricultural Runoff Although the amount of land being used for livestock and dairy operations in the Anchor Bay Watershed has decreased over time, a significant portion of the watershed is still used for cropland, livestock and dairy operations, and equestrian activities. Stream contamination can occur from several sources related to agriculture. Direct impacts from cattle crossing streams and horse-related activities could include:

• Elevated bacteria, nutrient loading and low dissolved oxygen in the streams from manure contaminated runoff

• Streambank erosion where the banks have been leveled and stripped of grass from movement of the cattle and horses

• Destruction of stream bottom habitat and downstream sedimentation damage to the habitat from cattle walking in the stream

Additional agricultural related impacts could include:

• Elevated bacteria, nutrient loading and low dissolved oxygen levels in the streams due to manure contaminated runoff

• Increased nutrients from fertilizers • Chemical contamination from pesticides and herbicides • Increased soil erosion due to lack of buffer strips between cropland and streams.

Waste Products from Pets, Birds, and Wildlife Because all warm-blooded animals have E. coli bacteria in their digestive systems, pets, birds, and wildlife can deposit waste products directly in streams and storm sewers, or they can contaminate overland runoff that discharges to the streams. This results in elevated bacteria levels in the streams and the bay. C. Critical Area for Bacteria Crapau Creek and Salt River have been on the state’s impaired waters list (303(d) list) since 1998 for long-term violation of E. coli standards based on water quality data collected by the (MCHD) and the MDEQ. Therefore, the drainage areas are part of the critical area for bacterial contamination.

The MDEQ performed additional confirmatory sampling in 2001 in Crapau Creek, and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was adopted for this drainage area in January 2002 (Appendix C). Two point source discharges are permitted into Crapau Creek; one is at the City of New Baltimore Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the other is at the Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is a newly permitted discharge. In addition to these known point source waste loads, non-point sources also contribute to the E. coli loading. The MDEQ has established Loading Allocations (LAs) among these various sources based on the percentage of land area in the Crapau Creek Watershed.



11

Routine monitoring by both MCHD and SCCHD, observations from IDEP activities in both counties, known or suspected areas of failed onsite disposal systems, and direct discharges of raw sewage throughout both counties suggests that sewage is entering the Anchor Bay Watershed at various locations on a consistent basis, regardless of dry or wet weather. Therefore, the total critical area for bacteria in the watershed will be a dynamic definition that will vary as more data is accumulated and as more corrective action programs are implemented to eliminate sources. 1.1.2. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION A. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Monitoring Programs The MDEQ has stated that tributary streams within the Anchor Bay Watershed regularly flow brown for days after significant rainfall events from increased sediment loadings. In 2002, MDEQ conducted a road crossing survey to evaluate the condition of road crossings within the watershed. The survey included a physical assessment on 36 of 39 major road crossings. The assessment looked at erosion conditions, stream shape, stream appearance, surrounding land use, and stream sediment composition. The overall site ranking given to the surveyed drains showed that 10 percent were in good condition, 58 percent were in fair condition, and 32 percent were poor. The MDEQ intends to assess the remaining road/stream crossings in 2003. Both Macomb and St. Clair Counties are in the process of developing a countywide soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. The St. Clair County ordinance is currently under review by MDEQ. B. Potential Sources Another significant impact within the Anchor Bay Watershed is accelerated, or manmade, soil erosion and sedimentation. Erosion is the process of displacing soil particles through wind and water action. This is a natural process, which can be accelerated by construction and agricultural practices. Sedimentation is the process where the dislodged soil particles are deposited elsewhere on land, in streams, rivers, lakes, or wetlands. The predominantly clay soils found within the watershed create unique problems with sedimentation control. These clay soils tend to remain in suspension and are extremely difficult to remove from the water column using conventional sedimentation techniques. The result is highly turbid runoff in tributary streams and storm water systems that tend to remain sediment laden for an extended period of time after rainfall events. Erosion and sedimentation impacts include deposition, turbidity, increased pollutant loading, and destruction of wildlife habitat:

• Deposition affects stream morphology (shape), causing the stream to widen and become shallower, making it prone to temperature changes.

• Turbidity is cloudiness caused by sediment in water. Highly turbid water results in degradation of habitat and impaired aesthetics within waterways. Sediment particles affect fish, aquatic plants, and animals by causing starvation or suffocation. In fish, these sediment particles adhere to gill structures and lodge in feeding or breathing structures. Turbid water may also inhibit hunting, which disrupts the natural relationship of predator and prey.



12

• Pollutant loading is also increased by erosion and sedimentation. Pollutants, such as heavy metals, fertilizers, and pesticides, adhere to soil and are transported to the receiving water through erosion and sedimentation.

• Wildlife Habitat can be destroyed as sediments fill in voids created by woody debris, rocks and gravel that are used as cover by young fish and other aquatic species. Sedimentation also destroys fish and spawning areas.

Construction Construction activity usually results in compacted soils due to heavy equipment and removal of natural features, such as vegetated areas, that prevent soil erosion. When vegetation is removed, the exposed soils are more susceptible to movement by water runoff and wind. Clay based soils dominate the Macomb County portion of the watershed and much of St. Clair County. Communication from the Technical and Steering committees for the Anchor Bay Watershed Plan, as well as noted in the physical inventory conducted by the SCCDO, indicate that soil erosion and sedimentation control (SESC) measures on construction sites are not well maintained or are non existent. The SCCDO physical inventory substantiates the lack of soil erosion and sediment control measures, lack of maintenance of these measures on construction sites, and lack of enforcement of existing ordinances and programs along county drains in the St. Clair County portion of the Anchor Bay Watershed. Flows Increased impervious area due to land use changes can result in excessive flows in receiving streams. This excessive flow can be exhibited by higher peak flows, longer peak flow periods, or both. The SCCDO physical inventory indicates evidence of high flows causing streambank erosion. The results of these excess flows are increased streambank erosion, increased bottom scour, sediment resuspension, habitat destruction, and decreased diversity and number of fish and aquatic organisms. Agricultural Runoff Farming to the edge of streambanks can result in streambank erosion during runoff events and increased sediment loading from farm fields. The SCCDO physical inventory substantiates the lack of consistent agricultural practices across St. Clair County and found the existence of the following activities that contribute to soil erosion and sedimentation:

• Plowing to the edge of a county drain • Field drain ditches that cause erosion at their outlets • Livestock traffic and tractor traffic across watercourses that erode banks and

damage tree roots that would, otherwise, help stabilize soil



13

Road Crossings As evidenced by the MDEQ road crossing survey, road crossings are a source of soil erosion and sedimentation problems. Poorly designed road crossing structures, evidence of limited maintenance, and resident-built waterway crossings are also noted in the SCCDO physical inventory of county drains. C. Critical Area for Erosion and Sedimentation Sediments typically come from disturbed land on construction sites, agricultural and livestock fields without buffer strips, and eroding streambanks caused by excessive water flows. Limited data from the SCCDO drain survey and the MDEQ’s road crossing survey along with complaints on soil erosion practices on construction sites, suggests that this problem exists throughout the watershed. Therefore, the entire watershed is determined to be the critical area for erosion and sedimentation. 1.1.3. NUTRIENTS A. Nutrient Monitoring Programs Table 1-6, in Appendix A, summarizes water quality data collected in Anchor Bay by the MCHD from 1998 through 2000. A majority of locations sampled exceeded the level of concern for phosphorus (Total P = 0.05 mg/L) at least once. Nearly half of the locations displayed Dissolved Oxygen (DO < 5 mg/L) concerns at least once (Figure 1-7 in Appendix A). These exceedances suggest that Anchor Bay is being degraded by. Continued urbanization will likely aggravate this problem.

Overall, three years of compiled data shows that water at the sample locations exceeded level of concern values or had higher than average readings throughout the three-year period. This implies that this area should be a focus of additional investigations to determine the source(s) of these pollution inputs to the watershed. B. Potential Sources Phosphorus and nitrogen are chemicals that are commonly used in fertilizer to encourage rapid growth. These same chemicals increase nutrient levels in open waterways and promote algae growth in Anchor Bay. Although excessive aquatic plant and algae growth is generally phosphorus limited, increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to low, dissolved oxygen thus exacerbating growth of aquatic nuisance plants. It is suspected that increased aquatic plant growth contributes to the public health problem by trapping fecal-contaminated waters in the near shore areas, which in turn causes beach closures. This hypothesis was included as part of the August 2000 revision of the Report and Recommendations of the Macomb County Blue Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair. Urban Sources Excessive use of fertilizers is the major source of nutrients from urban residential areas. Natural wetlands can remove some nutrients from storm water runoff, but development has reduced these natural filtration areas, resulting in untreated storm water runoff to tributaries and increased nutrients in the watershed and the bay.



14

Agricultural Sources Improperly managed agricultural runoff can contribute fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to nearby water and can also create excess particulates from soil erosion and general ecosystem damage. Although there has been a general decline in livestock sites for dairy, beef, swine and poultry, a significant equine-related agricultural industry still exists within the watershed. A significant amount of acreage is devoted to soybean, wheat, and corn production. A consistent application of agricultural BMPs, such as buffer strips, limited cattle access to streams, and implementation of nutrient management plans, will reduce these impacts within the watershed and the bay. Although limited information is available regarding agricultural runoff, public comment indicates a lack of consistent application of agricultural BMPs within the watershed. C. Critical Area for Nutrients Data from the Lake St. Clair Water Quality Assessment report shows elevated nutrient levels from inland watercourses that drain residential and agricultural areas. Although Crapau Creek and the Salt River are not officially considered impaired for nutrients, both streams could be contributing to the problem because nutrients can come from the same sewage sources that are causing the elevated E. coli readings. Since both agricultural and urban areas are potential sources for excess nutrients, the entire watershed is considered a critical area. Additional data needs to be collected to isolate specific areas within the watershed that may be considered critical for this parameter. 1.1.4. FLOW RATES A. Flow Rate Monitoring No stream flow gauges are currently installed in the Anchor Bay Watershed. Stream hydrology and geomorphology studies need to be completed within the major tributaries to determine critical flow areas with. B. Potential Sources Land Use and Impervious Surfaces Increased impervious areas within the watershed, caused by changes in land use, result in higher storm water runoff that quickly reaches tributary streams, often causing flooding and stream bank erosion. Left unchecked, the changes to the river flow will cause serious damage to the physical and biological integrity of the receiving stream. A limited physical survey, conducted by the SCCDO, highlighted that high flow rates have been a problem in many county drains (Appendix B). Impacts of increased impervious areas include:

• Water quality degradation: pollutants types and concentrations increase substantially as oils, sediment, trace metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus are washed from urban areas into waterways

• Increased flooding: peak flows are increasing two to five times over predevelopment flow rates, and runoff reaching the stream up to 50 percent faster

• Increased erosion: The channel may widen and undercut streambanks that may fall into the river

• Accelerated habitat loss in rivers and streams



15

• Biodiversity loss: Fish communities may become less diverse, and sensitive fish species may be lost

• Higher water temperatures due to heated pavement and wider, shallower streams C. Critical Area for Excessive Flow Rates Due to the absence of historical and current data within the watershed, stream hydrology and geomorphology studies need to be completed within the major tributaries to determine critical flow areas. Until these additional studies are completed, the entire watershed is considered a critical area. 1.1.5. SEDIMENT QUALITY A. Sediment Quality Monitoring Programs In the Anchor Bay System, concentrations of pollutants within sediments are generally low; however, sampling has been limited. The river drainage basins are a source of sediments and associated non-point pollution. The amount or nature of this pollution depends on land use and pollutants associated with the runoff. The highest concentration of contaminants in sediment is in the vicinity of the navigational channel. These are likely to be the result of historical industrial practices along the St. Clair River. Navigation-related maintenance dredging that removes these polluted sediments from the system and deposits them in confined disposal facilities may be beneficial. MCHD conducted sediment sampling for nutrients, oxygen-demanding materials, and metals at several nearshore and offshore locations within the Anchor Bay Watershed (Figure 1-5 in Appendix A). The sediment data generally indicates metals and bacteria contamination that exceeds guidelines established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE). The SCCHD monitoring program did not include sediment sampling. Polluted sediment can contribute to long-term contaminations in the water column as well as degraded habitat. The locations and years sampled for sediment data and the conventional parameters sampled are shown in Table 1-7 and 1-8 in Appendix A. Results for selected parameters are depicted in Figure 1-8. Irwin Drain has the highest levels of sediment total phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and ammonia among the tributary sample sites (Figure 1-8 and Table 1-9 in Appendix A). Dykeman Drain also shows elevated levels of total phosphorus in the sediment. The OMOE and USEPA sediment metal pollution classification guidelines were used to compare results of metals analysis for this report. This comparison shows that sediments within Anchor Bay depicted exceedances of nearly every metal in at least one sampling location. The metals sampled, the corresponding years, and Sediment Metal Pollution Classification Guidelines are listed in Table 1-10 in Appendix A. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) report on the Areal Distribution and Concentration of Contaminants of Concern in Surficial Streambed and Lakebed Sediments, Lake Erie-Lake Saint Clair Drainages, 1990-97 indicates that sediment in Anchor Bay area exceeds Threshold Effect Levels (TEL) and/or Probable Effect levels



16

#S#S

#S#S #S

#S

#S

$T$T

$T

$T%U

%U

%U

I8

I9O2

O3

O1

O4N25

N27N28

N29

N24

N26

N30

Anchor B ay

I10

N

Da ta So urce s:Macom b C oun ty De partme nt of Pla nni ng an d E co no mic D evel opm entMacom b C oun ty He al th Dep artme ntSt. Cla i r C ou nty Metrop oli ta n Pl ann ing C omm issio nSt. Cla i r C ou nty Heal th D epa rtmen t

2 0 2 4 Mi les

Sediment Total Phosphorus - Average

0100200300400500

N24 N27 N28 N29 N30 O3 O4

Site ID

To

tal

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg

/kg

)

Sediment TKN - Average

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

N24 N27 N28 N29 N30 O3 O4

Site ID

TK

N (

mg

/kg

)

Sediment COD - Average

020,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000

N24 N27 N28 N29 N30 O3 O4

Site ID

CO

D (m

g/k

g)

Sediment Ammonia - Average

01 02 03 04 05 0

N24 N27 N28 N29 N30 O3 O4

Site ID

Am

mo

nia

(mg

/kg

)

Figure 1-8: Average Sediment Levels for TP, TKN, COD and Ammonia

(PEL) for a number of toxic materials, including: chlordane, DDT, hexachlorocyclohexane, PCB, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Chrysene, Phenathrene, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Presence of these materials at elevated concentrations indicates that sediments are contaminated to such a degree that the microorganism habitat could be adversely affected and that there is a potential for food chain bioaccumulation within the watershed. Although many of these materials may be from historic deposition, source identification studies need to be done to determine the sources of these materials and to develop appropriate control programs.

B. Critical Area for Sediment Quality Sources of pollutants for sediment quality can come from the watershed as well as the St. Clair River. The current data focuses on the bay area, and there is a lack of data regarding tributary streams within the watershed. Much of the sediment contamination within the bay is hypothesized to be a product of historic inputs. Additional studies that provide depth profiles of the sediment need to be completed to determine if all the contamination is historic or if there are active sources depositing new contaminated sediments. Therefore, no specific critical area has been identified for sediments.



17

1.1.6. OTHER POLLUTANTS AND THEIR SOURCES Airborne Deposition Airborne deposition directly to the Anchor Bay drainage area and water surface area is small, but significant, due to the small surface area of its drainage basin. However, the volume of airborne deposition can become even more significant when pollutants that fall on Lake Huron and its drainage basin, then flow into Anchor Bay, are also considered. It is believed that most organochlorine pesticides found in the St. Clair River – alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide – come from upstream locations, including Lake Huron. A recent study conducted by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Atmospheric Deposition Study of PCBs, Mercury, and Cadmium , concluded that precipitation contained mercury, cadmium, and PCBs at analytically detectable levels. The study also showed that there was a definite “first-flush” phenomenon associated with the concentration of these materials in runoff from residential and industrial sites within the study area. That is, the first storm water runoff in a storm is more contaminated because the land surface it runs over has collected pollutants over a period of time. As the runoff continues and the land surface becomes cleaner, the quality of the runoff improves. The number and size of accidental releases of materials to the environment (commonly known as spills) have been reduced significantly over the last ten years. Historical spill events have resulted in contaminated sediment and transient water quality impacts. Spills can increase chemical contamination of the water and sediment, cause fish kills and other habitat impacts, and degrade aesthetics. Dumping trash along the banks and directly into watershed tributaries and the bay is an activity that is, unfortunately, a result of day-to-day human activities. This activity can cause fish and wildlife mortalities, reduced public enjoyment, blockages, and disease. The SCCDC physical inventory found that “dumping of refuse near watercourses” was a common activity and resulted in degraded water quality. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates are animals without backbones that are larger than ½ millimeter (the size of a pencil dot). These animals live on rocks, logs, sediment, debris, and aquatic plants during some period in their life. These macroinvertebrates include crustaceans, such as crayfish, mollusks, such as clams and snails, aquatic worms, and immature forms of aquatic insects, such as stonefly and mayfly nymphs. Benthic macroinvertebrates are an important part of the food chain, especially as prey for fish. Many feed on algae and bacteria, which are on the lower end of the food chain. Some shred and eat leaves and other organic matter that enters the water. Because of their abundance and position as middleman in the aquatic food chain, these organisms play a critical role in the natural flow of energy and nutrients. As these macroinvertebrates die, they decay, leaving behind nutrients that are reused by aquatic plants and other animals in the food chain.

When these macroinvertebrates are found in large quantities, the waters are generally classified as clean or unpolluted by organic wastes. Without too much organic matter, the



18

waters usually have lots of oxygen. For example, stoneflies are often considered to be clean water organisms. But when thinking about worms and midges, water quality professionals often view these as indicators of dirty water, especially in rivers and streams. There have been many studies regarding benthic macroinvertebrates in Lake St. Clair; however no documented data is available specific to the Anchor Bay Watershed. Studies that provide information on macroinvertebrates in the Anchor Bay Watershed need to be conducted. Invasive Non-native Species Invasive plant and aquatic species pose a threat to native fish, wildlife, and natural areas in the Anchor Bay Watershed. Unlike other watershed impacts that may be attributed to land use change, the introduction of invasive species results from transient activities, such as shipping and recreational boating. If allowed to flourish in natural areas and watercourses, invasive aquatic species, such as zebra mussels and sea lamprey, can out-compete native species and eliminate a food source for mature fish and wildlife. Likewise, invasive wetland plants, such as purple loosestrife and phragmites, can overtake a diverse wetland habitat. Collectively, these exotic species cause great harm to fragile and unique natural areas in Anchor Bay.

• Phragmites is a tall plumed perennial wetland grass that ranges in height from three to 13 feet. This reed-like species is commonly found along roadsides, ditches, dredged areas, and in freshwater marshes. It can form colonies hundreds of acres in size. Phragmites chokes out more beneficial vegetation, such as cattails and other native plants that provide food and habitat to native fish and wildlife. Currently, the MDEQ, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ducks Unlimited and other state conservation groups, are participating in a research program using beetles, herbicides, and controlled burns to eradicate or control phragmites in St. Johns Marsh and nearby Algonac State Park.

• Purple Loosestrife is a wetland perennial that can produce more than two million seeds annually. An invasion by purple loosestrife can overtake native plants in a wetland, resulting in eventual alteration of the wetland’s structure and function. No effective method of controlling purple loosestrife has yet been discovered or implemented. However mowing or cutting, burning, herbicide application, or releasing herbivore beetles to eat the plant roots has provided limited success. The Galerucella beetle has been credited with wiping out large stands of purple loosestrife in southern Michigan.

• Zebra Mussels, an invading species from Eurasia, was introduced into the Great Lakes through ballast water, which is used in ships to maintain stability in open waters and along coastal areas. The water, itself, can be contaminated with organisms that include plants, animals, bacteria, and pathogens all of which may displace native species, degrade native habitat, spread disease, and disrupt human social and economic activities that depend on water resources. The non-native zebra mussel, for example, has reduced plankton populations, clogged municipal water intakes, and impacted recreational boating in Anchor Bay.



19

1.2 WATERSHED DESIRED USES, CONCERNS, AND IMPAIRMENTS The MDEQ and the International Joint Commission (IJC) for the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels has established 17 Beneficial and Designated Uses for waterways. Of the 17, seven are considered to be impaired within Anchor Bay and/or its watershed. These seven impairments are:

1. Total body contact 2. Partial body contact 3. Warmwater/coldwater fishery 4. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 5. Degradation of benthos 6. Degradation of aesthetics 7. Eutrophication impacts and excessive aquatic plant growth.

Table 1-11 in Appendix A shows the Designated and Beneficial Uses used for all watersheds and the current status in Anchor Bay and the Anchor Bay Watershed. A combination of public and steering committee meetings were held to determine the desired uses and concerns that the public and elected officials felt needed to be addressed in the watershed plan. These concerns are listed in order of priority in Table 1-12 and in combination with the Beneficial and Designated Use impairments as the basis for the watershed goals and objective developed for this plan. The SCCDO physical inventory of the St. Clair County portion of the watershed highlighted some key concerns, including: seawalls replacing shorelines, enclosed piping on tributary streams, development along the watercourse, soil erosion, the dumping of refuse in or near the watercourse, wetland destruction, inadequate septic systems, and lack of public education. These concerns and others are discussed in more detail in Appendix B.



20

Table 1-12: Concerns and Desired Uses within the Watershed

General Public Public Officials Agricultural Producers

Watershed-wide Stakeholders Poll

Meeting: 1-23-2002 Ira Township

Meeting: 1-23-2002 Ira Township

Meeting: 4-9-2002 Lenox Township Hall

(94 responses)

6-19-2002 thru 9-25-2002

Concerns and Desired Uses (in order of decreasing priority) Fishing Healthy drinking

water Lack of open space

Swimming Fishing Unmanaged development

Remove sources of human waste in Anchor Bay that threaten public health

Healthy drinking water Educating the public

Eroision Swimming Recreation Erosion

Lack of government support for agricultural buffer strips

Better control sources of fertilizer reaching Anchor Bay and the Great Lakes

Waterfowl & wildlife habitat

Flooding Improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife in the water

Educating the public Recreation Increase community planning to address development and protection of water quality Better control soil erosion and limit sediments entering the water

Remove paper, trash and debris in the bay and its tributaries to improve its appearance Encourage investments in land along water for recreation/wildlife protection

Additional Concerns: zebra mussels, aquatic weeds, boating, lack of biking and walking trails, construction site erosion, fishing access, and the North Channel dredging

Additional Concerns: New Baltimore Park Beach closing, contaminants, bacteria, sewage disposal, development and sewage disposal on Harsens Island and outer islands

Lack of consistent application of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Expand public education about the benefits of protecting Anchor Bay



21

1.2.1. IMPAIRMENTS A. Total body contact and partial body contact

Public’s Desired Uses and Concerns : • Swimming and recreation • New Baltimore Park beach closing • Bacteria • Sewage disposal

The most obvious indication of environmental decline in Lake St. Clair and Anchor Bay is the persistence of beach closings, coupled with excessive algae growth. Bathing beaches are closed whenever E. coli bacteria levels exceed the Total Body Contact Standards established under the Michigan Water Quality Standards. If Anchor Bay is to remain a viable recreational resource, bacteria, nutrients, and undesirable algae growth that cause beach closures and affect watershed aesthetics must be corrected. New Baltimore Park Beach in Macomb County is the only designated public beach within the Anchor Bay Watershed. The challenge facing Macomb County with respect to New Baltimore Park Beach is typical of urban waterways. New Baltimore Park Beach has been sampled by the MCHD for the presence of E. coli since 1995 and for fecal coliform for many years before that. The beach was closed in 2001 for 23 days due to high bacteria counts – more than the total days it was closed during the previous seven years. The exact sources of the elevated E. coli readings have not been determined, although several agencies have undertaken efforts to reduce loadings through illicit discharge detection programs and improved system management. Not being able to determine the exact source of the elevated E. coli is not surprising given the limitations of the testing protocol, the high variability of E. coli readings in natural waterways, and sewage (both human and animal) sources in the area. Thus, a key element of this watershed plan is a logical, pragmatic approach to monitoring, identifying, and eliminating sewage sources in the watershed. B. Warmwater/coldwater fishery

Public’s Desired Uses and Concerns : • Fishing • Erosion • Flooding

Most of the toxic materials that are found in Lake St. Clair are a result of past industrial practices. These practices have been corrected, but their legacy remains. These toxins are typically found in the sediment where they are introduced to small plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain. Larger animals consume these small plants and animals but do not convert the toxic chemicals to energy. Instead, these toxic materials collect in the tissue of the consuming animal in a process known as bioaccumulation. Through bioaccumulation, low levels of toxins in the sediments are compounded in the predator fish. These higher concentrations lead to fish consumption advisories. Although Anchor Bay is a high quality recreational fishing resource, the MDEQ considers fish consumption to be impaired due to elevated levels of mercury and polychlorinated



22

biphenyls (PCBs). Mercury and PCBs build up in fish tissue and pose a health hazard to humans who eat the fish. Other tributary areas within the watershed are also under a fish consumption advisory for mercury and PCBs. PCBs were manufactured from 1926 to 1977 as a fire-retardant and were used as coolants and lubricants in electrical transformers and capacitors. The federal government made production of PCBs illegal in 1977 after learning the chemical was a threat to human health. Over time, the existence of PCBs in sediment is expected to decrease as its sources are removed from the environment. Mercury, however, may be harder to remove from waterways because it is a naturally occurring metal that enters water or soil from natural deposits, air deposition, or disposal of wastes. C. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife; Degradation of benthos

Public Desired Uses and Concerns: • Waterfowl and wildlife habitat • Flooding

Historic land use changes within Anchor Bay Watershed have resulted in a decline in wetland acreage and elimination and/or contamination of natural fish and wildlife habitat. Future land use trends indicate that this impact will become more severe unless measures are taken to protect and enhance remaining habitat. Loss of this habitat and the resultant impacts on the aquatic life and wildlife populations has both an immediate and long-term effect on environmental health. The benthic organisms that are eliminated from the environment due to degraded habitat are an important part of the aquatic and wildlife food chain that supports a diverse biological community. Absence of these organisms results in a decline in the population and diversity of larger fish and wildlife that are important recreational and financial resources. In addition, contamination in lower organisms is magnified through the food chain to the higher level fish and wildlife, resulting in fish and wildlife consumption advisories.

Loss of spawning grounds and other important habitat to the area fish and wildlife results in a declining population. This declining population can impact the migratory waterfowl population on a long-term basis by making the watershed area less desirable for these waterfowl. The SCCDO physical inventory of county drains notes the destruction of floodplains, lack of appropriate buffers along watercourses, and direct discharge of polluted storm water to streams. The inventory also noted that there is a loss of habitat resulting from tributary enclosures and drain relocations. D. Degradation of aesthetics and eutrophication or undesirable algae

Public Desired Uses and Concerns: • Aquatic Weeds • Lack of government support for agricultural buffers • Control sources of fertilizer from reaching Anchor Bay • Remove trash from the bay and its tributaries



23

Excessive aquatic weeds and algae impair recreational opportunities and cause stress on fish and other aquatic organisms. In extreme cases, fish kills can result from excessive aquatic weeds and/or algae. These excessive growths generally result from high concentrations of phosphorus, which is discharged primarily in storm runoff from residential and agricultural sources. Economic and regulatory incentives for increased use of agricultural buffers, such as compensation for farmland set aside for this purpose, would reduce phosphorus concentrations. Public education programs about residential fertilizers would also reduce phosphorus discharges. Aesthetic impacts can occur from soil erosion that result in discolored water in streams and the bay. Control of soil erosion sources will reduce this impact. Additional aesthetic impacts occur from day-to-day human activities, such as trash that blows into streams or accumulates in storm water runoff. Green discolored water from lagoon discharges also degrades aesthetics as well as water quality. E. Healthy Drinking Water

Public Desired Uses and Concerns: • Healthy drinking water

In spite of repeated data that suggests drinking water is safe, the public remains concerned about their drinking water, especially in light of increased development and its effect on drinking water intakes. Future Source Water Assessments conducted for Ira Township and New Baltimore should determine the actual and/or potential threat that might exist. The recommended development and implementation of a Source Water Protection Study will provide a mechanism for addressing any concerns expressed by the public and/or generated by the assessment. 1.2.2. ADDITIONAL DESIRED USES AND CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC A. Zebra Mussels Concerns regarding zebra mussels are valid and substantiated. See Section 1.1.6 for additional information. B. Financial Financial concerns must be evaluated when considering environmental improvement. On one hand, there is a cost to implement BMPs and other recommendations in this watershed plan. On the other hand, degraded environment, fish advisories, and poor water quality can result in a financial hardship for local businesses that serve recreational users. Therefore, a sustainable funding source(s) is necessary to address current and future water quality problems. C. Flooding Flooding leads to property damage and losses. Thus, the general public identifies this as a concern. What becomes less clear to the public is that the same forces that increase the frequency of flooding also degrade the environment. As development occurs,



24

hydrologic characteristics are altered and areas that previously provided infiltration and water storage are developed and turned into impervious surfaces. As a result, storm water more easily picks up fertilizers, oils, and chemicals as it moves across the pavement and into surface waters. With increased impervious surfaces, storm water runs into receiving waters more quickly, often causing flooding and stream bank erosion. Left unchecked, the changes to the river flow will cause serious damage to the physical and biological integrity of the receiving stream. D. Erosion Concerns for accelerated erosion are valid and substantiated. See Section 1.1.2 for additional information. E. Educating the Public The largest source of pollutants in the Anchor Bay Watershed is caused by activities of residents and visitors. Restoration and protection activities will never be completely successful unless people understand how they impact the environment and what they can do to reduce that impact. Therefore, public education is necessary in order to change behavior regarding limited fertilizer application, proper trash disposal, reduced construction of impervious surfaces, increased use of natural plantings and stream buffers, and other recommendations found within this watershed plan. Even the use of signs that indicate the Anchor Bay Watershed boundaries will increase watershed awareness in both residents and visitors.

The SCCDO physical inventory notes that there is a lack of public education and environmental stewardship in and around the watershed. The inventory states that “Environmental education needs to play a part in teaching the public to be aware and concerned with the world they live in. This education should be a life-long process, with an emphasis on the long-term changes in culture.” F. Manage Riparian Land, Lack of Open Space, Boating, Biking and Walking Trails, and Fishing Access Public access to the bay and the watershed is necessary for people to experience the true benefits of the watershed from a personal perspective. If people cannot enjoy the watershed, they will not support funding and commitments necessary to implement watershed improvement and enhancement plans. Therefore, land use planning must assure that adequate areas are provided for active and passive enjoyment, including boating, jogging, fishing, swimming and biking, and areas for quiet contemplation. Managing and investing in the land that comprises the riparian corridor helps to encourage recreation and wildlife protection. The Bridge to Bay Trail is an example of land along the riparian corridor that is used to provide a place for recreation as well as the protection of wildlife habitat. G. Unmanaged Development, Sewage Disposal and Development on Harsens Island and Outer Islands Future watershed development needs to comply with land use plans, and land use plans must consider the impacts that development has on environmentally sensitive areas.



25

Where development is allowed, it should use appropriate BMPs and low impact development techniques that minimize impacts both during and following construction. . Harsens Island is recognized as a unique and distinct geologic, geographic, cultural, historic, and recreational area of St. Clair County. Because of the predominate seasonal occupancy by residents and the established regulatory controls set forth by the St. Clair Flats Management Plan, Harsens Island offers a unique development challenge. The lack of centralized sanitary sewers and unfavorable conditions for onsite sewage disposal systems presents residents with limited options for sewage disposal. Future development on the island needs to be thoroughly reviewed before it occurs to assure protection of the island’s environment. 1.3 CONCLUSION Despite all that is positive about the health of Anchor Bay, in more recent years the watershed has fallen victim to many of the same impairments that its more urban neighbors have faced for decades. While these impairments may not currently be as devastating to the environment as in other watersheds, planning and remediation is necessary to halt the decline and restore the resource to its full potential. Prioritized Pollutants Although all the pollutants and pollution sources identified in the watershed plan need to be addressed, the priority is:

• Bacteria • Erosion and sedimentation • Nutrients • Flow Rates

This prioritization is based on potential impacts on the watershed, available data, and the desired uses and concerns supplied by the public, Technical and Steering Committee members, and local governmental officials. Excess E. coli bacteria will result in beach closures and possible exposure to disease causing organisms in the bay and the tributary areas. This potential public health impact results in this being the number one priority. Therefore erosion, sedimentation, nutrients and flow rates are a second priority. The significant habitat and aesthetic impacts these sources have on the entire watershed and the challenges that will be involved in controlling them make each source a priority. Critical Areas The inventory of critical areas for the Anchor Bay Watershed is limited by data availability. Data collected to date documents known E. coli problems. Additional data, along with local knowledge, suggests that nutrients and sediments are also suspected problems. While respecting local knowledge and suspicions, this document defines only critical areas that are supported by known data. Those critical areas, which require targeted community efforts, are:

• Bacteria - Crapau Creek, Salt River and the entire watershed



26

• Erosion and sedimentation - entire watershed • Nutrients - entire watershed • Flow rates - entire watershed

As additional data is collected by regulatory agencies, the list of critical areas will be modified in future updates of this watershed plan. Public Concerns Concerns expressed by the general public reflect their perception of what is wrong with Anchor Bay and Lake St. Clair. These major concerns include:

• Beach closures • Drinking water safety • Fish consumption advisories • Flooding and erosion • Habitat loss

The goals and objectives contained in the watershed plan reflect these public concerns and the impaired designated and beneficial uses in the watershed. Implementation of the BMPs in the watershed plan will achieve these goals and objectives and restore and protect the environment within the watershed.

Chapter Two

ANCHOR BAY


27

PPUUBBLLIICC PPAARRTTIICCIIPPAATTIIOONN && EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN

2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Administrative, Steering, and Technical committees provided oversight and guidance in the development of the Anchor Bay Watershed Plan. In addition, the Administrative Committee primarily was responsible for policy development and oversight of the fiscal responsibilities related to the 319 Grant that funded the planning effort. The Steering Committee provided local governmental input and decision making guidance to the project. The first Steering Committee meeting was held in September 2001 to solicit interest and participation from watershed communities. Following the first meeting, the Steering Committee met approximately every other month throughout 2002. These meetings provided a forum to discuss the purpose of the Plan, the state of the watershed, impairments in the watershed, water quality concerns of the communities, Phase II storm water regulations, and the public participation strategy. As more information was gathered from the communities and the public, water quality goals for the Plan were established by the Technical Committee and portions of the Plan were developed and forwarded to the Steering Committee for review and comment. In December 2002, the Plan was completed and presented to the Steering Committee. At this time, there was concern that the Plan needed reorganization and lacked community input. To address this concern, a Technical Committee was established to revise the Plan. The Technical Committee, with a total of seven representatives from St. Clair County, Macomb County, and local communities, provided focused feedback to the project consultant. Based on additional input from the counties, communities, and MDEQ, each chapter was revised, reorganized, and summarized to provide more concise information. As each chapter was completed, it was presented to the Steering Committee for review and comment. Once revisions of the entire Plan were completed, presentations were made available to municipal and county boards to gain additional support from the communities and Counties involved. Members of the Administrative, Steering, and Technical Committees are listed in Tables 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 respectively (Appendix D). Beyond the Steering and Technical committee meetings and community board presentations, the Plan consultant and county representatives met individually with representatives from each community within the watershed in the summer of 2002 and 2003. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss watershed goals and objectives and develop an inventory of best management practices that were being implemented or planned by the community. At that time, the purpose of the Plan and how it fits into the Phase II storm water regulations was reemphasized. Several public meetings were held throughout the Anchor Bay watershed planning process to gain a wider range of opinions regarding water quality concerns and desired uses for the Anchor Bay Watershed. The process included surveying different stakeholder groups about their water quality concerns in Anchor Bay. The public was notified about the meetings through articles and press releases in The Macomb Daily,

Public Participation & Education

ANCHOR BAY


28

Times Herald, The Voice and Detroit News . In addition, several stakeholders, including governmental agencies, environmental groups, remedial action plan groups, agricultural producers, wildlife groups, boating associations, marinas, local businesses, and public school representatives, were invited to participate in the public meetings. Representatives of most of these groups, as well as local residents, attended these meetings. A summary of each public meeting, including the complete list of concerns by meeting participants, is presented in this section. In addition, a public interest survey was circulated to concerned residents, the results of which are also presented in this document. At a public meeting on January 23, 2002, in Ira Township, a small group of stakeholders were asked to prioritize their water quality concerns in Anchor Bay. Participants identified the following activities as the most important, in order of priority:

• Fishing • Swimming • Healthy drinking water • Erosion • Recreation • Waterfowl and wildlife habitat • Educating the public • Flooding

Participants also noted concerns about zebra mussels, aquatic weeds, boating, lack of biking and walking trails, construction site erosion, fishing access, and the North Channel dredging. At the same meeting, public officials from the Anchor Bay watershed identified the following activities as the most important, in order of priority:

• Healthy drinking water • Fishing • Educating the public • Swimming • Erosion • Flooding • Recreation

Public officials also noted concerns about New Baltimore Beach closings, contaminants, bacteria, sewage disposal, drinking water, and sewage disposal on Harsens Island and outer islands, and development on outer islands and Harsens Island. On April 9, 2002, in Lenox Township, a presentation of the watershed planning process and information gathered to date was made to a group of agricultural producers. This is significant because thirty-six percent of the land use in the Anchor Bay watershed is dedicated to agriculture. Following are some of the concerns expressed at that meeting:


ANCHOR BAY


29

• Lack of open space • Over-development or unmanaged development • Lack of government support for agricultural buffer strips • Lack of consistent application of agricultural Best Management Practices

As chapters of the plan were completed, presentations were made to stakeholders on June 19, 2002, in Chesterfield Township and August 28, 2002, in Ira Township. The stakeholders at the June 19 meeting were asked to distribute the Anchor Bay Watershed Survey of Issues and Concerns and to help plan a general public meeting to be held on September 25, 2002, at Anchor Bay High School in New Baltimore (Appendix E). Surveys were distributed in municipal buildings, at local schools, at township and city meetings, and on the Anchor Bay website. Four months later, 94 surveys had been returned from stakeholders representing 14 watershed communities. Based on the survey, the following concerns were ranked in order of importance:

• Remove sources of human waste in Anchor Bay that threaten public health • Better control sources of fertilizer reaching Anchor Bay and the Great Lakes • Improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife in the water • Increase community planning to address development and protection of water

quality • Better control soil erosion and limit sediments entering the water • Remove paper, trash, and debris in the Bay and its tributaries to improve its

appearance • Encourage investments in land along waterways for recreation and wildlife

protection • Expand public education about the benefits of protecting Anchor Bay • Minimize excessive flows that cause flooding, bank erosion, and habitat loss

These goals were reflected again when respondents were asked to state Anchor Bay issues most important to them. Those issues were:

• High bacteria levels • Water quality • Wetland protection

Respondents said they were most interested in receiving information on Anchor Bay fish and wildlife, water quality, and bacteria levels. About 50 people attended a public meeting from 7 to 9 p.m. on September 25, 2002, at Anchor Bay High School in New Baltimore. The program included a presentation on the draft Anchor Bay Watershed Management Plan, the Illicit Discharge Elimination Program, and State Storm Water Permit Regulations. Participants were divided into groups to discuss various storm water issues addressed in the watershed management plan, such as, habitat, soil erosion, sewage, water quality education, and runoff from lawns, yards, and agricultural fields. All groups were asked to devise a water quality budget to address storm water management issues in Anchor Bay. Participants said they would concentrate their resources on the following in order of priority:


ANCHOR BAY


30

• Reduce bacterial inputs • Reduce storm water flows • Preserve and increase habitat • Reduce sediment loads • Enhance recreational activities • Reduce runoff from lawns, yards, and agricultural fields

Throughout this process, it has become clear that a major concern to Anchor Bay stakeholders is raw sewage and bacteria that affect Anchor Bay quality of life issues, such as swimming and fishing. There is also concern about protecting habitat and open space. Many who were surveyed or participated in the September 25 meeting agreed that the public needs to be better educated about illicit connections, leaking septic systems, and overuse of fertilizers. In addition, some participants indicated that protecting wetlands and forested land should be as big a priority as reducing bacterial inputs to Anchor Bay. The input from public officials, watershed residents, and stakeholder groups was a primary consideration when evaluating the water quality impairments in the watershed and in the development of the goals and objectives of this plan. ANCHOR BAY WEBSITE A project website (awp.stclaircounty.org) was established as a mechanism to keep Anchor Bay stakeholders informed during the watershed planning process. The website was operational in September 2002 and is accessible from St. Clair County’s website www.stclaircounty.org. Signs were posted at municipal buildings to advertise the website address. The address was also included in newspaper articles that were written as the Plan was developed. Having information on the website allowed the public to access draft copies of the plan, the Anchor Bay Watershed Survey of Issues and Concerns, meeting schedules, and names of key decision-makers. The website also provided a mechanism to obtain public comments and concerns regarding the quality of Anchor Bay. This project website remains active at the time this plan was completed. Information there includes a fact sheet on the watershed, a list and links to project partners, a map of the watershed, and an interactive public interest survey (Figure 2-1).


ANCHOR BAY


31

Figure 2-1: Anchor Bay Website Homepage


ANCHOR BAY


32

2.1 PUBLIC EDUCATION STRATEGY The Information and Education Strategy was developed to help minimize priority pollutant sources within the Anchor Bay watershed. The strategy aims to accomplish this by promoting a better awareness of priority pollutant problems and their solutions. Each educational issue was determined through the Anchor Bay Technical Committee and municipal input received during the May 6, 2003, Steering Committee Meeting. Municipalities and counties within the watershed are responsible for implementing the following activities, as appropriate, from 2003 to 2008. Education Issue: Bacteria Control

Source Audience Message Delivery Evaluation Failing Onsite Disposal Systems (OSDS)

OSDS Owners

OSDS Maintenance

Newsletters, Websites, Brochures, Municipal Offices, Health Depts.

Track number of OSDS failures

Illicit discharges and illegal dumping

Homeowners Report Illicit Discharges

Newsletters, Websites, Brochures, Municipal Offices, Health Depts.

Pre and Post survey

Expected Tasks: a). Create an Anchor Bay Education Committee b). OSDS Maintenance 1). Collect septic system maintenance brochure(s) for Macomb County and St. Clair County 2). Develop a set of 10 OSDS facts for newsletters and websites 3). Distribute septic system facts and post educational materials on websites c). Discharge Reporting 1). Determine best media vehicle for illicit discharge hotline publicity 2). Publicize Macomb County and St. Clair County illicit discharge reporting hotline


ANCHOR BAY


33

Education Issue: Sediment Control Source Audience Message Delivery Evaluation

Builders/ Developers

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) BMPs & Enforcement

SESC Programs Track compliance; number of citations issued

New Construction

Building Inspectors

SESC and building permit coordination

SESC Programs Status of cooperation

Expected Tasks: a). Create an Anchor Bay Education Committee b). Builders/Developers 1). Determine priority SESC education issues with SESC Program staff and municipal building inspectors 2). Develop SESC brochure targeting builders and developers 3). Develop the best method for dissemination 4). Disseminate information c). Building Inspectors 1). Determine SESC educational need for local building inspectors 2). Determine the best way to disseminate information 3). Disseminate information Education Issue: Fertilizer Management

Source Audience Message Delivery Evaluation Residential lawn care

Homeowner Visitors

Limit phosphorus and applications, Fertilizer alternatives, Grass clipping disposal

Workshops, Brochures, Mass Media

Workshop attendance, Pre and Post survey

Expected Tasks: a). Create an Anchor Bay Education Committee b). Homeowners 1). Develop and gather appropriate brochures, workshop agendas, and media tools 2). Implement education activities c). Evaluation 1). Develop pre and post survey questions 2). Conduct pre surveys 3). Conduct post surveys three years after educational activities have been in place


ANCHOR BAY


34

Education Issue: Urban Runoff Management Source Audience Message Delivery Evaluation

Residents Storm water awareness

Mass Media River Day activities

Pre and Post survey

Urban Areas

Community Leaders, Municipal Engineers

Manage storm water flow and contaminants

Workshops Create and implement storm water management ordinances

Expected Tasks: a). Create an Anchor Bay Education Committee b). Residents 1). Determine consistent message and media vehicles 2). Implement activities c). Community Leaders and Municipal Engineers 1). Determine workshop needs and materials 2). Conduct workshops d). Evaluation 1). Develop pre and post survey questions 2). Conduct pre surveys 3). Conduct post surveys three years after educational activities have been in place

Chapter Three

ANCHOR BAY


35

WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD GGOOAALLSS

3.0 DESIGNATED USES The State of Michigan has developed Water Quality Standards under Part 4 of the Administrative Rules issued pursuant to Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (1994 PA451, as amended). Rule 100 (R323.1100) of the Water Quality Standards states that all surface waters of the State of Michigan are designated for, and shall be protected for, all of the following eight uses:

• 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 between May 1 and October 31

*In addition, Lake St.Clair is also designated as a cold water fishery.

The status of a designated use in a watershed can be unimpaired, impaired, threatened, or under review/unknown. The use is unimpaired if the available physical and analytical data indicates that all applicable water quality standards are being consistently met. If the available physical and analytical data indicates that water quality standards are not being consistently met, then the designated use is considered to be impaired. A threatened status occurs when a watershed is currently unimpaired but could become impaired due to 1) actual and/or projected land use changes and/or 2) declining water quality trends, as shown by physical or analytical data. A use that is designated as under review or unknown means there is insufficient physical or analytical data available to determine a status for the use and additional studies are necessary. Table 3-1 lists the designated uses in the Anchor Bay Watershed. The table differentiates between the impairment status in the bay and impairment status in the watershed because these areas may have a different status for a particular designated use.

3.1 BENEFICIAL USES Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between United States and Canada established fourteen beneficial uses to evaluate changes in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes System. Annex 2 defined beneficial uses as a method for evaluation rather than as a listed use. If a body of water showed any of the following impacts, then one or more of the beneficial uses was considered to be impaired:

• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption • Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor • Degradation of fish and wildlife populations • Fish tumors and other deformities • Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems • Degradation of benthos • Restrictions on dredging activities

Watershed Goals

ANCHOR BAY


36

• Eutrophication or undesirable algae • Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems • Beach closings • Degradation of aesthetics • Added costs to agriculture and or industry • Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations • Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

All the designated and beneficial uses must be evaluated when developing a watershed plan. As can be seen by comparing the above list with the list of designated uses in Table 3-1, there are many overlaps between the two lists. As with the designated uses, beneficial use status can be unimpaired, impaired, threatened, or under review/unknown. The status definitions for designated uses also apply to beneficial uses. Beach closings offer an example of how government officials apply these definitions. If beaches are closed for water quality reasons, then the use, which would be similar to total body contact, would be impaired. If beaches are not being closed due to water quality reasons, the use is unimpaired. If changes in the tributary area might affect the beach and cause degraded water quality, then the use is threatened. Lastly, if there is insufficient data available to determine if beach closings are a problem, the status is considered to be under review/unknown. Table 3-1 lists the beneficial use status in the Anchor Bay Watershed. The table differentiates between the impairment status in the bay and watershed since these areas may have a different status for a particular designated use. 3.2 DESIRED USES AND CONCERNS Desired uses are defined as how stakeholders might want to use the watershed or how they might like the watershed to look. These desired uses are often reflective of designated or beneficial uses but can be beyond the scope of one of the defined uses, such as the construction of a nature trail within the watershed. The desired uses were established in the Anchor Bay Watershed by polling public officials, the general public, and agricultural producers. In addition to a pre-selected list of desired uses that the respondents were asked to rank, the questionnaire also asked for any additional concerns the respondent might have regarding the Anchor Bay Watershed. The results are listed below in no specific order of priority:

Watershed Goals


37

3.3 LONG-TERM GOALS AND SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES The long-term goals and short-term objectives are designed to address concerns raised by the public as well as to restore and protect the beneficial uses established under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the designated uses set by the State of Michigan.

The goals and objectives are intended to reduce and/or eliminate the impacts of the pollutants within the watershed. They will not only lead to a reduction and/or elimination of the current impairments, but will also protect water quality and natural habitat in threatened areas. The goals have been developed on a watershed-wide basis. Therefore, no single community is responsible for achieving all the goals on their own. Rather, communities and counties must work together to implement individual Best Management Practices (BMPs) and collectively achieve objectives that will accomplish these long-term goals. Implementing and maintaining the listed objectives designed to reach the watershed goals is a four-step process and is described in subsequent chapters throughout the plan:

1. Implementing and maintaining BMPs designed to accomplish the objectives and goals (Chapter 4)

2. Reviewing and modifying existing projects, programs, and ordinances as necessary (Chapter 6)

3. Designing and implementing education and information activities designed to inform the public about the purpose of the BMPs, objectives, and goals and the role of the public in accomplishing those measures (Chapter 2)

4. Evaluating the effectiveness of planned activities associated with implementation of BMPs within the watershed (Chapter 6)

The objectives associated with each of the goals are also developed on a watershed-wide basis and no single community is expected to accomplish all the listed objectives. It is anticipated that the communities within the watershed will continuously strive to meet the objectives for each goal through implementation of various BMPs within their community by working collectively with other communities.

Desired Uses: Concerns: • Swimming • Recreation • Waterfowl and wildlife

habitat

• Financial concerns • Flooding • Erosion • Educating the public • Lack of open space • Unmanaged development • Lack of governmental support for

agricultural buffer strips • Lack of consistent application of

agricultural BMPs • Lack of recreational area

Watershed Goals


38

While many of the objectives are already being implemented, additional objectives will be implemented under this watershed plan and in conjunction with the Phase II storm water permits. Progress toward meeting the goals will be submitted as part of each community’s annual report to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality under the Phase II storm water permits. Progress will be measured against endpoint values that have been established as part of the development of this watershed plan. The endpoints and the methods of measuring these parameters are detailed in chapter 6. Goals were developed based on 1) the designated and beneficial uses identified as impaired by the MDEQ and the Technical and Steering committees, and 2) the desired uses and concerns identified by the polled public officials and stakeholder groups. Table 3-1 depicts how the long-term goals relate to these impairments, uses, and concerns. Listed below are both the long-term goals and short-term objectives, neither of which are listed in a specific order of priority.

Long-term Goal 1: Restore and enhance recreational uses

Objectives: 1a. Reduce bacterial loading 1b. Reduce nutrient loading 1c. Provide additional public access to water resources

Long-term Goal 2: Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat

Objectives: 2a. Protect and re-establish riparian and in-stream habitat 2b. Reduce soil erosion and sedimentation 2c. Reduce excess runoff 2d. Protect open space and natural areas within the watershed

Long-term Goal 3: Protect public health

Objectives: 3a. Protect drinking water supply 3b. Reduce bacterial loading 3c. Reduce pollutants resulting in fish advisories Long-term Goal 4: Reduce impacts from peak flows

Objectives: 4a. Establish target peak flows for the tributaries 4b. Develop water resource protection and management ordinances to reduce runoff

4c. Reduce storm water runoff quantity 4d. Minimize post-storm in-stream flow velocities Table 3-1 summarizes the impairment status of the beneficial and designated uses in the Anchor Bay Watershed and shows the relationships among the desired uses and concerns of the public in the watershed and how those uses and concerns relate to the

Watershed Goals


39

designated and beneficial use determinations. Those uses that are not listed are considered to be unimpaired. The table lists the long-term goals, which are designed to upgrade the impaired designated/beneficial use to an unimpaired status when fully achieved.

I=Impaired, T= Threatened, C= Concern

Impairment Status Designated (D) and Beneficial

(B) Use Determinations

Desired Uses and

Concerns of the Public Anchor Bay

Watershed Area

Long-term Goals

Partial body contact (D), (B)

Swimming, Recreation, Beach closings, Sewage I I

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Protect public health

Total body contact (D), (B)

Swimming, Recreation, Beach closings, Sewage I I

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Protect public health

Degradation of aesthetics (B)

Flooding, Erosion

I I

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Reduce impacts from peak flows

Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife (D), (B)

Waterfowl and wildlife habitat, Flooding I I

Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Reduce impacts from peak flows

Eutrophication or undesirable algae (B)

Swimming, Recreation, Fishing, Waterfowl and wildlife habitat, Aquatic weeds, Trash removal, Control fertilizer runoff I I

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Protect public health

Warmwater/coldwater fisheries (B), (D)

Fishing, Erosion, Flooding

I I

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Protect public health; Reduce impacts from peak flows

Degradation of benthos (B)

Fishing, Erosion, Flooding

I

Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Reduce impacts from peak flows

Drinking water (D), (B)

Drinking Water T T

Protect public health

Table 3-1: Anchor Bay Watershed Impairments for Designed and Beneficial Uses

Watershed Goals


40

I=Impaired, T= Threatened, C= Concern

Impairment Status Designated (D) and Beneficial

(B) Use Determinations

Desired Uses and

Concerns of the Public Anchor Bay

Watershed Area

Long-term Goals

Concerns of the Public Financial concerns

C C


Educating the public

C C


Lack of open space, boating, biking and walking trails, fishing access, manage riparian land C

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat

Unmanaged development

C C

Restore and enhance recreational uses; Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat; Reduce impacts from peak flows

Lack of governmental support for agricultural buffer strips

C


Lack of consistent application of agricultural BMPs

C


Lack of recreational access C C

Restore and enhance recreational uses

Table 3-1: Anchor Bay Watershed Impairments for Designed and Beneficial Uses (continued)

Chapter Four


41

BBEESSTT MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPRRAACCTTIICCEESS

4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) The pollutants identified in the earlier chapters are most often by-products of human impact on the land that makes up the Anchor Bay Watershed. In order to protect and restore Anchor Bay and its tributaries, the impact of these human activities must be minimized, either by changes in behavior or through the use of BMPs. BMPs are practices selected to address specific environmental issues and can be implemented individually or in series to address impairments within the watershed. Some BMPs are better suited to newly developing communities, while others are more applicable to established urban areas. Rural and agricultural BMPs are often dissimilar to urban BMPs but rely on many of the same concepts. The many stresses on the environment identified in the earlier chapters can be divided into several broad categories that are closely associated with the major goals of this watershed plan. Thus, BMPs proposed to be used by the communities have been organized into four long-term goals:

• Goal 1: Restore and enhance recreational uses

• Goal 2: Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat

• Goal 3: Protect public health

• Goal 4: Reduce impacts from peak flows

Table 4-1 below lists the BMPs that address each specific long-term goal. The BMPs are listed alphabetically and in no particular order of priority.

Long Term Goal 1: Restore and enhance recreational uses

• Conserve Riparian Land for Future Parks and Public Access (BMP 3) • Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities (BMP 4) • Construct Wetlands (BMP 5) • Enhance Catch Basin functionality (BMP 8) • Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs) • Identify Areas for Recreation Enhancement (BMP 10) • Identify and Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) (BMP 11) • Identify and Eliminate Failing Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs)

(BMP12) • Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges (BMP 13) • Implement Financial Solutions (BMP 14) • Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions (BMP 15) • Implement Municipal Employee Training Programs (BMP 16) • Implement Septic System Maintenance Measures (BMP 18) • Increase Public Awareness (BMP 22) • Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices (BMP 25)

Best Management Practices


42

Long Term Goal 1: Restore and enhance recreational uses (continued) • Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process (BMP 26) • Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure (BMP 27) • Maintain Storm Water Controls (BMP 28) • Manage Public Facilities (BMP 29) • Manage Riparian Corridors (BMP 30) • Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants (BMP 31) • Monitor Water Quality and Quantity (BMP 33) • Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning (BMP 34) • Perform Street Sweeping (BMP 35) • Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands/Woodlands (BMP 36) • Prevent and Remove Flow Obstructions (BMP 37) • Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability (BMP 38) • Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife (BMP 39) • Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide, and Herbicide Usage (BMP 42) • Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems (BMP 45)

Long Term Goal 2: Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat

• Conduct Household Hazardous Materials Management Programs (BMP 1) • Conduct Natural Feature Inventory and Assessments (BMP 2) • Conserve Riparian Land for Future Parks and Public Access (BMP 3) • Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities (BMP 4) • Construct Wetlands (BMP 5) • Continue/Expand Litter and Debris Cleanup and Recycling Programs (BMP 6) • Control Soil Erosion (BMP 7) • Enhance Catch Basin Functionality (BMP 8) • Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs)

(BMP 9) • Identify Areas for Recreation Enhancement (BMP 10) • Identify and Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) (BMP 11) • Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges (BMP 13) • Implement Financial Solutions (BMP 14) • Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions (BMP 15) • Implement Natural Features Protection Ordinances (BMP 17) • Implement Septic System Maintenance Measures (BMP 18) • Implement Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) Programs (BMP 19) • Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances (BMP 20) • Implement Streambank Stabilization Measures (BMP 21) • Increase Public Awareness (BMP 22) • Install/Maintain Oil and Grease Trap Devices (BMP 23) • Install/Maintain Sediment Control Devices (BMP 24) • Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices (BMP 25) • Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process (BMP 26) • Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure (BMP 27) • Maintain Storm Water Controls (BMP 28) • Manage Public Facilities (BMP 29)



43

Long Term Goal 2: Restore and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat (continued)

• Manage Riparian Corridors (BMP 30)

• Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants (BMP 31) • Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems (BMP 45)

Long Term Goal 3: Protect Public Health

• Conduct Household Hazardous Materials Management Programs (BMP 1) • Enhance Catch Basin Functionality (BMP 8) • Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs)

(BMP 9) • Identify and Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) (BMP 11) • Identify and Eliminate Failing Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs) (BMP

12) • Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges (BMP 13) • Implement Financial Solutions (BMP 14) • Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions (BMP 15) • Implement Municipal Employee Training Programs (BMP 16) • Implement Septic System Maintenance Measures (BMP 18) • Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances (BMP 20) • Increase Public Awareness (BMP 22) • Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices (BMP 25) • Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process (BMP 26) • Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure (BMP 27) • Maintain Storm Water Controls (BMP 28) • Manage Public Facilities (BMP 29) • Manage Riparian Corridors (BMP 30) • Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants (BMP 31) • Minimize the Use of Salt and De-icing Chemicals (BMP 32) • Monitor Water Quality and Quantity (BMP 33) • Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleanup (BMP 34) • Perform Street Sweeping (BMP 35) • Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability (BMP 38) • Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife (BMP 39) • Reduce/Eliminate Oil and Chemical Discharges (BMP 41) • Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide, and Herbicide Usage (BMP 42)

• Minimize the Use of Salt and Deicing Chemicals (BMP 32) • Monitor Water Quality and Quantity (BMP 33) • Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning (BMP 34) • Perform Street Sweeping (BMP 35) • Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands and Woodlands (BMP 36) • Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability (BMP 38) • Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife (BMP 39) • Reduce/Eliminate Oil and Chemical Discharges (BMP 41) • Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide, and Herbicide Usage (BMP 42) • Support Environmental Friendly Lawn and Garden Maintenance (BMP 43) • Support Wetland Mitigation Banking (BMP 44)



44

Long Term Goal 3: Protect Public Heath (continued) • Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems (BMP 45)

4.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES The watershed is comprised of diverse local communities, from rural townships to urban city centers. Subsequently, there are a variety of structural and nonstructural management alternatives, or BMPs, that could be considered across the watershed. Although each of these alternatives will most likely apply to at least one of the communities in the watershed, not all of them apply to every community. Therefore, it is important to note that each of the alternatives is a unique solution to a specific pollution source or problem. The following is a brief summary of each BMP in this management plan. There are a large number of references that detail each of these BMPs. However this summary is intended to provide a basic explanation of each practice that correlates with the specific short-term objectives of each long-term goal. Further information on BMPs can be found in the EPA Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices report and on the Internet. The BMPs are listed below with corresponding symbols to identify specifically which objectives each BMP addresses. They are listed in alphabetical order and in no particular order of priority.

Long Term Goal 4: Reduce Impacts From Peak Flows

• Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities (BMP 4) • Construct Wetlands (BMP 5) • Implement Financial Solutions (BMP 14) • Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions (BMP 15) • Implement Natural Features Protection Ordinances (BMP 17) • Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances (BMP

20) • Increase Public Awareness (BMP 22) • Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices (BMP 25) • Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process (BMP 26) • Maintain Storm Water Controls (BMP 28) • Manage Public Facilities (BMP 29) • Monitor Water Quality and Quantity (BMP 33) • Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning (BMP 34) • Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands and Woodlands (BMP 36) • Prevent and Remove Flow Obstructions (BMP 37) • Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability (BMP 38) • Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces (BMP 40) • Support Environmental Friendly Lawn and Garden Maintenance (BMP 43) • Support Wetland Mitigation Banking (BMP 44) • Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques (BMP 46)



45

Conduct Household Hazardous Materials Management Programs (BMP 1) «SN The average American household contains three to ten gallons of hazardous chemicals, including items such as automotive wastes, cleaners, and paints. In general, the public is unaware of the problems associated with overuse and improper disposal of these materials. In addition, the public generally does not recognize the toxicity of materials used in and around homes. The goal of a Household Hazardous Waste Program is to:

• Minimize the purchase and usage of household hazardous materials that exhibit characteristics such as corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, and/or toxicity, or are listed as hazardous materials by the EPA, and

• Ensure proper storage and disposal of such materials if they must be purchased and used.

The proper disposal of hazardous materials will minimize the amount of hazardous materials that will enter surface waters and groundwater supplies. Conduct Natural Feature Inventory and Assessments (BMP 2) «¨ The first step in protecting a community’s natural resources is to identify what resources should be protected, where they are located, and what benefits they provide to the community. After an inventory, it is often helpful to design an assessment of these natural features so that they can be prioritized in terms of their importance to the community and their relative need for preservation. Often, it is not feasible to protect all of the natural features in a community. However, an inventory and assessment can provide scientific rationale to support a local protection ordinance and/or the basis for avoiding the feature during site design and development. Community-wide inventories and assessments can also provide future opportunities to preserve greenways for wildlife as well as recreation. Conserve Riparian Land for Future Parks and Public Access (BMP 3) ¤«¨ Waterside property is typically in high demand and can be costly. It is often in the interest of local agencies and land conservancies to compete in the open market for riparian lands. This does not diminish the need for these agencies at all levels to continue to identify and obtain the rights to conserve riparian lands. Once the available property has been identified, funding must be secured through general funds, state programs, federal programs, and/or foundations. The acquisition of these areas can be identified by local units of government through the use of natural area inventories. In turn, riparian areas can be included in long-term land use plans and can be included in local policy decisions. The properties, once secured, can provide both recreational opportunities and environmental benefit in the riparian areas. Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities (BMP 4) ²³zu² Storm water storage facilities are source-control devices designed to manage flow sufficiently in order to prevent downstream flooding and/or reduce erosive velocities in the receiving stream. They can either be retrofitted into existing systems or designed into new systems. Retrofitting storage into existing drainage systems is usually very expensive. Improperly sized and sited storage facilities can also cause localized



²Objective 1a: Reduce Bacterial Loading S Objective 3a: Protect Drinking Water Supply ³Objective 1b: Reduce Nutrient Loading Ë Objective 3b: Reduce Bacterial Loading ¤ Objective 1c: Provide Additional Public Access to Water Resources N Objective 3c: Reduce Pollutants Resulting in Fish Advisories «Objective 2a: Protect and Re-establish Riparian and In-stream Habitat ¡ Objective 4a: Establish Target Peak Flows for the Tributaries vObjective 2b: Reduce Soil Erosion and Sedimentation O Objective 4b: Develop Water Resource Protection and z Objective 2c: Reduce Excess Runoff Management Ordinances to Reduce Runoff ¨ Objective 2d: Protect Open Space and Natural Areas within the Watershed u Objective 4c: Reduce Storm Water Runoff Quantity ² Objective 4d: Minimize Post-storm In-stream Flow Velocities

46

parking lot and street flooding, icing in winter months, and increased downstream flooding. Local and county drain ordinances can require development standards for construction of storm water storage facilities. Wet detention ponds are small man-made lakes that can include emergent wetland vegetation around the banks, as well as within the pond area, and are designed to capture and remove particulate and certain dissolved constituents. Wet ponds 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, although they can also be used effectively in smaller size drainage areas. The outlet should be sized to assure retention of an adequate amount of water to support good vegetative growth while still reducing peak discharges to the receiving stream. Dry detention ponds are designed to capture runoff and release it slowly to allow most of the pollutant-laden sediments to settle. This type of detention pond is designed to be dry between storm events and is primarily used for tributary watersheds ten acres and larger, although they can be effective in smaller drainage areas also. Since the purpose of a dry detention pond is to attenuate peak flow, the outlet is usually sized to draw down the first 50 percent of volume in 12 to 16 hours and the remaining water in 24 to 32 hours. Both of these detention devices can be used to treat runoff, accumulate sediments, attenuate flow, and route floodwaters. Water from these devices could be used in sprinkler systems for green belts and commons areas in residential and commercial developments. This would provide relief for potable water systems during peak seasonal demands. The decision to use a dry or a wet detention basin is usually dictated by the location and other surrounding land uses. Either system will provide quantity management and some degree of quality enhancement if properly designed, operated, and maintained. In all cases, the pond should be configured for aesthetics, safety, and maintenance. Other possible detention devices are storage tanks connected to the existing drainage system, street storage, and parking lot storage. Storage tanks are often located underground. This category would include off-line storage and oversized collection pipes. Street and/or parking lot storage is usually accomplished through the use of restricted catch basins or undersized collection pipes that do not allow the maximum design flow from a storm event to be transported through the system as fast as it accumulates. Water that can not enter the system backs up into the streets and/or parking lots. Care needs to be taken in utilizing this BMP that the temporary flooding




47

will not cause property damage and that icing that may form in winter months will not create a safety hazard. Construct Wetlands (BMP 5) ³«vzu² Constructed Wetlands can be designed to provide storm water retention and treatment. They attenuate peak flow from storm water runoff due to their large storage capacity, and vegetation in the wetland acts as a filter to organic materials and nutrients. Where natural wetlands have been lost due to land use changes, constructed wetlands can help to recover some of the functions that the natural wetlands provided. In addition, they can be strategically placed in accordance with an integrated storm water management program. Secondary benefits of constructed wetlands include preservation and restoration of the natural balance between surface waters and ground waters, increased wildlife habitat, improved aesthetics compared to a rectangular detention basin, and higher property values for land adjacent to the area. The MDEQ has extensive experience with constructed wetlands and provides guidance to assist with the development of sustainable constructed wetlands. Constructed wetlands by a municipality or county are usually associated with floodplain management programs. Their purpose is to provide additional storm water storage along a river or stream that may flood downstream areas. Continue/Expand Litter and Debris Cleanup and Recycling Programs (BMP 6) « Stream aesthetics, water quality, and habitat are all impacted by materials dumped into and along watercourses. Litter and debris cleanup can be achieved through adopt-a-road and local stream clean-up programs. Community organizations, schools, churches, and private companies can pledge to collect debris along local, county, and state roads, and stream banks and channels. This effort is coordinated with the local, county, or state road agencies that will remove the collected debris for proper disposal. Material recycling benefits the environment. Materials that are recycled reduce the possibility of those materials being dumped into streams, prolong the life of local landfills, and reduce the need for raw materials for new production. Control Soil Erosion (BMP 7) «v See BMPs 19 and 21. Enhance Catch Basin Functionality (BMP 8) ²³«vSË When performed on a regular basis, catch basin cleaning removes pollutants from the storm drainage system, reduces the concentration of pollutants during the first flush of storms, prevents clogging of downstream systems, restores the catch basins sediment trapping ability, and allows the in-system storage capacity of the sewers to be fully




48

utilized. Catch basin cleaning requires the use of a vactor truck, and sumps should be cleaned before they become 40 percent full. Materials removed from the catch basins should be properly disposed of and not allowed to reenter the storm sewer system. Pollutant capture within a catch basin can be improved through the use of catch basin insert devices. Depending on the type, these devices can be used to improve sediment capture and provide oil and chemical removal. Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs) (BMP 9) ²³«SË In rural areas, smaller agricultural establishments and small horse farms may contribute to higher bacteria concentrations if manure is not managed properly. State agencies have the authority to manage agricultural practices through voluntary measures called Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs). GAAMPs provide agricultural landowners with guidelines to follow in 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. Established outreach programs are available to educate landowners about these recommended practices, which should be utilized as much as possible to control potential pollutants from this land use. Municipalities and the county should work closely with the local conservation district to identify and promote the use of GAAMPs in problem areas. Identify Areas for Recreation Enhancement (BMP 10) ¤¨ 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. These areas provide aesthetics and accessibility by use of amenities, such as a fishing pier, a trail system, or other recreational opportunities. The public will be able to experience the human benefits that water offers and, in turn, can work to protect the resource. These spaces can be encouraged in the land use planning of local communities. Local policies and zoning can identify natural feature areas that are prime for long-term preservation or restoration. Identify and Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) (BMP 11) ²³«SËN Sanitary sewers designed and constructed under current standards limit the amount of storm water that can enter the system. Older systems, however, have a number of ways in which excess storm water can enter the sewage collection systems. When this storm water within a sanitary sewer collection system becomes excessive, basements will flood (with sewage) unless the excess flow is discharged to the surface waters. These sewage discharges are known as




49

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). These discharges are illegal under present state and federal rules and regulations. The potential solutions to eliminate untreated SSOs are complex due to the nature of the causes and the inter-relationships of the local and regional sewerage systems that serve the communities. The solutions can be very expensive and may take time to implement. The first step is to determine where the excess flow is entering the sewer system. This can be done by smoke testing, flow measurement, or television inspection of the sewer lines, or physical observation of manhole structures on the system. Once the source(s) of the excess flow is identified, the excess water could be eliminated by:

• Disconnecting direct storm water discharges to the sanitary sewer by removing downspouts or rerouting storm drain and catch basin connections to the storm sewer

• Repairing or replacing defective manhole structures • Repairing or replacing damaged sanitary sewer lines • Constructing new sanitary or storm sewers to carry the excess flow

Identify and Eliminate Failing Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs) (BMP 12) ²³SË Identifying failed OSDS systems can be accomplished through regular inspections of the disposal system or by sampling the waterways. Inspections can occur during property transactions (at time-of-sale), during septic tank pump outs, or at specific periodic intervals. Surface water sampling to detect failing systems is often unreliable because the small volume of untreated sewage created by failing systems in comparison to total river flow may make it difficult to detect in surface waters. Once sewage is detected in surface waters, dye testing can be performed on homes to identify which systems are failing. This requires homeowner cooperation, which is sometimes difficult to obtain. Once a failing OSDS is identified, mechanisms are usually in place to correct the system. Depending on local ordinances and sanitary sewer availability, some homeowners may be allowed to repair their failing systems, while others may be required to connect to the municipal sewer system. Any onsite corrections need to be done under permit from the county health department and in conformance with their requirements. Either of these efforts can be very costly, especially if the systems are nontraditional or if sanitary sewers are not readily available.




50

Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges (BMP 13) ²³«SËN Illicit discharge detection and elimination requires:

• Prevention, detection, and removal of all physical connections to the storm water drainage system that convey any material other than storm water

• Implementation of measures to detect, correct, and enforce against illegal dumping of materials into storm drains, streams, and lakes

• Implementation of spill prevention, containment, cleanup, and disposal techniques at commercial, industrial, and municipal facilities to prevent or reduce the discharge of spilled materials into storm water.

Crews of municipal workers should be trained on how to identify illicit discharges and locate illicit connections. Although this effort can be labor intensive, the reduction in the amount of sanitary sewage and chemicals that enter surface waters through elimination of these sources often has significant environmental benefits. Implement Financial Solutions (BMP 14) ²³¤«vz¨SËN¡Ou² Restoration efforts and environmental programs in any watershed are driven by the desire to make improvements and the availability of funds to make those improvements. Integrating storm water management programs into the daily procedures of a community will most likely incur new costs. In many cases, communities and agencies will need to explore creative solutions to finance new staff, new programs, and new requirements in their storm water program. Grants may be available, often with a local match involved, but these are short-term solutions for one-time projects. Many locally driven projects depend on grants for implementation. Communities and local citizen groups need to be aware of grants that are available and how to obtain those grants. Additionally, to maintain their long-term ability to apply for, and receive, additional grant funds, the present grants need to be effectively and efficiently managed. Many projects need to move ahead based on local contributions from fund raising, citizens, industries, and municipalities in the watershed area. Alternative solutions that have been tested include:

• Implementing a storm water utility fee, incurred by users of the storm water system

• Using impervious cover as a basis for user fees • Creating habitat stamps patterned after the duck stamp program • Enacting a one-time septic system installation fee • Establishing tree and wetland mitigation banking systems • Enacting a lawn and garden fertilizer surcharge




51

• Charging a per-day, per-acre fee for exposed land on construction sites Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions (BMP 15) ²³¤«vz¨SËN¡Ou² Watersheds are a hydrologic boundary, not a political boundary. Therefore, institutional arrangements must be established so that various local, county, state, and federal jurisdictions within the watershed boundary are coordinated. It is recommended that the coordination of the watershed level be tiered as it is in government. Often, at the watershed level, there is a working group dedicated to watershed issues. This may be a council in which representatives from member communities and agencies sit on the board. It may be an independent research group that is contracted by the communities and agencies to provide data and information about the watershed. It may be a county or state agency that takes the lead on coordinating watershed issues within and outside of its political jurisdiction. Implement Municipal Employee Training Programs (BMP 16) ²³SËN Education is an important component of any program to control nonpoint source pollution. The municipality needs to establish an educational training program for staff who are routinely involved in infrastructure inspection and maintenance, open and green space maintenance, or building inspection. The training should at least address issues, such as detection of illicit connections, proper disposal of materials removed during sewer and catch basin cleaning operations, proper application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and methods for servicing municipal vehicles that will eliminate the possibility of any contaminated runoff. Implement Natural Features Protection Ordinances (BMP 17) «¨O In order to direct development while protecting key local natural resources, it is often necessary to implement local ordinances that clarify why protection of certain features is important and how they will be protected under the law. These local ordinances can be more protective than state or federal law and can better reflect priorities of a local community. Example ordinances could address woodland, wetland, and natural features setback, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and fertilizer application. Implement Septic System Maintenance Measures (BMP 18) ²³«SË Septic tank maintenance measures can be used to prevent, detect, and control spills, leaks, overflows, and seepage from occurring in the sanitary system. Onsite sewage disposal systems should be designed, sited, operated, and maintained properly to prevent nutrient and 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. Operation and maintenance ordinances can be implemented by the municipalities and/or county health departments.




52

Implement Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) Programs (BMP 19) v Although the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act in Michigan requires that counties and municipalities implement and enforce a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) program, these programs can vary with respect to their effectiveness. County agencies responsible for SESC programs need to:

• Develop effective county SESC ordinances that address state’s requirements as well as situations unique to the county

• Provide adequate staff to process permits, inspect sites, and respond to complaints

• Develop and access training programs to assure that all staff are adequately trained

• Assure that SESC programs contain adequate enforcement provisions • Develop educational programs for developers and contractors within their

county that will explain both the control mechanisms associated with, and the environmental reasons for, SESC programs

Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances (BMP 20) «vz¨SOu² In undeveloped areas, or in area where redevelopment may occur, it is important to have regulations in place that can guide land development with regard to protecting the water quality, water quantity, and biological integrity of the receiving surface water. 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 practical. Both the counties and CTVs can protect storm water and water resources through the development and implementation of ordinances. Implement Streambank Stabilization Measures (BMP 21) «v Streambank stabilization measures work by either reducing the force of flowing water and/or by increasing the streambank’s resistance to erosion. Three types of streambank stabilization methods exist, including: engineered methods, bioengineered methods, and biotechnical methods. Engineered methods include structures, such as riprap, gabions, deflectors, and revetments. Bioengineering methods use live plants that are embedded and arranged in the ground where they serve as soil reinforcement, hydraulic drains, and barriers to earth movement. Examples of bioengineering techniques include live stakes, live fascines, brush mattresses, live cribwall, and branch packing. Biotechnical methods include integrated use of plants and inert structural components to stabilize channel slopes, prevent erosion, and provide a natural




53

appearance. Examples of biotechnical techniques include joint plantings, vegetated gabion mattresses, vegetated cellular grids, and reinforced grass systems. Increase Public Awareness (BMP 22) ²³¤«vz¨SËN¡Ou² Public participation and education programs are activities in which people learn about and/or work together to control storm water pollution. These programs would be based on the following four objectives: 1) to promote a clear identification and understanding of problems and solutions, 2) to identify responsible parties, 3) to promote community ownership of problems and solutions, and 4) to integrate public feedback into program implementation. To achieve these objectives, the audience needs to be identified, the program carefully designed, and program effectiveness periodically reviewed. Encouraging community ownership of the land and water resources is a key component to minimizing storm water pollution. Without public education and participation, relatively small sources of pollution will continue to accumulate in storm water despite structural controls that may be installed. Public participation and education programs can include the following activities:

• Program planning and tracking – public surveys and database • Program identity – program message, logo and tag line • Collateral material – newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, posters • Coordinating committees • Media campaign – press releases, advertising, public service announcements • Residential programs – storm drain stenciling, home toxics checklist and

alternatives, stream and river road crossing signs, native landscaping, invasive species awareness, and other neighborhood-specific projects

• Presentations – environmental booths, speakers bureau, and special events • Business programs – workshops, publications, and green business projects • Construction programs – workshops, educational materials, and certification • Consumer programs – point of purchase displays and printed grocery bags • School education – facility tours, contests, curriculum materials,

and presentations • Monitoring – Adopt-A-Stream and stream monitoring programs

Install/Maintain Oil and Grease Trap Devices (BMP 23) « Oil and grease traps remove high concentrations of petroleum products, grease, and grit by means of gravity and coalescing plates. These devices are particularly useful on industrial sites, in vehicle maintenance and washing facilities, in areas where heavy mobile equipment is used, and in restaurant kitchens and restaurant dishwashing equipment. Conventional oil and water separators have the appearance of septic tanks, but are much longer in relationship to the width. Separators for large facilities have the




54

appearance of a municipal wastewater primary sedimentation tank. These devices are only effective for reducing abnormally high concentrations of oils and greases. Install/Maintain Sediment Control Devices (BMP 24) «v Sediment control devices, such as a barrier, basin, media filter, or other devices, are designed to remove sediment from runoff. Sediment basins are generally used at the downstream end of large drainage areas. 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 are used for smaller areas; these include sediment traps, sand bag barriers, 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. A media filter is essentially a settling basin followed by a filter for particulate removal. While the most common media is sand, other filters may be used to provide dissolved pollutant removal. Media filters are used on sites with limited space or that are unsuitable for vegetation. Sand filters remove up to 90 percent of suspended materials. Sediment control 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 this BMP. Sediment traps, barriers, basins, and filters should be inspected frequently for repairs and sediment removal. Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices (BMP 25) ²³«vz¨SËNu² Infiltration devices in the Anchor Bay Watershed are generally not a useful BMP because of the watershed’s predominately clay soils. However, under-drained bioretention areas, planted with prairie type plants, can provide an infiltration mechanism for storm water on a site-specific basis that will potentially eliminate runoff from small storms and reduce the quantity of runoff in larger storms. Non-infiltration storm sewer treatment devices are included in BMPs 4, 5, and 24. Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process (BMP 26) ²³¤«vz¨SËOu² Every community should make sure that their comprehensive master plan and other local plans are consistent with, and provide necessary support to, local regulations. When a community is interested in protecting and restoring natural and water resources, the comprehensive plan is the foundation for these protection measures. The purpose for integrating natural and water resources into the planning process can range from providing recreational opportunities, protecting aquatic life, wildlife and habitat, restoring and protecting public health, and reducing peak flows. Although the




55

purposes may vary from community to community, the process of using the comprehensive plan as the basis for resource protection still stands. This process can include writing appropriate background information, data, goals, and policies into various sections of the plan. Specific topics might include storm water management, natural areas preservation and restoration, native landscaping, riparian corridor protection and restoration, and groundwater management. Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure (BMP 27) ²³«SË Infrastructure maintenance includes the upkeep of sanitary sewer lines in order to prevent sewage from flowing into surface waters. Maintenance involves regular inspections of the piping to locate partial blockages, which could case wastewater to backup into basements or onto the surface, pipe failures, which could cause illicit discharges, and/or cross connections between the sanitary and storm systems. Dry weather inflow and infiltration problems are usually identified 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. Maintenance personnel can perform inspections by actually walking the sewers or using a video camera to document the sewer’s condition. Successful BMP implementation can be aided by the development of Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) programs structured in accordance with guidelines supplied by the EPA. Maintain Storm Water Controls (BMP 28) ²³vzSËu² To be continually effective, structural BMPs that are installed to eliminate or control storm water contamination must operate at their original design parameters. This can only be achieved if the controls are routinely checked and maintained to assure they are operating as designed. For example, sediment and oil accumulations must be regularly removed from detention ponds to maintain the design retention time at the expected storm water volume. This maintenance requirement needs to be built into the on-going operational budget for storm water programs. Manage Public Facilities (BMP 29) ²«vz¨SËNu² Much of the acreage in any watershed is publicly owned or controlled. Therefore, public agencies must effectively manage facilities to treat, control, or eliminate any sources of environmental degradation on or from these sites. Public agencies set an example of how environmental management should occur by turning their sites into show places. To do this, public agencies should, at least:

• Develop a fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide management plan for public grounds and make sure that usage is minimized to the lowest possible, yet effective, quantity

• Check all public buildings to eliminate any illicit sewer connections




56

• Disconnect all downspouts to prevent water from flowing directly into storm sewers

• Establish bioretention areas at public buildings to minimize storm water volume impacts

Manage Riparian Corridors (BMP 30) ²³«v¨SË Sheet or overland runoff can carry large amounts of contaminants into streams and directly into the bay during wet weather events. Proper maintenance of areas adjacent to riparian corridors that are left in their natural state or are established as buffer strips provide an excellent filtering mechanism that removes suspended materials contained in the runoff. At a minimum, buffer strips should be twenty feet wide and contain native plant materials in order to provide sufficient filtering. Buffer strips are generally located adjacent to agricultural operations to reduce contamination by manure, sediment, and chemicals used for crop production. These strips can also be very effective in urban settings and can be utilized in areas that contribute to storm sewer systems as well as in direct overland runoff locations. Local units of government can provide land planning tools that will assist landowners and developers with information to properly buffer tributaries, streams, and other water features. These planning tools can utilize overlay districts, required vegetated set back areas, or natural vegetation easements to achieve proper buffering of the riparian land areas. These planning tools can, and should, be incorporated into community comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants (BMP 31) ²³«S Lagoon systems and package wastewater treatment plants have been used to provide wastewater treatment in many areas of the Anchor Bay watershed. The most suitable use of these systems is in areas where failures have already occurred or where no other viable alternatives are available. From a planning perspective, these systems should not be used to gain additional land development density from that which is planned by the local unit of government. When operated correctly, lagoon systems and package wastewater treatment plants can provide adequate protection to the waterways. However over an extended period of time, these systems are often poorly maintained and operated, resulting in deteriorated discharge quality. Because state regulatory agencies may not be able to provide adequate oversight on an ongoing basis due to funding and personnel constraints, local units of government should establish a mechanism for providing review of the operations, maintenance, and discharge quality of these systems (i.e. special assessment district). When violations of discharge standards are identified, existing enforcement programs should be utilized.




57

Minimize Salt and Deicing Chemicals Usage (BMP 32) «S The use of salt and other deicing chemicals at public buildings, streets, and highways should be minimized, while at the same time assuring that safe walking and driving conditions are maintained. Environmentally friendly alternatives (salt substitutes) should be used when appropriate. Monitor Water Quality and Quantity (BMP 33) ²³«vz¨SËN¡u² Monitoring water quantity and quality is a good mechanism to create a snapshot of present water quality conditions and to develop trend indicators of on-going water quality changes. Monitoring is used to establish baseline conditions prior to implementing BMPs and provides information to determine impaired and threatened areas within the watershed. It also provides a mechanism to measure progress toward attaining goals and information necessary for watershed management plan reviews and updates. Because of these multiple benefits, government agencies within the watershed need to create and agree upon a mutually beneficial watershed-wide water monitoring program that outlines sampling parameters, techniques, and analysis procedures (see Chapter 6). Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning (BMP 34) ²³«SËu Sewer system cleaning is beneficial for pipes with flat grades, particularly those that are too flat for self-cleaning velocities to be achieved on a regular basis. Cleaning drainage systems helps remove pollutants before they are allowed to re-enter the natural environment and ensures that the pipes convey their intended design flow. The removal of deposited material can be accomplished with vactors, jetters, and scrapers. During the cleansing process, the material needs to be captured so it does not discharge to the stream. It has been found that the removal efficiency for organics is between 65 and 75 percent and 55 to 65 percent for grit and non-organic material. Ongoing drain maintenance allows for full utilization of the design flow channel in the drain, which results in lower velocities and less scouring. This helps to reduce resuspension of sediments within the drain and minimizes erosive impacts on the streambed and streambanks. Perform Street Sweeping (BMP 35) ²³«SË When performed regularly, street sweeping can remove 50 to 90 percent of street pollutants, including fertilizer runoff that can potentially enter surface waters through runoff. Street sweeping can also make road surfaces less slippery during light rains, improve aesthetics by removing litter, and control some pollutants. Street sweeping equipment consists of mechanical brooms, vacuum sweepers, or a combination of both, specifically designed to remove litter, loose gravel, soil, pet waste, vehicle debris,




58

dust, and industrial debris from road surfaces. .Sweepers that include vacuum technology are preferred from an environmental standpoint. Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands/Woodlands (BMP 36) ³«vz¨u² Wetlands and wetland complexes provide natural systems that soak up storm water during wet weather events, thus allowing water to infiltrate into vegetation and soil instead of running off directly to surface waters. Many pollutants are filtered out by the plants and soil prior to reaching the groundwater. Wetlands also reduce storm water velocities, reduce peak flows, increase base flows, filter out storm water pollutants, and provide habitat for numerous wildlife species. Sustainable funding for the enforcement of a wetland and woodland ordinances is an important part of ensuring success and should be incorporated into the permitting process. Since true, natural wetlands take decades to properly form, communities and developers should retain wetlands and wetland complexes in their natural state or use them to enhance larger storm water basins rather than removing them during construction and, then, re-engineer them later. Prevent and Remove Flow Obstructions (BMP 37) ²³² Prevention and removal of stream flow obstructions involves the detection of stream blockages caused by debris, sediment, and branches or trees that have fallen into the river. If cleanup is required, it is important to do so in an environmentally friendly manner that minimizes habitat disruptions. Stream cleanup should be considered in lieu of clearing, snagging, channelization, or other severe modifications. Communities and individuals are encouraged to get involved with removing smaller obstructions before they become a major problem. This may include monitoring and maintaining stream flow conditions and checking for obstructions that are hindering the flow of the river and causing upstream ponding problems. Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability (BMP 38) ²³«vz¨SËNu² After ordinances and regulations are in place, there can often be a lack of resources and personnel to enforce the ordinance. Sometimes this means increasing the number of personnel dedicated to inspection and enforcement and/or increasing enforcement follow-through and fines. For example, since many natural features protection ordinances deal with preserving certain features on a development site, careful and regular inspection during the design and construction process is necessary in order to ensure that the ordinance requirements are being followed. Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife (BMP 39) ²«SË While E. coli is an indicator of human sewage in surface water, it also signals the presence of waste from other warm-blooded animals, which, like human sewage, can




59

also cause disease. Therefore, animal waste should be kept from the surface waters, especially where people might want to swim. Source control can be either structural or non-structural.

• Structural controls can be fences that keep grazing animals out of streams, buffer strips along grazing areas, and lagoons to control and treat manure-contaminated runoff from agricultural operations.

• Non-structural controls can be ordinances that limit the number of animals that can be housed in a given area, require specific management measures by animal owners to keep runoff away from animal waste products, or require manure management plans.

• Non-structural controls can also consist of educational initiatives, such as signs at public beaches and parks that encourage people to pick up pet waste and discourage feeding birds.

Municipalities and counties can work with the local conservation district to encourage government agencies, civic leaders, and the agricultural community to implement source controls. Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces (BMP 40) u² A number of activities are currently underway that will reduce directly connected impervious surfaces. To date, most have not been managed in a comprehensive way. Utilizing a Low Impact Development Plan can reduce directly connected impervious surfaces. Low Impact Development 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. This can apply to new residential, commercial, and industrial developments and sites that are undergoing major redevelopment. Reduce/Eliminate Oil/Chemical Discharges (BMP 41) «SN Oil and chemical discharges degrade water quality, aesthetics, and habitat. Both structural and non-structural measures can be used to eliminate the discharge of these materials.

• Structural controls can include: - Catch basin sumps - Secondary containment - Skimming basins.




60

• Non-structural controls can include:

− Educational initiatives, such as identification of storm sewer catch basins with signs that read “Dump No Waste - Drains To Waterbody” to inhibit people from dumping pollutants into the basins

− Supplying information that directs people to approved pollutant disposal sites

− Household Hazardous Waste Programs − Storm water ordinances that prohibit people from dumping oils and

chemicals into storm sewers − Storm water pollution prevention plans by high risk businesses and/or public

facilities Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide, and Herbicide Usage (BMP 42) ³«S Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients are necessary to maintain optimum growth of most vegetation. Fertilizer management addresses the proper selection, use, application, storage, and disposal of fertilizers. Nutrients that are applied beyond what plants require be washed off the soil and runoff into lakes, streams, and wetlands, or where the nutrients could leach into groundwater. When nutrients, such as phosphorus run off into surface waters, they can cause algae blooms and excessive aquatic plant growth. Practicing proper fertilizer management will minimize the potential for pollution of surface and ground waters. Municipalities and the counties should implement these practices on publicly owned properties and encourage landowners to implement these practices on privately owned land. Support Environmental Friendly Lawn and Garden Maintenance (BMP 43) «vz¨Ou² Proper lawn and garden maintenance involves a combination of mechanical methods and careful chemical application. Mechanical methods include:

• Proper selection of vegetation and native plants for various land uses • Incorporating integrated pest management techniques and proper watering

techniques to reduce runoff and excess transpiration • Proper lawn mowing techniques to reduce runoff rates and pollutant transport • Proper organic debris disposal • Proper pest control techniques to minimize the use of herbicides and pesticides.

Particular maintenance techniques are required on steep slopes, in or around drainage channels, streams and detention basins, and adjacent to catch basins. This BMP could be carried out though public education efforts on non-point source pollution and/or through regulations requiring licensing for landscaping and lawn care professionals.




61

Support Wetland Mitigation Banking (BMP 44) «vz¨Ou² Wetlands are nature’s way of controlling the adverse impacts of storm water. They moderate peak flows, increase groundwater, increase low flows, and clean surface runoff. Wetland mitigation is the replacement of wetland functions through the creation or restoration of wetlands. Wetland mitigation banking provides a mechanism for establishing new wetland areas, or banks, in advance of anticipated wetland losses. These banks provide a credit that can be used to meet wetland permit conditions. Mitigation banking benefits the state’s wetland resources by providing new wetlands in advance of losses; by consolidating small mitigation projects into larger, better designed and managed units; and by encouraging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed based resource planning. In addition, wetland banking systems can provide profit to the municipality that can be used for funding other water resource protection activities. Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems (BMP 45) ²³«¨SË Land use planning, particularly in dense or intense usage areas, must be closely related to the availability and capacities of existing and proposed public utility systems. Planning for wastewater treatment systems has historically been performed by existing wastewater providers rather than being driven by local community master planning efforts. As a result, many of the less populated areas have relied upon onsite disposal systems, lagoons, and package wastewater treatment plants. These smaller wastewater systems can be operated successfully if properly sited, operated, and maintained. Wastewater treatment system planning should be performed with careful consideration of other types of ongoing land-use planning. The planning should be part of, and reflective of, long-term land use goals embodied in the community’s or the county’s master plan. Therefore, the municipality needs to:

• Identify areas to be sewered • Identify areas where onsite treatment will be used • Control development, in accordance with health department guidelines, in areas

that will use onsite treatment • Develop and adopt a capital improvement program to finance needed sewer

system operation, maintenance, upgrades, and replacement. Public utilities are a necessary prerequisite to many forms of development, particularly urban residential development. Therefore, land use plans on a community or regional level must be closely coordinated with plans for current and future utility systems.




62

Sewer and land use planning should take into account those areas where development is most likely to occur, where soil types are completely unsuitable for individual septic systems, and where seepage and contamination from conventional septic fields could have the greatest impact on existing waterways. Therefore, plans must consider soil and conventional septic system limitations when determining land usage and development density. Based on information provided by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the soils in much of the Anchor Bay Watershed have high clay content that makes infiltration of treated wastewater more difficult. Therefore, waste disposal systems must rely mainly on evapotransporation. This condition makes the use of certain types of conventional or smaller systems less desirable or even inappropriate. When planning for lot size, it is important to allow for ample space to allow infiltration and evaporation to occur, provide an area for a reserve septic field, and allow for appropriate setbacks and isolation distances. Land use and densities should be reviewed with the county health department to ensure long-term septic viability. Finally, as technology improves and the cost for such technology decreases, the availability of package treatment plants to service individual developments becomes more likely. These systems can be operated successfully and efficiently if properly sited, operated, and maintained. However, long-term maintenance can become an issue. Improper maintenance or monitoring can lead to costly repairs or complete system failure, causing substantial environmental degradation. Therefore, guidelines and policies must be set in regard to placement, maintenance, and potential funding mechanisms in order to achieve long-term system functionality. Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques (BMP 46) « Habitat restoration techniques include in-stream structures that may be used to correct and/or improve animal 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, revetments, and “K-shaped” dams. The majority of these structures are to be installed with hand labor and tools. After construction, a maintenance program must be implemented to ensure long-term success of the BMP.



63

Table 4-1: Types of BMPs used for Pollutant Load Reduction Study

Table 4-2: Percentage Area for Various Model Runs

4.2 BMP WATERSHED LOADING REDUCTION MODELING To the extent that limited data allowed, a relatively simple Watershed Management Model (WMM, version 4.0) was used to predict projected pollutant load reductions based on various BMP implementation scenarios. The WMM model was developed under the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project (1996). It simulates the generation and fate of pollutant loads from a number of watershed pollutant sources. The model uses land use categories with associated event mean concentrations (EMCs), depending on the parameters of concern, to simulate annual or seasonal pollutant loads carried in storm water runoff. Details of the model, key reports, key governing equations, and limitations can be obtained from the website www.rougeriver.com. A forecast of the approximate impact of possible actions or alternatives on water quality and pollutant loadings was developed in seven different model runs. As indicated in Table 4-1 below:

• Model Run A-1 employed a baseline “no-BMP” scenario • Model Runs A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-1 are identical in regard to the percentage of

land use type covered by each BMP; for example, a particular BMP was implemented on 20 percent of the agricultural land in the watershed. However, the scenarios differ in the type of BMPs used, thus providing a baseline case study for each

• The final two runs, A-6 and A-7, were an attempt to simulate a more realistic scenario, using a combination or range of BMPs throughout the watershed.

Model Run Type of BMP Used A-1 No BMPs used A-2 100-year detention A-3 Wet detention A-4 Retention A-5 Swales A-6 Combination of BMPs

A-7 Combination of BMPs with increased

coverage

Percentages Area with BMP Used Land use type Runs A-2 through A-5

Agricultural 20% Low Density Residential 20% High Density Residential 10%

Commercial 10% Industrial 10% Highways 20%

Water/wetlands 0%



64

Table 4-3: Pollutant Load Reduction for Model Runs A-2 through A -5

Table 4-4: Percentage Areas Used and BMP Types in Model Run A-6

The pollutant parameters of interest in the Anchor Bay watershed used in the model are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (COD), Dissolved Phosphorus (DP), E-Coli, Nitrates and Nitrites (NO23), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Therefore, model runs A-2 through A-5 were contrasted against the results from model run A-1 and are presented in Table 4-3.

From Table 4-4, it is clear that the most effective BMP to reduce nutrient loads is the retention basin option. If the focus in Anchor Bay, however, is primarily to reduce Dissolved Phosphorous loadings, the use of wet detention basins is equally effective. Use of 100-year detention ponds appears to be least effective of all BMPs. Based upon these baseline simulations, a combination of BMPs were agreed upon and tested as the final run, A-6. For this simulation, the percentage areas used and the type of BMPs are outlined below.

Land use type Percent BMP type used

100-year detention Retention Swales Wet detention

Agricultural 0% 15% 5% 0%

Low Density Residential 5% 5% 5% 0%

High Density Residential 5% 2.5% 2.5% 0%

Commercial 0% 2.5% 2.5% 0%

Industrial 0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Highways 0% 5% 20% 2.5%

Water/wetlands 0% 0% 0% 0%

Pollutant parameter Pollutant load reduction in percent

1b/yr 100-year detention Wet detention Retention Swales

BOD 0.5 11.8 23.6 7.9

COD 0.0 7.8 19.4 6.5

DP 0.0 29.1 25.2 2.8

E. coli 5.2 0.0 16.6 0.0

NO23 0.0 10.8 23.0 10.2

TKN 0.2 8.0 15.4 6.8

TP 0.0 15.2 19.4 8.6

TSS 4.1 16.6 14.6 13.0



65

Table 4-5: Percentage Areas Used and BMP Types in Model Run A-7

Table 4-6: Pollutant Load Reduction for Model Run A-6 and A-7

Model run A-7 used the same types of BMPs but increased the percentage of each land use that was covered by those BMPs.

A comparison of the reductions from model runs A-6 and A-7 is shown in Table 4-6.

As expected, model runs A-6 and A-7 demonstrate that high percentages of land covered by BMPs results in greater reduction of contaminants in the storm water being discharged to the watershed. The model can be a useful tool for making recommendations regarding what types of BMPs should be implemented in specific areas and the potential change in loadings that can be expected when those scenarios are implemented.

Land use type Percent BMP type used

100-year detention Retention Swales

Wet detention

Agricultural 25% 15% 25% 25%

Low Density Residential 10% 5% 25% 25%

High Density Residential 25% 2.5% 2.5% 25%

Commercial 15% 2.5% 2.5% 25%

Industrial 15% 2.5% 2.5% 25%

Highways 20% 5% 20% 20%

Water/wetlands 0% 0% 0% 0%

Pollutant parameter Pollutant load reduction in percent 1b/yr A-6 A-7 BOD 4.7 12.4

COD 8.0 18.0

DP 5.8 19.2

E. coli 7.0 10.0

NO23 10.2 21.6

TKN 4.2 9.6

TP 7.2 19.2

TSS 10.4 38.4

Chapter Five

ANCHOR BAY


66

CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY AACCTTIIOONN PPLLAANNSS

5.0 INTRODUCTION Although the actions and support of local citizen groups, individuals, and watershed organizations in the Anchor Bay Watershed are crucial to protecting and improving water quality and habitat, the goals and objectives of this watershed plan can only be fully accomplished through the actions of the counties and local units of government located within the watershed. A series of meetings were held with the counties and local communities to determine what Best Management Practices (BMPs) they were currently implementing or planning to implement in the short- or long-term time frame. A BMP can include projects, planning ordinances, or practices that the community or county is, or will be, implementing to control pollution sources or causes of pollution. Members of the Technical Committee met with representatives from each of the local communities, including public works directors, planning staff, supervisors, and community engineers. To the maximum extent possible, the same Technical Committee members participated in each interview to assure uniformity in regard to presentation and information collection. To facilitate meetings with governmental units, an interview form was developed using the BMPs discussed in Chapter 4. For the purpose of discussion, the BMPs were grouped into five categories: illicit discharges, soil erosion, public education, infrastructure, habitat, and planning. The goals and objectives of the plan were reviewed at these meetings prior to discussing the BMPs that were being implemented. The completed interview forms, with detailed notes, are included in Appendix F and should be used by the community and county as an indication of the activities that may be included in their Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI), which is required under the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the interview information and demonstrates the relationship between the BMPs that each community and county is implementing and/or planning and the goals and objectives of this watershed plan. The following terms are used in Table 5-1, as well as in Appendix F, to describe the level of BMP implementation for each community and county within the Anchor Bay Watershed: Current: The BMP activity is presently being implemented and is

intended to continue. Short Term: The BMP activity is planned for implementation within the next

five years. Long Term: The BMP activity is planned for implementation within the next

ten years. Not Applicable: The BMP activity does not apply to the community or county. Blank Space: The BMP activity is not currently being implemented and there

are no plans to implement in the future.

Community Action Plans


67

5.1 COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS Interview results show that many of the activities required to protect and restore the Anchor Bay Watershed are ongoing. This section highlights a number of projects that are currently taking place. Each project serves as an example of how Anchor Bay communities are currently working toward addressing water quality and/or quantity problems. Financial Solutions Although most communities have not considered how to finance projects associated with the storm water control programs, Clinton Township has developed an ordinance that allows for establishing storm water fees based on the impervious area in new development projects. These fees will be used to support programs required under this plan. Water Quality Monitoring Since 1997, Macomb County has performed monitoring in the Anchor Bay watershed through the Lake St. Clair Assessment Program. Recently, additional funding was allocated from the State of Michigan to geographically expand the Lake St. Clair Assessment Program to areas in St. Clair and Oakland Counties. This project, named the Lake St. Clair, Clinton River, and St. Clair River Water Quality Monitoring Project, is a cooperative effort between Macomb, Oakland and St. Clair counties to evaluate impairments in the St. Clair River, Clinton River, and Lake St. Clair. The project consists of developing a three-year comprehensive monitoring effort that will include the following components: • Continuous water quality monitoring at 14 fixed stations (one station within Anchor

Bay) • Automatic sampling during wet weather events for various parameters (one site

within Anchor Bay) • Manual grab sampling for various parameters (two sites within Anchor Bay) • Sediment sampling in depositional zones in Lake St. Clair and inland lakes (two

sites within Anchor Bay) • Macrophyte and algae sampling in Lake St. Clair (two sites within Anchor Bay) • Current, flow, and rainfall monitoring (one site within Anchor Bay) • A bacterial source tracking study (site to be determined) • Long-term toxin monitoring (sites to be determined). Other important aspects of the project include: development of a water quality database; improved understanding of water quality in the study area; identification of areas needing remedial actions; enhanced partnering between counties, municipalities, academia and others; public involvement; and publication of project data through a website. The complete work plan and project description for this project can be obtained by contacting the Macomb County Health Department. Illicit Discharges Illicit discharges may contribute a significant pollutant load to Anchor Bay and its tributary streams. Control and elimination of these illicit discharges generally involves locating outfalls and eliminating contaminants at the source rather than providing end-



68

Figure 5-1: Pet Waste Disposal Station in Algonac

of-pipe treatment. Both Macomb and St. Clair counties have recently invested extensive resources to investigate and eliminate sources of human sewage throughout the watershed. In 2002, both counties received Clean Michigan Initiative grants to conduct Illicit Discharge Elimination Programs (IDEP). Sources are being eliminated as they are identified. Problem outfalls are being referred to local communities for source investigation and correction, and businesses and residents are being asked to fix discharges from privately owned buildings and homes. Macomb County has also implemented an onsite disposal system evaluation and maintenance ordinance that requires the inspection of septic systems when a house is sold (Appendix G). Locating sources of illicit discharges within enclosed storm water drainage areas can be a time-consuming and expensive process. The City of New Baltimore has been actively pursuing potential sewage sources that have been contributing to elevated E. coli levels in Crapau Creek for years. To date, they have spent a substantial amount of time and money to locate and eliminate several illicit connections throughout their storm water system. However, elevated levels of E. coli still exist in the creek, a situation that indicates the presence of additional sources. Although this situation is not unique to an established community like New Baltimore, stakeholders need to understand the complexity and expense of locating illicit connections in developed areas. Although many of the bacteria sources within the watershed are human, pet waste also contributes to this problem. To alleviate this problem, some watershed communities have restricted pet access to community parks and other public property or passed ordinances that require owners to clean up after their pets. The City of Algonac has taken a unique approach to controlling the problem by providing bag dispensers and disposal stations for pet waste cleanup (Figure 5-1). Soil Erosion As noted in Chapter 1, soil erosion and streambank erosion result in habitat destruction and a significant sediment load to tributary streams. Most communities require that new development obtain a soil erosion permit from the county agency and provide a copy of that permit to the community as part of their building permit approval process. However the City of Algonac and the Village of New Haven have taken this a step further by incorporating this requirement, as well as other storm water controls, under their Engineering Standards Ordinance. China Township includes these requirements as part of the standard building permit package that they provide to residents and developers. Several of the communities, including New Baltimore, Clinton Township, and Chesterfield Township, have enabling ordinances that allow them to maintain any sedimentation basins installed within their communities. If a local developer and/or homeowners association fails to properly operate and maintain the devices, then the



69

Figure 5-2: The Pollution Solutions! Presentation is offered to schools in both St. Clair & Macomb Counties

community will maintain the basins and assess the cost back to the developer or association. Public Education While many programs can be initiated by communities and counties to ensure protection of the water quality and habitat, residents within the watershed need to be aware of how their individual actions affect water quality and what they can do to eliminate or reduce pollution sources. This is accomplished through public education related BMPs. In the near future, all of communities within the watershed will be providing educational materials to their residents through cable television public access channels, websites, periodic newsletters, and/or brochures that will be made available at public buildings and offices. Chesterfield Township has gone a step further by implementing a catch basin decal program to serve as a reminder to their residents that the storm sewer catch basins drain directly to the bay. Both Macomb and St. Clair counties educate the next generation through various student programs, such as the Pollution Solutions! Presentation (Figure 5-2). This is offered to all elementary and high schools in the watershed and has proven to be a very effective program for helping students understand pollution sources and water resource issues. A very important public outreach component has been to involve communities in the watershed planning efforts. Although many communities are hesitant to take on additional responsibilities due to limited budgets and staffing constraints, most of the communities within the Anchor Bay Watershed have been active participants. In particular, Ira Township and the City of New Baltimore have recognized the importance of water resources protection and have taken the lead on the Anchor Bay Watershed Steering Committee. The Ira Township Supervisor serves as the Chairman of the Committee, and the Mayor of New Baltimore serves as the Vice Chair. Infrastructure Proper infrastructure maintenance is essential if the installed BMPs and the sewage and storm water collection systems are to function as designed. Failure of these systems can result in sewage discharge to the streams and bay, increased sediment discharges, and excessive flows in the streams that result in downstream and localized flooding. Additionally, as development increases within the watershed, it is important that communities limit the amount of area that can be made impervious and control the



70

locations of development to reduce the impact on waterways to the maximum extent possible. All communities that have sanitary sewer systems have maintenance programs to assure that their systems operate properly. However, the City of Mount Clemens is the only community that has formalized the program to the extent of developing a Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Program in accordance with EPA draft policies. Habitat and Planning Macomb County is currently conducting a Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) that will be available to all communities in Macomb County. The county will also conduct a program, called a “leaf-off flyover,” to take digital photographs of the entire county. These tools will significantly improve the ability of the county and local communities to protect, preserve, and enhance valuable wetland and woodland areas. Many communities have recreational master plans and have begun to review property that becomes available along stream corridors for possible purchase in order to protect the riparian zone from additional development. Clay Township, Ira Township, and the City of Algonac participated in development of a nature trail in St. Johns Marsh, which provides habitat protection and a venue for public education. The City of Mount Clemens installed a wet weather flow retention basin along the Clinton River as part of their combined sewer overflow (CSO) control program. Since the installation, the city went back and developed a habitat restoration project adjacent to the basin; that included planting native vegetation and soft engineering methods to stabilize the banks. Land use planning for future development in the Anchor Bay Watershed is imperative if it is going to be done in a manner that minimizes impacts on the habitat and water quality. Richmond Township has adopted an ordinance that allows for the transfer of development rights within the township to protect existing farmland. Ira Township has developed a land use master plan that reflects, and is based on, the sewer master plan for the community. These ordinances are examples of how proper planning efforts can aid with long-term protection and enhancement of the habitat and water quality within the watershed. 5.2 GAP ANALYSIS The Technical Committee evaluated community and county activities to identify gaps in the implementation phase of the watershed plan. A gap was identified where goals and/or objectives are stated but no or minimal community and county actions are being implemented or planned for future. The identified gaps can serve as recommendations for actions needed in order for the goals of this watershed plan to be accomplished. Two of the most important gaps in this watershed plan are the lack of sustainable funding for stormwater programs and the lack of water quality monitoring programs.



71

Financial Solutions Gap Analysis In order for this watershed plan and Phase II NPDES Storm Water Permit regulations to be implemented, communities and counties need to develop methods to fund storm water programs. Some possible funding mechanisms include state and federal grants, special assessment districts, and storm water utility fees. Communities and counties should work together to develop coordinated program funding strategies. Water Quality Monitoring Gap Analysis The Lake St. Clair, Clinton River, and St. Clair River Water Quality Monitoring Project has recently been developed to establish baseline conditions at select locations within the Anchor Bay watershed over the next three years. This project aids in characterizing water quality in the watershed by expanding existing monitoring programs being performed by St. Clair and Macomb counties. The communities and counties within the watershed need to develop a mechanism to sustain and expand this project beyond its initial three years. Illicit Discharge Gap Analysis Although both Macomb and St. Clair counties have initiated a program to locate illicit discharges, Phase II communities will need to submit an Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan (IDEP) and begin implementation of a program within their community by September 2004. All communities within the watershed, whether Phase II or not, should be responsible for proactively finding and eliminating illicit discharges within their jurisdiction. In order to maximize resources, the two counties and communities within them should have coordinated and complimentary IDEP activities. Before communities submit their IDEP plan to the MDEQ in September 2004, discussions should be held regarding: consistency of IDEP data; public education regarding illicit discharge reporting; reduction of bacterial runoff from domestic animals and wildlife; and identification of agricultural problem areas and how Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs) can best be encouraged in those areas. Soil Erosion Gap Analysis Although both counties conduct Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) for most communities, field data has demonstrated a need to improve these programs. A detailed review of SESC programs, fee schedules, enforcement, and the number of inspections per site should be analyzed for improvements needed. Soil erosion training should also be implemented among municipal field staff so they can alert County SESC inspectors of any problems they observe in the field. Documentation of municipal employee training programs will be required as part of community and county SWPPIs. Erosion problems have also been noted at road stream crossings, along the banks of county drains, and natural waterways. Table 5-1 depicts that very little streambank stabilization is being done or planned within the watershed. Waterways and stream crossings showing evidence of erosion should be identified and prioritized for stabilization. Stream erosion is a function of the water velocity and volume carried in the stream, as well as the stability of the stream. A geomorphology study will determine



72

how stabilization efforts will affect reaches above and below the project site. If it is determined that stabilization is needed, a geomorphology study should be conducted prior to making any changes in the stream. Public Education Gap Analysis Training programs should be developed and implemented for municipal staff in the BMPs that affect storm water runoff. This training will help fulfill a communities’ Phase II requirements. The type of education a municipality should provide to fulfill this requirement includes: fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide application methods; illicit discharge detection and reporting; fleet maintenance; storage and disposal of hazardous materials; soil erosion and sedimentation control; general stormwater awareness; and land use planning. Although an educational strategy has been included in this plan (Chapter 2), communities and counties will need to expand it into a community-specific Public Education Plan, which is due to the MDEQ in Fall 2004. In order to accomplish this in an efficient and cost effective manner, communities and the counties should establish a public education subcommittee. The subcommittee would develop a generic public education plan template for adaptation by the communities. The subcommittee would also work to develop educational materials, presentations, and outreach programs for distribution throughout the watershed. Infrastructure Gap Analysis In order to protect watercourses within the watershed, increased inspection and maintenance of storm water control facilities is needed. In order to fill this gap, communities and the counties need to assess storm water control programs and their funding sources to ensure they can be properly implemented. Storm water ordinances are needed across the watershed to ensure that proper infrastructure is built and storm water flows are managed. This is required as part of Phase II post-construction requirements. A storm water ordinance is a common method of meeting this requirement and can be developed by both the counties and local communities. Local communities could also refer to a county ordinance in their new construction specifications rather than developing their own ordinance. Package treatment plants are also part of the watershed infrastructure that needs increased planning, inspection, and maintenance. Currently, package treatment plants are permitted through the MDEQ with little or no consultation with local communities or the county. Local communities and the county should have input regarding the location, number, and amount of discharge permitted for each package treatment plant within each region and along each waterway on a cumulative basis. Habitat and Planning Gap Analysis St. Clair County should join Macomb County in its efforts to initiate a natural features inventory. These inventories aid local communities in identifying riparian land for future parks and public access, areas where wetlands may be constructed for use as regional detention and flood control, or natural features, such as woodlands and wetlands.



73

Local communities that have identified natural features for protection should utilize land use planning tools to ensure their protection. A natural features ordinance, wetland ordinance, other types of ordinances, or modification of the site plan review process for natural resource and environmental protection is needed if these features are to be protected. For example, local communities that have identified farmland as a resource to be preserved should adopt an ordinance, like Richmond Township has, that will protect existing farmland and habitat areas while allowing development in prescribed township areas. In addition, comprehensive master plans should incorporate language regarding the need for natural features protection in order to support community ordinances, policies, and practices. At a minimum, water resources should be identified as a natural feature to protect. Riparian land is one of the most important land areas that the communities and counties should protect, including the establishment of buffer zones for water quality protection. Managing riparian corridors has been identified as a gap in Table 5-1. Natural feature setbacks or overlay districts are examples of planning tools that can help protect these areas with natural vegetation buffers. The lack of habitat restoration efforts is also identified as a gap across the watershed. Bioengineering, natural plantings, tree cover, and log and bank shelters are some of the habitat improvement techniques that local communities can use on natural waterways and counties can use on drains. 5.3 COST ESTIMATES The watershed communities may not be familiar with the activities outlined in the gap analysis. To aid the communities, a table of unit costs for the effort associated with these activities was developed (See Table 5-2). A portion of the costs were developed using informational documents created by neighboring watersheds, while Technical Committee developed the remaining costs. A brief description of each activity is provided, along with a range of hours and typical hourly rates. The purpose of this table is to give communities a rough cost estimate for implementing various projects. Once a specific scope of work is developed for an activity, better costs should be obtained. Additional cost information and criteria for best management practices can be found from numerous sources including: www.cwp.org/pubs_download.htm, www.rougeriver.com/watershed, www.bmpdatabase.org, www.michigan.gov/deq, and www.epa.gov.



Table 5-1: Community Interview Summary

Key: C = Current S = Short Term L = Long Term N = Not Applicable * = County Program Blank Space = not planned

74

BMP

Best Management Practices Goals &

Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

1 Conduct Household Hazardous Materials Management Programs

2a, 3a, 3c C * * C C * C C C * * * * C C C

2 Conduct Natural Feature Inventory and Assessments

2a, 2b C N C C * L S * S * * C * *

3 Conserve Riparian Land for Future Parks and Public Access

1c, 2a, 2d C N C C C C C S C C C

4 Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities

1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d C C C C N C C C C,S C C C C C C

5 Construct Wetlands 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d S N C N

6 Continue/Expand Litter and Debris Clean-up and Recycling Programs

2a C C C C C C C C C S C C C C C

7 Control Soil Erosion 2a, 2b S * * * * * * * C * * * * * C C * * *

8 Enhance Catch Basin Functionality

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b C C N N N N N C C C S C C C C N





75

BMP


Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

9 Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs)

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b C,S N N N N N N N N

10 Identify Areas for Recreation Enhancement

1c, 2d C C C C C C C S C C C C S C C S C

11 Identify and Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c N N N N * N N N N N N N N N C C C N N

12 Identify and Eliminate Failing Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs)

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b C N * * * * * N C * S C * * C N * * *

13 Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c C * * * C * * C C * S S * S C C * * *

14 Implement Financial Solutions All C C S C C C C S C S C

15 Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions

All C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

16 Implement Municipal Emp loyee Training Programs

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c S N C C C C S S





76

BMP


Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

17 Implement Natural Features Protection Ordinances

2a, 2d, 4b C C C L S C C C C C

18 Implement Septic System Maintenance Measures

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b C N S S * S C N C * C N N * * C

19 Implement Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control (SESC) Programs

2b C * * * * * * C * * * * * C C * * *

20 Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d

L C,S S C, L S L S C

21 Implement Streambank Stabilization Measures

2a, 2b C C N N N C C C,S N C N C C * N *

22 Increase Public Awareness All C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

23 Install/Maintain Oil and Grease Trap Devices

2a C C N C C C C C C C C C S C C

24 Install/Maintain Sediment Control Devices

2a, 2b C,S C N * N C C C C * C C





77

BMP


Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

25 Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

S,L C * C C S C C

26 Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process

1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

C,L C C C C C S L C C C C

27 Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b C C N N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

28 Maintain Storm Water Controls

1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d

C,L N N N N N N N C C C C C N C N

29 Manage Public Facilities

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

C,S C N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

30 Manage Riparian Corridors

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

C N N N C N C C C S N

31 Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N





78

BMP


Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

32 Minimize Salt and Deicing Chemicals Usage

2a, 3a N C C C C C C *,S

33

Monitor Water Quality and Quantity

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

C C C C C C

34 Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c C C N N N N C C,S C N C C C C N

35 Perform Street Sweeping 1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b C C N N N N N C C C C * C C C C C N

36 Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands/Woodlands

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d C N C C C C C C C C C C C

37 Prevent and Remove Flow Obstructions

1a, 1b, 4d C * * * N * * C C,S N C C N C * * *

38

Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

C C C C C C C C C S C C C C C C * C

39 Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife

1a, 2a, 3a, 3b S C C S C C L C C





79

BMP


Objectives St. C

lair

Cou

nty

Alg

onac

Cas

co T

owns

hip

Chin

a To

wns

hip

Cla

y To

wns

hip

Cot

trel

lvill

e To

wns

hip

Ira T

owns

hip

Mar

ine

City

Mac

omb

Cou

nty

Ches

terf

ield

Tow

nshi

p

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

p

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

p

Leno

x To

wns

hip

Mac

omb

Tow

nshi

p

Mou

nt C

lem

ens

New

Bal

timor

e

New

Hav

en

Ric

hmon

d

Ric

hmon

d To

wns

hip

40 Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces

4c, 4d L C C C C C C S C C C C C N

41 Reduce/Eliminate Oil/Chemical Discharges

2a, 3a, 3c C C N N C N C C C S C S S C N

42 Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide and Herbicide Usage

1b, 2a C S C S C C C C C C C C C C

43 Support Environmental Friendly Lawn and Garden Maintenance

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d C,S S C S C S C C C C S S C C S

44

Support Wetland Mitigation Banking

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d L C

45 Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b C N S C C,S C C C C S C C C

46 Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques

2a N N S C N C S C



Table 5-2: Cost Estimates

80

Activity Description Cost* Reference**

Financial Solutions

Apply for state and federal grants Prepare grant applications to fund local or watershed-wide water quality improvement projects.

40 – 80 hrs/grant. $100/hr (consultant) TC

Develop sustainable mechanisms to fund storm water projects

Adopt local ordinances that allow for assessing fees for implementing storm water control programs based on impervious area or other parameter.

60 – 120 hrs to develop $100/hr (consultant) 40 – 80 hrs for legal review $200/hr (consultant) $500/public meeting

TC

Water Quality Monitoring

Facilitate volunteer monitoring programs

Institute a watershed-wide or county-wide student monitoring program to include one monitoring day, data posting to website, student congress, etc. (similar to programs developed by MCPWO, the Clinton River Watershed Council (CRWC) and Friends of the Rouge (FOTR).

520 – 700 hrs/yr to institute and sustain Adapted from communication with CRWC

Sustain and expand watershed-wide monitoring

Continue and expand watershed-wide monitoring efforts being led by Macomb and St. Clair County Health Departments. Costs vary widely depending on the number of sites and parameters, therefore are difficult to estimate without a scope of work. To aid the reader, the cost of the current county monitoring programs is listed.

Current costs incurred by MCHD: $120,000/yr for Lake St. Clair monitoring $30,000/yr for Beach monitoring $55,000/yr for Inland stream monitoring Current costs incurred by SCCHD: $40,000 – $50,000/yr for beach & stream monitoring

Communication with MCHD & SCCHD

Illicit Discharges

Develop illicit discharge elimination plan template

Review existing plans from neighboring watersheds and work with counties to develop a template to be used by individual communities.

40 – 80 hrs. $100/hr (consultant) TC

*Year 2000 dollars. **TC=Technical Committee, RR=Common Appendix to Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plans – Appendix A.




81


Soil Erosion

Review Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program

Evaluate current procedures in comparison to the letter and intent of the SESC regulations and develop forms, procedures, manuals, and enabling legislation as necessary. (Only for municipal enforcement agencies)

100 to 160 hrs $100/hr (consultant)

TC

Train municipal field staff on soil erosion practices

Develop a training presentation or send employees to existing educational presentations.

New : 160 – 320 hrs/workshop for development. $100/hr (consultant) Existing: $35 - $100/employee

TC

Perform streambank inventory Inventory streambanks for signs of erosion and prioritize sites for restoration.

8 – 16 hrs/mile to inventory $80/hr (consultant) 80 – 120 hrs for data analysis & report preparation. $100/hr (consultant)

TC

Perform geomorphology study Analyze geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics of streams to determine the impact of current and future development. Cost will vary widely based on the availability of existing data and the size of the sub-basin.

$175,000 - $250,000/sub-basin (consultant)

TC

Public Education

Develop public education subcommittee

Develop a subcommittee of the Anchor Bay Watershed Steering Committee to guide watershed-wide public education efforts.

Lead community: 300 – 400 hrs/yr Supporting community: 50 – 100 hrs/yr. $100/hr (consultant)

Adapted from RR

Train municipal staff on pollution prevention practices

Develop a training presentation or send employees to existing educational presentations. This could be facilitated by the public education subcommittee.

New : 160 – 320 hrs/workshop for development. $100/hr (consultant) Existing: $35 - $100/employee attending

TC

Develop public education plan template Review existing plans from neighboring watersheds and work with County to develop a template to be used by individual communities. This could be facilitated by the public education subcommittee.

40 – 80 hrs. $100/hr (consultant) TC





82


Public Education

Develop public education materials for watershed-wide distribution

Revise or develop new public education brochures, fact sheets, pamphlets and articles to be utilized by all watershed communities. This could be a function of the public education subcommittee.

New : 160 – 320 hrs/item for development & formatting Revise Existing: 50 – 150 hrs/item $100/hr (consultant) Printing: $0.10 – $0.20/page b&w $0.75 - $1.00/page color Mailing: $0.30/item

RR

Habitat & Planning

Conduct natural features inventory Identify and map natural features and incorporate into county GIS. The process includes gathering existing data and performing field inspections on those areas that are identified as having natural features (typically 10 – 15% of an entire township). Field inspections will provide more detail making the inventory more valuable to the county.

Cost of MC inventory: $5,000 - $10,000 for data gathering (for entire county) $5,000 - $20,000/acre for field inspections (dependent on site)

Communication with MC Dept. of Planning & Economic Development

Develop natural features/wetlands ordinances

Develop individual community ordinances. 80 – 120 hrs for research & development. $150/hr (consultant) 10 – 20 hrs for legal review. $200/hr (consultant) $500/public meeting

Adapted from RR

Modify community master plans Review and develop language to modify community master plans to incorporate natural resource protection.

250 - 350 hrs $150/hr (consultant)

TC

Implement streambank stabilization that will restore habitat

Incorporate bioengineering techniques into bank stabilization projects. Plant materials can often be donated or taken from the site.

Design: 10-20% of construction costs Construction: $1.50 - $3.50/live stake $2.00 - $9.00/joint planting $5.00 - $9.00/ft. live facines $10 - $25/sq. ft. live cribwalls $25 - $35/sq. yd. plain 8” riprap $30 - $45/sq. yd. plain 16” riprap $20 - $30/ft. gabion baskets (3 ft. wide)

RR





83


Infrastructure

Develop county/community storm water ordinance

Develop county-wide ordinance for community to adopt or develop individual community ordinances.

80 – 120 hrs for research & development. $150/hr (consultant) 10 – 20 hrs for legal review. $200/hr (consultant) $500/public meeting

Adapted from RR

Improve planning, inspection & maintenance of local waste water treatment facilities

Develop ordinances within the counties to allow for local oversight of lagoons and package treatment plants within the watershed. Includes plan review, construction permitting, reviewing discharge monitoring reports, collecting discharge samples, and periodic inspections. Ordinance should also allow for the collection of reasonable fees for oversight activities.

Ordinance development: see above Implementation: Ongoing cost at the local level can typically be charged to developers at the time of site plan review.

TC


Chapter Six

ANCHOR BAY


84

MMEETTHHOODDSS OOFF MMEEAASSUURRIINNGG PPRROOGGRREESSSS

INVOLVEMENT

STAKEHOLDER

WATERSHED

Define short & long term goals

Determine objectives and actions needed to achieve selected

goals

Consider benefits & costs of each action

Document plan & obtain commitments

for actions

Implement actions

Evaluate effects of actions & progress

towards goals

Assess nature & status of watershed

ecosystems

Figure 6-1: Evaluation Process as part of the Watershed Management Planning Cycle

Watershed planning is a dynamic process that can be represented by the cycle depicted in Figure 6-1. The evaluation process is an important part of watershed planning that allows for a review of watershed conditions and impairments each time the evaluation is completed. It also establishes a mechanism for determining the success and usefulness of programs initiated within the watershed in response to problems defined in the planning process. A well planned evaluation process measures the effectiveness of the watershed plan by showing changes in the public’s awareness of water quality issues, changes in attitudes or behavior, changes in conditions of the watershed, and improvements in water quality. Local counties and municipalities within the watershed will do much of the evaluation. However, certain environmental measurements are better conducted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and/or the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The evaluation process outlined in Table 6-1 is organized by long-term goals and short-term objectives. The Technical Committee selected one or more evaluation methods and corresponding targets to determine if each objective is being met. The parties responsible for evaluating the environmental improvement within the Anchor Bay watershed are also included in Table 6-1, with the lead agency listed first. Although the task of measuring progress seems daunting, it is a necessary component of creating a dynamic and effective management plan for Anchor Bay. The counties and communities within the watershed established a Steering Committee that is responsible for tracking the progress of pollution prevention efforts as well as revising and updating the Anchor Bay Watershed Management Plan. Since Phase II communities must report progress on their pollution prevention activities to the MDEQ on an annual basis, the Steering Committee will use these annual reports to measure progress toward implementation of the watershed plan. A review of the implementation process, effectiveness of pollution prevention activities, and tracking of these activities will be discussed in quarterly Steering Committee meetings. These meetings will aide in the watershed plan update and evaluation process, allowing for any midstream corrections that may be necessary. For non-Phase II communities, the Steering Committee will expect similar annual report cards and/or input into the evaluation process.

Methods of Measuring Progress


85

Table 6-1: Evaluation Process for the Anchor Bay Watershed

Long Term Goal 1 Restore and Enhance Recreational Uses Long Term Goal 2 Restore and Protect Aquatic Life, Wildlife and Habitat Long Term Goal 3 Protect Public Health Long Term Goal 4 Reduce Impacts from Peak Flows

The Steering Committee will be responsible for updating the watershed plan every two years, as required by the Phase II Watershed Permit. A list of the Steering Committee members is included in Appendix D. This update will assure that the plan remains relevant to the watershed and is a working document that can be used effectively to guide the implementation of environment-related activities within the watershed.

Goals/ Objectives Evaluation Methods Target for Evaluation Responsible Party for Evaluation

Progress* Long Term Goal 1: Restore and Enhance Recreational Uses

A. Track the number of OSDS Failures, how they were detected, and the number of corrections made.

A. Increase or maintain ability to identify OSDS failures.

A. Counties

B. Track the number and location of illicit connections from municipal discharges and County-owned MS4s.

B. Increase or maintain an effective illicit connection detection program.

B. Local municipalities

1a. Reduce Bacterial Loading

C. Continue county surface water monitoring programs

C. Demonstrate improved water quality conditions at county water quality monitoring sites and public beaches by 2020.

C. Counties

A. Survey residents on nutrient usage and reduction methods before education efforts are initiated. Survey residents on nutrient usage and reduction methods three years after education efforts are initiated.

A. Demonstrate an increase in the public’s awareness of nutrient usage and reduction methods upon second survey.

A. Counties and local municipalities

1b. Reduce Nutrient Loading

B. Track nutrient management programs by local municipalities and counties at their facilities and parks.

B. Increase in the number of programs.


A. Utilize existing data to prioritize and identify riparian land (i.e. MNFI & recreational land).

A. Establish and prioritize efforts to acquire and protect riparian land.

A. Local municipalities and counties

1c. Provide Additional Public Access to Water Resources B. Track efforts to acquire land along

riparian corridors. B. Increase acquired land

acreage. B. Local municipalities and

counties

*Lead agency is listed first



86

Table 6-1: Evaluation Process for the Anchor Bay Watershed Long Term Goal 1 Restore and Enhance Recreational Uses Long Term Goal 2 Restore and Protect Aquatic Life, Wildlife and Habitat Long Term Goal 3 Protect Public Health Long Term Goal 4 Reduce Impacts from Peak Flows

Goals/ Objectives

Evaluation Methods Target for Evaluation Responsible Party for Evaluation

Progress* Long Term Goal 2: Restore and Protect Aquatic Life, Wildlife and Habitat

A. Utilize existing data to prioritize and identify riparian land (i.e. MNFI & recreational land).

A. Map developed versus undeveloped land adjacent to riparian corridors.


2a. Protect and Re-establish Riparian and In-Stream Habitat B. Conduct biological and

macroinvertebrate monitoring (MDEQ procedure 51) at various sites.

B. Establish baseline data at two or more sites by 2006

B. Local municipalities and counties

A. For St. Clair County- Track progress in improving the county SESC program and track the number of unresolved violations. Track actions taken to improve county SESC programs.

A. Implement a county SESC ordinance by 2004. Show a decrease in the number of resolved and unresolved violations.

A. County

B. For Macomb County- Track the number of projects and number of shut downs due to SESC violations.

B. Decrease the percentage of project shut downs.

B. County

C. Document the numbers of county and municipal employees trained about soil erosion and sedimentation control

C. Train 50% of all field employees in each community and county by 2007.

C. Counties and local municipalities

2b. Reduce Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

D. Implement MDEQ Procedure 51 for embeddedness survey at various sites

D. Improve embeddedness number.

D. MDEQ/MDNR

2c. Reduce Excess Runnoff

A. Track the acreage of land that is covered under ordinances that reduce

A. Increase the acreage of land that is covered under ordinances to reduce runoff.


A. Utilize existing data to prioritize and identify protected open space and natural areas.

A. Determine and map protected open space and natural areas.


2d. Protect Open Space and Natural Areas within the Watershed

B. Track wetlands acreage. B. Increase, stabilize, or improve regulated wetland acreage (based on community or state standards).

B. Local municipalities and counties




87


Goals/ Objectives Evaluation Methods Target for Evaluation Responsible Party for Evaluation

Progress* Long Term Goal 3: Protect Public Health 3a. Protect Drinking

Water Supply A. Track implementation of Source Water

Protection Studies that are currently being conducted by the MDEQ.

A. Targets will be established once the studies are completed.

A. Local municipalities

A. Track the number of OSDS failures, how they were detected, and the number of corrections made.

A. Increase or maintain the ability to identify OSDS failures.

A. Counties

B. Track the number and location of illicit connections from municipal discharges and county-owned MS4s..

B. Increase or maintain an effective illicit connection detection program.


3b. Reduce Bacterial Loading

C. Continue county surface water monitoring programs.

C. Demonstrate improved water quality conditions at county water quality monitoring sites and public beaches by 2020.

C. Counties

A. Track the amount (pounds) of mercury and PCBs collected through the household hazardous waste program.

A. Increase awareness of the household hazardous waste program through public education surveys (see pg. 6).


3c. Reduce Pollutants Resulting in Fish Advisories

B. Tack mercury and PCB sediment and water column monitoring efforts.

B. Better define areas of contamination.

B. County and MDEQ




88


Goals/ Objectives

Evaluation Methods Target for Evaluation Responsible Party for Evaluation

Progress* Long Term Goal 4: Reduce Impacts from Peak Flows 4a. Establish Target

Peak Flows for the Tributaries

A. Track efforts to establish target peak flows within the watershed.

A. Establish target peak flows on Swan Creek and Salt River and their tributaries

A. Counties

4b. Develop Water Resource Protection and Management Ordinances to Reduce Runoff

A. Track the percent acreage affected by storm water management and water resource protection ordinances.

A. Increase acreage affected by ordinances or improve existing ordinances.

A. Counties and local municipalities

4c. Reduce Storm Water Runoff Quantity

A. Track the number and acreage affected by storm water control measures that decrease runoff.

A. Increase the number and acreage of control measures that are implemented as areas are developed and redeveloped.


4d. Minimize Post-storm In-stream Flow Velocities

A. Track the number and acreage affected by detention and retention ponds or other implemented storm water control measures.

A. Increase the number and acreage of control measures that are implemented as areas are developed and redeveloped.

A. Local municipalities

Additional Item

A. Track the number of environmental education programs in school districts.

A. Establish environmental education programs in 75% of the school districts by 2010.

A. Counties Educate the Public Regarding Their Impact on Water Quality B. Survey the public’s awareness of

water quality problems and actions needed to restore and protect the bay and streams.

B. Complete baseline survey by 2005 and compete follow-up survey by 2009.

B. Counties and local municipalities


Table of Contents

ANCHOR BAY


i

List of Appendices Appendix A: State of the Watershed Support Data Appendix B: Inventory of Typical Tributary Drains in the St. Clair Portion of the Anchor . Bay Watershed Appendix C: Crapau Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Appendix D: Project Team Members Appendix E: Public Involvement Survey Appendix F: Community Surveys Appendix G: Macomb County’s Onsite Sewage Disposal and Onsite Water Supply Evaluation and Maintenance Ordinance Appendix H: Glossary and Acronyms Appendix I: References

Anchor Bay Watershed Management Plan

Appendix A:

State of the Watershed Support Data

Appendix A: State of the Watershed Support Data

Page 1 of 10

Figure 1-2: Anchor Bay Wetland Areas

Mac

omb

Co

unty

St.

Cla

ir C

ount

y

Anchor Bay

I:/GISdata/Anchor Bay/Land Use.apr - Anchor Bay w etlands

3 0 3 6 Miles

Data Sourc es:SEMCOGMacomb County Department of P lanningand Economic DevelopmentSt . Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

NLEGEND

WetlandsUplands


Page 2 of 10

Figure 1-5: Anchor Bay Monitoring Sites

#S#S

#S#S #S

#S

#S

$T$T

$T

$T%U

%U

%U

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V&V&V

I8

I9O2

O3

O1

O4N25

N27N28

N29

N24

N26

N30

Anchor Bay

I10

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

7 8

10

LEGENDSt. Clair County

Near Shore Sampling Sites$T Off Shore Sampling Sites%U In Shore Sampling Sites

&V Sampling SitesMacomb County

#S

I:/GISdata/Anchor Bay/anchor bay sampling sites.apr

2 0 2 4 Miles

N

Data Sources:Mac omb County De pa rtment of Planning an d Economic De velopmentMac omb County He al th Depa rtmentSt. Clair C ou nty Me tropo litan Plan ning Commissio nSt. Clair C ou nty Health Department



Page 3 of 10

I:/Gisdata/Anchor Bay/SCCDC Map - AB failing septics

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Anchor Bay

Lake St. Clair

CANADA

Macomb CountySt. Clair County

CLAY TWP

CASCO TWP

CHINA TWP

IRA TWPCOTTRELLVILLE TWP

EAST CHINA TWP

Marine City

ALGONAC

LENOX TOWNSHIP

MACOMB TOWNSHIP

CLINTON TOWNSHIP

CHESTERFIELD TWP

HARRISON TOWNSHIP

FRASER

NEW BALTIMORE

MOUNT CLEMENS

RICHMOND

NEW HAVEN VILLAGE

±4 0 42 Miles

Data Sources:Macomb County Department ofPlanning and Economic DevelopmentSt. Clair County Metropolitan Planning CommissionSt. Clair County Health Department

Legend

Failing Septic Systems*!(

Figure 1-6: Failing Septic Systems within St. Clair County

Figure 1-7: Locations Exceeding Level of Concern for DO

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

N25

N27N28

N29

N24

N26

N30

O2

O3

O1

O4I8

I9

I10

Anchor Bay

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Exceeded Criteria in 2000#S Exceeded Criteria in 1999#S Exceeded Criteria in 1998

#S

I: /GI Sdata/Anc hor Bay /A nchor Bay.apr - sample locat ions - D O

1 0 1 2 3 Miles

N

Data Sources:Macom b County Department of Planni ngand Economi c DevelopmentMacom b County Health Departm entSt. Cl air County Metropolitan P lanning Comm issionSt. Cl air County Heal th Departm ent

* As identified by SCCHD Illicit Discharge Elimination Program (IDEP). MCHD IDEP in progress, therefore data is not yet available.


Page 4 of 10

Table 1-1: Anchor Bay Watershed Permitted Dischargers

Facility Name Permit Number

Type of Facility Type of Wastewater

Algonac Water Filtration Plant (WFP) MI0048674 Municipal Water filtration backwash Marine City WFP MIG40183 Municipal Water filtration backwash Marine City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) MI0020893 Municipal Treated Domestic Wastewater Old Club WWTP MIG570210 Private Treated Domestic Wastewater St.Clair County – Algonac WWTP MI0020389 Municipal Treated Domestic Wastewater Americana Estates of Casco MI0027073 Private Treated Domestic Wastewater Anchor Bay Schools – Casco MIG580328 Private Treated Domestic Wastewater Belle Maer Harbor MI0056316 Private MDOT I-94 WB/SB Rest Area MIG580027 State Treated Domestic Wastewater MDOT I-94 EB/NB Rest Area MIG580026 State Treated Domestic Wastewater Millstone Pond Mobil Home Park (MHP) MI0055816 Private Treated Domestic Wastewater New Baltimore WWTP MI0023680 Municipal Treated Domestic Wastewater

New Haven Foundry MI0038032 Private Treated cooling water and storm water runoff

Northampton Community MHP MI0056472 Private Treated Domestic Wastewater Pankiewicz Farm MI0043770 Private Treated fruit wash water U.S. Army Tank Command – Selfridge MI0055948 Federal Treated storm water runoff

Table 1-2: Water Quality Parameters and Years Sampled Parameters Years Sampled Aluminum 1998, 1999, 2000 Nitrate 1998, 1999, 2000 Nitrite 1998 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 1998, 1999, 2000 Chloride 1998, 1999, 2000 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 1998 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 1998, 1999, 2000 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 1998, 1999 ortho-Phosphorus 1998, 1999, 2000 Ammonia-N 1998, 1999, 2000 Total Phosphorus 1998, 1999, 2000 Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 1998, 1999, 2000 Chlorophyll A 1998 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 1998, 1999, 2000 Chlorophyll-A 1998


Page 5 of 10

Table 1-3: Macomb County Health Department Surface Water Sampling Sites Began Sampling Sites Sampled

1995 Site 46-Crapau Creek at Main St. Site 45-Salt River at Lake St. Clair Site 47-Salt River at Washington Rd.

1998 Site 37-Salt River at 29 Mile Rd. & Gratiot

1999 Site 46.3-Crapau Creek at County Line Rd. south of 25 Mile Rd. Site 46.7-Crapau Creek at Ashley St.

2000 Site 46.9-Crapau Creek upstream of Site 46 Site 46.2-Crapau Creek at County Line Rd. south of I-94

2001 Marsac Drain at Lake St. Clair

Table 1-4: Macomb County Health Department E. coli Analysis (MPN/100 ml) Site 37

Salt River at 29 Mile Rd. Site 39

Marsac Drain at 29 Ruedisale Park Year Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean 1995 * * * * * * 1996 * * * * * * 1997 * * * * * * 1998 9,000 100 494 * * * 1999 12,033 47 500 * * * 2000 19,863 31 575 * * * 2001 4,884 10 242 9,804 1 60 2002 32,820 10 289 43,520 1 59

Site 45 Salt River at Jefferson Ave.

Site 46 Crapau Creek at Main St.

Year Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean 1995 1,800 1 65 4,000 20 260 1996 11,500 10 135 6,000 50 338 1997 5,794 1 75 4,800 20 198 1998 500 20 93 37,000 20 398 1999 9,208 1 32 24,192 5 309 2000 5,794 1 75 12,997 20 470 2001 3,076 1 49 6,240 20 269 2002 3,076 1 44 24,192 1 191

Note: *Not Sampled


Page 6 of 10

Table 1-4: Macomb County Health Department E. coli Analysis (MPN/100 ml) (continued) Site 46.2

County Line Ditch at Hobarth Site 46.3

Crapau Creek at County Line Rd. Year Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean 1995 * * * * * * 1996 * * * * * * 1997 * * * * * * 1998 * * * * * * 1999 * * * 7,701 4 174 2000 17,329 134 1,013 14,136 10 364 2001 7,701 10 248 5,172 10 119 2002 48,840 1 238 8,164 1 146

Site 46.6 Vanderbenne Drain at Fox Pointe

Site 46.7 Crapau Creek at Ashley

Year Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean 1995 * * * * * * 1996 * * * * * * 1997 * * * * * * 1998 * * * * * * 1999 * * * 9,208 22 835 2000 24,192 30 726 19,863 10 709 2001 14,136 1 229 19,863 10 321 2002 17,329 1 202 24,192 10 317

Site 46.9 Crapau Creek at Green St.

Site 47 Salt River at Washington St.

Year Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean Yearly High Yearly Low Geo. Mean 1995 * * * 8,000 10 469 1996 * * * 13,600 10 811 1997 * * * 2,700 20 328 1998 * * * 6,600 100 634 1999 * * * 15,531 100 598 2000 12,033 1 250 24,192 10 387 2001 3,873 10 209 6,131 10 236 2002 19,863 1 113 10,462 20 264

Note: *Not Sampled Table 1-5: Sediment E. coli Readings (CFU/g)

Site 5/19/98 7/28/98 9/22/98 5/27/99 7/15/99 9/9/99 5/11/00 7/6/00 8/31/00

Irwin Drain (N24) 1400 7200 400 3 0 2 2 0 5 Salt River (N28) 5600 6800 1100 11 0 3 0 24 260 Crapau Creek (N29) 5100 1200 800 * * * * * * Salt River (O3) * * * 0 92 0 74 3 3 Irwin Drain (O4) * * * 0 1 0 7 0 2

Note: *Not Sampled


Page 7 of 10

Table 1-6: Summary of Water Quality Analysis Results Mean Value

Parameter Levels of Concern1

Highest Reported Value Summary 0.33 mg/L Aluminum

1.1 mg/L

-Summer levels were highest for near shore, and fall for off shore. -No significant difference for near and off shore values. -No significant difference between wet and dry samples. -Higher than average values appeared at Irwin Drain (98, 99, 00), Salt River (99, 00), River Voss (98) and Marsac Drain (98). -Three year average (near shore): Salt River, 0.596 mg/L; Irwin Drain, 0.559 mg/L; Crapau Creek, 0.297 mg/L.

0.04 mg/L Ammonia-N >0.2 mg/L

0.32 mg/L

-No apparent seasonal trends -Near shore values were significantly higher than off shore values -Irwin Drain exceeded threshold (0.32 mg/L) in fall of 1999 and has an overall average (three years) of 0.113 mg/L. -Dykeman drain had a value of 0.2 mg/L in fall 1999. -Salt River had the second highest overall average with 0.074 mg/L.

0.32 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

>4 mg/L

3.5 mg/L

-Averaging all data BOD values were highest in the summer for near and off shore locations. -Near shore values were higher than offshore values -All samples were below threshold value/RDL. -Salt River had a reading of 3.5 mg/L (near shore) in summer 2000, 2.2 mg/L (near shore) in spring 1998 and 3 readings in 1999 and 2000 that averaged around 2.3 mg/L (off shore).

1.27 mg/L Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

17 mg/L

-COD was only sampled in 1998 -Schmidt Drain, River Voss and Dykeman Drain were below RDL for COD (near shore). -All other near shore locations had at least one reportable level. -All off shore samples were below RDL.

20.6 mg/L Chloride

92 mg/L

-Near shore samples were higher than off shore -Dry and wet weather samples were not significantly different. -High concentrations at Irwin Drain and Salt River

0mg/L Chlorophyll-a >14µg/L –EPA level 0 mg/L

-Only sampled in 1998 -All results were below RDL.2

Range Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

<5 mg/L

(2.55 – 13.5 mg/L)

-DO values were the lowest in the summer. -Near shore values were lower than off shore values. -Locations with highest averages: Irwin Drain, Salt River and Dykeman Drain.

Notes: *Threshold limits/ sample information and some conclusions from Macomb County Health Department. *Trends are compiled from the Macomb County - Lake St. Clair Water Quality Assessment (1998, 1999, 2000)

1. Levels of concern from Macomb County Health Department, Michigan water quality standards and personal communication with Joe Rathbun and Mark Oemke from MDEQ. 2. RDL = Reportable Detection Limit


Page 8 of 10

Table 1-6: Summary of Water Quality Analysis Results (continued) Mean Value

Parameter Levels of Concern1

Highest Reported Value Summary 0.26 mg/L Nitrate >0.3 mg/L

1.6 mg/L

-Spring levels were highest for both near and off shore locations. -No significant difference for near and off shore values. -Nitrate levels exceeded the pollution threshold for almost every spring sample at every location (near and off shore). -Crapau Creek exceeded 7 out of 9 near shore samples with a high value of 1.6 mg/L. -Salt River exceeded all three samples in 2000 with a high of 0.89 mg/L.

0 mg/L Nitrite 0 mg/L

-Levels were below detection limits for all samples.

0.02 mg/L Ortho-Phosphorus (ortho-P)

0.11 mg/L

-Averaging all data, near shore values were highest in the springtime and off shore values were highest in the fall by a small margin. -Near shore values were higher than off shore values. -No significant difference between wet and dry weather samples. -High three year averages (near shore): Salt River, 0.0423 mg/L; Irwin Drain, 0.034 mg/L; Dykeman Drain 0.0234

1.0 mg/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

8 mg/L

-No significant seasonal trends. -Off shore TKN values were higher than near shore values. -High three-year averages (off shore): Crapau Creek, 2.2 mg/L; Irwin Drain, 1.91 mg/L. -High three year averages (near shore): Irwin Drain, 0.59 mg/L; Salt River, 0.55 mg/L; Dykeman Drain, 0.52 mg/L.

3.9 mg/L Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

>10 mg/L

9.2 mg/L

-No significant seasonal trends. -Near shore samples were higher than off shore. -Irwin Drain had the highest 3 year average of 5.81 mg/L, Salt River’s average was 5.5 mg/L and Marsac Creek’s was 3.84 mg/L.

0.045 mg/L Total Phosphorus (Total P)

>.05 mg/L

0.17 mg/L

-Near shore values were highest in the spring and no significant seasonal trend was found in the offshore values. -Near shore values were significantly higher than off shore values -High three year averages (near shore): Salt River, 0.0978 mg/L; Irwin Drain, 0.0864 mg/L.; Dykeman Drain 0.056 mg/L

17.6 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

>80 mg/L – RPO level

170 mg/L

-TSS was sampled in 1998 and 1999. -TSS levels were highest in the spring. -Near shore values were higher than off shore values. -Wet weather samples were higher than dry weather samples. -Two-year averages include (near shore): Dykeman Drain, 43.5 mg/L; Irwin Drain, 30.5 mg/L; Marsac Creek, 26.5 mg/L. -Many locations were over the mean value

Notes: *Threshold limits/ sample information and some conclusions from Macomb County Health Department. *Trends are compiled from the Macomb County - Lake St. Clair Water Quality Assessment (1998, 1999, 2000)

1. Levels of concern from Macomb County Health Department, Michigan water quality standards and personal communication with Joe Rathbun and Mark Oemke from MDEQ. 2. RDL = Reportable Detection Limit


Page 9 of 10

Table 1-7: Sediment Samples Sites Site ID Location Years Sampled

N24 Irwin Drain 1998, 1999, 2000 N27 Dykeman Drain 1999, 2000 N28 Salt River 1998, 1999, 2000 N29 Crapau Creek 1998, 1999, 2000 N30 Marsac Creek 1999, 2000 O3 Salt River 1999, 2000 O4 Irwin Drain 1999, 2000

Table 1-8: Conventional Parameters

Parameters Years Sampled Total Phosphorus (TP) 1998, 1999, 2000

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 1998, 1999, 2000 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 1998, 1999, 2000

Ammonia 1998, 1999, 2000 Metals 1998, 1999, 2000

Table 1-9: Average Sediment Concentrations

Site ID TP TKN COD Ammonia Irwin Drain (N24) 469 1779 78000 41 Dykeman Drain (N27) 340 507 16000 6 Salt River (N28) 157 504 13589 7 Crapau Creek (N29) 94 313 8667 7 Marsac Creek (N30) 175 587 13000 15 Salt River (O3) 200 290 9450 6 Irwin Drain (O4) 280 565 22000 2

Table 1-10: Sediment Metal Pollution Classification Guidelines

OMOE Low Effect

Level (mg/kg)

OMOE Severe Effect

Level (mg/kg)

EPA Threshold Effects

Concentration (mg/kg)

EPA Probable Effects Concentration

(mg/kg) Arsenic 6.0 33.0 9.79 33 Cadmium 0.6 10.0 0.99 4.98 Chromium 26.0 110.0 43.4 111 Copper 16.0 110.0 31.6 149 Lead 31.0 250.0 35.8 128 Mercury 0.2 2.0 0.18 1.06 Nickel na na 22.7 48.6 Zinc 120 820.0 121 459

Note: OMOE = Ontario Ministry of Environment, EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency Values not available (na) for the following metals: Mn, Ba, Fe, Se and Ag


Page 10 of 10

Table 1-11: Anchor Bay Designated and Beneficial Uses

Note: *As defined by the MDEQ

Impairment Status *Designated Use (D) and Beneficial Uses (B) Anchor Bay Watershed Area

Cause k = known s = suspected

1. Agriculture (D),(B) Not Impaired Not Impaired 2. Industrial Water Supply (D),(B) Not Impaired Not Impaired 3. Public Water Supply at the point of intake (D),(B) Not Impaired

Not Impaired

4. Navigation (D) Not Impaired Not Impaired 5. Warmwater/Coldwater Fishery (D) Not Impaired Impaired Loss of habitat (k) 6. Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife (D),(B) Impaired Impaired Loss of habitat (k)

7. Partial Body Contact Recreation (D),(B) Impaired Impaired

Elevated E.coli Concentrations (k)

8. Total Body Contact Recreation between May 1 and October 31 (D),(B) Impaired

Impaired

Elevated E.coli concentrations (k)

9.Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations (B) Unknown

Unknown

10.Degradation of Aesthetics (B) Impaired Impaired Excessive aquatic plant growth in Anchor Bay (k) and excessive nutrients and sediment in watershed (s)

11. Eutrophication or undesirable algae (B) Impaired Impaired Excessive aquatic plant growth in Anchor Bay (k) and excessive nutrients in watershed (s)

12. Restrictions on dredging activities (B) Not Impaired Not Impaired 13. Degradation of benthos (B) Impaired Impaired Loss of habitat in Anchor

Bay (k) and tributaries (s) 14. Bird or animal deformities, reproductive problems (B)

Unknown Unknown

15. Fish tumors or other deformities (B) Unknown Unknown 16. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations (B) Unknown Unknown 17. Tainting of fish or wildlife flavor (B) Not impaired Not Impaired


Appendix B:

Inventory of Typical Tributary Drains in the St. Clair County Portion of the Anchor Bay Watershed

Appendix B: Inventory of Typical Tributary Drains Page 1 of 10

Inventory of Typical Tributary Drains in the St. Clair County Portion of the Anchor Bay Watershed REV. 01/15/03 Report by Daniel Rhein, Drain Inspector, for the Office of the St. Clair County Drain Commissioner Methodology: Dan Rhein wrote this report based on county drains that he walked in 2002. He took photographs and made field notes during and after the inspections. Some of the inspections were done as maintenance inspections for the Drain Commissioner’s Office. Others were done as part of the Drain Office’s Illicit Discharge Elimination Program. He also based the report on his prior knowledge and familiarity with the Anchor Bay Watershed and other similar areas in St. Clair County. Listed below are the portions of drains that he walked, with the portion of the drain indicated by a survey Section number of a township or Private Claim number (P.C.): Arnold Drain – Cottrellville Township, Section #3, #4 Bay Drain – Ira Township, Section #24 Benoit Drain and Branch No. 1 – Ira Twp. Section #6, #7; Casco Twp. #31 Beaubien Creek Drain - Cottrellville Twp. Section #5, #7, #8, #18, #19 Cartwright Drain – Clay Twp, Section #3 and City of Algonac Casco Extension Drain – Casco Twp, Section #8 Clippert Drain – Cottrellville Twp., P.C. #186 Cottrell & Extension Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #12 & Marine City Crapau Creek Drain – Ira Twp, Section #7, #8 Crowley Drain – Marine City Dana Drain – Clay Twp, Section #4, #9, #33 and City of Algonac Geyman Drain – Cottrellville Twp, P.C. #598 Grandchamp Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #7 Lester-Bammel Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #2, #11, P.C. # 598, P.C. #187 Marsac Creek Drain – Ira Twp, Section #7, #8, Casco Twp, Section #3 McKinley Drain - Cottrellville Twp, Section #8 Meldrum Drain – Casco Twp, Section #17 Parquett Drain – Marine City Robbins Drain – Cottrellville Twp, P.C. # 252, 253, 568 Smith-Cottrellville Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #9, #10 Sykes Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #3, #4 Townline of Ira Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #6, #7, #18, #19 West Marsh Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #9, #16, #20, #21 Wilkins Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #2, #11

Sources and Causes of Pollutants and Habitat Degradation: 1. Shoreline habitat replaced (or being replaced) with sea wall The land-water interface is important to wildlife. The free movement of wildlife in & out of the water is necessary for feeding, reproduction, and escaping from danger. Seawalls prevent these movements and wildlife is killed. The otherwise soil and plant contact aids in pollution


reduction by absorbing suspended materials and recycling them into new material for bank stabilization and wildlife food supplies. The more diversified the shoreline plant growth the more diversified is the animal life. This includes fish life as well. Abundant insect life provides food for fish. Recycling of nutrients in complex food chains disperses pollution. 2. Tributary streams being replaced with enclosed piping When open drains are replaced with enclosed piping the water life is reduced to anaerobic life forms that live in darkness and unoxygenated conditions. The resulting anaerobic processes further reduce opportunities for oxygen-producing plant life to release oxygen for downstream animal life. Dead zones occur downstream with foul gases being released along with fish kills. The septic conditions are repulsive to humans and provide a breeding ground for lower life forms such as virus and bacteria. Migrating or spawning fish are unable to pass such areas and fish eggs are destroyed. 3. Residential building encroachment upon watercourses The encroachment of a building upon a drain right-of-way is frequently remedied with pipe enclosures. Piping provides opportunities for unseen tap-ins (illicit connections) to take place. Polluting discharges are harder to trace back to the source when drains are enclosed. The fixed diameter of piping next to a building prevents future enlargement when the drainage district expands upstream. In the crowding of watercourses critical wetlands and natural habitat are destroyed. Re-routing around “lot lines” creates hydraulic bottlenecks and erosion sites during peak flows. Likelihood of direct runoff from driveways, roofs and manicured lawns (with fertilizers and pesticides) is increased. 4. Lack of soil erosion control on farms and development sites Buffers of vegetative cover are destroyed where farm pasture includes the banks of watercourses, or where crop farming is too close to the stream. Plowing is sometimes right over the edge of the bank. Field drain ditches often erode at the outlet to the drain, or carry large amounts of soil from the fields into the drain. Over-pasturing of farm fields leads to excessive vegetation wear (by hooves) and soil erosion in the form of stream sedimentation. Streambank erosion becomes excessive where livestock traffic caves in animal burrows (muskrat, woodchuck). Over-grazing leads to the destruction of shade trees and shrubs. Horses can be especially harmful to woody vegetation. Animal hoof traffic can damage soil-stabilizing tree roots. Fences should be utilized along streamsides to eliminate re-occurring soil erosion problems caused by livestock. Farmers need to sacrifice enough crop land and pasture to stabilize the existing soil types. The more unstable the soil type, the wider buffer strips should be. Sandy soils require a wider setback from the top of the bank. Soil stabilization is a problem on construction sites, also. Deep excavations expose glacial subsoils. Normally, topsoils contain measurable amounts of organic matter with useful fungi, bacteria and other organisms that aid in plant re-establishment. If the topsoil is buried or trucked away for profit, re-establishment of vegetation can be slowed. Several years or decades may pass before soil-stabilizing lifeforms become re-established. It is common knowledge that silt fencing is required on construction sites near watercourses. Problems arise when insufficient structures are lacking during construction and particularly during culvert installations. The lack of follow-up inspections leaves building sites subject to soil erosion problems particularly after work crews leave the job site. After the fact inspectors will find plastic silt fencing washed out, buried, or transported in downstream deposits.


5. Obstructions (human-caused and development-worsened) on tributary watercourses High flows exacerbated by developmental runoff move debris around from one part of a watercourse to downstream areas. The lack of maintenance creates the most common watershed problems. Jams and dams of trees, brush, and man-made junk deflect water flows into stream banks, causing erosion. Suspended soils kill aquatic life by burying eggs or plugging the gills of fish. Some woody debris is necessary for wildlife habitat. Fish hide in brush piles and stump root zones. Insects and snails lay eggs upon twigs and pieces of bark. Leaves and vegetation provide food for the same. Amphibians such as frogs and salamanders overwinter in debris piles. These areas provide feeding areas for raccoons and mink. But dams and obstructions have been made worse by human activities, and careful, limited maintenance is necessary to provide good habitat while stopping excessive erosion and flooding. 6. Stockpiling of foreign materials near watercourses The stockpiling of foreign materials near watercourse can create unwanted problems. The action of wind, water, and gravity can put unwanted objects in flow areas creating jams and plugging pipes. Lumber, pallets, firewood, fencepost, tires, tarps, cement blocks, and bricks gravitate to downslope areas. It has become a common practice within the watershed to store such items along watercouses. 7. Dumping of refuse near watercourses The dumping of yard refuse near watercourses is another problem in the watershed. Grass clippings and leaves dumped excessively on ditch banks prevent the growth of soil-stabilizing rooted plants. Manures and pet wastes dumped in close proximity to watercourses contaminate the water with excessive nutrients. Toxic pools of nutrients kill local streamlife. Unwanted wildlife such as: woodchucks, skunks, and rodents burrow into loose piles of refuse. Pet waste dumped near waters can also release parasites that invade aquatic hosts (i.e. waterfowl, crustaceans, turtles, and fish). A world unfit for wildlife can be unfit for humans. “Swimmer’s itch” is the result of aquatic parasites. Many well-kept yards contain refuse or dump piles near watercourses (out of sight and out of mind). 8. Lack of adequate septic systems Watershed evidence suggests that excessive nutrients and bacteria are finding their way into local watercourses. Failing septic systems and drainfields (or lack of), are located by “dead zones” of black muck, where “cheater pipes” (outflow pipes) exist. Vegetative changes from “normal” to “excessive” are often indications of a sewage outfall. The growth of nightshade vines (Solanum species) or purple loostrife (Lythrum salicaria) can be used to locate such sewage outfalls. In dry weather pipes can be traced by observing “dark green” grass fed from moist nutrient-laden sources. Blue-green algae in watercourses can occur downstream from nutrient pollution sources. Bright-green algae indicates nutrients, but in lesser quantities. Older farm homes were built before pollution concerns. “Straight pipes” (direct from the house plumbing) frequently discharge to the ditch closest to the wall lines of the house. Daylillies (Hemerocalis species) or lilac (Syringa species) bushes, thrive upon the nutrients and water supplied by the pipe, and planting done in the past can conceal the outfall with leafy growth.


Improper installation of pipes can contribute to watershed pollution. “Cheater pipes” are pipes used to drain off excessive liquids from failing drainfields. “French drains” are also used to conceal excessive sewage flows and leach them in to subsurface gravel or stone. Sewage outfalls can be located during seasons of snow cover and cold weather. Sewage outfalls contain warm water that melts the normal ice cover. Laundry water can be traced by following airborn fragrances contained in the soaps. 9. Poorly designed stream crossing structures Landowners in the watershed create stream crossings for vehicles and foot traffic. Hunters and recreationists like to keep their feet dry. It is popular to build footbridges from inferior materials. Often the building materials are second quality: i.e. pallets, scrapwood, used culverts, or occupational materials: i.e. scrap steel, concrete blocks, bricks, tires, and treated scrapwood. Poorly constructed bridges wash away during high flows creating constrictions in the form of debris jams. Jams in the waterway erodes soil from the stream banks. Bridges or culverts that are too small can lead to hydraulic problems, erosion and flooding. Recreational vehicles and tractor owners are often content with crossing watercourses on unimproved fords. Tires rut up soil surfaces and destroy rooted vegetation causing sedimentation, and suspension of soil particles. Aquatic life forms may be destroyed in the process. 10. Destruction of wetland areas The destruction of regulated and small, unregulated wetland areas is another problem. Unnecessary mowing can occur when local mowing ordinances and noxious weed ordinances favor close cutting to make “neat and pretty” appearances of functioning wetland vegetation. Plant growth can absorb suspended particles of soil, drops of oil, or minor pollutants. Wetland plants need to mature in order to produce food and cover for wildlife. The human mindset of “proper appearances” can diminish wetland functions. Standing waters can be an irritant to uninformed people who would rather fill low areas of the yard with soil and mow and manicure wildlife wetlands away in the name of mosquito control. Stands of native grasses are often destroyed in favor of alien lawn species. Native grasses have deeper root systems with greater soil erosion stabilization ability. 11. Road salt damage Many culverts are destroyed by road salts. Salt used to melt snow corrodes many of the metal culverts in the watershed. Tubes with no bottoms may collapse or expose the soil to water erosion. The chloride salts used to control dust on gravel roads can deteriorate metal structures also. These salt brines from underground wells can destroy bridge railings, pavement grates and anchor bolts on road structures. Salts in the watershed can alter the vegetation in the watershed. Some plants such as Common Reed (Phragmites) thrive in salted conditions while most native plants are stunted or killed by chloride compounds. Salts can deteriorate concrete structures leading to collapse of headwalls and bridge decks.


12. Lack of enforcement of environmental laws There are many good laws and ordinances to protect habitat and water quality, if only they were enforced. A walk through the watershed shows there is very little enforcement of existing laws. Government mandates for action fall upon deaf ears if there is not financial backing for pollution programs. Economic gains are put ahead of pollution concerns. 13. Direct runoff from dense residential developments, parking lots and roadways Watercourses should not be crowded by densely concentrated human activity. Mobile home parks in the watershed have a concentration of human activity that puts pollution into watercourses. The impervious surfaces (such as pavement driveways and cul-de-sacs) collect polluted liquids in the forms of: soaps, oils, salts, herbicides, and dissolved metals. These materials are funneled directly into watercourses with no treatment. 14. Leaking valves and embankments at water treatment facilities Sewage treatment and holding ponds should not be located by watercourses. Leaking embankments or leaking valves release concentrated pollutants to watercourses. 15. Unlimited livestock access to streams The location of livestock pasture should not allow access to watercourses with standing water. It is not necessary to have horses or cattle standing in water in order to get a drink (Livestock tends to defecate while standing in water). 16. The loss of floodplain function when natural watercourses are altered as drains Efforts to create dry land for human activity have had negative effects upon flood control and water quality. Many county drains in the watershed were once meandering watercourses, but have been filled in and or straightened. The usual process is to dig a straighter channel and to pile the resulting spoils (soils) as piles upon the new banks. Some soil is used to fill in side wetlands or unwanted meanders. The resulting arrangement reduces the stream capacity to store floodwaters. The water rushes downstream untreated. Often tributary runoff is trapped in isolated stagnant pools behind the spoil piles. The overland spilling of floodwater in a meandering stream-floodplain system is an important process. In the process of flooding, a natural process of water purification takes place. The landward spilling of dead fish, animal carcasses, wild seeds, nutrients, and pollution creates opportunities for solids to be absorbed. Through complex interaction between plants and animals particulate matter is cycled and recycled in food webs. As a result of such activity the water becomes cleaner. The water purification process functions best if adequate space exists for wetland plants and interactions. Floodplain wetlands in the form of stream meanders and connected low-lying pools, provide the best system for nutrient transport and removal. Floodplain vegetation is more lush because of abundant soil nutrients and diversified seed supplies from upstream areas. The highly diversified plants create more opportunities for wildlife feeding. The natural movement of stream channels creates soil “seed beds” for plants and feeding areas for animals. Low lying wetlands and floodplain woods also function as a habitat nursery for waterfowl, shorebirds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects (food supplies). Insects chew upon plant materials and nutrients are released. Through the interactions of fungi (mushrooms) and bacteria water is further purified beneath the cooling shade of vegetation.


Extra water may find its way along root channels of plants and eventually recharge ground water supplies. These floodplain functions are greatly reduced when meandering streams are prevented, and low lying wetlands are filled. (Watershed streams that have had such alteration include: Beaubien Creek, Crapaud Creek, Marsac Creek, Peters Drain, Dana Drain, Hessen Drain, West Marsh Drain and others.) 17. Children playing in watercourses Since the beginning of time, children have been attracted to playing in watercourses. In a healthy stream waterlife in the form of minnows, turtles, frogs, tadpoles, and “waterbugs” can be a natural attraction. Problems arise when waters are polluted so kids face health risks and also when children vandalize watercourses by building “dams” or bridges from discarded materials, and throw trash in the streams. A life-long respect for watercourses could prevent such activities and channel efforts toward habitat improvements. 18. General lack of education and values that promote watershed protection Walking the tributary watercourses clearly indicates that there is a lack of education affecting water quality in the Anchor Bay Watershed. Traditional values of the past have allowed practices that cannot be tolerated today. Pollution of public waters by sewage outfalls can no longer be allowed as population density increases. The pasturing of waterways by horses or cattle today effects nearby neighbors. We should not complain about the heron eating fish from our stocked pond if the waters are void of fish because of pollution. We need not complain about mosquitoes if we have destroyed their natural predators through habitat destruction. The over-spraying of lawn pesticides may interrupt the food chain by killing songbirds that feed upon insect pests. We should not complain about water quality if we are content to have a swimming pool and then back-flush it into a nearby waterway. We cannot become stewards of land if we live in rented housing and dispose of car batteries and dump used oil on the ground (because the landlord is too busy to notice). The ownership of land creates a connection between humans and nature. The “use and dump” mentality is less likely to occur if one stays upon the land, in the same locality. Land and water stewards plant trees, dig ponds, hunt, go for nature walks, watch birds, fish, and perform activities that increase awareness of land and water. Native Americans lived and survived in the watershed for thousands of years. Stewardship of the land and water was essential to their survival. Economics may suggest that the construction of boat slips (tourist dollars) be put ahead of shoreline habitat preservation. Canal lots and waterside lots with boat slips may bring extra dollars to developers and real estate agents. Steel seawalls may allow manicured lawn sod up to the waters edge. Manicured lawns demand year-long spraying programs (sometimes continuing into winter months). Spray and fertilizers can wash into the water killing fish. Fish are then harder to locate requiring distant trips across the lake. Distant trips require: food, fuel, and facilities. Long trips create sewage that needs to be disposed of. Congestion and cost at onshore pumping stations is avoided by dumping sewage offshore. Bacteria from sewage kills fish. Dying fish create nutrients and weed growth. Nutrients, weed, and bacteria drift shoreward. Shoreside pollution closes beaches. People buy swimming pools to avoid polluted water. Swimming pools isolate people from the environment. Chlorine is added to the water to control algae. Algae and dirt are back-flushed into watercourses. Water quality is degraded.


Swimming in a pool becomes routine. Routines can be remedied by vacations. Vacations require travel. Travel to distant watershed requires: campers, motorhomes, and boats. From long trips we bring back exotic pests and sewage. Lake weeds and strange fish show up in local waterbodies. The fish are “bait stealers”. The bait stealers are killed and tossed back into the water. Dead fish create bacteria and nutrients. Beaches are closed. Public outcry demands pollution-controlling action. Government action requires careful politics. Careful politics require government reports. Government reports have economic repercussions. Aldo Leopold in his book: A Sand County Almanac, states: “In order to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial”. He believed that paying people to do conservation work will never accomplish long term goals. Economic funding when cut off kills programs. Improving water quality in the Anchor Bay Watershed will require many changes in current practices and values. Long term goals in improving water quality require improvement in environmental education and land use planning. Environmental education needs to play a part in teaching the public to be aware and concerned with the world they live in. This education should be a life-long process, with an emphasis on the long term changes in culture. Our current culture has put an emphasis on “athletic sports”. This focus dominates by taking funding and time away from environmental education possibilities. Strong economic interests control monies associated with athletic sports. Clothes, trophies, and awards promote a competitive aura, which is short lived once educational money is spent. Conservation education is limited to a day of outdoor activity (in the fifth or sixth grade). Good conservation requires land use planning. As the population of a watershed grows, control of public access becomes an issue. Wildlands and waterways are perceived to be public property. Woodlot corners become dumping grounds for spent consumer goods. Wooded lanes and drainage ways become travel ways for unauthorized public access. Concentrated traffic degrades habitat and spooks wildlife. Water quality is also degraded. Local ordinances are enacted but damages continue without enforcement. Government ownership of land is perceived a “heavy-handed control” by “big brother”. Land use is perceived by some as a right of land ownership. Taxpayers feel justified in doing what they please (disregarding public benefit of losses). The current practice of creating public pathways for bicycles should serve as a model for long-range land use planning. The watershed-wide extensions and connections beyond political boundaries has gone beyond traditional efforts for multidisciplinary cooperation. In a similar manner, waterways should be protected for the common public benefit. Buffer zones or greenbelts should be established along watercourses to assure water quality maintenance.


The protection of headwaters is critical. Migrating fish move upstream and in order to survive, headwaters must be clean and pure. Wetland “buffer zones”, or vegetative belts, are necessary to filter out pollution, sediments, and other materials that degrade water quality. Watercourses need space to make hydraulic and seasonal adjustments as flow conditions change. Habitat space, in the form of vegetation, buffers wildlife from human activity. Location of Examples of Sources and Causes: 1. Shoreline habitat replaced (or being replaced) with seawalls St. Clair River and tributaries, i.e. South Algonac Anchor Bay shoreline, i.e. East Harsens Island (South of Sans Souci) North Channel shoreline -- island lots created by fill of marshland 2. Tributary Streams being replaced with enclosed piping Robbins Drain Hammer Drain Parker Drain Geyman Drain Cottrell & Extension Drain (M-29 area) Crowley Drain Parquett Drain Clippert Drain Cartwright Drain 3. Residential building encroachment upon watercourses Cottrellville & Extension Drain– M-29 & south of Carroll Street Hammer Drain – northside of Highway M-29 Geyman Drain – east of M-29 Cartwright Drain – south of Fruit Road 4. Lack of soil erosion control on farms and development sites Dana Drain – Clay Twp, Section #9 Crapau Creek Intercounty Drain– Ira Twp, Section #7 Marsac Creek Drain – Ira Twp, Section #8 St. Mary’s Drain, Ira Twp, Section #14 Tributary of Swan Creek, Ira Twp Section #15 Benoit Drain, Casco Twp, Section #31 5. Obstructions (human-caused and development-worsened) Large tributaries usually the worst: Beaubien Creek Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #19 Marsac Creek Drain – Ira Twp, Section # 5, 8 & 17 West Marsh Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #9, 16 6. Stockpiling foreign materials near watercourses Marsac Creek Drain (east of Church Road) – Ira Twp, Section #8 Benoit Drain (south of Arnold Road) – Ira Twp, Section #7 Benoit & Br #1 Drain – Casco Twp, Section #31 Cartwright Drain (south of Fruit Street) – Clay Twp, City of Algonac


7. Dumping of refuse near watercourses Cartwright Drain (at Scout St. and south of Fruit St.) – Clay Twp, City of Algonac Lester-Bammel Drain (West of M-29) – Cottrellville Twp, P.C. 187 Grandchamp Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #7 (NE) Townline of Ira Drain –Cottrellville Twp, Section #18, #19; Ira Twp, Section #24 (E¼ line) 8. Lack of adequate septic systems Smith-Cottrellville Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #9, (SE¼) Hammer Drain – Ira Twp, Section #23, S. of M-29 Peters Drain – Casco Twp, Section #36 Hessen Drain – Casco Twp, Section #26 West Marsh Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #20

9. Poorly designed stream crossing structures Beaubien Creek Drain – Section #7, 18 Benoit Branch #1 – Casco Twp, Section #31, Marsac Creek Drain – Ira Twp, Sec. #8 (SW) Lester-Bammel Drain – Cottrellville Twp 10. Destruction of wetland areas Arnold Drain – Cottrellville, Section #3 (SW) Cottrell & Extension Drain – (south of Chartier St. by cemetery) – Marine City Crapau Creek Intercounty Drain – Ira Twp, Section #7 Benoit Drain – Ira Twp, Section #7, south of Arnold Rd, west of Bethuy Rd. Dana Drain – Clay Twp Section #9 M-29 west of Algonac – to Palms Road, north & south of M-29 City of Algonac – southern-most points of land Harsens Island – south of San Souci 11. Road salt damage culverts Beaubien Creek Drain (Broadbridge Rd. west of Starville) – Cottrellville Twp, Section #18 Arnold Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #3, #4 Sykes Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #3, #4 Marsac Creek Drain – Casco Twp, Section #31, collapsed concrete & stone headwall 12. Lack of enforcement of environmental laws Arnold Drain – north of Arnold, Section #3 Dana Drain – Clay Twp. Section #9 13. Direct runoff from dense residential developments, parking lots & roadways Marsac Creek Drain (upper)– Casco Twp, Section #30 Marsac Creek Drain (lower) – Ira Twp, Section #7, #8, 14. Leaking valves and embankments at water treatment facilities Casco Township, Section #30 15. Unlimited livestock access to streams Beaubien Creek & Grandchamp Drains – Cottrellville Twp, Section #7, #17 & #18


16. The loss of floodplain function when natural watercourses are altered as drains Casco Drain – Casco Twp, Section #25 Beaubien Creek Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Section #19 Crapau Creek Intercounty Drain – Ira Twp, Section #7 Marsac Creek – Casco Twp, Section #31, Ira Twp, Section #7, 8 Dana Drain – Clay Twp, City of Algonac Hessen Drain – Casco Twp, Section #26 West Marsh – Cottrellville Twp, Section #20 Peters Drain – Casco Twp, Section #36 17. Children playing in watercourses Marsac Creek (upper) – Casco Twp, Section #30 Marsac Creek (lower) – Ira Twp, Section #8 Cottrell & Extension Drain – Cottellville Twp, Marine City 18. General lack of education and values that promote watershed protection Cartwright Drain – Clay Twp, City of Algonac Cottrell & Extension Drain – Cottrellville Twp, Marine City Dana Drain – Clay Twp, City of Algonac


Appendix C:

Crapau Creek TMDL

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Surface Water Quality Division January 2002

Total Maximum Daily Load for Escherichia coli for Crapaud Creek,

Macomb and St. Clair Counties INTRODUCTION Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 130) require states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies that are not meeting Water Quality Standards (WQS). The TMDL process establishes the allowable loadings of pollutants for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions. TMDLs provide states 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 purpose of this TMDL is to identify the allowable levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) that will result in the attainment of the applicable WQS in Crapaud Creek, a small waterbody in Macomb and St. Clair Counties. PROBLEM STATEMENT Crapaud Creek was placed on the Section 303(d) list in 1998. This TMDL addresses approximately two miles of Crapaud Creek in the city of New Baltimore. The TMDL reach is on the Section 303(d) list as: Waterbody: Crapaud Creek WBID#: 061409E County: Macomb RF3RchID: 4090002 303 Size: 2 M Location: Downtown New Baltimore at Hamer Street. Status: 2 Problem: Pathogens (Rule 100). TMDL YEAR(s): 2000 Crapaud Creek (Figures 1 and 2) was placed on the Section 303(d) list due to impairment of recreational uses by the presence of elevated levels of E. coli. Data collected in the vicinity of New Baltimore by the Macomb County Health Department began documenting elevated E. coli levels in 1996. A review of the available data indicated elevated levels of E. coli in at least 50% of the samples collected since 1996, with particularly high results in 1999. Data for 1999 indicated elevated levels for E. coli in over 90% of the samples collected (Macomb County Health Department, 2001). Monitoring data (Appendix 1) collected by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in 2001 documented continued exceedances of the WQS at all five stations sampled (Table 1). Geometric means for the 2001 sampling period exhibited elevated levels (Figure 3), especially at the upstream stations. Monthly geometric mean E. coli concentrations in 2001 ranged from 66 E. coli per 100 milliliters (ml) in July at Green Road to 2,417 E. coli per 100 ml in June at Ashley Street, as summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4. The highest value found (80,000) was in the downstream area at Athea Street, but consistently high values were found in the upstream area at Ashley and Perrin Streets.

2

Table 1. MDEQ E. coli data for Crapaud Creek, New Baltimore, Michigan, in 2001. E. coli concentration (#/100 ml) Sample Location Month Minimum Geometric mean Maximum # of results *Ashley St. June 2,100 2,417 2,800 3 July 610 1,101 2,000 12 August 230 955 7,000 12 Private Dr./Perrin St. May 2,100 2,186 2,260 3 June 480 714 1,400 12 July 370 1,183 4,800 12 August 400 649 1,400 12 Green Rd. May 130 172 230 3 June 10 159 6,900 12 July 10 66 860 12 August 10 137 2,100 12 Athea Br./Main St. May 90 260 810 3 June 380 770 1,300 12 July 130 945 80,000 12 August 10 119 1,900 12 **Bal Clair May 90 109 120 3 June 50 158 320 9 *modified sample location - partial data **sample location changed during monitoring period - partial data

NUMERIC TARGET The impaired designated use for Crapaud Creek at this location is total body contact recreation. Rule 100 of the Michigan WQS requires that this waterbody be protected for total body contact recreation from May 1 to October 31. The target levels for this designated use are the ambient E. coli standards established in Rule 62 of the WQS as follows:

R 323.1062 Microorganisms. Rule 62. (1) All waters of the state protected for total body contact recreation shall not contain more than 130 Escherichia coli (E. coli) per 100 milliliters, as a 30-day geometric mean. Compliance shall be based on the geometric mean of all individual samples taken during 5 or more sampling events representatively spread over a 30-day period. Each sampling event shall consist of 3 or more samples taken at representative locations within a defined sampling area. At no time shall the waters of the state protected for total body contact recreation contain more than a maximum of 300 E. coli per 100 milliliters. Compliance shall be based on the geometric mean of 3 or more samples taken during the same sampling event at representative locations within a defined sampling area.

3

In addition, there are two permitted wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to Crapaud Creek, which have an additional target:

Rule 62. (3) Discharges containing treated or untreated human sewage shall not contain more than 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters, based on the geometric mean of all of 5 or more samples taken over a 30-day period, nor more than 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters, based on the on the geometric mean of all of 3 or more samples taken during any period of discharge not to exceed 7 days. Other indicators of adequate disinfection may be utilized where approved by the department.

The WWTP discharges will be considered in compliance with the WQS of 130 E. coli per 100 ml if their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml as a monthly average is met. This is assumed because E. coli are a subset of fecal coliform (American Public Health Association, 1995). When the wastewater of concern is sewage, fecal coliform is substantially higher than E. coli (Whitman, 2001). When the point source dischargers are disinfecting their effluent and meeting their limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml, it can reasonably be assumed that there are less than 130 E. coli per 100 ml in the effluent. For this TMDL, the WQS of 130 per 100 ml as a 30-day geometric mean is the target level for the TMDL reach from May 1 to October 31. As previously stated, data collected by the MDEQ in 2001 documented E. coli exceedances at all five stations sampled (Table 1). This is consistent with elevated levels found by the Macomb County Health Department in 1996 and 1999. SOURCE ASSESSMENT The Crapaud Creek watershed is located in both Macomb and St. Clair Counties. The listed TMDL reach is upstream from Hamer Street in the city of New Baltimore, Macomb County, extending into St. Clair County (Figure 1). There are two permitted point source discharges to Crapaud Creek, the city of New Baltimore WWTP and Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park WWTP. Municipalities in Macomb County include the city of New Baltimore, Lenox Township, and Chesterfield Township. The remaining municipalities, Casco Township and Ira Township, are located in St. Clair County. Table 2 shows the distribution of land in the Crapaud Creek watershed for each municipality. Table 2. Distribution of land for each municipality in the Crapaud Creek watershed.

Municipality County Watershed Area Percent Land Area (sq. mi) in Watershed Lenox Township Macomb 0.8 11 Casco Township St. Clair 1.1 15 Chesterfield Township Macomb 0.9 13 Ira Township St. Clair 1.6 22 City of New Baltimore Macomb 2.8 39 TOTAL 7.2 100

Potential pathogen sources for this waterbody include sources typically associated with urban and agricultural land uses. The 2001 monitoring data was collected during typical stream flow conditions and is indicative of both continuous and storm event inputs. Potential inputs of E. coli

4

include the two permitted point sources, as well as illicit sewer connections and urban runoff, since a majority of the watershed lies within New Baltimore. Other possible sources include agricultural runoff and pet and wildlife feces. LINKAGE ANALYSIS The link between the E. coli concentration in Crapaud Creek and the potential sources is the basis for the development of the TMDL. The linkage is defined as the cause and effect relationship between the selected indicators and the sources. This provides the basis for estimating the total assimilative capacity of the creek and any needed load reductions. For this TMDL, the primary loading of pathogens likely enters Crapaud Creek by both continuous and storm water related nonpoint sources. Due to insufficient flow upstream, sampling in 2001 began where there was an obvious stream channel and adequate water. The guiding water quality management principle used to develop the TMDL was that compliance with the numeric pathogen target in Crapaud Creek depends on the control of point source E. coli, and the control of E. coli in storm water and illicit connections. If the E. coli inputs can be controlled, then total body contact recreation in Crapaud Creek will be protected. TMDL DEVELOPMENT The TMDL represents the maximum loading that can be assimilated by the waterbody while still achieving WQS. As indicated in the Numeric Target section, the target for this pathogen TMDL is the WQS of 130 E. coli per 100 ml. Concurrent with the selection of a numeric concentration endpoint, TMDL development also defines the environmental conditions that will be used when defining allowable levels. Many TMDLs are designed around the concept of a “critical condition.” The “critical condition” is defined as the set of environmental conditions that, if controls are designed to protect, will ensure attainment of objectives for all other conditions. For example, the critical conditions for the control of point sources in Michigan are given in R 323.1090. In general, the lowest monthly 95% exceedance flow for streams is used as a design condition for point source discharges. However, for pathogens in point source discharges of treated or untreated human sewage, levels are restricted to a monthly average limit of 200 per 100 ml for fecal coliforms regardless of stream flow. Therefore, the design stream flow is not a critical condition for determining the allowable loadings of pathogens for WWTPs. In addition, other E. coli sources to Crapaud Creek arise from a mixture of wet and dry weather-driven nonpoint sources, and there is no single critical condition that is protective for all other conditions. For these sources, there are a number of different allowable loads that will ensure compliance, as long as they are distributed properly throughout space. For most pollutants, TMDLs are expressed on a mass loading basis (e.g., pounds per day). For E. coli, however, mass is not an appropriate measure, and the USEPA allows pathogen TMDLs to be expressed in terms of organism counts (or resulting concentration). Therefore, this pathogen TMDL is concentration-based consistent with R 323.1062, and the TMDL is equal to the target concentration of 130 E. coli per 100 ml. For this TMDL, an allocation strategy for nonpoint sources has been selected that assumes equal bacteria loads per unit area for all lands within the watershed. The point sources are handled consistent with Rule 62(3). The allocation process for each month of the recreational season (May through October) is outlined below.

5

1. This TMDL is concentration-based so the TMDL is equal to the pathogen WQS of

130 E. coli per 100 ml. 2. The WWTP discharges for Crapaud Creek will be considered in compliance with the WQS of

130 E. coli per 100 ml if their NPDES permit limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml as a monthly average is met. As previously discussed, this is assumed because E. coli are a subset of fecal coliform (American Public Health Association, 1995). When the wastewater of concern is sewage, fecal coliform is substantially higher than E. coli (Whitman, 2001). When the point source dischargers are disinfecting their effluent and meeting their limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml, it can reasonably be assumed that there are less than 130 E. coli per 100 ml in the effluent. Consistent with the allocation strategy, Table 3 shows the TMDL or allowable concentrations for E. coli by applicable month in the Crapaud Creek watershed.

Table 3. Allowable E. coli concentrations by month in the Crapaud Creek watershed. May June July August September October Crapaud Creek 130 130 130 130 130 130

ALLOCATIONS TMDLs are comprised of the sum of individual Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) for point sources and Load Allocation (LAs) for nonpoint sources and natural background levels. In addition, the TMDL must include a margin of safety (MOS), either implicitly or explicitly, that accounts for uncertainty in the relation between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving water body. Conceptually, this definition is denoted by the equation: TMDL = ∑WLAs + ∑LAs + MOS The term TMDL represents the maximum loading that can be assimilated by the receiving water while still achieving WQS. The overall loading capacity is subsequently allocated into the TMDL components of WLAs for point sources, LAs for nonpoint sources, and the MOS. As previously indicated, this pathogen TMDL will not be expressed on a mass loading basis and is concentration-based consistent with USEPA regulations at 40 CFR, Section 130.2(1). WLAs The city of New Baltimore (MI0023680) has a permitted WWTP discharge to Crapaud Creek (labeled on Figure 1 and 2). This facility has a design flow of 1.75 million gallons per day (MGD) and has a limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml as a monthly average. The Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park (MI0055816) is permitted to discharge to an unnamed tributary to Crapaud Creek (labeled on Figure 1). This facility has a design flow 0.14 MGD and also has a limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml as a monthly average in their NPDES permit. As previously stated, when the WWTPs are disinfecting their effluent, the WQS is required to be met in the discharge. Therefore, the WLA will be equal to 130 E. coli per 100 ml.

6

LAs Because this TMDL is concentration-based, the LA is equal to 130 E. coli per 100 ml and the determination of individual LAs will be based on the assumption of equal bacteria loads per unit area for all lands within the watershed. Therefore, the relative responsibility for achieving the necessary reductions of bacteria and maintaining acceptable conditions will be determined by the amount of land under the jurisdiction of the various local units of government within the watershed. Table 2 gives the relative LAs for each of the local entities as shown by the percentage of land within the watershed for each of the local units of governments. This gives a clear indication of the relative amount of effort that will be required by each entity to restore and maintain the total body contact designated use to Crapaud Creek. The government entities with the largest percent land area in the Crapaud Creek watershed are the city of New Baltimore (39%) and Ira Township (22%), making up 61% of the watershed. Lenox Township (11%), Casco Township (15%), and Chesterfield Township (13%) compromise the rest of the watershed. MOS This section addresses the incorporation of an MOS in the TMDL analysis. The MOS accounts for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between pollutant loading, water quality, and knowledge of continuous point sources of E. coli. The MOS can be either implicit (i.e., incorporated into the TMDL analysis thorough conservative assumptions) or explicit (i.e., expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings). This TMDL uses an implicit MOS for two reasons: no rate of decay for E. coli was used, and actual disinfection performance by the point sources is much better than their permitted levels. It is expected that both WWTP discharges to Crapaud Creek are discharging at well below their permit limit of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml, which allows a reasonable MOS in Crapaud Creek. This expectation is based on data submitted from the New Baltimore WWTP discharge on their Discharge Monitoring Report. Data submitted from the city of New Baltimore since 1998 average approximately 22 fecal coliform per 100 ml. The maximum concentration was 62 per 100 ml, well below their 200 per 100 ml permit limit. Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park has not commenced discharge but will use ultraviolet disinfection, which is highly effective at killing pathogens. Monitoring data also indicates that the city of New Baltimore’s effluent has a diluting effect on E. coli levels in Crapaud Creek. This is shown by a dramatic decrease in E. coli at the Green Road station, just downstream of New Baltimore’s discharge entering Crapaud Creek. Figure 5 shows the percent composition of Crapaud Creek at the city of New Baltimore WWTP outfall at average stream flow and design flow conditions for the WWTPs. The city of New Baltimore WWTP effluent makes up 85% of the flow of Crapaud Creek. The combined WWTP flow makes up 90% of the stream flow when Millstone Stone Pond Mobile Home Park effluent is included.

7

Example Loading Assessment Although this TMDL is concentration-based, an example calculation using counts per day was used to simulate a loading assessment. The TMDL, on a loading basis, can be calculated as a function of stream flow using the following equation: TMDL = Qriv , x x CWQS

Where:

TMDL = Loading capacity in the stream (counts per time). Qriv,x = Stream flow (volume of water per time). CWQS = WQS concentration (counts per volume of time).

The loading capacity defined in the above equation applies to all stream flows for which WQS apply. The monthly average flows for Crapaud Creek are given in Table 4 and demonstrate the relative magnitude of allowable loads from the various units of government for one flow scenario. Table 5 represents the monthly average flows for Crapaud Creek, including the WWTP flows and were used to calculate the total allowable load to Crapaud Creek. Table 4. Crapaud Creek average flows (cfs) just upstream of New Baltimore WWTP

discharge.

May June July August September October 1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Table 5. Crapaud Creek average flows (cfs), including the New Baltimore WWTP and

Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park WWTP flows.

May June July August September October

3.9 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 Using the previously stated conditions from the allocation strategy, the allocations based on average flow conditions were determined using the following process:

1. For Crapaud Creek, the allowable concentration was converted to allowable load.

2. LAs were determined for each local entity based on the relative areas of jurisdiction. The results are given in Table 6.

3. WLAs were determined for New Baltimore WWTP and Millstone Pond Mobile Home

Park WWTP using a design flow of 1.75 MGD and 0.14 MGD, respectively. Using this flow, a discharge equivalent to 130 E. coli per 100 ml and the formula noted in Table 7, New Baltimore WWTP has a WLA of 8.6 relative loading units and Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park WWTP has a WLA of 0.70 relative loading units.

4. The Crapaud Creek flows used in calculations for the LA were taken just upstream of the

city of New Baltimore WWTP outfall. The flow data was provided by the Hydrology Unit, Land and Water Management Division, MDEQ.

8

5. The TMDL total load was calculated using the total flow for Crapaud Creek, which was calculated using the design flow of the WWTPs and the formula noted in Table 7.

The results of the loading assessment for the listed reach of Crapaud Creek under average flow conditions are given in Table 7. The assessment shows that if the WLA and LA are met, the TMDL will not be exceeded in Crapaud Creek for each month of the recreational season. Table 6. LAs for Crapaud Creek watershed for average flow (relative loading units*).

Watershed

area May June July August September October (sq. mi) Lenox Twp. 0.8 0.35 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 Casco Twp. 1.1 0.48 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 Chesterfield Twp. 0.9 0.42 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 Ira Twp. 1.6 0.70 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.14 City of New Baltimore 2.8 1.25 0.51 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.25 TOTAL 7.2 3.2 1.3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.64 *Relative Loading Units = E. coli concentration (130 counts/100 ml) x River flow (cfs) x (10 x .646 x 3.785) / 103

Table 7. TMDL for Crapaud Creek, May 1 to October 31 (relative loading units).* May June July August September October WLA 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 LA 3.2 1.3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.64 TOTAL LOAD (TMDL) 12.5 10.6 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.94 *relative loading unit = E. coli concentration (130 cts/100 ml) x River flow or effluent flow (cfs) (10 x .646 x 3.785)/103

SEASONALITY Seasonality in the TMDL is addressed by expressing the TMDL in terms of a total body contact recreation season that is defined as May 1 through October 31 by R 323.1100 of the WQS. There is no total body contact during the remainder of the year primarily due to cold weather. In addition, because this is a concentration-based TMDL, WQS will be met regardless of flow conditions in the applicable season. MONITORING In 2001, water quality was monitored at five stations from May through August (Figure 2). Sampling was dependant upon adequate flow in the creek and data was not collected at all stations on every sampling event. Additional sampling will begin in May 2002 and conclude in

9

September 2002. If initial sampling in 2002 indicates WQS are exceeded, the remaining sampling will be oriented toward source identification. If these results indicate that the waterbody may be meeting WQS, sampling will be conducted at the appropriate frequency to determine if the 30-day geometric mean value of 130 E. coli per 100 ml is being met. In future years, assuming WQS are not met immediately, sampling frequency will be weekly from May through September at appropriate locations. Sampling will be adjusted as needed to assist in continued source identification and elimination. When these results indicate that the waterbody may be meeting WQS, sampling will be conducted at the appropriate frequency to determine if the 30-day geometric mean value of 130 E. coli per 100 ml is being met. REASONABLE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES Under the NPDES permit program, the two WWTP dischargers are responsible for meeting their effluent limits for fecal coliform. Compliance is determined based on review of Discharge Monitoring Report data by the MDEQ. As previously stated, the WWTP dischargers in the watershed are presently disinfecting their effluent well below their permitted limits. Urban storm water runoff and illicit discharges are likely the dominant sources of E. coli to Crapaud Creek. Implementation activities to meet the TMDL require measures to reduce E. coli sources and loads. Under the Phase 2 storm water regulations, the need for storm water permits in the other municipalities in the watershed will be evaluated against the applicable criteria on a case-by-case basis . These requirements are likely to apply to the city of New Baltimore, Chesterfield Township and Ira Township. These permits will require activities that reduce pathogen inputs, similar to the existing Phase 1 storm water permits in more populated urban areas. In addition, Macomb and St. Clair Counties have been awarded a Section 319 Watershed Management Grant that will include activities to reduce and eliminate sources of E. coli. This grant is titled the “Anchor Bay Watershed Project” and includes Crapaud Creek. The goal of this grant is to develop a comprehensive nonpoint source watershed management plan. Objectives of the plan include the identification and correction of failing septic systems and the control of urban and agricultural storm water runoff. The grant is funded in the amount of $91,252.00 with a local match of $103,868 for a total of $195,120.00. Prepared by: Christine Thelen, Aquatic Biologist Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section Surface Water Quality Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality January 22, 2001

10

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th Edition. Creal, W. and J. Wuycheck. 2000. Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List – Michigan’s

Submittal for Year 2000. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division, Report Number MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/018.

Macomb County Health Department. 2001.

WWW.co.macomb.mi.us/publichealth/waterquality/monthass/SALT - MILK - CRAPAUD. Personal communication, Richard L. Whitman. United States Geological Survey, October 2001. USEPA. 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 841-R-00-002.

13

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Ashley St. Private Drive/Perrin St. Green Rd./M-29 Athea Br./Main St. Bal Clair

Sample Location

Geo

met

ric

mea

n E

. co

li/1

00 m

l

Figure 3. Mean E. coli results from Crapaud Creek, New Baltimore, Michigan, May through October, 2001. Data are presented upstream to downstream.

14

Geometric mean of E. coli at Ashley St.

0

1000

2000

3000

June July August

Month

E. c

oli

/100

ml

Geometric mean of E. coli at Private Dr./Perrin St.

0

1000

2000

3000

May June July August

Month

E. c

oli/

100

ml

Geometric mean of E. coli at Green Rd./M-29.

050

100150200


Month

E. c

oli

/100

ml

Geometric mean of E. coli at Athea Br./Main St.

0

500

1000


Month

E. c

oli/

100

ml

Figure 4. Geometric mean of E. coli at Crapaud Creek, New Baltimore, Michigan, 2001.

15

Figure 5. Percent Composition of Crapaud Creek flow at New Baltimore WWTP outfall location.

10%

83%

7%

New Baltimore WWTP

Millstone Pond Mobile Home Park

Flow in Crapaud Creek

16

Appendix 1. MDEQ E. coli monitoring data for Crapaud Creek, New Baltimore, Michigan, for 2001.

Crapaud Creek Crapaud Creek Crapaud Creek Crapaud Creek Crapaud Creek @ Private Dr./Perrin St. @ Green Rd./M-29 Athea Br./Main St. Bal Clair @ Ashley St.

CC-1A CC-2A CC-3A CC-4A CC-4B

5/24/2001 5/24/2001 5/24/2001 5/24/2001 6/26/2001 2260 230 810 90 2400 2200 170 240 120 2100 2100 130 90 120 2800

6/5/2001 6/5/2001 6/5/2001 6/5/2001 7/3/2001 570 170 560 90 1830 550 80 600 100 1830 510 250 530 50 2180

6/12/2001 6/12/2001 6/12/2001 6/12/2001 7/11/2001 1200 1000 1200 140 1100 1100 10 1300 150 700 1400 40 900 230 610

6/19/2001 6/19/2001 6/19/2001 6/19/2001 7/19/2001 700 1300 1100 280 1380 740 10 660 320 820 660 6900 970 320 2000

6/26/2001 6/26/2001 6/26/2001 7/25/2001 600 80 540 920 480 130 1200 670 600 200 380 660

7/3/2001 7/3/2001 7/3/2001 8/1/2001 1610 280 40000 230 2090 360 80000 350 1660 860 60000 410

7/11/2001 7/11/2001 7/11/2001 8/8/2001 420 30 280 7000 620 30 210 7000 880 10 290 7000

7/19/2001 7/19/2001 7/19/2001 8/15/2001 4700 20 270 620 4800 100 130 590 3400 10 170 640

7/25/2001 7/25/2001 7/25/2001 8/22/2001 370 120 190 600 440 120 570 610 470 30 240 590

8/1/2001 8/1/2001 8/1/2001 570 150 70 1110 130 100 510 120 20

8/8/2001 8/8/2001 8/8/2001 1400 2100 1900 1400 2100 1800 1400 2100 1900

8/15/2001 8/15/2001 8/15/2001 450 10 10 400 10 10 430 20 30

8/22/2001 8/22/2001 8/22/2001 450 80 130 420 90 190 430 140 110


Appendix D:

Project Team Members

Appendix D: Project Team Members Page 1 of 4

Table 2-1: Anchor Bay Watershed Plan Administrative Committee Organization Representative(s)

SCC Drain Commissioner’s

Office

Mr Fred Fuller, Drain Commissioner 21 Airport Drive St Clair MI 48079 810-364-5369 [email protected]

SCC Metropolitan Planning

Commission

Mr Gordon Ruttan, Director 200 Grand River Ave, Suite 202 Port Huron MI 48060 810-989-6950 [email protected]

Mr Geoffrey Donaldson, Environmental Planner 200 Grand River Ave, Suite 202 Port Huron MI 48060 810-989-6950 [email protected]

SCC Health Department

Mr Ron Miller, Director Environmental Health 3415 28th St Port Huron MI 48060 810-987-5306 [email protected]

Ms Kristen O’Reilly, Storm Water Coordinator Environmental Health 3415 28th St Port Huron MI 48060 810-987-5306 [email protected]

MC Public Works Office

Mr William Misterovich, Deputy Commissioner 115 S Groesbeck Hwy Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-469-5910

Ms Lynne Yustick, Environmental Engineer 115 S Groesbeck Hwy Mount Clemens MI 48046 586-469-5910 [email protected]

Ms Lara Sucharski, Soil Erosion Supervisor 115 S Groesbeck Hwy Mount Clemens MI 48046 586-469-5910 [email protected]

MC Health Department

Mr Thomas Kalkofen, Director 43525 Elizabeth Rd Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-569-5219 [email protected]

Ms Vicky Hartingh 43525 Elizabeth Rd Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-569-5219 [email protected]

Mr Gary White, Deputy Director Environmental Health Services 43525 Elizabeth Rd Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-469-5236 [email protected]

MC Dept. of Planning and

Economic Development

Mr Steve Cassin 1 S Main Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-469-5285 [email protected]

Mr John Crumm 1 S Main Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-469-5285 [email protected]


Table 2-2: Anchor Bay Watershed Project Steering Committee* Organization Representative(s)

City of Algonac

Mr Paul Jarmolowicz, DPW Superintendent 805 St Clair River Dr Algonac MI 48001 810-794-5451 [email protected]

Mike Harrington Johnson & Anderson 3910 Lapeer Rd Port Huron MI 48060 810-987-7820

Casco Township

Ms Karen Holk, Supervisor 4512 Meldrum Rd Richmond MI 48064 586-727-7524 [email protected]

Mr Bill Ruemenapp 4512 Meldrum Rd Richmond MI 48064 586-727-8170

Chesterfield Township

Mr Jim Ellis, Supervisor 47275 Sugarbush Rd Chesterfield Twp MI 48047 586-949-0400 [email protected]

Mr John McCleary, DPW Asst. Superintendent 47275 Sugarbush Rd Chesterfield Twp MI 48047 586-949-0400

China Township

Ms Linda Schweihofer, Supervisor 4560 Indian Trail China Twp MI 48054 810-765-1145 [email protected]

Ron Beier, Trustee 4560 Indian Trail China Twp MI 48054 810-765-1145

Clay Township

Mr Joseph McKoan, Supervisor 4710 Pte Tremble Algonac MI 48001 claytownship.org 810-794-9303

Ms Connie Turner, Treasurer 4710 Pte Tremble Algonac MI 48001 claytownship.org 810-794-9303

Mr Mike Kras, Building Official 4710 Pte Tremble Algonac MI 48001 claytownship.org 810-794-9320

Clinton Township

Mr Robert Cannon, Supervisor 40700 Romeo Plank Clinton Twp, MI 48047 586-286-8000

Ms Mary Bednar, Engineer 40700 Romeo Plank Clinton Twp, MI 48047 586-286-9387 [email protected]

Cottrellville Township

Mr. Bill Zweng, Supervisor 7008 Marsh Rd Marine City MI 48039 810-765-4730

Ms Violet Pfaff, Clerk 7008 Marsh Rd Marine City MI 48039 810-765-4730

Harrison Township

Mr Mark Knowles, Supervisor 38151 L’Anse Creuse Harrison Twp, MI 48045 586-466-1406

Ms Joy Vallier, Deputy Supervisor 38151 L’Anse Creuse Harrison Twp, MI 48045 586-466-1406

Ira Township

Mr John Jones** Supervisor 7085 Meldrum Rd Fair Haven MI 48023 586-725-0263 [email protected]

Mr Martin Barnes, DPW Superintendent 7085 Meldrum Rd Fair Haven MI 48023 586-725-0263 [email protected]

Lenox Township

Mr John Gardner, Supervisor 63975 Gratiot Lenox, MI 48050 586-727-2085

Mr Mack Weaver, Trustee 63975 Gratiot Lenox, MI 48050 586-727-2085

Mr Cam Trombly 59950 Gratiot Lenox MI 48048 586-749-0230

Macomb Township

Mr David Koss, Water & Sewer Superintendent 51650 Card Rd Macomb MI 48042 586-598-0687

Mr Jack Dailey 51650 Card Rd Macomb MI 48042 586-598-0687


Table 2-2: Anchor Bay Watershed Project Steering Committee* (continued) Organization Representative(s)

City of Marine City

Michael Nagy, City Manager 300 Broadway Marine City MI 48039 810-765-9011

Mr Rick Ames, DPW Superintendent 300 Broadway Marine City MI 48039 810-765-9711

Mr Bill Klassen 300 Broadway Marine City MI 48039 810-765-9011

City of Mount Clemens

Mr Harry T. Diehl, Major One Crocker Boulevard Mount Clemens, MI 48043 586-469-6803

Mr Chuck Bellmore, Utilities Supervisor One Crocker Boulevard Mount Clemens, MI 48043 586-469-6889

City of New Baltimore

Mr Joe Grajek*** Mayor 36535 Green St New Baltimore MI 48047 586-725-2151

Village of New Haven

Ms Deborah Mack, President 58725 Havenridge New Haven MI 48048 586-749-5301 [email protected]

Mr Robert Chreighton, DPW Director 58725 Havenridge New Haven MI 48048 586-749-5301

City of Richmond

Ms Jan Hunt, Mayor 68225 Main St. Richmond, MI 48062 586-727-7571

Richmond Township

Mr. Gordon Fuerstenau, Supervisor 34900 School Section Rd Richmond MI 48062 586-727-8998

Ms Cindi Greenia 34900 School Section Rd Richmond, MI 48062 586-727-8998

*Members of the Administrative Committee also serve on the Steering Committee. **Mr. Jones serves as the Chair of the Steering Committee. ***Mr. Grajek serves as the Vice Chair of the Steering Committee.


Table 2-3: Anchor Bay Watershed Project Technical Committee Organization Representative

SCC Health Department

Ms Kristen O’Reilly, Storm Water Coordinator Environmental Health 3415 28th St Port Huron MI 48060 810-987-5306 [email protected]

SCC Metropolitan Planning Commission

Mr. Geoffrey Donaldson, Environmental Planner 200 Grand River Ave; Suite 202 Port Huron MI 48060 810-989-6950 [email protected]

MC Public Works Office

Ms Lynne Yustick, Engineer 115 S Groesbeck Hwy Mount Clemens MI 48046 586-469-5910 [email protected]

MC Dept. of Planning and Economic Development

Mr Gerard Santoro, Senior Planner 1 S Main Mount Clemens MI 48043 586-469-5285 [email protected]

Village of New Haven

Mr Jeff Bednar, Engineer Anderson, Eckstein & Westrick, Inc 51301 Schoenherr Shelby Twp MI 48315 586-726-1234 [email protected]

Chesterfield Township, Clay Township,

Harrison Township, Ira Township,

Mount Clemens, New Baltimore, and Richmond Township

Mr Chris McLeod, Planner Community Planning & Management, 48970 Schoenherr Rd. Shelby Township MI 48315 586-247-7500 [email protected]

SEMCOG

Ms Amy Mangus, Senior Planner 535 Griswold Street, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226-3602 313-324-3350 [email protected]


Appendix E:

Public Involvement Survey

Appendix E: Public Involvement Survey Page 1 of 2

ANCHOR BAY WATERSHED SURVEY OF INTERESTS AND CONCERNS

Thank you for your interest in the Anchor Bay Watershed. Your input is vital to the development of action plans by the public agencies responsible for management of the watershed. Your survey response will help Anchor Bay watershed communities determine where priorities should be placed in their efforts to improve our water quality. Please take the time to mail or fax this survey back to us. Fax and address information is on the back page of this survey.

Help us prioritize improvements in Anchor Bay water quality.

Rank the following goals with a score of 1 to 5, with 1 being most important and 5 being the least important.

Remove paper, trash and debris in the Bay and its tributaries to improve its appearance Better control soil erosion and limit sediments entering the water Improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife in the water Minimize excessive flows that cause flooding, bank erosion and habitat loss Encourage investments in land along water for recreation/wildlife protection Expand public education about the benefits of protecting Anchor Bay Better control sources of fertilizer reaching Anchor Bay and the Great Lakes Remove sources of human waste in Anchor Bay that threaten public health Increase community planning to address development and protection of water quality Are there any other goals that you feel should be included in this list? Please indicate any additional goals you would like to see added. How would you rank them from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important).

______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E: Public Involvement Survey Page 2 of 2

What issues concerning the management of Anchor Bay are most important to you? ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ What is the single most important improvement to Anchor Bay and its tributaries that you would like to see? ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ What types of information about the Anchor Bay Watershed interest you most? (Check as many as apply) Water Quality __ Bacteria levels__ Parks and Public Recreation Areas __ Fish and wildlife __ How homeowners can help prevent pollution __ How businesses can prevent pollution __ How I can volunteer to help restore Anchor Bay __ Other (Specify)____________________ Which of the following is the best approach to keep you informed regarding the progress in developing a plan to restore Anchor Bay? Public meetings/workshops __ Newspaper articles __ Cable television __ Web page __ Direct mailings to your home or business __ Community newsletters __ Other (Specify)______________________________ The following information is requested so that we can keep you informed on the progress of the Anchor Bay watershed planning effort. We will send you information regarding the Anchor Bay Watershed Plan and opportunities to learn more about this project. There is an Anchor Bay public meeting in the fall of 2002, where presentations will be made and public input will be encouraged. Name__________________________ Address____________________________________ ____________________________________ Phone__________________________ E-mail ____________________________________

Mail or fax survey to:

Geoffrey Donaldson St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission

200 Grand River, Suite 202 Port Huron, MI 48060 Fax: (810) 987-5931


Appendix F:

Community Surveys

Appendix F: City of Algonac Survey Page 1 of 6

City of Algonac Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Not a combined system, televising (1999) – only SSO would be a break in the line

12 Identify and Eliminate Failing On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs)

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

X

Small portion of septics – Dana Drain area of Clay Twp, which was recently annexed by the City, had 3 OSDS sites all of which are being supplied with water and sewer service.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County program, IDEP grant. City also checks outfalls as part of their routine programs.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Only 3, being hooked up to sanitary


2a


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

32 Minimize Salt and De-icing Chemicals Usage

2a, 3a

Incidental program of visual observations & budget review


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b X

Doggie disposal dispensers at parks for dog waste. Pet ordinance limits the number of animals but does not address manure or pet waste disposal.


2a, 3a, 3c X

Hazmat/Fire department – containment booms. No catch basin stenciling. Most runoff is into ditches/swales.

45

Utilize Comprehensive Planning for Wastewater Treatment Systems

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X County run wastewater treatment plant, City is totally sewered. No master plan



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion

7 Control Soil Erosion 2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program. City has ordinance that requires developer to obtain a County SESC permit prior to obtaining a building permit.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

Rip-rap on the boat launch – as needed maintenance. Check City areas on an ongoing basis


2a, 2b

X

Subdivisions need to install detention/retention ponds by ordinance. Approval requires county permits also.


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

County program, participate with Clay Township program. City publicizes dates on website and cable TV station.


2a

X

Curbside recycling and composting. Fall leaf pickup available to residents.

16 Implement Municipal Employee Training Programs

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

Ongoing, informal training

22 Increase Public Awareness

All

X

Anchor Bay survey on website (www.cityofalgonac.com ), cable channel, (Rose Perricone), River Day Event. Brochure location at city building – Downriver recreation commission D.R.C. (Cindy Babicz)


1b, 2a

X

Have talked about an ordinance. Contractor handles City property.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Garden clubs. Will put brochures in City Hall.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

Retention ponds – requirement by county.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Clean the ones on the city portion of the system – DPW does this manually twice per year. MDOT does the M-29 catch basins.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Required by ordinance. Most of the system is swales and ditches.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Televised the sewers in 1999 and are now fixing problems. 5 year program to correct I/I – spent $300,000 to date with an estimated $600,000 remaining.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

No lagoons – SCCDO would control

29

Manage Public Facilities

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X X

Smoke test / dye test – not routinely but will investigate if a problem is suspected. A fertilizer/herbicide program in a short term goal.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

SCCDO & MDOT mainly. DPW performs maintenance for the few catch basins in the City system.

35 Perform Street Sweeping

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b X

Yes, use bush – mostly done on M-29. County does sweeping 4 times a year; city sweeps 2 times per month.

40

Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces

4c, 4d

X

Part of Engineering Standards Ordinance.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

Completely paved so doesn’t really apply.


1c, 2a, 2d

X

No plans – everything that could be conserved by city already is

5 Construct Wetlands

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Parks available & advertised. Recreational master plan completed. Received CMI grants for tot lots.


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Addressed in the site plan review master plan mentions natural feature protection.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X Part of drain easement, City does not handle.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Privately owned property

44 Support Wetland Mitigation Banking

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

Not really able to do this

46

Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques

2a

X

County drains



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No agriculture

14 Implement Financial Solutions

All

X

Money for sanitary maintenance. Always looking into grants (CMI)


All

X

Part of watershed groups


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X X

Have ordinance in place, but needs to be updated (short-term)

33 Monitor Water Quality and Quantity

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

38 Provide Sufficient Enforcement Capability

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Ordinance officer; daily inspections; complaint responses.

Community Name: City of Algonac July 23, 2003 Community Representatives: Paul Jarmolowicz, Kris Goetze, Mike Harrington & Jeff Hansen

Appendix F: Casco Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Casco Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Trailer park has a sewer system, not under twp. Jurisdiction

12

Identify and Eliminate Failing On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (OSDSs)

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP. There were 24 failed sites in the investigated Twp. area.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County, Twp will pass along complaints. Recent IDEP survey showed 7 unknown/detergent type discharge sites.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b X

Website will contain information link to SCHD MSU Extension


2a X

Zoning ordinance – gas station, repair shops are required to install separator/trap devices. Any commercial/industrial facility using oil & grease are required to install.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a X


2a, 3a

Contract out snow removal at Twp facilities. County does removal on paved roads and MDOT maintains I-94.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Township ordinance limits the number of animals but does not address pet waste.


2a, 3a, 3c X

No storm sewers


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

Township is too far from WWTP to provide sewers.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion

7 Control Soil Erosion

2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County requires soil erosion permits


2b

X


2a, 2b

X


2a, 2b

X

Rock dams put in by county – township pays the county


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

County SCCDO



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

County runs the program but the Twp notifies residents through cable channel, brochures, and websites.


2a

Residential pickup is handled by independent waste haulers, recycling on their own. Composting facility in the Twp will accept leaves, grass and garden material. Currently exploring options of township-wide contract for household waste pick up. Working on an ordinance need public hearing.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X


All

X Website, links to MSU Extension – SCCHD – etc. Newspaper special mailings, cable access, brochures/flyer at Twp. offices


1b, 2a

X Do not use on Twp property


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

A link to the MSU Extension office will be placed on the Twp website



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Retention ponds required by zoning ordinanc e and as part of site plan review for commercial and industrial sites.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

25

Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

Coun

ty

The Township requires specific run off rates by ordinance. Also must meet County standards.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Inside sprayed by Terminix monthly. Township hall is the only public facility. Pump and haul system for the toilets – pumped monthly


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

County cleans ditches. Twp pays for ditching on local roads.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

County, calcium chloride on unpaved roads at Twp expense.


4c, 4d

X

Have PUD ordinance.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

Master Plan contains NFI and it is currently being updated.


1c, 2a, 2d

Privately owned land


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d X

None.


1c, 2d X

Have a Recreational Master Plan. Twp has a 97-acre parcel for park development through a CMI grant.


2a, 2d, 4b

None


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Master plan, soil removal ordinance open space – cluster housing (2.5 developed/2.5 open forever)


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

White Oaks Conservancy


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

None


2a

None



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Supports the use of GAAMPs within the Twp.


All X

Always searching for applicable grants (i.e. park development)


All X

Participate in Anchor Bay Watershed Groups


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Violation of County regulations is directed to proper channels. The Twp enforces their ordinances directly.

Community Name: Casco Township July 24, 2003 Community Representatives: Karen Holk and Bill Ruemenapp

Appendix F: Chesterfield Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Chesterfield Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP program, Twp c hecks complaints before they refer.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County IDEP program, Twp checks complaints before they refer.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Refer any questions to County.


2a X

Sand traps and/or oil traps for everything except residential


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a

X

Physical removal and salt of necessary. Only salt where there are problems


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Pets not allowed in park. Limited agricultural area in the Twp.


2a, 3a, 3c X

Catch basin stenciling. Require a secondary containment at storage facilities.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Sewer Master Plan



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program; check complaints then refer to County; Joe is certified under storm H2O operator program. Need permit prior to issuing building permit


2b

X


2a, 2b

Twp does not have jurisdiction over any open water courses.


2a, 2b

X

For Twp projects


1a, 1b, 4d

Refer flow obstructions to county.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Work of County Health Department; Maintain a list of locations for oil disposal in the Twp.


2a

Individual contractors. Ordinance that homeowners need to have recycle program


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

Encourage people to attend classes and seminars but not formal program


All

X

Website (www.chesterfieldtwp.org); Consumer Confidence Report for water; cable channel (community access); Newsletter (starting)


1b, 2a

X

Do their own – couple employees have application licenses Fertilize on an as needed basis


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Use MSU Extension brochures



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Require detention for 2” rain over site. Require S.A.D. agreement that allows Twp to do maintenance if necessary


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

TV, cleaning, & repairs. Entire system is inspected over a 5 year period. Manhole inspection. Weekly lift station inspection


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

Catch basin restrictions; restricted outlets


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Respond to complaints. County routinely does roads


4c, 4d

X

PUD with cluster option. Preservation of natural features as a priority



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County Michigan Natural Features Inventory and updated wetlands survey available November 2003


1c, 2a, 2d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d X

25 mile & Fish Creek I-94 MHP MDEQ mitigation that was then turned back to Twp


1c, 2d X

Recreational Master Plan that includes environmental protection areas


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Tree restoration ordinance


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a X



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b


All

X

Grant writer. Tap in fee for storm sewers. Can establish SAD for storm H2O.


All

X

Actively participating in Watershed Groups


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Code enforcement officer

Community Name: Chesterfield Township August 14, 2003 Community Representatives: Jim Ellis, Joe Gayeski, John McCleary, Eric Wurmlinger, Janice Giese

Appendix F: China Township Survey Page 1 of 6

China Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

No sanitary sewer overflows


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP Program


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County IDEP Program


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Information link on website


2a X

No commercial facilities


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

China & East China share a wastewater plant


2a, 3a

X

Road commission salts roads, the community doesn’t salt parking lot


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Ordinance – minimum 5 acres for farm animals. However it does not include requirements for controlling manure impacts or pet waste.


2a, 3a, 3c X

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Master plan being developed that includes sewer service area. Anchor Bay portion is not included in service area, so they will rely on septics.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County programs – Twp. requires builder to get county permit as part of the building packet.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

No open surface H2O


2a, 2b

Coun

ty


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

SCCDO, SSRC



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

Refer questions to the county. Flyers available at Twp. Offices


2a

X

Trash and recycling through Township-wide waste contractor. Recycling bins available to residents and also located at Twp. Office. No compost program but individual composting is supported/encouraged.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Website (www.chinatownship.net), special mailings, brochures/mailings available at Twp. Office


1b, 2a

Use contractor to mow soccer field and local farmers apply fertilizer as necessary.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Flyers or post on website



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

In Anchor Bay


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

In Anchor Bay


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

In Anchor Bay


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X


4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b


1c, 2a, 2d

Small portion of land owned by Twp, no current development plans.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

Beaubien Creek in Anchor Bay, Twp paid to get it cleaned through the county maintenance program


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning

9

Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs)

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Stat

e

Right to farm – State


All

No plans, always interested


All

X

Anchor Bay Watershed Planning


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Ordinance enforcement officer

Community Name: China Township July 25, 2003 Community Representatives: Linda Schweihofer, Leona Markel, Brian Slizewski

Appendix F: Clay Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Clay Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County IDEP.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County HD IDEP. !2 failed OSDSs and 1 laundry discharge identified.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Building and Zoning Department in Twp looks for illicit discharges as a part of routine business.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

MSU Extension/SCHD septic systems maintenance brochure are provided at Twp offices and residents are referred to SCHD.


2a X

Required by Twp ordinance – DPW & fire department have at their sites. Also required of commercial facilities.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a X


2a, 3a X

County RC salts the roads. Sodium deicer – pellets; cost more but cleaner

39

Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife

1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Garbage ordinance – not to be included in household trash. Zoning ordinance states where you can put manure. Ordinance also restricts number of animals per household/acre (Dogs = 4 Horses = 1 per acre)

41

Reduce/Eliminate Oil/Chemical Discharges

2a, 3a, 3c

X

Hazmat certified personnel with fire department – containment materials are available for use on sanitary sewers. No storm sewers. Short term: Hazardous clean up ordinance being reviewed

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Master Plan has land use areas designated. Twp has done sanitary sewer potential growth study. Grey water ordinance in place including that sinks in boat houses & garages must connect to sanitary.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program. Twp refers complaints to SCCRC


2b

County soil erosion permits. Before issued a building permit, builder must provide a copy of the County permit.


2a, 2b

X

Diking program in St. John’s Marsh as part of Supplemental Environmental Program (SEP) with Ducks Unlimited, Water Fowlers and other WWTP partners


2a, 2b

X

Work closely with Health Department


1a, 1b, 4d

X

St. Clair County Drain Office. Complaints directed to the Drain office



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

DPW – collects motor oil. Direct residents to Bud’s Auto Mortuary for antifreeze and motor oil. Twp hosts a collection day with St. Clair County Board of Commissioners at Fire Dept. Twp also takes propane tanks and batteries.


2a

X

One major appliance pick up per week. Curbside recycling is available through hauler on an individual basis. Yard waste pickup is also available. Free drop off. Harsens Island – remote recycle option


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Website, newsletters, newspapers, cable channel twice a day / two days per week – board meetings


1b, 2a

X

Do not currently use materials at their facilities. Will use environmental friendly methods as necessary.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

MSU Extension link on website. ABC Bees contracted, use a less intrusive spraying method.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Site plans require retention ponds (planning community). Put in place by policy and ordinance.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

SCCRC county program


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Bioretention areas – greenbelts in zoning ordinance, new construction requires minimum pervious landscape %

27

Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Routine smoke testing, dye testing as necessary; gaskets on the lids of the sewers. Clay & Ira Twp and City of Algonac are partners in the St. Clair County WWTP. Clay Twp maintains internal lift stations & collection sewers. Twp owns 35 % share of WWTP.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Check the public facilities regularly


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

SCCDO


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

SCCRC


4c, 4d

X

Retention ponds, LID – PUDs, open space subdivisions, county road ordinance – new construction to county specs (no private roads)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b


1c, 2a, 2d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Bike path in the works on Harsens Island. Twp is very recreation focused


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Master plan covers this


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X No Twp controlled riparian corridors


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Marsh clean up (15 yrs now) Mike coordinates this. Twp philosophy is conservation of natural resources.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a

X



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Not much agriculture in Twp


All


All

X

Present at Anchor Bay Watershed meetings


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Community Name: Clay Township July 22, 2003 Community Representatives: Michael Pellerito, Connie Turner, Michael Kras

Appendix F: Clinton Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Clinton Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Have identified and currently working on implementing controls. ACO with State that requires footing drain disconnect project.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

$50,000 CMI grant for IDEP. Working with MCHD in 2 ½ sections – using money at hot spots.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Have only found septic problems, but eliminating septics where they can.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

Will work with County. Eliminating OSDSs through sewer extension program.


2a X

New commercial/light industrial developments are required to install stormceptor type devices.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a C

ount

y

X Public education program MDOT training videos (part of Phase II good housekeeping). MCRC does roads in the Twp. Have changed over to calc ium chloride flakes on Twp. property.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

No farm land. Have park in CREW area that requires cleanup after pets, but no township-wide ordinance.


2a, 3a, 3c X

See 13 & 23 above.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for sewer locations within the Twp.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Local plan review process requires a copy of the County permit prior to obtaining a building permit.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X in

Anc

hor

Bay

Leave the banks natural in a vegetative state.


2a, 2b


1a, 1b, 4d

X

X in

Anc

hor

Bay

Twp. removes log jams and debris in natural watercourse areas.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Published County materials available at the DPW office and on the Township TV station. Township DPW will but batteries, antifreeze and other household hazardous materials go to the County DPW or HD.


2a

X

Curbside recycling thru municipal waste hauler. Litter clean up weekly on maintained areas and 4 times annually on Gratiot.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

2 hr. orientation / union 2 hrs. general information & importance of environmental safety


All

X

Township T.V. station, website (www.clintontownship.com ), published materials & brochures


1b, 2a

X

Reduction through Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for the last three years. Twp. personnel have applicator certification. Messages to residents thru Township T.V. station and Macomb County Programs.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

IPM, Township T.V. station, brochures, articles in newsletter and special mailings.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Required as part of ordinance. Twp. currently owns and operates one detention facility and looking at acquiring another one.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Clean catch basins and sewer system every 3-5 years. Also have a regular program to TV & clean system.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Stormceptors or similar devices required in the industrial section


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Ongoing

28

Maintain Storm Water Controls

1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d

X

Ongoing. Stormceptors. Detention/retention pond covenants for maintenance at new development and redevelopment. If facility does not maintain then the Twp. will maintain and assess the facility.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

IPM & salt control.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

Do this on a regular basis, get back to them every 3-5 years


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Purchased a street sweeper with dust control – Township does subdivisions county does other


4c, 4d

X

Low impact ordinance, 95% developed



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

Applied for wetlands inventory grant in progress not specifically in Anchor Bay. County also doing a Natural Feature Inventory that will be available to the Twp.


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Lots of parks, township has an ongoing program to acquire riparian land, as well as land for open space and parks.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d X

Not applicable in the small area tributary to Anchor Bay.


1c, 2d X

Joy Park, always looking at other prospective areas.


2a, 2d, 4b X

Township wide ordinance


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

30

Manage Riparian Corridors

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X in

Anc

hor

Bay

Not in Anchor Bay, but as a Township they are managing riparian corridors.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Joy Park


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X


2a X

Working on implementing some of technologies



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No farm land, do have a horse farm

14

Implement Financial Solutions

All

X

Waiting for wetlands inventory grant. Storm drainage development fee based on impervious surfaces. If never assessed, upon new construction /development. If never paid, then they must pay on all paved surfaces/hard area. Emergency Drain Funds through MCPWO, Army Corp grant for Watershed Management Plan in other subwatersheds.


All

X

Work with watershed group


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Working on new ordinances. Planning on coordinating with other watershed communities.

33


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d x

Currently monitoring water quality. IDEP program in other subwatershed, eventually will be doing township wide.

38


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Looking into training individuals to work with the county on SESC measures (MC Office of Public Works). Have sufficient resources currently to enforce currents and short term ordinance proposals.

Community Name: Clinton Twp. July 21, 2003 Community Representatives: Carlo Santia, George Westerman, Mary Bednar, Eric Jackson

Appendix F: Cottrellville Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Cottrellville Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


Smoked: 1992

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Cou

nty

County IDEP program. Take calls from residents, investigate and refer to county


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County IDEP program. Take calls from residents and conduct a complaint investigation


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Referred questions to the SCHD. Will take brochures from the health department and make them available at the Twp. Office.


2a X

Commercial businesses, part of site plan review.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a X

Roads salted by county road commission. Use urea as a salt substitute on bike path, and parking lots.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Proposed bike path & park ordinances will deal with animal waste. Zoning ordinance limits# of animals/residence


2a, 3a, 3c X

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion

7 Control Soil Erosion 2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Taken care of by the county. Twp. requires copy of county permit prior to issuing the building permit.


2b

X


2a, 2b


2a, 2b


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

Twp. investigates complaints and refers them to the county as appropriate.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Pamphlets, the voice (newsletter), let residents know about the Clay Twp program and where to dispose/take household hazardous materials.


2a

X

Litter portion of the park and bike path ordinances. Garbage and recycle program for all residence – compost is available for a fee through the twp service provider


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

Send employees to training for licenses, conferences, and seminars.


All

X

Website (www.cott_township.org), newsletter (x2/year), special mailings, pamphlets @ twp. office, channel 6-marine city station


1b, 2a

X

None used on Twp. site.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Will put info on website, newsletter or hand out brochure (short-term)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

No catch basins or storm sewers in the Twp.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

27

Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure

1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

1992 smoke test. Ongoing manhole maintenance program. DPW checks pump stations weekly and has a preventative maintenance program. Sewered area along M -29 from Marine City to Algonac State Park.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

No detention ponds


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

MDOT, county maintenance.


4c, 4d

X

Open space preservation ordinance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Look at property as it comes up for sale for possible land acquisition. Have a Recreational Master Plan.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Recreational Master Plan. Cottrellville Twp. Park currently under development.


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

Easement, resident controlled and maintained


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d

Ordinance requires 25% of lot to remain as pervious surface.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a

No, county does maintenance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b


All


All

X

Yes, actively participates in Watershed-wide activities


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Township Building Official and Twp. Building Inspector.

Community Name: Cottrellville Township August 5, 2003 Community Representatives: Bill Zweng, Renn Mazey, Betty Zweng

Appendix F: Harrison Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Harrison Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

County IDEP. Elimination of failed systems part of CMI grant program that township has. All OSDSs will be eliminated over the next 5 years


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Phase II


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Brochures available


2a X

Ordinance – Engineering


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Nuisance Ordinance requires people to clean up after their pets


2a, 3a, 3c X

Phase II

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Sewer Master Plan



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County Program – require copy of permit before building permit is issued (by ordinance)


2b

X


2a, 2b


2a, 2b

X

Maintenance agreements are part of site plan review – ordinance


1a, 1b, 4d

X

Township routinely removes obstructions from county drains



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

Through county


2a

Trash removal individually contracted by homeowner


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

Phase II


All

X

Cable TV channels; Twp currently working on website; Brochures/pamphlets available


1b, 2a

X

Contract – use environmentally friendly materials


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Phase II – will develop link on new website



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Required by Ordinance


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

Have equipment available but currently not doing. Most of catch basins are in county jurisdiction


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Considered as part of engineering /site plan review for new projects


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

TV inspection; preventative maintenance on collection system & pump station; annual manhole rehab programs


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

Maintenance agreements required by ordinance


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

County has jurisdiction


4c, 4d

X

Zoning ordinance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat

2

Conduct Natural Feature Inventory and Assessments

2a, 2b

X

Currently being developed (wetlands committee) have grant through MDEQ . Also, County Michigan Natural Features Inventory and updated wetlands survey available November 2003


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Have program to acquire property – Wooded track between Metropolitan Parkway and Jefferson (±100 acres)


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Recreational Master Plan


2a, 2d, 4b

X

Working on wetlands ordinance


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X Engineering standards ordinance and zoning ordinance


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No.


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No agricultural area in township


All

X

Developing storm water utility and DPW; grant applications


All

X

C.R.E.W.; Anchor Bay


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d

Possibly addressed under new wetlands or storm H2O utility ordinances


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Code enforcement office building offic er. Emergency and Utilities Director

Community Name: Harrison Township August 27, 2003 Community Representatives: Randy McCannell

Appendix F: Ira Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Ira Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP, helps county correct (6)


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

Phone # and newsletter DPW keeps their eyes and nose open while doing water tap refer to SCHD and/or county. Respond to resident complaints – check to see if it needs to be referred.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Brochures out front – public education. Also refer them to SCHD


2a X

Required by building code BOCA. DPW maintains the devices on their own facilities.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a

X

Majority done by county and MDOT – plow/manual removal, then salt


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Minimum lot size for livestock. Limit number of animals at an individual residence. Nothing done about manure handling


2a, 3a, 3c

Sump in parking lot catch basin in Twp offices.

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X X

Drafting ordinance to regulate placement of lagoons & WWTPs. Currently have sewer allocation policy and minimum required lot size for OSDS. Have water/sewer master plan.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program but Twp requires evidence of permit under site review process. Twp has 3 people certified under SESC program. Twp uses BMPs on all their projects.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

SCCDO did the stream stabilization project in the Twp. Stabilization is required as part of their own projects.


2a, 2b

X

Check dams, rock dams, silt fences – seed and mulch afterwards


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

SCCDO. Twp will let them know of resident complaints



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

Documents at the township office – provide county information. Provide info on Clay Township pickup


2a

X Curbside resident recycling program through waste contractor. Yard waste compost available.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X Soil erosion certification training (optional)


All

X Newsletter (2xs/year), brochures in township offices, Consumer Confidence Report.


1b, 2a

X Newsletter highlights fertilizer use. Little to none used by the Twp.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Newsletter focus, SCHD brochure



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure

4

Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities

1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Shared authority over storm water storage, Enforcement authority to require maintenance authority. Required by ordinance for certain types of development, Twp can establish special assessment district for fees


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Only storm sewer is at the municipal/Twp complex


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Smoke test as needed. Daily pump station inspection. Check joints, etc. to make sure system is sound. Have an ongoing I/I program.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Check building to make sure they aren’t illicitly connected. Downspout discharge to grassy area. Minimize use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

34

Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c

County, SCCDO


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

None done, county does intersection not to many curbs


4c, 4d

X

Twp recently adopted an open space ordinance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat

2


2a, 2b

DNR assessment of the twp property for woodlands and wetlands but not Twp wide. Master Plan covers wetlands/woodlands.


1c, 2a, 2d

X

None vacant along the Bay – very little available – always looking along inland areas. Swan Creek corridor. Twp checks any available property to see if it fits with their long range plans.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Always looking – new park, fishing area along Swan Creek last year. Parks and Recreation looking to add a kids area through grant (Ira Twp Waterworks Neighborhood Park)


2a, 2d, 4b X

MDEQ verification of wetlands. Woodlands ordinance requires replacement of a % of trees removed.


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Master plan; woodland ordinance, wetland verification, greenscape; open space ordinance; development ordinance

30 Manage Riparian Corridors 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c,

2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Woodlands ordinance allows building; but they must replace a percentage (up to 10 – 25%)


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b


All

X

Parks and recreation grants (CMI) always looking for new grants


All

X

Hosts and involved


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Source water protection program


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X

Daily on the water intake


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Ordinance enforcement

Community Name: Ira Township July 24, 2003 Community Representatives: John Jones, Chris McLeod, Eric Barnowski, David Lewandowski, Marty Barnes

Appendix F: Lenox Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Lenox Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Prison on private sewers – only one with a problem - past 10 years; pump station problems would be handled by county.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

Macomb Co. IDEP program – Health Department


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

No Twp ordinance. If they suspect illicit discharge they will contact resident and then refer to Health Department if no response.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Township hall has a septic system brochure for residents. Twp maintains system at Twp offices. Other Twp facilities are pump-and-haul.


2a X

Inspectors sign off on site plan; Oil trap at DPW and Fire Dept. Part of the site plan review for specific commercial facilities.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a

County road commission only uses what is necessary. Twp maintains their own parking lot areas.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Zoning ordinance limits the number or horses and dogs. No animals allowed in Twp park. Nothing specifically that handles manure


2a, 3a, 3c X

Oil traps @ DPW, Fire Dept. and new EMS. Inspectors must sign off on the site plan. Policy - only


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Working on sewer master plan.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County, DPW will notify resident if there is a problem and refer to the County if not fixed. Residential & commercial buildings require a soil erosion permit and then the township will issue the building permit


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

Twp does maintenance as necessary (i.e. rip-rap). Storm water retention sediment control. Most of runoff is carried by grassy swales that are normally dry.


2a, 2b

X

Rip-rap, silt fences, storm retention at Twp park.


1a, 1b, 4d

X

County on an as needed basis – DPW will do clean up in response to citizen complaints.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

Brochures available for County program. As residents call they will be referred to Health Department


2a

X

Twp is going to a single contractor Twp wide and will have residential recycling as part of the contract. Yard waste pickup will not be part of contract but may be available individually. Pine Tree Acres landfill currently picks up litter along Gratiot.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Newsletter (once/year), brochures in foyer area, website www.lenoxtwp.org, public access channel


1b, 2a

X

Fertilize park and township facilities – local contractor, slow release fertilizer monthly, pesticide weekly (inside building only)


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X X

Retention (park), EMS building will also have another retention area (SHORT -TERM)


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

No storm sewers CB will be put in parking lot & cleaned as needed


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Spot check the existing sewer (monthly)


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

No storm sewers. Retention pond – take a look when they are out there.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Township offices, park behind office, fire station


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

35

Perform Street Sweeping

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County does roads – Twp maintains parking lots with backpack blower


4c, 4d

X

Try to put in diversion to natural drains. Sheet flow, restricted catch basin on new developed.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County MNFI available November 1st


1c, 2a, 2d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Always look out for possible property. Depends on the site/location


2a, 2d, 4b

X

Woodland ordinance


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Woodland


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

No ordinances


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Tree ordinance to protect against clear cutting. Open space/landscaping requirement


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

No outreach programs done yet


All


All

X Participates in Anchor Bay Watershed meetings.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Ordinance enforcement officer

Community Name: Lenox Township July 29, 2003 Community Representatives: Mack Weaver, George Nichols, Cam Trombley

Appendix F: Macomb County Survey Page 1 of 6

Macomb County Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

IDEP – MCHD, MCPWO, MCRC Swim Team – MCHD


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

IDEP – HD and PW MCPWO - All county drains completed by end of 2004 MCRC – To be completed by 2007


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

MCHD – Brochures; presentations; GW Stewardship Program Operation & Maintenance Ordinance Direct mailing to new residences


2a X

Installed at some county facilities No policy/ordinance requirement


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a

X

Calibrate for a maximum of 450 tons. Have also used liquid deicers.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b


2a, 3a, 3c X

Hotline; stenciling; no dumping signs on drains and road easements. Reviewing parking lots at county facilities to control pollutants.

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

X

CEA; APA – County Projects; MCRC is also APA; Rewriting Ordinance; Updating Brochures (1) Builders & Developers (2) Homeowners


2b

X

CEA; APA – County Projects; MCRC is also APA; Rewriting Ordinance; Updating Brochures (1) Builders & Developers (2) Homeowners


2a, 2b

X X

Drain Projects: Developing Maintenance Team for (1) Removing Obstructions (2) General Maintenance (short term). Road design rip-rap and stream stabilization at road crossings (#25 also). Follows MDOT standards.


2a, 2b


1a, 1b, 4d

X X

Developing maintenance team (short term)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Program through MCHD; announced through website and hot line. Separate area for county facilities. Once or twice per month (satellite sites). Year round facility available at MCHD. Clean sweep program for pesticides


2a

X

MCHD, MCPWO and MSU extension recycling education program. Paper recycling program at County facilities. Adopt-A-Road program; Road side clean up. Jail Trustees program (Roads, County Complex and Drains). Updating solid waste management plan.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

Grounds keepers trained on environmental measures; storm water operator training; soil erosion certification; Pesticide Application Certification


All

X

Brochures; website; School (Education Program); Co-Op Extension Program: Public Participation Meetings, watershed identification signage; report-a-polluter signage; bumper stickers; displays in county facilities and schools; employee newsletter (MCPWO)


1b, 2a

X

Clean Sweep Program (collection & disposal); Generally do not use at County facilities; Larvicide for West Nile Control; used at MCRC sites.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

MSU Extension; Brochures; Public Education; Employee Newsletter



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Regular Program (MCRC)


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Part of site plan review and pre construction meetings. County encourages but does not regulate.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Part of IDEP – made corrections; downspout disconnection program; increasing impervious areas when possible; native plant landscaping; Roads will complete IDEP by 2005


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X X

Maintenance Team (short-term)


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

County also sweeps own facility areas (1/4 by); Required as part of SESC regulation. MCRC regularly performs sweeping.


4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

Currently, PEDD is conduction a countywide natural feature inventory (MNFI) that will be available in GIS or hardcopy format for each CVT by Winter 2003.


1c, 2a, 2d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

The MNFI and wetland surveys, along with an update to land use will provide greater access to this information by Spring 2004


2a, 2d, 4b X

Currently, PEDD is working on sample ordinance for farmland, woodlands, and wetland protection for communities to adopt


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X As a matter of policy, the PEDD promotes natural resource protection into the planning process


2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d

Protect as part of SESC

44

Support Wetland Mitigation Banking

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

Supports the efforts of education as provided by the North Branch Clinton River Watershed Group as an example that can be duplicated elsewhere in County. Pursuing the establishment of a wetland bank along the Clinton River.

46

Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques

2a Promoted through policy that can be duplicated by local units of government



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

MSU Extension Programs

14


All

X

Is participating, and plans to participate in Grant Writing and Applications for environmental planning. County has recently hired Grants coordinator. IDEP grants. Budget request for 2004 & 2005


All

X

Actively participates in all six prominent watershed groups that include areas of Macomb County. Facilitates most of the groups (CREW; North Branch; Red Run; Lake St. Clair)


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X X

Investigating adoption of storm water ordinance (Long-term), Revising SESC ordinance currently. Sanitary code and O&M Ordinance.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X

MCHD does monitoring for quality in Anchor Bay and territory areas


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Currently have provisions in ordinance and procedures available. Increasing capabilities through additional staffing and updated ordinances.

Community Name: Macomb County September 4, 2003 Community Representatives: Lynn Arnott-Bryks, Gerard Santoro, Lynne Yustick, Keith Graboske, Lara Sucharski, Joe Pacella, Gary White

Appendix F: Macomb Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Macomb Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP. All sewered within Anchor Bay but there may still be some OSDSs that will be eliminated when located through the IDEP Program.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Respond to complaints; will develop program under Phase II


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b


2a X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a

Economically driven – only do parking areas at Twp facility


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Ordinance to limit of animals but does not address manure disposal. Will be developing new ordinances.


2a, 3a, 3c X

Phase II

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Master sewer plan



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program. Twp refers complaints to county.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

Township doesn’t have jurisdiction in any watercourses


2a, 2b

County/state currently


1a, 1b, 4d

X

Refer to county. Twp does not have any jurisdiction on any watercourses.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty


2a

Individual contracts with trash haulers.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Newsletter; website being developed (www.macomb-mi.gov); cable TV; Consumer Confidence Report; special brochures available at Twp Hall


1b, 2a

Contracted out – they minimize application. Fertilize twice per year


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Link on website; MSU Extension. Have done presentations to garden clubs in the past. Will have brochures available.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Storm H2O detention on two of their sites (DPW and Main Office)


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Clean on an as needed basis.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Annual maintenance on manholes, vactor truck for cleaning ; monitor pump stations remotely and inspect weekly


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

Rear yard storm drains – swale in catch basins – clean if necessary


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Contractor for own property


4c, 4d

X

Ordinance requiring buffers and restricting the amount of lot coverage. LID and open space cluster ordinance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat

2


2a, 2b X County Michigan Natural Features Inventory and updated wetlands survey available November 2003. Current information in Master Plan too broad. Will be enacting site by site requirement


1c, 2a, 2d X Township looking at developing park system along river corridors


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X Master Plan and Recreation Master Plan


2a, 2d, 4b X Resource protection linkages – overlay zones; PUD; cluster areas


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No.


2a X No jurisdiction/ownership



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b


All


All X Participating in CREWS; North Branch; Anchor Bay


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Code Enforcement Officer Building Inspectors

Community Name: Macomb Township August 14, 2003 Community Representatives: Jerry Schmeiser, Gary Campbell, Jim Van Tiflin

Appendix F: City of Marine City Survey Page 1 of 6

City of Marine City Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

No septics or tile fields


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Routinely check. Smoke and dye test sanitary.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No septics systems


2a X

Restaurants require grease traps to sanitary. Commercial facilities require oil/water separator/oil interceptors on the storm sewer discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

None


2a, 3a

X

Reduce from 400 ton to 200 ton, by adding sand to the salt & wiser use of the salt.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b


2a, 3a, 3c

Secondary containment on the gas & diesel tanks at the DPW yard.

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

The city is totally sewered and has their own WWTP. Part of the sewer charge/fee goes into a main operation/replacement fund.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County program - Respond to soil complaints from residents, then refer to county


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

Will do the maintenance RIP RAP as necessary along the rivers. Also clean and reseed grassy swale area


2a, 2b

No City owned basins or other devices; grassy swales


1a, 1b, 4d

X

Clean the county drains - community service.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Use the Cottrellville Twp. days to pick up waste. Provide information to residents on where to dispose of hazardous waste


2a

X

Recycling & yard waste pickup is available through City trash collector.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

Hazmat, operations, fire, safety for the last 6 years. Nothing specific to environment/storm water control.


All

X

Special mailing, channel 6, some departments have special sections on the website


1b, 2a

Pay a contractor to do city property


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

Cleaned once/yr. – disposal @ sewage treatment plant drying beds


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

Required to put a reducer on the discharge line


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Smoked in the past 5 yrs. Sewer machine used to clean – completely done every 3 yrs. System was combined but has been separated.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Checked the city buildings. Disconnected downspouts and dye tested sanitary facilities.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

Periodically – CBs cleaned annually; storm drains as needed


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

All streets, sweeper runs three days a week & M-29 is taken care of by the State


4c, 4d

Whole City has downspouts unconnected from storm system by ordinance.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Purchased 2 lots next to beach


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d

No


1c, 2d X

Set aside area for bridge-to-bay


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X The swales/grassy area is maintained


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d

Don’t really have any areas in the City.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No agriculture area


All


All


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X

At point of H20 intake mainly turbidity


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

Code Officer (B. Klassen)

Community Name: Marine City August 5, 2003 Community Representatives: Rick Ames, Michael Nagy

Appendix F: City of Mount Clemens Survey Page 1 of 6

City of Mount Clemens Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

No known SSO’s at this time. CSO control program completed.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Eliminate them as they are located if when 300 feet of sanitary – whole city is sewered


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

IDEP grant (CMI). Televise and dye test on a routine basis.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X


2a X

Commercial facilities – required by ordinance


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

“Pooper Scooper “ Ordinance requires residents to clean up pet waste.


2a, 3a, 3c

Required devices on development/redevelopment. Stormceptors, etc.

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

City is completely built out with sewers and they have an infrastructure maintenance and repair fund.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

X

Mt. Clemens is a Municipal Enforcing Agency under the state SESC regulations.


2b

X


2a, 2b

X

In the park areas – mainly hard engineering. Soft engineering by retention basin @ WWTP


2a, 2b


1a, 1b, 4d

X

County does removal. City investigates complaints and refers them to the County as necessary.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

Coun

ty

County program – City advertises program on cable, at City offices and in flyers


2a

X

Recycle center @ city public works garage. Residential leaf collection and yard waste is part of the compost collection.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Website (www.cityofmountclemens.com); catch basin stenciling; brochures; flyers; cable TV.


1b, 2a

Services contracted out


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Cable TV program



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Required as part of site plan/development


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

Have vactor truck and program, however program is currently not funded due to budget cuts


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Have CMOM program developed and implemented (1972 program)


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

City does not have any storm H2O control facilities


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Routine follow up


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X

See 27


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Municipal & private sweeping programs (Downtown Development private) – May to Oct.


4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

Coun

ty



1c, 2a, 2d

X

Several park locations, marina, and boat launch. Boardwalk area planning construction expansion as part of the Bridge-to-Bay program.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

See 3


2a, 2d, 4b


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X Sleepy Hollow Nature Center, Shady Side Park wildlife plantings


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Oxbow Lake at Sleepy Hollow


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a X

Native planting alternatives utilized.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X


All

X

IDEP Grant Currently


All

X

CREW; Anchor Bay; North Branch;


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Currently use policy but are planning an adopting ordinance under Phase II program


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

Water Treatment Plant (L’Anse Cruse Bay) (Southeast of Metro Beach – Crocker & Jefferson) Clinton River e-coli when basin discharges


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Code Enforcement Officer

Community Name: Mt. Clemens August 13, 2003 Community Representatives: Chuck Bellmore

Appendix F: City of New Baltimore Survey Page 1 of 6

City of New Baltimore Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Ongoing to check sewer system. Check Crapau Creek, on a regular basis


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

Have none in the city


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

Ongoing (found 2 last year)


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No septics


2a


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

No lagoons


2a, 3a

Visual inspection of trucks and watch how much salt is put down. Economically driven.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No animals in park, clean up after waste, animal ordinance.


2a, 3a, 3c

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

Master Plan – City is entirely sewered.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

X

County program but City monitors permit conditions through Building Dept. and Code Enforcement. City has a $250/lot maintenance bond ot SESC on new development and/or redevelopment

19

Implement Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control (SESC) Programs

2b

X


2a, 2b

X

TetraTech helping with Crapau Creek


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Required by county soil erosion permit


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

County does it and bills the City (Crapau Creek)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Newsletter – let residents know where materials can be taken for safe disposal. DPS yard has an oil drop-off location.


2a

X

Trash pick up, curb recycling, yard waste pickup. 2 times/year the city picks up major items.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

Part of Phase II


All

X

Newsletter (x4); brochures; website www.cityofnewbaltimore.org; cable channel


1b, 2a

X

Contracted applicator, slow release fertilizers


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Newsletter articles/minimize H20



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X One per year( DPS); have new vactor truck on order.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

None, use county specs for building


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b X Televise, dye test, smoke test


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c

X Clean annually


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b X MDOT/County (M29), Contractor does the rest of the City twice/year.


4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat

2


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

County is doing MNFI inventory that will be available to the City


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Floodplain ordinance


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Recreational Master Plan


2a, 2d, 4b

X

Floodplain and Woodland Ordinances


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X


2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Woodlands ordinance. Inventory of property 1 acre or more, must leave 37% of trees. Wetlands are regulated through the State.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No agriculture


All

X

Parks and Recreation seeking funding. Will be evaluating budget for Phase II


All

X


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X

Water treatment plant intake


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Code Enforcement Officer and Building Department

Community Name: New Baltimore August 8, 2003 Community Representatives: Joe Grajek, Craig Higgins, Ron Ziehmer

Appendix F: Village of New Haven Survey Page 1 of 6

Village of New Haven Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X

At least one bulk headed diversion chamber. System being TV’ed currently to determine integrity. Seperation program completed in 1982.


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP program. Have ordinance in Village requiring connection to sewer if within 200 feet.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty


2a X

Engineering Standards Ordinance requires stormceptor or similar type device


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X


2a, 3a


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Homeowners association in some areas require residents to clean up after pets


2a, 3a, 3c X

Catch basin identification


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

Sanitary sewer capacity study included “build out” projection throughout the village.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty


2b

X


2a, 2b

Coun

ty


2a, 2b

X

Engineering standards ordinance


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Annual Village clean-up. Fire Department has collection operation


2a

X

Curb side recycling and yard waste collection


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Cable TV channel; Developing newsletter (short term); Special mailings


1b, 2a

X

Do not use on village property


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Will implement program to send out information to residents



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Construction required by Engineering Standard Ordinance Maintenance Agreement provisions with the Village


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

As needed – the whole system has been cleaned once.


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Site Plan / Engineering plan review requires green belts on new development


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

TV program underway


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X

Maintenance Agreements by ordinance


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c

Cleaning and replacement programs


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Monthly during summer season


4c, 4d

X

Green belt under site plan review , PUD, & open space ordinance



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

County Michigan Natural Features Inventory and updated wetlands survey available November 2003. Village Master Plan & Planning Commission study.


1c, 2a, 2d

X

Identified in Master Plan – along Salt River


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d


1c, 2d X

Possible nature trail along Salt River corridor


2a, 2d, 4b

X

No ordinance but under Master Plan and site plan review. Zoning & Engineering Standards ordinances


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

Master Plan


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

Master Plan; site plan review; tree ordinance


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d


2a X



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X


All

X

Grants; fees; and funding


All

X

Support watershed planning effort but not currently participating on steering committee. Jeff Bednar represents on Technical Committee.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d

Engineering Standards Ordinance


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Enforcement Officer

Community Name: Village of New Haven August 26, 2003 Community Representatives: Robert Crayton, Paul Guinnane

Appendix F: City of Richmond Survey Page 1 of 6

City of Richmond Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

X None


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

Septic systems in one area, handled by County Health Department


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County program; problems addressed by the City as they are found.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

MCHD – County ‘time-of-sale’ ordinance

23 Install/Maintain Oil and Grease Trap Devices 2a

31 Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants 1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

32 Minimize Salt and De-icing Chemicals Usage 2a, 3a

Economic incentive, but no real program

39

Reduce Bacterial Runoff from Domestic Animals and Wildlife

1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

Animal control ordinance; limited farm land available within the city – therefore no sheep or horses; more than 3 dogs requires a kennel license. However, nothing addressing pet waste.

41 Reduce/Eliminate Oil/Chemical Discharges 2a, 3a, 3c

X Problems are addressed as they arise. The City is either notified by residents or they come across problems on the job.

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Part of sanitary sewer master plan, in the process of updating the plan – updated on a 3-5 year basis.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion

7

Control Soil Erosion 2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Construction permit required, builder must show a copy of the Macomb County issued permit; City retains a copy of the permit

19

Implement Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control (SESC) Programs 2b

X

21

Implement Streambank Stabilization Measures 2a, 2b

X

No streambank under City jurisdiction

24 Install/Maintain Sediment Control Devices 2a, 2b

37 Prevent and Remove Flow Obstructions 1a, 1b, 4d Not normally – Macomb County takes care of this



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education

1 Conduct Household Hazardous Materials Management Programs 2a, 3a, 3c

Richmond Township & Macomb County have programs and the City participates; informs residents through calendar and newsletter

6 Continue/Expand Litter and Debris Clean-up and Recycling Programs 2a

X

Curbside recycling thru Waste Management, annual newsletter lets residents know what can be recycled

16 Implement Municipal Employee Training Programs 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

No formal program

22

Increase Public Awareness

All

X

Calendar, annual newsletter, cable television channel, website & catch basin stenciling; MSU Extension does a ground water education program. Wellhead protection plan – specific area & handouts are available; future plans to expand program are being developed.

42 Reduce Fertilizer, Pesticide and Herbicide Usage 1b, 2a

X

No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers used on municipal property. Use MSU Extension for public educ ation.

43

Support Environmental Friendly Lawn and Garden Maintenance

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No formal program, maybe thru MSU Extension;



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure

4 Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities 1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

New development requires detention/retention ponds


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X Clean catch basins & vactor storm sewers, materials in separate drying beds at the wastewater treatment facility & then the landfill; see #34


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

27 Maintain Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X Ongoing, doing a clean up now (first time); televise & clean.


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d

No storm water control measures have been discussed


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X Yes – all facilities are up to date & checked out


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c

X

Vactor out catch basins, cleaned annually; televised on an as needed basis; see #8

35 Perform Street Sweeping 1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X Every two weeks – all streets

40

Reduce Directly Connected Impervious Surfaces

4c, 4d

X

Construction is mostly done through zoning ordinances that encourage alternatives to addressing storm water; detention and retention ponds are required; County plans reviewed by engineer



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat

2


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Land use master plan identified potential wetlands & woodlands; Macomb County is providing Natural Features Inventory

3

Conserve Riparian Land for Future Parks and Public Access 1c, 2a, 2d

Separate park & recreation master plan. Not currently seeking land for conservation since adequate park acreage is available or the City population.

5 Construct Wetlands 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d

No plans

10 Identify Areas for Recreation Enhancement 1c, 2d

X Developers are required to set aside recreational areas (i.e. condominium development on 33 mile and Plank Rd.)

17 Implement Natural Features Protection Ordinances 2a, 2d, 4b

X

PUD


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X Not under City jurisdiction

36

Preserve and Enhance Existing Wetlands/Woodlands

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d

X

PUD ordinance; areas are set aside to preserve wetlands & woodlands; woodlands preservation ordinance prohibits the removal of trees within the building footprint and 10’ in diameter


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

No

46 Utilize Habitat Restoration Techniques 2a

X PUD optional overlay district guides landowners & developers to keep valued environmental features and systems intact.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning

9 Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs) 1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

No agricultural area

14 Implement Financial Solutions All

No – not currently seeking funding sources

15 Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions All

Not routinely attending


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

Coun

ty

Relies on County enforcement

Community Name: City of Richmond July 21, 2003 Community Representatives: Paul Fejedelem, Jeri Decator, Bill Ruff, Larry Cottington, Troy Jeschke, & Matt Rathsack

Appendix F: Richmond Township Survey Page 1 of 6

Richmond Township Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

Coun

ty

County IDEP. ± 25 factures in entire township


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

Coun

ty

County IDEP


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

Pamphlets available at Twp from MSU Extension


2a


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

Possibly adding to twp ordinances


2a, 3a


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b


2a, 3a, 3c X

45


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

Master plan update – focus where Twp wants development, etc.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

Coun

ty

Need to have a copy of the permit before they can build


2b

X


2a, 2b

Coun

ty


2a, 2b

X

Zoning ordinance – site plan review


1a, 1b, 4d

Coun

ty

Residents petition the County for cleanout.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

Clean up day every spring


2a

X

Waste management – curb side recycle; yard waste pickup;


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c


All

X

Website; newsletter; cable TV; “Voice” newspaper; pamphlets; brochures


1b, 2a

Not used on Twp property


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure


1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

Require as part of new development


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b


1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d X


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

Checked facilities, removed downspout connections.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c X


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

County does M-19


4c, 4d

X



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

Coun

ty



1c, 2a, 2d

County wide greenways plan and trails network


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d

Wetland constructed at 33 mile & Place Rd. (private)


1c, 2d


2a, 2d, 4b

Farmland Protection program. Transfer Development Rights (TDR), Purchase Development Rights (PDR)


1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

33 mile & Place Rd. Deland Rd. between Pratt & Weber (Private)


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

“No till” used by about 50% of farmers By individual choice


All


All

X

Anchor Bay (Chris McLoud represents Twp). Twp also participates in North Branch & Belle River Watersheds


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d X

Commercial & Industrial site plan reviews


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

X

Community Name: Richmond Township August 26, 2003 Community Representatives: Gordon Fuerstenau, Cindi Greenia

Appendix F: St. Clair County Survey Page 1 of 6

St. Clair County Anchor Bay Storm Water Management Survey

BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Illicit Discharge


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

X


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

- SCHD and SCDO IDEP programs are currently in the Anchor Bay and Pine River Watersheds. SCHD performs IDEP for SCRC MS4s.

13

Identify and Eliminate Illicit Discharges

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

- SCHD handles the enforcement and correction of failing OSDS and refers sanitary sewer problems to municipality. - The SCHD and SCDO refer chemical illicit discharges to SCEM and PEAS.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

- SCHD has OSDS maintenance brochures - SCHD has sanitarians on staff to assist residents with maintenance.


2a

X

- SCRC - Oil separators inside the central service station. - SCDO requires devices on new developments where it has jurisdiction.

31

Manage Lagoon Systems and Package Wastewater Treatment Plants

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a

X

- SCDO has proposed using wetlands for WW treatment in Avoca. - SCDO Planning to monitor WWT discharges to County drains and implement new effluent guidelines (short term)


2a, 3a

- SCRC experimented with the use of a salt alternative and new salt dispersal equipment. Deemed a failure.


1a, 2a, 3a, 3b

X

- SCHD and SCDO refer agric. bacteria prob. to the MDA (short term). - SCAS uses sanitary sewer for all animal waste.

41

Reduce/Eliminate Oil/Chemical Discharges

2a, 3a, 3c

X

- Education of HHW disposal at SCES - SCHD brochure for IDEP program and Illicit Discharge Reporting Hotline - SCEM responds to chemical spills on limited basis. - SCHD refer chemical discharges to SCEM and PEAS


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b X

- SCC Master Plan identifies as a priority.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Soil Erosion


2a, 2b

X

- Soil erosion ordinance is currently being reviewed by the MDEQ for the SCRC. - 17 SCRC, 2 SCDO, and 1 SCHD staff have SESC certification


2b

X

- SCPWO manages SESC program for the entire county.


2a, 2b

X

- Both engineered and bio-engineered methods used on SCDO projects. - Standard SCRC ditch stabilization and occasionally on streams for road projects.


2a, 2b

X

X

- SCDO is developing new storm water rules to require sediment basins for developments under their jurisdiction (short term) - SCDO reviews developments at the request of municipalities (few requests) (current) - SCRC/ SCPWO SESC Program


1a, 1b, 4d

X

- SCDO has a maintenance program to remove obstructions in County drains. Jail crews used. - SCRC upon request or need.



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Public Education


2a, 3a, 3c

X

- SCES conducts HHW program. Drop off by appointment at Landfill. Occasional outreach program to southern end of County.


2a

X

- SCRC Adopt a Road Program - Recycling program through SCCES. - Admin. Bldg operates paper recycling


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 3c

X

- Plans to develop municipal training programs to meet Phase II requirements.


All

X

- Brochures, presentations, Earth Day, Workshops, EE Network, Adopt a Stream, website, newsletters through MSU Extension, SCHD, SCMPC, SCDO, SCRC, SCPRC - SCRC, SCMPC, SCPRC partnered with NRCS and the SCCD’s pilot bioengineering project on the Pine River.


1b, 2a

X

- SCPRC has an active policy instructing park maintenance to minimize fertilizer, pesticides and herbicide usage. - SCDO and SCRC do not use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides within its easements and drains.


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

X

- SC MSU Ext. Master Gardener Program and Horticultural Program, - SCHD Garden club guest lecturer - Develop brochures (short term)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Infrastructure

4

Construct/Maintain Storm Water Storage Facilities

1a, 1b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

- SCDO requires wet/dry detention basins for developments under its jurisdiction and reviews development plans upon municipal request. - Encourages wet/dry detention ponds too.

8

Enhance Catch Basin Functionality

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

X

- SCDO uses a vactor truck on the limited number of enclosed drains. - SCRC contracts vactor truck’s to clean out catch basins for enclosed drains 4x’s per year.

25

Install/Maintain Storm Sewer Infiltration Treatment Devices

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X X

- SCDO has proposed enhanced infiltration in new stormwater rules. (long term) - Regional detention basins proposed for the Dana Drain. (short term)


1a, 1b, 3a, 3b

X

- SCRC/ SCPWO - Algonac Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sewer infrastructure is maintained by local municipalities.

28

Maintain Storm Water Controls

1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4c, 4d

X X

- SCRC cleans out catch basins on an annual basis. - SCDO inspects first flush basins for sediment accumulation. - SCDO would like to perform more regular inspections. (long term)


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d

34

Perform Storm Sewer System Maintenance and Drain Cleaning

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4c

X

- SCDO performs drain cleanouts upon maintenance request or as part of their regular maintenance program. - SCDO does regular maintenance on enclosed drains. - SCRC performs drain cleanout upon request or need.


1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b X

- SCRC performs street sweeping 4 x/s per year in curbed areas.


4c, 4d X

- SCDO has proposed new storm water rules that will address this issue. (long term)



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Habitat


2a, 2b

X

- SCMPC Master Plan identifies natural areas for protection.


1c, 2a, 2d

X

- SCPRC acquired property along Lake Huron in 2003. - SCMPC Master Plan identifies distinct districts for development and natural features conservation.

5

Construct Wetlands

1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4c, 4d

X

- SCDO constructed wetland proposal for Avoca wastewater treatment. - SCDO proposes to construct wetland areas in regional detention basins for Dana Drain. (short term)


1c, 2d X

- SCPRC Master Recreational Plan has identified inland waterways for recreational use.


2a, 2d, 4b X

- SCRC/SCPWO submitted a Soil Erosion Ordinance in 2003 to the MDEQ for review.

26

Integrate Natural Resource Protection into the Planning Process

1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c, 4d X X

- SCMPC Master Plan stresses the importance of natural resource protection throughout the Master Plan. - SCDO is developing new storm water rules for development within its jurisdiction that includes better natural resource protection. (long term)


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d

X - SCDO does a limited amount of river restoration, log and trash obstruction removal under maintenance provisions of the Drain Code.


1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4c, 4d X

- SCDO inspects all new developments under its jurisdiction for wetlands impacts and coordinates with the DEQ. - SCRC held a Wetland Identification workshop 6/03


2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4b, 4c, 4d X

- SCC Administration is investigating wetland banks - SCDO is investigating wetland banks for regional detention areas.


2a



BMP # BMP Goal &

Objective

Curr

ent

Shor

t Te

rm

Long

Te

rm

N/A

Comments

Planning

9

Facilitate Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs)

1a, 1b, 2a, 3a, 3b

X X

- SCHD and SCDO IDEP refers agricultural problems to the SCCD. - SCHD promotes education coordination with SCCD through the EE Network. - SCDO plans to encourage buffer strips along drains by notifying landowners of erosion problems. (short term)

14


All

X

- Grants are currently being administered by the SCHD, SCDO, SCRC, SCPRC, SCMPC - SCHD raised its septic and well fees to help fund the Storm Water Permit requirements.

15

Implement Institutional Framework for Watershed-wide Actions

All

X

- Watershed Planning groups have been established for four of the seven subwatersheds of SCC. - SCC coordinates water quality issues with Macomb through the Macomb/ St. Clair Inter-county Advisory Group

20

Implement Storm Water and Water Resource Protection Ordinances

2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 4b, 4c, 4d

X

- SCDO applied for a 2001 grant to develop a Storm Water ordinance- denied. - SCDO is developing new storm water rules that will require more BMPs for developments under its jurisdiction. (long term)

33


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4d X

- SCHD IDEP, Beach Monitoring Program, Drain Monitoring Program - SCDO IDEP - SC MSU Ext. - Adopt-a-Stream Program

38


1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d X

- Limited enforcement at the SCDO and SCRC/SCPWO SESC because of limited staff #s. - SCHD IDEP program, Sanitary Code, Drain Code - SCMPC Solid Waste Management Ordinance

SCHD: St. Clair County Health Department SCDO: St. Clair County Drain Office SCMC: St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission SCES: St. Clair Environmental Services SCRC: St. Clair County Road Commission SCPWO: St. Clair Public Works Office SCCD: St. Clair Conservation District SCPRC: St. Clair County Parks and Recreation Commission SC MSU Ext: St. Clair County Michigan State University Extension Office

Community Name: St. Clair County Community Representatives: SCRC: K. Weston, SCHD: K. O’Reilly, SCDO: F. Fuller, SCPRC: M. Brochu,

SCMPC: G. Donaldson


Appendix G:

Macomb County’s Onsite Sewage Disposal

and Onsite Water Supply Evaluation and Maintenance Ordinance


Appendix H:

Glossary and Acronyms

Appendix H: Glossary and Acronyms Page 1 of 4

AOC: Great Lakes Area of Concern designated by the International Joint Commission Aluminum (Al): Aluminum is a natural occurring metal in the environment, but may be present in elevated concentrations resulting from human sources. (Ref 1) Ammonia (NH3): Plant nutrient; source of nitrogen which is needed to build protein. Ammonia in aquatic systems is derived from the natural breakdown of nitrogenous organic material, or as a result of industrial discharge. Levels above 0.2 mg/L may indicate pollution. (Ref 1) Arithmetic Mean: A statistical measure describing the central tendency of a set of data points, calculated by dividing the sum of the data points by the number of data points in the data set. Benthos: Organisms that live on the lake or river bottom Bioaccumulation: The increasing concentration of chemical substances through successive levels of the food chain. Body Contact Recreation: Term used to define state water quality standards for bacterial contamination, to protect the health of people who participate in water recreation activities such as swimming (full-body contact) or fishing and boating (partial-body contact) BMP: Best Management Practices Buffer Strips: Protective strips of land surrounding bodies of water which can trap and hold pollutants contained in runoff. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): A measure of the amount of organic material in the body of water that is available for decomposition by aerobic (oxygen-consuming) microbiological processes. Values exceeding 4 mg/L may indicate pollution. (Ref 1) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): Chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the organic content and pollution strength of a water sample. COD measures the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize the organic material in the sample. This test measures the total oxidizable carbon content, excluding aromatics, pyridines, and some alkyl compounds. (Ref 1) Chloride: An inorganic ion found in all natural waters, deriving from natural origin or from human uses in agriculture, industry and road de-icing. (Ref 1) Chlorophyll a: The green photosynthetic pigment found in the cells of algae. Measurement of chlorophyll a in water gives an indication of the trophic state of an aquatic system. In general, increased amounts of chlorophyll indicate higher concentrations of phytoplankton and higher productivity. (Ref 1) CMOM Standards: Capacity, management, operation, and maintenance standards for SSO management (see SSO) Combined Sewer Overflow or CSO: Describes a discharge into a body of water, usually the result of a heavy rain or snowmelt that exceeds the capacity of the combined storm and sanitary system. Untreated CSOs are a major source of microorganisms that threaten public health. Conservation Easement: Land set aside for conservation purposes.


Detention Pond: Ponds created to detain water from running off. Dissolved Oxygen: A direct measurement of the amount of oxygen in the system available to support aquatic life. Values above 7 mg/L are desirable, levels below 5 mg/L are considered problematic. Levels below 2 mg/L are lethal to many aquatic organisms. (Ref 1) Escherichia coli (E. coli): A bacterium that is the predominant facultative anaerobe in the digestive tract of humans and warm-blooded animals. Used as an indicator of the presence of human or animal fecal matter in water. (Ref 1) EPA: The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Eutrophic: Describes a body of water which has an excess of aquatic growth. Eutrophication: Naturally, the slow evolutionary process of aging of freshwater lakes leading to an increase in productivity and a decrease in depth. Accelerated lake aging due to man’s activities (i.e., cultural eutrophication) decreases artificial increases in productivitiy due to the addition of nutrients usually phosphorus, and increased sedimentation due to soil erosion. IDEP: Illicit Discharge Elimination Program IJC: International Joint Commission Illicit Connections: Connections of sanitary sewer to the storm sewer system. Impairment or Impaired Use: The degradation or destruction of a productive use of a water body (e.g., boating, fishing, fish and wildlife habitat or drinking water supply). Impoundment: A body of water confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier. Limnology: The study of the physical, chemical, meteorological, and biological aspects of fresh water. Log Jam: A cluster of logs in the river. Macroinvertebrate: An animal without a backbone large enough to be seen without magnification. MDEQ: Michigan Department of Environmental Qualtiy MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation Metals: A wide variety of metals are found in aquatic sediments. Many metals are naturally occurring, but can also be derived from human activity. Low concentrations of many metals are necessary as nutrients for living organisms, however, higher concentrations in the environment may be toxic to aquatic organisms, especially benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms. Metals are persistent pollutants and can bio-accumulate in some forms. (Ref 1)


Microcystis: Nuisance blue-green algal blooms. MML: Michigan Municipal League NAFSMA: National Association of Flood and Storm Water Management Agencies Nitrate (NO3

-): Plant nutrient; source of nitrogen which is needed to build protein. The most oxidized form of nitrogen. Derived from the natural breakdown of nitrogenous organic material, agricultural run-off or discharge of sewage. Levels above 0.3 mg/L may stimulate excessive algal growth if phosphorus is not limiting. (Ref 1) Nitrite (NO2

-): Usually not present in high concentrations, very quickly oxidized to nitrate under aerobic conditions. (Ref 1) NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution entering water bodies that is diffused, e.g., surface runoff from agriculture or urbanized areas. NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Nutrient Loadings: The addition of nitrogen or phosphorus to a body of water. On-Site Disposal System: Usually a septic tank with a drain field. Ortho-Phosphorus: The simplest form of phosphorus found in aquatic systems. Since algae readily consume it, it is usually found in low concentrations. (Ref 1) PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyl, a class of persistent toxic organic compounds manufactured for use in a wide variety of industrial and product applications related to its fire retardant and electrolytic properties. Severely restricted in Michigan in 1977 due to environmental contamination problems related to its use. PEP: Public Education Plan Phosphorus Limited: The condition where the amount of phosphorus determines the productivity of the lake. Point Source Pollution: Pollution from concentrated, well defined sources such as wastewater treatment system pipes or storm water pipes. Probable Effects Concentration (PEC): The concentrations above which harmful effects on benthic organisms are expected to occur frequently. (MDEQ). RAP: Remedial Action Plan RDL: Reportable Detection Limit Riparian: Term used when relating to a river bank.


RPO: Rouge Program Office RRAC: Rouge River Advisory Council Sanitary Sewer Overflow or SSO: Describes an unlawful, untreated sewage discharge into a water body from a sewer system designed to transport only sanitary waste. Sedimentation: The deposition of eroded soil and sand particles in the bottom of water bodies. Alteration of natural landscapes to support residential, commercial, and industrial activity can increase erosion and flows that increase the rate of sedimentation. SEMCOG: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments SRF: State Revolving Fund SWPPI: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Initiative Threshold Effects Concentration (TEC): The concentrations below which harmful effects on benthic organisms are not expected. (MDEQ) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN): Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is a measure of non-bioavailable nitrogen forms; ammonia and organic nitrogen. These forms may become bioavailable if oxidized by natural processes. Kjeldahl nitrogen may result from municipal and industrial discharges, fertilizer runoff, or natural bio-reduction. (Ref 1) Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the oxidizable carbon available in a water sample. It includes aromatic hydrocarbons, non-biodegradable organic carbon, straight chain aliphatic, and organic nitrogen. As TOC increases, the trophic status of the lake moves toward eutrophication as a respiration increases and dissolved oxygen levels decrease. (Ref 1) Total Phosphorus: Essential plant nutrient, which is usually in short supply in aquatic systems. Therefore, it often serves as a limiting factor for algal growth. Found in fertilizers and detergents. (Ref 1) Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A measure of the mass of the total solid material per unit volume in a water sample including dissolved and non-dissolved materials. (Ref 1) Treatment Plant Bypass: When a sewage treatment plant directs excess sewage that it cannot handle due to high-flow conditions into a nearby river. Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface water or groundwater and is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.


Appendix I:

References

Appendix I: References Page 1 of 8

Author(s) Title Other Information

Adam Paul Fox, 1994, "Meteorological Analysis of The Lake St. Clair Region",

As it pertained to the Aquatic Plant Episode of.

Area Water Quality Board, 1996, "Clinton River/Lake St. Clair Bacteria Summit", Summary Report.

Barton, D. R., and Smith, S. M., 1984, "Insects of extremely small and extremely large aquatic habitats",

pp. 456-483 in V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg, eds. Ecology of Aquatic Insects, a life and habitat approach, Praeger Publishers, New York.

Blue Water Task Force, 2001 "Report & Recommendations, Blue Water Task Force on Water Quality",

St. Clair County Michigan.

Bridker, K. S., Bricker, F.J., and Gammon, J.E.,1976, "Distribution and abundance of zooplankton in the U.S. waters of Lake St. Clair"

Journal of Great Lakes Research, Vol. 2, pp. 256-271.

Canada and the United States, 1987 “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Annex 2”

Cowardin, L.M., Golet, F.C., LaRoe, E.T., 1979, "Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the U.S. Dept",

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

Derecki, J.A., 1958, "Effect of channel changes in the St. Clair River during the present century

Journal of Great Lakes Research, Vol. 11, pp. 201-207.

Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, 2001 "Septage Transport & Disposal to the Detroit Wastewater System",

Detroit Wastewater Master Plan.

Duane, D.B. , 1967, "Characteristics of the sediment load in the St. Clair River",

Proc. Tenth Conf. Great Lakes Research, Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., pp. 115-132.

Edsall, T.A. and Gannon, J.E.,1991, "A Profile of Lake St. Clair, National Fisheries Research Center-Great Lakes",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 15 pp.

Edsall, T.A., Manny, B.A. and Raphael, C.N.,1988, "The St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan: An Ecological Profile, contribution number 682”,

National Fisheries Research Center-Great Lakes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor 130 pp.

Environment Canada, 2000, "St. Clair River RAP 2000 Progress Report-Draft", Volume 1 - Synthesis Report.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 “Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices”,

Goodyear, C.D., Edsall, T.A., Dempsey, D.M.O., Moss, G.D. and Polanski, P.E. , 1

"Atlas of the spawning and nursery areas of Great Lakes fishes",

Vol. VI-St. Clair River, Vol. VII-Lake St. Clair, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/52, 86 pp.



Great Lakes Commission, 1999, "Lake St. Clair, it's Current State and Future Prospects",

Conference Summary Report.

Great Lakes Commission, 2002, "Designing a Binational Lake St. Clair Management Initiative"

Recommendations and Background Information - DRAFT.

Great Lakes Conservation Task Force, 2002, "Great Lakes Conservation Task Force 2002 Final Report",

The Citizens' Agenda - An action Plan to Protect the Great Lakes.

Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, 2001, "Recommendations of the Policy Statement on Ballast Water Management"

Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1987, "Report on Great Lakes Water Quality" Appendix A. Progress in developing remedial action plans for areas of concern in the Great Lakes

Griffiths, R.W., 1987, "Environmental Quality Assessment of Lake St. Clair in 1993 as reflected by the distribution of benthic invertebrate communities",

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, ISBN No. 0-7729-2339-6, 35 pp.

Griffiths, R.W., 1993, "Effects of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on the benthic fauna of Lake St. Clair"

Pages 415-437 In Zebra Mussels: Biology, impacts, and controls. T.F. Nalepa and D.W. Schloesser, Ed.

Haas, R.C., Bryant, W.C., Smith, K.D., and Nuhfer, A.J., 1985,

"Movement and harvest of fish in Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River and Detroit River",

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, MI 141 pp.

Hager, Mary Catherine, 2002, "Detecting Bacteria in Coastal Waters"

Henderson, B.A., and Nepszy, S.J., 1988, "Recruitment of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) affected by stock size"

1965-85. J. Great Lakes Res. 14 (2): 205-215.

Herdendorf, C.E., Raphael, C.N., and Jaworski, E., 1982, "The ecology of Lake St. Clair wetlands: A community profile",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biology Report 85 (7.7), 187 pp.

Hiltunen, J.K., 1980, "Composition, distribution, and density of benthos in the lower St. Clair River",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, Great lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Admin. Rep. 80-4, Ann Arbor, MI, 22 pp.

Hiltunen, J.K., and Manny, B.A., 1982, "Distribution and abundance of macrobenthos in the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair"

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, Great lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Admin. Rep. 82-2, Ann Arbor, MI 87 pp.

Hudson, P.L., Davis, B.M., Nichols, S.J., and Tomcko, C.M., 1986,

"Environmental studies of macrozoobenthos, aquatic macrophytes, and juvenile fish in the St. Clair-Detroit River system"

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, Great lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Admin. Rep. 86-7, Ann Arbor, MI, 303 pp.

Hurley, D.A., and Christie, W.J., 1977, "Depreciation of the warmwater fish community in the Bay of Quinte, Lake O"

J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 1849-1860.

Jaworski, E, and Raphael, CN., 1978, "Fish, Wildlife and recreational values of Michigan's coastal wetlands"

U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv., Twin Cities, MN. 209 pp.



Jaworski, E., and Raphael, C.N., 1976, "Modification of coastal wetlands in southeastern Michigan and management alternatives",

Michigan Academy. Vol 8, pp. 303-317.

Johnson, T.B., and Evans, D.O., 1990, "Size-dependant winter mortality of young-of-the-year white perch"

Climate warming and invasion of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 119: 301-313.

Johnston, D.A., 1977, "Population dynamics of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum)"

Especially during 1970-76. J. Fisheries Res. Board Can. 34: 1869-1877.

Kammer, Stephanie (Personal Reference) 2003, “Road crossing data”,

Leach, J.H., 1991, "Biota of Lake St. Clair" habitat evaluation and environmental assessment. Hydrobiologia 219: 187-202.

Leach, J.H., 1972, "Seasonal distribution of chlorophyll a" and related variables in Ontario waters of Lake St. Clair, pp. 80-86. In Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lake

Leach, J.H., 1973, "Seasonal distribution, composition and abundance of zooplankton in Ontario"

In Proc. 16th. Conf. Great Lakes Res., pp 54-64. Unternat. Assoc.

Leach, J.H., 1980, "Limnological sampling intensity in Lake St. Clair", J. Great Lakes Res., Vol. 6, No. 2. 141-145.

Levels Reference Study Board, 1993, "Levels Reference Study: Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin",

International Joint Commission, Washington D.C., 107 pp.

Levels Reference Study Board, 1993, "Levels Reference Study: Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, International Joint Commission",

Washington, D.C., 107 pp.

Lower 2 Subwatershed Group, Wayne County Rouge Program Office, 2001,

"Lower 2 Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan",

M.P., Dombeck, B.W. Menzel and P.N. Hinz. 1984, "Muskellunge spawning habitat and reproductive success"

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 205-216.

Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Puckett Haecker, C.E., and Doran, P.O., 1998,

"Status and trends of the nation's biological resources: Great Lakes",

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 964 pp.

MacLennan, D., 1987, "Compendium of Commercial Fishery Data" (1947-86) and Index Netting Data (1970-86) for Lake St.Clair with Status and Proposed Yields .

MacLennan, D.S., 1996, "Changes in the muskellunge fishery and population of Lake St. Clair after

"P19-27. In S.J. Kerr and C.H. Olver, eds. Proceedings of the "Managing Muskies in the "90s" Workshop.

Macomb Blue Ribbon Commission, 1997, "Macomb County Blue Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair"

Report and Recommendations, Revised 2000.



Macomb County Blue Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair, 2000,

"Report and Recommendations" Revised March 13, 2000.

Macomb County Health Department, 1999, "Surface Water Quality Report",

Macomb County Health Department, 2001, “Lake St. Clair Water Quality Assessment”,

Main 1-2 Subwatershed Group, Wayne County Rouge Program Office, 2001,

"Main 1-2 Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan",

Main 3-4 Subwatershed Group, Wayne County Rouge Program Office, 2001,

"Main 3-4 Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan",

Mangus, Amy (Personal Reference), 2003 “SEMCOG, Land use trends and data”,

Martz, D., 1999, "The Need for Adequate Monitoring & Surveillance Programs In Macomb County"

Other Areas Contributing to Lake St.Clair.

McCauley, C., 1984, "An annotated bibliography on the macrozoobenthos and aquatic marcophyte of the St.Clair River, Lake St.Clair, and the Detroit River",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Admin. Rep. 85-2, Ann Arbor, MI.

Michigan Center for Geographic Information (MCGI), “Wetland data”,

Michigan Department of Community Health, 2001, "Important Facts to Know If You Eat Michigan Fish",

Michigan 2001 Fish Advisory.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division

"Michigan's Industrial Storm Water Permit Program - Guidance"

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan State University Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University Extension, 2000,

“Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide”

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division and United States Environmental Protection,1993, Agency, 1993

"Construction Site Storm Water"

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division, 2000

"Strategy for the Regulatory Control and Correction of Illegal Overflows from Separate Sanitary Sewer Systems in Michigan"

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1997, "State of the Great Lakes Annual Report", Office of the Great Lakes, 44 pp.



Michigan/Department of Environmental Quality/Stormwater Quality-00/122, 2000,

"Michigan Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program" 2000 Annual Report.

Middle One Subwatershed Group, Wayne County Rouge Program Office, 2001

“Middle On e Rouge River Subwatershed Management Plan”,

MIT Sea Grant Center for Coastal Resources, 2001, "Ballast Water Background"

Nalepa, T.F., Gostenik, G.W., Hartson, D.J., Fanslow, D.L. and Lang, G.A. , 1996,

"Changes in the freshwater mussel community of Lake St.Clair: from Unionida

J. Great Lakes Research 22(2):354-369. International Association of Great Lakes Research.

Natural Resources Defense Council, 2001 "Testing the Waters", A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches

Natural Resources Defense Council, 2001 "Clean Water & Oceans": Oceans: In Depth: Report

Nichols, K.H., 1999, "Evidence for a trophic cascade effect on North-shore western Lake Erie"

J. Great Lakes Research 25(4):942-949.

Ohio Lake Erie Commission, 2000, "Lake Erie", Protection & Restoration Plan.

Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1984, "Beak International Incorporated11996; LIS 117C; Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1996 c"

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1998, "St.Clair River Remedial Action Plan, The St. Clair River Area of Concern",

Stage 1 1997 Update.

Quinn, F.H., 1981, "Secular changes in annual and seasonal Great Lakes precipitation 1854-1979"

Water Resources Research, Vol. 17, pp. 1619-1624.

R. P. Auclair, 1960, "White Perch in Main", Maine Dep. Inland Fish. Game, Fish. Bull. Augusta, 16 pp.

Raphael, C.N., and Jaworski, E.,1982, "The St.Clair River delta: A unique lake delta", Geography Bulletin, Vol. 21, pp. 7-28.

Raphael, C.N., and Jawors ki, E., 1982, "The St. Clair River delta: A unique lake delta", Geogr. Bulletin, vol. 21 pp. 7-28.

Roseman, E.F., 2000, "Physical and biological processes influencing walleye early life history I"

Doctoral dissertation. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing

Sachdev, S.C., and Furlong, R., 1973, "Sedimentation in the St. Clair River delta" Muscamoot Bay Area, Michigan, Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, Vol. 5, 346 pp.

Samadpour, Mansour, Ph.D., 1999, "Microbial Source Tracking Study of the Blossom Beach"

Department of Environment Health, University of Washington.



Schloesser, D.W., 1986, "A field guide to valuable underwater aquatic plants of the Great Lakes",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Ann Arbor and MSU Coop. Extn. Service Ext. Bull. E-1902, East Lansing, 32 pp. Schloesser, D.W., and Kovalak, W.P., 1991, "Infestation of unionids by Driesena polymorpha

in a power plant canal in Lake St. Clair" Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 10, pp. 355-359.

Schloesser, D.W., and Manny, B.A., 1985, "Potential use of low-altitude aerial photography to identify submerged macrophytes",

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Admin, Rep. No. 85-1, Ann Arbor, MI

Schloesser, D.W., and Manny, B.A., 1982, "Distribution and relative abundance of submerged aquatic macrophytes in the St. Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem"

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, USFWS-GLFl/AR-82-7, Ann Arbor, MI.

Schwab, D.J., Clites, A.H., Murthy, C.R., Sandall, J.E., Meadows, L.A. and G.A., 1997,

"The effect of wind on transport and circulation in Lake St. Clair",

Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94 (C4), pp. 4947-4958.

Scott, W.B., and Rasmussen, W.J., Rowan, D.J., Brodeur, J., and Hontela, A., 2000,

"The invasion of the lower Great Lakes by the White Perch"

Roccus americanus (Gmelin). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 20:1189-1195.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) “Putting Southeast Michigan’s Water Quality Plan Into Action: Tools for Local Governments”

Sherwood, G.D., Rasmussen, J.B., Rowan, D.J., Brodeur, J. and Hontela, A. , 2000,

"Bioenergetic costs of heavy metal exposure in yellow perch

In situ estimates with a radiotracer (137Cs) technique. Can J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 57:441-450.

Sly, P.G., and Busch, W.-D.N., 1992, "Introduction to the process, procedure, and concepts used in the development of an aquatic habitat classification system for lakes",

p. 1-15. In W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly (ed). The development of an aquatic habitat classification system for lakes. CRC Press, Ann Arbor.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 1998 "National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse"

St. Clair County Board of Commissioners, 2001, "Blue Water Task Force on Water Quality", Report & Recommendations, St. Clair County Michigan.

St. Clair River Bi-National Public Advisory Committee, 1994, "St. Clair River Stage 1 RAP Report",

Stynes, Daniel J., Tsung Chiung Wu, and Mahoney, Edward M, 1995,

"1994 Michigan Boating Survey"

Suns, K., Crawford, G., and Russel, D., 1985, "Organochlorine and mercury residues in young-of-year spottail shiners"

Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie, J. of Great Lakes Res. 11:347-352.

Synnestvedt, S., 1997, "The importance of large benthic invertebrates to the diet and growth",

Fisheries Technical Report #2031. Ann Arbor.



Talhelm, Daniel R. and Vrana, Kenneth J., 1998, "Status of Potential of Michigan Natural Resources, Special Report 77-Boating and Underwater Recreation",

Michigan State University Extension, Agricultural Experiment Station Reports-04089577.

The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program, 1994, "The conservation of biological diversity in the Great Lakes ecosystem",

Issues and opportunities, 118 pp.

Thomas, M.V., 1997. "Diet of the round goby in the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, 1993",

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Technical Report #96-2. Ann Arbor, MI.

Thomas, Micheal and Haas Robert, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Mt. Clemens Fisheries, 2002 Research Station,

"Status of the Fisheries in Michigan Waters of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair,"

Prepared for the GLFC Lake Erie Committee Meeting, Buffalo, New York, March 27, 2002.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & the Great Lakes Commission, 1999,

"Understanding & Adapting to Great Lakes water level changes",

Living with Lakes.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1996,

"Areal Distribution & Concentrations of Contaminants of Concern in Surficial Streambed and Lakebed Sediment, Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair Drainages, 1990-97"

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4200.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1996-98,

"Water Quality in Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair Drainages, MI, OH, NY and PA",

D.N. Myers, M.A. Thomas, J.W. Frey, S.J. Rheaume & D.T. Button, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, 1988,

"Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study, Vol. 1",

Executive Summary, 50 pp. International Joint Commission.

U. S. Geological Survey, 2003, http://www.usgs.gov

United States Coast Guard, revised 2001, "Ballast Water Brochure"

Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study Management Committee, 1988,

"Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study",

Volume I, 49 pp.

Vigmostad, Karen E., 1999, "State of the Great Lakes Islands Project", Proceedings from the 1996 U.S. Canada Great" Lakes Islands Workshop,

Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 124 pp., East Lansing, Michigan.

Wayne County Department of Environment Wayne County Illicit Connection/Discharge Elimination Training Program

Wightman, R.W., 1961, "The St. Clair delta", M.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, 140 pp.

Yoon, Hae-Jin (Personal Reference) 2002,

"MDEQ, Industry Compliance"

Untitled - Richmond, MI

Documents

Transcript of Untitled - Richmond, MI