ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED

1
PROPOSED
ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED LOCAL MANAGEMENT
ASSEMBLY
2
EXISTING ROUGE PROJECT SUBWATERSHED ADVISORY
GROUPS
3
WHY THE CHANGE?

• Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration
  Project phasing out over next few years
• Volunteer storm water permit mandatory in 2003
• Collective efforts more cost effective
• Federal court still monitoring progress

4
WAYNE COUNTYS EVOLVING ROLE

• WCDOE supports the Local Management Assembly and
  will work to make it a success
• Its role will change under the proposed Assembly
• WCDOE will continue strong leadership
  coordination and provide vital services as guided
  by Assembly members
• It will make future Rouge Project subgrants
  available to permitees who join the Assembly

5
WHO IS BEHIND PROPOSAL?

• Rouge Retreat 1
• Local Permit Holders Consensus Issues
• Replace Rouge Steering Committee
• Provide essential functions
• Linked local control to local funding
• Drafting Committee to consider alternatives

6
DRAFTING COMMITTEE(Plymouth Canton townships,
Farmington Hills and Dearborn Heights, Wayne,
Oakland and Washtenaw counties)

• Recommendations
• Create Rouge River Watershed Local Management
  Assembly
• Controlled by permitees
• Provide services to communities/counties
• Transition from federal to local funding
• Proposed Memorandum of Agreement

7
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

• Rouge River Watershed
• Local Management Assembly

8
COLLECTIVE VOICE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Plymouth Township
Van Buren Township
Bloomfield Township
Superior Township
Ypsilanti Township
Canton Township
Dearborn Heights
Redford Township
Village of Franklin
Lyon Tonwship
City of Wayne
Bingham Farms
Birmingham
Walled Lake
Lathrop Village
Northville
Southfield
Auburn Hills
Beverly Hills
Garden City
Romulus
Pontiac
Inkster
Wixom
Farmington
Oakland County
Wayne County
9
HOW WOULD IT WORK?

• Membership- Open to all communities and 3
  counties in watershed
• Weighted Voting Communities - 88 share
  allocated based upon percentage of
  land/population in watershed. Combined counties
  total shares will be 12 allocated based upon
  land/population in watershed

10
HOW WOULD IT WORK?(continued)

• General Assembly -- Meets twice each year
• Executive Committee (7 SWAG representatives, 3
  counties, 3 elected officers) Meets 6 times a
  year
• Three Standing Committees Finance, Technical,
  Public Involvement
• Organization Committee Special committee to
  consider permanent structure/functions

11
APPENDIX C October 2002 Organization Chart of
the Rouge River Watershed Local Management
Assembly
ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED Local Management Assembly
VOTING MEMBERS (Cities, Townships, Villages
Counties)
Wayne County DOE
Coordination
Rouge Project
Subwatershed Advisory Groups
Assembly Fiduciary Services
Appointments
Transition
Advice
Advice
Consultation
12
WHAT ARE ITS FUNCTIONS?

• Provide Support to Members
• Basic Services Help meet storm water permit
  requirements (i.e.,Watershed-wide monitoring,
  facilitation of SWAGs, public education/involvemen
  t, data management, training, etc.).
• Advocacy Represent interest of local agencies
  on water issues with MDEQ, EPA, and federal
  court.
• Transition Manage weaning from federal Rouge
  Project dollars to local support for essential
  services

13
WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST?

• 2003 Target 300,000 Local Assessment
• Municipalities allocated costs on same basis as
  voting shares
• Counties will provide in-kind services and not
  assessed first year
• Wayne County will direct Rouge Project dollars to
  match local contributions and serve as fiduciary
• Range of first year assessments 750 -29,000

14
SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL ASSESSMENT

• Sampling and Data Services. Flow and water
  quality monitoring with Baseline Data Summary
  Report and Data CD
• SWAG Support. Facilitation of meetings and
  required revisions to sub-watershed management
  plans
• Public Education. Facilitation of meetings to
  determine essential PE services
• Assembly Staff. Part-time manager and executive
  assistant

15
2003 PROPOSED BUDGET 300,000 Local Assessment
Service Local Cost Federal Match Additional Cost (WCDOE) Total Cost
Sampling/ Data Mgt. 123,500 123,500 226,000 473,000
SWAG Support 101,500 101,500 ----------- 203,000
Public Education 25,000 25,000 601,000 651,000
Assembly Staff 50,000 50,000 ----------- 100,000 (6 Months)
Total 300,000 300,000 827,000 1,427,000
16
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO JOIN?

• Meet storm water permit requirements at lower
  cost, before mandated dates (coordinated actions)
• Maintain local control
• Collective voice of local government on water
  quality and quantity issues

• Demonstrate to court successful state/national
  model for bottom-up, locally driven approach
• Protect/restore river benefits that are a
  priority to local residents

17
WHAT ARE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NOT REACHING
AGREEMENT?

• Higher compliance costs to meet mandated permit
  requirements
• Loss of local control Federal Court might
  resurrect proposal for broad, basin-wide authority

• Elimination of strong collective voice before
  MDEQ, EPA and the Federal Court.
• Moving backward to top down/state command and
  control
• Uncoordinated/duplicative efforts among
  communities

18
WHEN DOES AN AGREEMENT HAVE TO BE REACHED?

• Targeted for July 1 , 2003
• One year Agreement with ability to extend
• Meets requirements for current Storm Water Permit
  Certificates of Coverage
• Allows two plus years of transition from federal
  Rouge dollars to local funding
• Keeps commitments to Federal Court
• Provides time to work out details of permanent
  organizational structure that best meets local
  needs

19
NEXT STEPS

• January March 2003
• Review and conditional approval of local
  governing bodies to enter agreement
• First Meeting
• Between 60 and 90 days following formal
  acceptance by a minimum of 20 listed agencies
• Decision on whether or not to proceed based upon
  number of communities signing agreement
• July 1, 2003
• Memorandum of Agreement, if adopted, begins to
  function