Introductions/Attendance
Steering committee members introduced themselves and indicated their affiliations with the project: Dr. Joe Ohren, ICARD/EMU; Dr. Kevin Gustavson, EMU; Jennifer Hartlep, ICARD/EMU; Janna Sebald, DEQ; Joanne Darling, London Township, Kris Neuvirth, London Township; Cheryl Baltrip, Exeter Township; Bob Osterhout, Ypsilanti Township; Harry Sheehan, Washtenaw County Drain Commissioners Office; and Roger Bezek, Exeter Township.

Updated Task Chart
The main task at this meeting was working through the implementation strategies and the task chart to make sure that there are no “red flags.”  Dr. Gustavson pointed out that a slightly amended version of the implementation strategies chart along with a narrative to accompany the task chart had been uploaded on the website.

The first question/comment pertaining to the new material dealt with Road Specs (narrative) on page 4, specifically with the language, “Reducing the size of paved surface.”  The question arose if narrower roads are necessarily safer.  Dr. Gustavson pointed out that studies show that traffic slows with narrower roads.  Several committee members mentioned that a difficulty arises here when also dealing with the road commission and county specs.  Some townships do not allow private road ordinances.  Dr. Gustavson then pointed out that this portion of the narrative would only be for more low traffic areas and not through roads.  Dr. Ohren suggested that the committee be more specific then, about new development and paving in existing development; perhaps the wording should refer to “roads in new housing (low traffic) development.”  All agreed that this would probably better capture the intent because developers have to work with the road commission on these requirements.

Roger Bezek of Exeter Township then questioned the runoff strategies.  He mentioned that the discussion began with how they affected habitat; has this been addressed enough or superceded by more important issues out of the stream be itself?  It became apparent he was concerned about flooding and potential log jam removal.  Dr. Gustavson explained that as a strategy, we are recommending another hydrologic study that would include the upstream area of the watershed that has been subjected to so much development.  The 1996 study that dealt with flooding ignored the impact of upstream development as a potential problem for downstream flooding.  He continued that streams normally have some debris that is good for hydrology and habitat.  In addition, some log jams were removed this past summer.  This new hydrologic study could help us determine the impact of this removal and would help us see whether or not there have been positive results.  Most importantly, the study would help us determine what parts of the watershed are contributing to the flow problem most significantly.  

 There was some discussion among committee members about whether removing all log jams would be the best action to take.  Dr. Gustavson mentioned that some may need to be removed, but cleaning the whole system would not be in the best interest of the watershed.  A new hydrologic study would provide more information about upstream development and help with these very specific strategies.  Another concern expressed by committee members was whether or if any type of future work such as removing log jams would be supported.  Janna Sebald informed us that in most of the literature now, removing log jams is not specifically recommended unless there exists a navigation issue.  

Dr. Ohren suggested that recommending removal of log jams should be based on the findings of the recommended study.  Dr. Gustavson added that we could take this study, recommend it for the whole watershed (rather than just the upper watershed as originally envisioned), and include removal of jams as a potential action strategy if the new study shows a need to remove some of the worst log jams that are causing bank erosion or excessive blockage.  Kris Neuvrith then added that eventually we are going to have to sell this; there has to be a balance between log jams and bank stabilization.  Dr. Gustavson added that the problem here is dealing with a nonpoint source – the problem is volume of water, but in several ways this can increase both erosion and sediment.  This discussion ended with a suggestion to perhaps provide a general statement about the importance of maintaining flow as a part of bank restabalization.

The next topic was the issue of streams, channels and roadways.  As far as “altering grading practices,” are we referring to technique?  Dr. Gustavson explained that we have identified where problem areas are and it is really up to the road commission to look at and check these locations out.  Dr. Ohren suggested that altering grading could encompass a lot – how much, where, how, how often, etc.

Cheryl Baltrip then pointed to what she saw as redundant areas in the chart and narrative.  The first had to do with the alternative road specs on page 4 of the narrative.  Dr. Gustavson answered that the roundtable was an attempt to get township officials to talk together and have some uniformity in ordinances and regulations so developers wouldn’t come in and take advantage of those units with limited regulations.  Alternative road specifications was one example listed that could be considered under the roundtable discussion, but the topic was listed separately in order to allow townships to move forward on the initiatives without the roundtable discussion.  Second was the change in Low Impact Development on page 1 of the narrative.  Dr. Gustavson added that “local” will be changed to “county or city.”

The next comment dealt with the paragraph, Reduce Allowable Drain Rate of New Developments, on the first page of the narrative.  Harry Sheehan of the Drain Commissioners Office pointed out that the Drain Commission is not engaged in reducing allowable drain rates.  It was decided that this paragraph should be stricken and Harry will assist us with a new one that will include some detention standards.  The problem of the absence of standards can be identified in the paragraph; if a county has no standard, then new development may not even have to have storm water management.

 The last item questioned was wetland ordinances recommended.  States regulate 5 acres and above, but some local ordinances allow the regulation of all.  Dr. Ohren recommended then the adoption of local ordinances by townships to regulate less than 5 acres.  There existed some contention within the committee as the issue obviously presented itself as property rights v. control of growth and development.  Dr. Gustavson pointed out that these would only be recommendations; it is up to the individual townships to implement action plans.

Concluding the meeting, Dr. Ohren suggested that we postpone action on the documents at this point in time.  We need to change some of this language and get this back in front of everybody again in anticipation of the January meeting.  We need to go over the draft resolution to be presented to township boards and the outline of what would be in the presentation.

Next Meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, January 19, again at 1:30pm in Exeter Township.