Michigan Lake Info · 

By:
Tony Groves, M.S., Water Resources Director, Progressive AE
Craig Hondorp, ASLA, LEED®AP, Director of Landscape Architecture, Progressive AE

Download Article

Introduction
In recent years, the federal government has placed a strong emphasis on the need for proper stormwater management. The focus on stormwater was prompted, in large part, by the recognition that improperly managed stormwater represents a major source of pollution to the nation's water resources. This fact, coupled with the enormous cost resulting from flood damage, has brought the issue of stormwater management to the forefront at all levels of government.  Stormwater management issues can be viewed within the broad context of the hydrologic cycle. The hydrologic cycle is the process by which precipitation (both rain and snow) falls to the ground and either runs off to lakes, streams, and other water bodies, or infiltrates into the ground (Figure 1). This water, in turn, is returned to the atmosphere via evaporation or transpiration (directly from plants), where the cycle of condensation and precipitation is repeated. To protect theenvironment, stormwater should be managed in a way that will not substantially alter the natural hydrologic regime, especially as it relates to the quantity of runoff versus infiltration.




The Concern
As communities become more urbanized, rooftops, roadways, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces replace natural ground cover. As impervious surfaces increase, runoff increases and infiltration into the ground decreases (Figure 2).


(Figure 2)

With the decrease in infiltration, groundwater supplies also decrease which, in turn, diminishes flow in area streams. In some instances, rivers and streams that once had stable base flows slow to a trickle during dry-weather periods due to lack of water infiltration to the water table. During rainstorms, these same streams can become a raging torrent due to the increased rate of stormwater runoff and conveyance. In these streams, the fishery cannot be sustained due to the warming of water and degraded habitat during low-flow conditions and, during high-flow conditions, stream bank erosion and flooding are common.

With an increase in imperviousness and the quantity of stormwater runoff, there is generally a concurrent increase in the quantity of pollutants transported as well. Stormwater runoff often contains high concentrations of oil and gasoline residues, nutrients, sediment, trace metals, fecal bacteria, oxygen-consuming wastes, and a variety of other contaminants. If untreated, stormwater runoff can cause siltation, nutrient enrichment, bacterial contamination, and severely degrade water resources.

Getting to the Source
While County Drain Commissioners often play a key role in stormwater management, local units of government also have an important role to play—especially in promoting “source” controls of stormwater. Source controls are preventative measures designed to reduce the volume of stormwater generated on-site, and eliminate initial opportunities for pollutants to enter a stormwater drainage system. Typical source controls could include the following:

• Preservation of existing natural features that perform stormwater management functions, such as depressions, wetlands, forest land, and vegetative buffers along lakes and streams.

• Reducing impervious surface area through site planning that makes efficient use of paved and developed areas, and maximizes open space.

• Directing stormwater discharges to open grass areas, swales, and bioretention facilities (e.g., rain gardens, infiltration trenches) rather than allowing stormwater to run off impervious surfaces directly to stormwater conveyance systems.

After the implementation of source controls, site controls are then required to convey and treat stormwater runoff generated by development. Many source controls are best addressed during the planning stages of development. It is at this stage that opportunities exist to reduce imperviousness, minimize development site impacts, preserve natural features, and promote practices that maintain the natural hydrology. The manner in which land is developed, along with the attendant infrastructure, begins with the developers and their design engineers and planners. While state and county permits are required for most developments, it is often the township that plays one of the most important roles in the development approval process. As such, townships can be key partners in stormwater management. In fact, townships may be best suited to encourage land development practices that address stormwater issues, especially source controls.

Low Impact Development
A method of managing stormwater that is gaining prominence and acceptance is a concept called Low Impact Development or LID. In The Practice of Low Impact Development (NAHB Research Center, Inc. 2003), LID is defined as an approach to land development that uses various land planning and design practices and technologies to simultaneously conserve and protect natural resource systems and reduce infrastructure costs. LID still allows land to be developed, but in a cost-effective manner that helps mitigate potential environmental impacts. Essentially, LID's promote source controls of stormwater and maintain the natural hydrological cycle by:

• Preserving open space and minimizing land disturbances;

• Protecting natural features and natural processes;

• Reexamining the use and sizing of traditional infrastructure (lots, streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks);

• Integrating natural site elements (wetlands, stream corridors, mature forests) into site designs;

• Decentralizing and managing stormwater at its source.

With an LID, the development process includes a detailed site analysis that identifies natural drainage patterns and key natural features. This information is then used to help define development opportunities and constraints, and areas requiring protection. The site analysis is followed by an evaluation of alternatives to minimize development impacts. Alternatives to accomplish these objectives could include minimizing clearing and grading, reducing impervious surfaces, clustering development, limiting lot disturbance, and preserving permeable soil types. An attempt is then made to slow the conveyance of stormwater from the site by dispersing (rather than concentrating) drainage. Where feasible, natural flow paths are maintained, and vegetated swales are used to convey water (as opposed to pipes). A key element of an LID is to treat stormwater at its source, rather than conveying water to a centralized stormwater basin.

In The Practice of Low Impact Development, it is noted that developers who have used LID practices and technologies have indicated that one of the keys to a successful project is to invest additional time and money in the initial planning stages of development. While this idea may be unpopular because of increased up-front costs, the expenditures are often recouped in the form of reduced infrastructure costs, 3 rapid home sales, enhanced community marketability, and higher lot yields. A graphic representation of a conventional development versus an LID is shown on the next page. The example is a 40-acre residential site on sandy, well-drained soils served by on-site septic systems and individual water wells. In the LID, lot sizes were reduced, roads were narrower with no curb and gutter, open swales were used to convey/infiltrate stormwater, and all roof drainage was conveyed to on-lot infiltration trenches. In comparing the two development approaches, the LID resulted in substantial reductions in effective imperviousness, storm sewer pipe and drainage structures.



Practical Considerations
A key element in a typical LID is to provide for the infiltration of stormwater at or near its source. This approach may not be feasible in areas with a high water table or soils with poor infiltration capacities such as clays. To avoid the potential for failure of infiltration facilities, care must be taken to ensure the facilities are properly designed, constructed, and maintained. Drainage easements may be appropriate to help ensure proper maintenance over the long term. Infiltration of stormwater in residential developments generally does not pose a pollution problem. However, in the case of industrial, commercial, and concentrated parking facilities, pretreatment of stormwater may be required to prevent groundwater contamination.

The LID approach embodies many of the design principles required to mitigate stormwater impacts and can help communities comply with federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 stormwater mandates. If site conditions are suitable, LID should be considered as an alternative to conventional development approaches. A properly designed LID can be a win-win for the developer, the home buyer, the community, and the environment.

For more information visit:
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urban.html
www.raingardens.org

LID article.pdf (536.73 KB) 

 Download Article (493.81 KB)

LAKE BOARD ACT AMENDED
By Tony Groves, Water Resources Director, Progressive AE

In the final moments of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session, several changes were made to the act that governs lake boards in Michigan. Part 309 (Inland Lake Improvements) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act provides for the establishment of lake boards and special assessment districts to finance lake improvement projects. Since 1966, this act has been used extensively to organize and finance a variety of lake projects. Currently, there are over 100 active lake boards in Michigan. The recent amendments change the membership of a lake board (Section 30903), project costs (Section 30927), and provide a formal mechanism for dissolving a lake board (Section 30929).

SECTION 30903

Section 30903 of the act defines the composition of a lake board and requires that a lake board consist of all the following:

• A member of the county board of commissioners appointed by the chairperson of the county board of each county affected by the lake improvement project.

• A representative of each local unit of government (other than the county) affected by the project appointed by the legislative body of the local unit. However, if there is only 1 local unit of government involved, 2 representatives of that local unit shall be appointed to the board.

• The county drain commissioner or his or her designee.

• A property owner, appointed by the lake board, who owns land abutting the lake.

Under the amendments, a representative from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will no longer sit on the board. However, many lake projects will require the issuance of a permit from the MDEQ so the department will still provide regulatory review of proposed projects. Amendments to this section also require that once established, a lake board must now elect a treasurer, in addition to a chairperson and secretary.

SECTION 30927

Section 30927 deals with the computation of project costs and requires the lake board to make a computation of all costs associated with the project including preliminary engineering, contract work, inspections, publication of notices, legal expenses, administrative costs, permit fees, and contingent expenses. Amendments to this section require that a lake board shall not expend money unless it has adopted an annual budget.

SECTION 30929

Section 30929 was added to the act to provide a mechanism for dissolving a lake board. Prior to this amendment, Part 309 was silent on this issue. Section 30929 provides for a lake board to be dissolved if all the following conditions are met:

• The governing body of each local unit of government in which all or part of the lake is located holds a public hearing on the proposed dissolution, determines that the lake board is no longer necessary for the improvement of the lake because the reasons for establishing the lake board no longer exist, and approves the dissolution of the lake board.

• All outstanding indebtedness and expenses of the lake board are paid in full.

• Any excess funds of the lake board are refunded based on the last approved assessment roll. However, if the amount of excess funds is a minimal amount, the excess funds shall be distributed to the local units involved with the project apportioned in accordance with last approved special assessment roll.

• The lake board determines that it is no longer necessary for the improvement of the lake, because the reasons for its establishment no longer exist, and adopts an order approving its dissolution.

To ensure compliance with the recent amendments to Part 309, existing lake boards should appoint a treasurer. Also, if there is only one local unit of government involved with the project, request that the legislative body of the governmental unit appoint a second representative to serve on the lake board. Finally, if a lake board has not formally adopted an annual budget for expenditures, it should do so.

 Download Article (493.81 KB)

Financing Your Lake Project: Lake Boards vs. Township Boards By Tony Groves, Water Resources Director, Progressive AE

This is the second part of a two-part article about financing alternatives for lake projects. The first article, which appeared in the February 2005 issue of the Michigan Riparian, examined recent amendments to the Lake Board Act. This article discusses the pros and cons of organizing a lake project by establishing a lake board versus using an existing township board.

Part 309 (Inland Lake Improvements) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451 of 1994, as amended, provides for the establishment of lake boards and special assessment districts to finance lake improvement projects. Since 1966, this act has been used extensively to finance a variety of lake projects. Currently, there are over 100 active lake boards in Michigan.

The Township Special Assessment Act, PA 188 of 1954 was amended in 1994 to provide a mechanism to finance lake improvement projects. However, with Act 188, projects are organized under an existing township board.

With respect to process, both Part 309 and Act 188 are similar (Table 1). Both statutes provide for the establishment of a special assessment district to finance lake improvements, and both statutes require a public hearing on 1) the necessity (or practicability) of the project, and 2) a public hearing on the special assessment roll.

Some practical things that should be considered in establishing a special assessment district include:

The Petition: If a project is proposed to be initiated via petition, the petition should clearly state that “a special assessment district will be established and that special assessments will be levied to finance the desired lake improvements.” Space should be provided on the petition for property owners to both sign and print their names. If property is owned jointly, all freeholders should sign the petition. Prior to circulation, the local unit(s) of government involved with the project should review the petition to ensure petition language is acceptable.

Developing the “Plan”: An independent study should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of lake improvement alternatives and to determine the proposed scope and cost of the project. The preparation of a lake improvement plan is important. You want to make sure that the thousands of dollars that may be invested in a lake project are being spent on improvements that are both environmentally sound and cost effective.

Special Assessments: When establishing a special assessment district for a lake project, care should be taken to ensure the district only includes those properties that directly benefit from the proposed improvement. Typically, this will include all lake front properties and back lots with deeded or dedicated lake access. To avoid legal challenges, assessment should be levied in a fair, consistent, and equitable manner. All similarly situated properties should be assessed the same. Often, a simple assessment apportionment scheme (where, for example, lakefront parcels are assessed one unit of benefit and back lots with access one-half unit of benefit) is easier to defend (and explain) than a more complex assessment methodology.

With respect to procedure, neither statute is superior over the other. However, there are some instances where one act may be preferred over the other. For example, if a lake is located entirely within one township and the township is willing to undertake the project, then Act 188 may be a more expedient way to proceed. If, on the other hand, a lake is located in several townships or political jurisdictions, then Part 309 may be more desirable. (In a situation where a lake is in several townships, each township involved would need to undertake separate assessment proceedings which could be both time-consuming and cumbersome. In addition, no single entity would be administering the project). Another practical consideration with Act 188 is that township boards often have full agendas and address a myriad of issues at their meetings. (If you have ever sat through a township board meeting, you can attest to this fact.). Often, they have precious little time available to discuss and address lake issues and concerns. By contrast, a lake board is formed to address only the lake in question and thus, focuses only on lake issues.

This article provided an overview of the procedures that must be followed in organizing a project under Part 309 or Act 188. In organizing a lake improvement project, it is important that statutory hearing and notice procedures be followed closely. Lake projects can be time-consuming enough without having a project challenged and prolonged due to a procedural flaw. To help ensure proper steps and procedures are followed, lake residents who are considering pursuing the establishment of a special assessment district for their lake should seek professional assistance or legal counsel before embarking on the process.

Table 1 - An Overview of Part 309 and Act 188 Procedures Part 309 (Inland Lake Improvements) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, P.A. 451 of 1994

• Projects are administered by a lake board that is comprised of a lakefront property owner, a representative of each local governmental unit (if there is only one local unit of government involved, 2 representatives of that local unit are appointed to the lake board), a county commissioner, and the county drain commissioner or his or her designee. (Note that local units of government can appoint lake residents as their representative(s) if they so choose.)

• Projects are initiated by motion of the local unit(s) of government or by petition of 2/3 of freeholders abutting the lake.

• Pursuant to the Act, projects can be implemented that provide the following benefit(s): The elimination of pollution and elimination of flood damage, elimination of water conditions which jeopardize the public health or safety; increase of the value or use of lands and property arising from improving a lake or lakes as a result of the lake project, and the improvement or development of a lake for conservation of fish and wildlife and the use, improvement or development of a lake for fishing, wildlife, boating, swimming or any other recreational, agricultural, or conservation uses.

• Lake board retains an engineer to conduct lake improvement feasibility study, and to determine the scope and estimated cost of project and probable assessments.

• Public hearings are required on the practicability of the project and special assessment roll. Township Special Assessment Act, P.A. 188 of 1954, as amended

• Projects are administered by the township board.

• For lake improvements, projects can be initiated by motion of the township board or by petition of land owners constituting more than 50% of the land area in the special assessment district.

• Under this Act, assessments can be levied for the eradication or control of aquatic weeds and plants, the construction, improvement, and maintenance of a lake including, but not limited to, dredging, and the construction, improvement, and maintenance of dams and other structures which retain the waters of the state for recreational purposes. (Note that under Act 188, a lake, pond, river, or stream under the jurisdiction of the county drain commissioner cannot be improved without written permission of the drain commissioner.)

• Plans are prepared describing the improvement and estimated costs.

• Public hearings required on the necessity of the project and the special assessment roll.