1. PROPOSED ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED LOCAL MANAGEMENT ASSEMBLY 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 COUNTY’S 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 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 Farmington

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

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/involvement, 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 ServiceLocal Cost Federal Match Additional Cost (WCDOE) Total Cost Sampling/ Data Mgt. $123,500 $226,000$473,000 SWAG Support $101,500 -----------$203,000 Public Education $25,000 $601,000$651,000 Assembly Staff $50,000 -----------$100,000 (6 Months) Total$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/duplica tive 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