Grading the watersheds

© Denis Nichiforov | Dreamstime.com

By Mark H. Stowers

Michigan lakes, streams, and rivers get their life from the watersheds that feed them, and the health of those watersheds is crucial to the life of those waterbodies. With 63 major watersheds in Michigan that break into another 267 sub-watersheds, these networks of lakes and streams eventually make their way to the Great Lakes. To dive deeper into efforts to maintain the health of watersheds, five Southeast Michigan Watersheds, including the Clinton River, Rouge River, Huron River, Detroit River, and River Raisin, received a Report Card from the University of Maryland’s Environmental Science Center (UMCES). The project began in 2021 and included multiple partners and stakeholders. The nearly three-year project cost in excess of $500,000 and was funded by the Erb Family Foundation which introduced the idea of the report card to the watershed groups.

The UMCES report cards were not just scorecards but were designed as a stakeholder-engagement and management framework. Across southeast Michigan, the process included creating a shared vision, selecting multiple indicators through stakeholder workshops, building partnerships among agencies and nonprofits, and using the results to guide restoration priorities and public decision-making. More than 100 stakeholders from 65 organizations participated.

Alex Fries, a trained marine biologist with a Master’s in Environmental Management, is a UMCES Program Manager and was the lead on the project. Her group has done similar projects in which they synthesized and communicated thousands of pages of data into “more understandable information for people.” With the impetus from the Erb Family Foundation, UMCES started the process for the five watersheds.

“We put together a scope and talked about their goals, and we started this project with five groups,” Fries explained. “They wanted a shared vision for what a healthy and sustainable river watershed looked like. They wanted to raise awareness about different socio-environmental conditions, not just ecosystem, water quality, and habitat, but also things that are important to people, like recreation and the economy. They wanted to build relationships among the different stakeholder groups, because many of them are doing similar things, so there could be more collaboration. And they wanted better decision-making processes. Using the data and information they have, they made informed decisions.”

The process started with virtual stakeholder workshops with all of the groups, then with individual groups.

“We focused on the specific groups and what was important to them,” she said. “We split into three sessions. Since it was virtual, it’s hard for people to do a full day online, and we had about 60 stakeholders in November of 2021 when the first workshops were held. The stakeholders really drove what was going to be in the product. They decided what their values were for their systems where they live and what the threats to those values are. Then, when we started talking about potential indicators that could be used to better understand their system and goals, we came up with 33 and grouped them into categories.”

The indicator categories included economy, ecosystem, human health, infrastructure, recreation and water.

The 33 indicators included the overall health index, household income, local ownership, cost of flooding, income equality, trade, river economy, wetlands, tree cover, forests, fish populations, bird diversity, benthic community, protected lands, fish consumption, bacteria, heat vulnerability, air quality index, environmental justice, flooding, sewer overflows, impervious surfaces, farmland, affordable housing, walkability, parks, beach access, watercraft access, fishing, nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and turbidity.

“Then we went through the data and looked at how it was collected and what the time period was. Do we have enough data to say something about these indicators? That part takes a very long time and is a very iterative process where we collect some data, do some scoring, and think, ‘Is this really enough data? Is it really telling us about the system?’ Then we went back and forth between us and the different groups to come up with those final indicators. After we finalize the indicators and scoring, with everyone agreed and on the same page, we do the layout design, the narrative and storytelling, and build the stories around the specific regions. Even though they’re all in southeast Michigan, they’re very different systems with different issues. The River Raisin compared to Clinton is very different. We came up with stories that would be relevant to what those groups are seeing and doing in their areas and also tell the story of what the scores mean. What are the results? How is the system doing? What are the conditions? And having that kind of A to F scoring scale, so that everyone gets a report card in school and knows what it is, makes it very understandable, and we developed documents together with them.”

Fries had initial relationships with the Michigan Department of Environmental, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) from previous report card work.

“We did not collect the monitoring data, but we collated, cleaned, and organized the data and performed the scoring. Some of it was even federal-level data. One of the indicators was cost of flooding, an economic indicator we developed using FEMA data. We’re looking at a treasure trove of data, but it’s very messy. Data management within academia and outside academia is a huge challenge because people use different types of programs, record data in different ways, and store it differently.”

The co-designed report card process “is not someone’s opinion, it’s a calculated score,” Fries explained. “Developing those indicators and stories with the groups and having a product they can use as a tool for fundraising or for engaging with the public or other stakeholders they have, that’s really what the report card product is intended to do. And also with policymakers, sometimes local elected officials, even congresspeople or governors, don’t have time to look at these long technical reports. But if you can put a six- or eight-page document in their hands that looks inviting, maybe you can start a conversation about how we really need this bill or this funding. That’s another way these can be used as a tool.”

Future report cards now can be handled by each group, according to Fries.

“The idea when we are working on this with the groups is for us to transfer the process to them so they could do it again in three to five years,” she said. “There is a lot of data and information, and it does take a lot of work. The groups need to have the capacity to take that on. And it is somewhat of a burden. But since we developed the indicators, as new data becomes available, that data can be updated and rescored to track progress over time and how the groups and their regions are doing. Is the money in restoration having the impact they want? I think they talked about wanting to do them again and see how progress is being made. But there are lots of issues in the funding landscape. Are they really able to do that?”

Kevin Goodwin, EGLE Aquatic Biology Specialist, Lakes Erie, Huron, and Superior Unit, Water Resources Division, noted that his department and the department of natural resources were called upon only for data, and the watershed groups did the heavy lifting on the project.

“We were invited to be at those virtual tables, and the upshot of all these reports is that they were much more locally driven, not state-driven,” Goodwin said. “These were driven really by the watershed groups. Each one of those watersheds has very active watershed groups, as well as active local municipalities and counties. That’s all those folks who were at those initial stakeholder meetings, as were we. The quick answer is that EGLE was mostly there as a potential data source, depending on what kinds of indicators they came up with and whether we had information that would help feed into those. We, as well as the department of \natural resources, I think, and some others, were there, including those watershed groups. They were trying to cast a wide net to see what information was available as they discussed the indicators they were going to use for these report cards. That was our primary involvement – participating to see if we had data that would be helpful in the overall process.”

Overall, the southeast Michigan region received a C (49 percent). The suite of indicators and scores reflects the unique challenges faced by these five urbanized watersheds. Of the six categories, recreation was the highest-scoring at 63 percent (a B-). Michigan boasts 8.5 million acres of public land, but only 250,000 of those acres are in Southeast Michigan. This high score indicates that outdoor recreation remains accessible to the area’s residents. Human health was scored at 38 percent (a D+). infrastructure and economy both earned C- grades, with 42 percent and 44 percent, respectively. Ecosystem and water were slightly better, at 49 percent (C) and 58 percent (C+), respectively. Bacteria scored lowest at six percent, receiving an F. However, bird diversity was the highest score, an A at 91 percent.

Water quality was significantly affected by agriculture and urban runoff, with point-source pollution from industry resulting in moderate scores for water at 58 percent, turbidity at 45 percent, and nitrogen at 47 percent. Water temperature was at 53 percent, indicating rising river temperatures. Phosphorus (60 percent) had a good score. Dissolved oxygen was high at 89 percent, indicating that there is ample oxygen in the river for fish and other organisms.

The ecosystem indicators were mostly moderate, with C grades for wetlands at 54 percent, tree cover at 40 percent, fish populations at 41 percent, and benthic community at 55 percent. The amount of forests at 33 percent and protected lands at 32 percent in the region received Ds. Human health conditions, fish consumption and heat vulnerability each had low scores. The environmental justice score was moderate at 52 percent and the air quality score was rated high at 74 percent. Infrastructure scores ranged from poor, with flooding at 13 percent, to good, with affordable housing at 65 percent. Farmland had a poor score, while impervious surface and sewer overflows both had moderate scores.

The cost of flooding was nine percent and income equality at 12 percent but household income was at 69 percent and local ownership was at 76 percent. Trade was at 59 percent and the river economy hit 40 percent. Recreation scores ranged from moderate with watercraft access at 45 percent to very good for beach access at 90 percent. Walkability was at 61 percent and parks rated 66 percent, while fishing licenses had a moderate score at 54 percent. The report overview stated, “Recreational opportunities are becoming more important in the region, supported by a healthy environment, which will improve local quality of life.”

Eric Diesing, freshwater program coordinator for Oakland County, was actually working for the Clinton River watershed when the report card process started in 2021. He uses the information to help apply for grants for the county and was happy with the overall score.

“To get the C or the C plus, for this area with all of the pressure on the systems with all the urbanization around it and in it, I thought that was a good grade with all the indicators that they had put into it,” Diesing said.

In April 2024, when the report cards were released and announced, each watershed organization emphasized somewhat different follow-up processes and priorities.

The Clinton River, an 83-mile-long river in southeastern Michigan, flows from its headwaters in northern Oakland County to Lake St. Clair in Harrison Township. Its watershed is a 760-square-mile drainage basin across Oakland, Macomb, Lapeer, and St. Clair counties. At the Clinton River Watershed Council (CRWC), the plan is to use their report card as a public engagement and planning tool. The CRWC was rated in moderate condition at 51 percent for a C. Jennifer Hill, executive director of the CRWC, came into the process after it had begun. Putting the knowledge garnered into programs that can help nurture and protect the watershed is key.

“When we saw the report card, it really reiterated something that we already knew about the watershed, which is that stormwater is the biggest challenge we face in the Clinton River watershed,” Hill said. “It impacts many of the indicators that are in this report card, and we really need to think about how we continue to tackle this stormwater problem, which is such a big one. And how do we do that not only in our own watershed, but how do we do that looking across southeast Michigan? Because we all know that water doesn’t stop at political boundaries or county lines. While we’re in the Clinton River watershed here, Clinton River watershed is part of a much larger watershed, the Lake Erie watershed for example. It’s all interconnected.”

Being connected, the watershed groups “started to talk about creating a framework for how our watershed groups could tackle stormwater challenges that we were all seeing in our watersheds across our watershed boundaries and empower people and communities to be part of that solution. Something we’ve created together. It’s called the Rain Catchers Collective. And it’s an alliance of all of our groups, emphasizing the advantages of clean water for business, recreation, and in the environment. But it really is looking at how do we work to implement green stormwater infrastructure at a large scale, a community scale, and at a small scale? How do we empower residents to help be rain catchers on their own property? Every little bit helps when you’re talking about stormwater management. Keeping that stormwater out of the storm drain so that it can infiltrate back through the groundwater into our river systems, instead of just flowing down the storm drain and back into the river.”

She noted while there is an idea and plan, the next hurdle is funding to help achieve the whole purpose of the Rain Catchers Collective.

“We all already work with communities to do green stormwater infrastructure projects. For us, we do that through our Water Towns program, and we all work with residents to install rain gardens and similar features. But the vision behind Rain Catchers Collective is to scale it up significantly across southeast Michigan. This would require millions of dollars to do that. We’re all still doing that work ourselves piecemeal.”

The Rain Catchers Collective would protect wetlands as they have diminished across the state and the country due to land development.

“One of the ideas around the Rain Catchers Collective is to work with our land conservancy partners to make sure we’re protecting undeveloped land that can be critical in a wetlands case and really store stormwater during heavy rain events before it’s going back into the system, that’s sort of a major function that wetlands provide in the natural environment,” Wilson explained. “We should be making sure that we’re protecting those wetlands that still exist in our watersheds, particularly here in southeast Michigan where there is so much development. That’s land protection is one piece of it. Another piece of it is working with communities, in particular municipalities, to implement larger scale green stormwater infrastructures. Things like bioswales or large rain gardens to capture water.”

She noted a project in Centerline that designed a parking lot with four cells, each with retention basins underneath and native plants on top. The parking lot can store 34,000 gallons of water during a rain event, preventing it from running off without being filtered or slowed down.

Working with residents on their own property is also a focus.

“Whether that’s planting a tree, installing a rain barrel, or installing a rain garden. If we do that across all of our watersheds in southeast Michigan, that will also have an impact. There is obviously small rain gardens. But if you do that at scale, that would have an impact as well as a positive benefit,” Wilson said. “And then the last piece of the Rain Catchers Collective Framework is workforce development. Working in all of our watersheds and communities to make sure that there are folks in communities that know how to do the maintenance work for green infrastructure, particularly rain gardens or native plantings. It can be a struggle for folks when they’re installing these large scale green infrastructure pieces. There is not always the expertise on the maintenance side of things to understand how to actually maintain them and how to make sure that the native plants that are in there are thriving because they’re really a key part of how a rain garden functions.”

One of the main problems she pointed out is the aging infrastructure across southeast Michigan.

“Many people are doing a ton of work on putting a lot of money into improving that infrastructure. But I think everyone agrees that it’s not either or. It has to be a solution where you are updating gray infrastructure and you are incorporating much more green infrastructure to be able to keep up with the demands you have for how much stormwater is coming off of our watershed. Over 55 percent of the watershed is covered in impervious surfaces. You’re really having to think about how you are capturing that stormwater and making sure that it is gradually going back into the system.”

The Huron River, a 125-mile-long inland river in southeast Michigan, begins in Springfield Township in Oakland County and flows south through Washtenaw County, including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti ,and empties into Lake Erie. The Huron River watershed is a 900+ square-mile land area. Rebecca Esselman, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC), noted there was more than three decades of data to sift through. The Huron River and its watershed was rated moderate condition and given a C+.

“In the Huron River watershed, we have over 30 years of macroinvertebrate data that we’ve collected. We have over 20 years of water quality data collected by our organization over the decades,” Esselman said. “The Huron River ranked overall as a C+, the highest grade among the five. The Huron River has the benefit of very forested headwaters, and I think that’s a contributing factor. The river benefits from a pretty extensive park system. The Huron Clinton Metro Parks Authority has a lot of public land directly on the Huron River, which helps keep the river healthy. And we also have a Natural Rivers District designation, a state-level designation established probably 50 years ago. That requires that no buildings or development occur within 100 feet of the river’s edge. And those three factors have contributed to the Huron River remaining a relatively healthy river, considering the urban context of southeast Michigan.”

The grades given were to be expected according to Esselman.

“Some people might be surprised to see Cs and Ds across the region, but I actually was not because we are in a highly urbanized part of the state,” she explained. “There’s a history of industry here and the present condition of a very urban and suburban development that really makes it, we won’t be A level rivers ever. That grade is reserved for very natural, undeveloped watersheds. It was about what I expected.”

One of the indicators that brought the score down was a low grade for fish consumption. This was a result from a 2018 PFAS contamination (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of synthetic chemicals widely used in consumer and industrial products since the 1940s. Because of their incredibly strong chemical bonds, they resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They are notoriously known as "forever chemicals" because they do not break down naturally and accumulate in the environment and human bodies over time.

“One of the big take-homes from this report card is that, in some ways, we’ve gotten a pretty good handle on past threats. But there are always new things coming, and we have to remain vigilant to protect the quality of our waterways. Threats from emerging contaminants or new and novel contamination, such as PFAS, microplastics, and pharmaceuticals, fall into this category. This is a new frontier of pollution for our waterways. Because of that PFAS contamination event, we cannot eat the fish in most of the Huron River, and that is a real loss.”

Through the report card process, Esselman has seen a stronger bond building between the watershed groups, especially in their stormwater runoff mitigation campaigns.

“We’re trying to bring back some of those natural sponges that we lost when we urbanized our region. Most of our groups are investing pretty heavily in green stormwater infrastructure to address our flooding issues and our water quality issues,” she said. “One of the things we are doing together with Friends of the Detroit River, the Clinton River Watershed Council and Friends of the Rouge is that we have built an umbrella over each of us doing rain garden work and green stormwater infrastructure work. We’ve pulled together as a collaborative under the name Rain Catchers Collective, and this is allowing us to deploy a green stormwater infrastructure strategy at a regional scale across our organizations in ways that can really move the needle on this issue and help residents of southeast Michigan become rain catchers. It helps them become part of the solution. So that’s been a really innovative, exciting frontier for groups like ours really move the needle on some of these indicators where we’re losing ground. Becoming a rain catcher is one very tangible household-level thing that people can do. That really does help. This would be installing a rain garden or using a rain barrel at home, removing impervious surfaces like an extra driveway you don’t need or replacing it with pervious pavers. These are impactful household-level actions that people can take. There’s also donating to your watershed organization. Groups like ours rely on donors and members to get the work done, and also when you become a member of our organizations, you then receive tips and solutions that you might not be aware of. that also contributes to us achieving our mission. For example, we teach residents about how they can take care of their lawn in ways that protect water quality. How they can dispose of toxic chemicals that they might have around their household in ways that protect water quality. How picking up after your pet or maintaining your septic system keeps bacteria out of our lakes and streams. Not only are you contributing financially to the organizations, but you are also opening up a channel of communication to learn more about how you can be a water steward.”

The Rouge River, a 127-mile tributary of the Detroit River located in southeast Michigan, has a watershed that spans 466 square miles across Wayne, Oakland and Washtenaw counties and drains into the Detroit River at Zug Island. The Rouge River watershed encompasses all or parts of 48 municipalities and is home to over 1.35 million people, making it one of the most urbanized watersheds in Michigan. The Rouge River used to actually be on fire. Decades later, the water body has gotten healthier but still has quite a way to go. Ashley Flintoff, executive director at Friends of the Rouge, noted that the report card provided her organization with indicators that needed more data for the river, which has had the most problems over the past few generations. The Rouge River and its watershed were reported in poor condition with at 36 percent or a D+ rating. Recreation received the highest grade, a C, with a good parks rating of 72 percent and walkability at 63 percent.

“If you look at our report card, there are a couple of areas that are grayed out. That’s because they either weren’t applicable or we really didn’t have as much data,” Flintoff explained. “We didn’t have as much data as they needed to give a proper assessment. That was a learning experience for us. These are areas that we should be looking at and monitoring. It’s really helped to shape how we think about data from our perspective and what data we capture, how we capture that data, and the impact or the kind of Influence that it has on the kind of looking at a comprehensive overall health of the river or health of the watershed.”

In looking ahead, “The Rouge is a very urbanized watershed. It’s the most urbanized watershed in the state and one of the most urbanized in the country. We have a lot of very unique pressures on the watershed and on water quality. This gives us a really great tool to talk to people about why water quality is important, why the work that we do is important, and why the health of the watershed is important in their everyday lives,” Flintoff said. “We have a lot of very unique pressures on the watershed and on water quality. This gives us a really great tool to talk to people about why water quality, the work we do and the health of the watershed are important in their everyday lives. Also, where we’ve been, what we need to focus on or consider, and how we can start moving forward in addressing some of those things. forward in addressing some of those things.”

Flintoff gives fundraising presentations and uses the report card information.

“I’ve actually had people say, ‘Are you proud of a D plus?’ And I say, ‘Actually, I kind of am.’ Not because I think that’s the end result that we should be aiming for, but I think when you start at what I would consider an F minus. From a river on fire in 1969, to say that we are at a D plus, I think, shows incredible growth over a relatively short period of time, and I think it shows the value of what concerned citizens actually stepping up and taking an active role in their environment can do. I think that we have had one of the farthest ways to go, but I also think that we’ve made incredible progress in that short period of time. And it gives me so much hope. It sounds so optimistic, but it gives me so much hope for how much we can do, how much of an impact we can continue to have and how we can continue to steadily address that grade and address those issues and really actually make a difference because we already have. We already have made such a huge gain that the only way to go is up. We have so much potential to keep moving and get that to an A.”

In looking at the Rouge River report card she noted, “We actually have quite a few A’s and B’s already, and a lot of C’s. So, those kind of outweigh the D’s and F’s. I think there is a lot of opportunity to build on the stuff we already have and are already strong in. And then bring the rest of this up, but there is a ways to go and a lot to work on. But I think this gives us a really great overview of priorities and where we can focus our efforts to have the biggest impact.”

The River Raisin, a 150-mile-long waterway originates in Lenawee County in southeastern Michigan, flows east-southeast into Lake Erie near the city of Monroe. Its watershed spans about 1,072 square miles, covering most of Lenawee County and parts of Monroe, Washtenaw, Jackson, Hillsdale counties, and a small sliver of Fulton County, Ohio. River Raisin and its watershed council received a C and is considered in moderate condition at 54 percent. Their highest score came in dissolved oxygen, receiving an A with 85 percent. Their lowest score was an F with 12 percent in nitrogen. Sean Dennis, the executive director of the River Raisin Watershed Council noted, “The report card has helped us establish priorities, inform our strategic plan, and set a benchmark for where we want to go as a watershed. We are in the process of updating watershed management plans for the subwatersheds within the larger River Raisin. Additionally, we continue stream monitoring programs throughout the watershed. We have been in talks with partners regarding potential funding for follow-up studies.”

Dennis explained more about the report cards and the organization based in Adrian. “The River Raisin Watershed Council participated as a local watershed partner by providing input, data, and regional expertise throughout the development of the watershed report card. RRWC works closely with local governments, conservation partners, farmers, landowners, educators, and community members throughout the watershed, which allowed us to contribute local knowledge and perspective to the assessment process,” Dennis said. “The report card is intended to provide a snapshot of watershed conditions using available scientific data while also identifying areas where additional monitoring, restoration, and outreach efforts may be beneficial. The report confirmed several areas where continued efforts are needed. The lowest scores were associated ­with nitrogen (12 percent, F), turbidity (21 percent, D), protected lands (12 percent, F), bacteria (17 percent, F), and several economic indicators. While many of the findings in the report were consistent with challenges and opportunities already identified by RRWC and our partners, the report reinforced the importance of continuing and expanding existing efforts throughout the watershed. The results emphasized the need to remain focused on improving water quality, reducing nutrient and sediment runoff, restoring and protecting habitat, increasing public education and engagement, and supporting agricultural conservation practices.”

The RRWC is working to continue supporting conservation practices that reduce nutrient runoff, increasing habitat restoration and land conservation efforts, continuing water quality monitoring and stream restoration projects, expanding public education and community engagement, supporting farmer-led conservation initiatives throughout the Western Lake Erie Basin and improving river connectivity through projects such as the Brooklyn Dam restoration effort.

“The report also highlighted many strengths worth building upon, including excellent dissolved oxygen levels, strong bird diversity, low sewer overflow occurrences, and excellent public beach access. Perhaps most importantly, the report provides a science-based benchmark that can help track future progress and ensure that restoration and conservation efforts are focused where they can have the greatest impact. Based on both prior knowledge of watershed conditions and the scientific findings presented in this report, RRWC has continued to focus its efforts on habitat restoration, stormwater management, agricultural best management practices, on-site septic system education and management, and community outreach and education. The report serves as a valuable tool for identifying priorities, supporting future funding opportunities, and demonstrating the continued need for watershed improvement projects. No single organization is responsible for mai­ntaining the watershed; success depends on partnerships and the collective efforts of residents, landowners, farmers, businesses, and local governments.”

The Detroit River, a 32-mile international strait flowing from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie and forms the border between southeast Michigan (USA) and southwest Ontario (Canada). Its roughly 700-square-mile watershed spans both sides of this border and is home to millions of residents and heavy urban and industrial. The Detroit River Watershed had an overall grade of C− (44 percent). Their challenges differed substantially from the inland watersheds that included human health concerns, legacy contamination, fish consumption advisories, industrial impacts, habitat fragmentation and shoreline access disparities. The report card reinforced priorities already underway by Friends of the Detroit River, including habitat restoration, public access expansion, coastal resiliency projects, Great Lakes restoration projects, tributary restoration and community engagement.

Moving forward, each watershed group has focus areas. The largest problem being stormwater runoff. Lynn Seymour, chief engineer with Oakland County Water Resources, explained how the county is partnering with the watershed groups to mitigate stormwater.

“Oakland County, the Clinton River Watershed Council and Friends of the Rouge are working together on the expansion of a pilot program called RainSmart Rebates with grant funding received from the EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,” Seymour explained. “RainSmart Rebates is a residential program geared towards homeowners in southeast Oakland County. The program offers homeowners up to $2,000 to implement sustainable stormwater practices, such as planting native trees, installing rain barrels, or creating rain gardens on their properties. The primary goals of the program include fostering awareness about stormwater management and promoting environmental stewardship. The anticipated deliverables include implementing over 1,500 stormwater projects on private land. The outcome will capture approximately 2.5 million gallons of runoff, significantly improving local water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution. The intended beneficiaries are those who live, recreate, or work in the Clinton and Rouge River watersheds. As part of the program, subrecipients will conduct one-on-one site assessments for each homeowner accepted into the program and provide guided support on GSI design, installation, and maintenance.”

Looking at the legislative side of things for watersheds, one of the biggest concerns is the lack of governance over septic systems. David Lossing, director of government relations for the HRWC oversees efforts to advocate for water and climate-related issues on both the state and federal levels.

“Senate bill 771, introduced by state Senator Sam Singh, has gotten us one step closer to regulating septic systems across the state,” Lossing explained. “We expect there are about 1.3 million septic systems in Michigan and about 300,000 of them are failing. Those are leaching nutrients into groundwater and surface waters which are then creating algae blooms in lakes. Then everything, especially in our watershed, flows down to Lake Erie. In Oakland County alone there are between 80-100,000 septic systems. We don’t regulate them under Michigan law and most of these go back 50, 60, 70 years and most barely have any records that exist of when they were installed, when they’ve been inspected or when they’ve been updated. That’s not helpful for a state that likes to pride itself on being The Great Lakes State. We have 29 legislators in our watershed, 22 state reps and seven senators across both Democrat and Republican. We talk to everybody to make them aware of what’s in their backyards.”

One of the most significant outcomes following the UMCES report cards was the creation of a shared socio-environmental governance model across southeast Michigan. Before the report cards, watershed organizations typically measured success through miles of stream restored, acres protected, volunteer participation and individual grant outcomes.

After the report cards, all five watersheds now have a common framework built around six categories that include water, ecosystem, human health, infrastructure, recreation and economy.

That means future planning, grant applications, restoration priorities, and public communications can increasingly be tied to measurable changes in these indicators over time. The methodology itself anticipates periodic assessments every few years so that watersheds can evaluate whether interventions are improving grades and where to redirect resources.

(To check out each report card, go to, ecoreportcard.org/report-cards and click on southeast Michigan.)­­