Michigan Watershed Plan Reviews

Michigan Watershed Plan
Reviews
Presentation at the Michigan
Watershed-Based Planning Workshop,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
------------------------------Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech
February 12, 2007
Overview

Five watershed plans selected



Geographically diverse
Range in size from a few square
miles to Saginaw Bay
Urban, suburban, rural, forested,
agriculture

Criteria from EPA guidance
 Plans reviewed
 Site visits
 Report to MDEQ and planners
Michigan Workshop
2
Purpose and Objectives
 Existing
plans pre-date the new guidance
 How much effort and information needed
to revise?
 Assistance to planners
 Information for MDEQ reviewers
 EPA will be evaluating results
Michigan Workshop
3
Plan review process
 Criteria
 Spreadsheet
tool
 Multiple
reviewers
 Site visits
 Assistance
 Reports
Michigan Workshop
4
Michigan Workshop
5
Michigan Workshop
6
Michigan Workshop
7
Scoring Example
Scoring Key
1 incomplete
A significant amount of additional information is needed to complete the section.
2 partially complete
Most information has been included, but some additional information is needed to complete the section.
3 adequate
The section has adequate information and addresses the minimum criteria.
4 exceeds requirements
Exceeds the minimum amount of information needed to address the criteria.
5 outstanding
A significant amount of current, applicable, exceptional information is presented.
(a) Identification of the causes
and sources of impairment or
threats to the waterbody
Review Criteria
1. Water body use
designations (from
relevant Water Quality
Standards) are listed
for waters in the
planning area
Scor
e
(1-5)
Comments
Plan references 303(d) listings
for lake, river, and for
watershed through 1998.
3
Page and
Section
p. iv,
Executive
Summary,
¶ 2; p. 5,
MDEQ WQ
Designation
, last ¶ in
section
Michigan Workshop
Recommendations
Describe specific listings by water body at
the time of initial planning and currently.
8
Findings
 Plans
varied as the watersheds and issues
varied
 Known/identified problems were targeted
in detail
 New requirements such as load estimates
and interim milestones were usually at
least partially missing
 Similar to EPA “Best of the Nation” review
Michigan Workshop
9
National Trends
(from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA)
Figure 1: EPA Watershed Planning Elements: National Trends
100%
90%
80%
Outreach
Identification
70%
Level of Satisfaction
70%
67%
59%
58%
60%
54%
50%
47%
44%
44%
40%
30%
Assistance
Load
reductions
20%
Criteria on
progress
10%
0%
Element A
Element B
Element C
Element D
Element E
Element F/G
Element H
Element I
AVERAGE
Michigan Workshop
10
Elements (a) and (b)
Identification of sources, load estimates, and
load reductions

Inventory of all waterbodies, with their designated uses
and impairments
Maps
N

W
SWIMMING - DEGREE OF USE IMPAIRMENT
FULLY
NOT SUPPORTING
PARTIAL
THREATENED
E
S
io
Oh
er
Ri v
MUDDY FORK

Contributions
“quantified by load,
percentage, priority,
or other method”
 Reductions
quantified from
proposed measures
 Basis for the current
approach
MIDDLE FORK
SOUTH FORK
BEARGRASS CREEK SUB-WATERSHEDS
MIDDLE FORK
MUDDY FORK
SOUTH FORK
2
Michigan Workshop
0
2
4
6 Miles
11
Complex modeling is not always
necessary
Michigan Workshop
12
Example of Source Load Estimate
from Chesapeake Bay Program
Developed
Land
9%
Shoreline
Erosion
47%
Forest
11%
Agriculture
33%
Sediment (9.38 million tons in 2001)
Michigan Workshop
13
Elements (c) and (d)
Management Measures
and Assistance Needed
 Should
be associated with the
impairments, sources, and loads
 Most plans had detailed measures
 Quantification of reductions
 Technical, financial assistance needed
Costs – precision not necessary
 Regulatory issues

Michigan Workshop
14
Work together and have fun
Michigan Workshop
15
Element (e)
Public Information, Education, and
Participation

Most plans had good to excellent outreach
sections, as found by EPA
 Goals and objectives
 Link to implementation of proposed
management measures
 Strategy



Target audience
Activities
Short and long-term
Michigan Workshop
16
Elements (f) and (g)
Schedule and Interim Milestones

Actions to implement management measures
 Interim measurable milestones
 Logical sequence of dates


Short term =
up to 3 years
(more detail)
Long term =
up to 10 years
(less detail)
Michigan Workshop
17
Elements (h) and (i)
Criteria to Assess Progress and Monitoring

Criteria to be used to
measure progress



Tied to impairment and use
Activities
Short and long-term

Monitoring approach
 Non-environmental
monitoring
 General plan or schedule
Michigan Workshop
18
National Trends
(from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA)
Figure 1: EPA Watershed Planning Elements: National Trends
100%
90%
80%
Outreach
Identification
70%
Level of Satisfaction
70%
67%
59%
58%
60%
54%
50%
47%
44%
44%
40%
30%
Assistance
Load
reductions
20%
Criteria on
progress
10%
0%
Element A
Element B
Element C
Element D
Element E
Element F/G
Element H
Element I
AVERAGE
Michigan Workshop
19
Why plan?
Michigan Workshop
20
Discussion Items
 Revise
or rewrite?
 Load and load reduction estimates
 How much info is enough to get started?
 Ongoing use of the plan
 No impairments on the 303(d) list preservation only
Michigan Workshop
21
More discussion Items
 Tracking
progress in plan
 Commitments and flexibility
 Other comments and ideas?
Michigan Workshop
22
Thanks for your time
Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Michigan Workshop
23