Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8. Action Plan Source: Basetree, 2005. “Anything else you’re interested in is not going to happen if you can’t breathe the air and drink the water. Don’t sit this one out. Do something. You are by accident of fate alive at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet.” - Carl Sagan Introduction This section details the actions supporting the goals and objectives for the watershed. As discussed in Section 6 of this WMP, the goals and objectives were developed based on input from community stakeholders and the general public. The actions in this section are presented in a table under their corresponding goal and objective and are accompanied by a schedule, responsible party, evaluation mechanism, and cost. In addition, each objective is marked with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ indicating its role in fulfilling the Michigan Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit as introduced in Section 6 of this WMP. Watershed-Based NPDES Permit Fulfillment The watershed is composed of distinct political jurisdictions working together with public and stakeholder involvement to develop a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) as discussed in Section 3 of this WMP. Each jurisdiction is bound to the requirements of the Watershed-Based NPDES Permit and is committed to considering all environmental stressors within their watershed. To this end, the jurisdictions engage in an iterative watershed management planning process that includes goal-setting; data collection and analysis; problem identification; action development and implementation; and evaluation. The development of the action plan in this section is a result of goal-setting, data collection and analysis, and problem identification. Furthermore, the actions fulfill Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) requirements contained in Part I.B.2 of the Watershed-Based NPDES Permit (see Appendix C). The SWPPI is required to contain actions specified in the WMP and has specific requirements for good housekeeping/pollution prevention and post-construction elements. The WMP action plan was developed so that each watershed jurisdiction can bring the actions they are responsible for directly into their SWPPI. Critical Items Identified by Stakeholders In February 2003, Governor Granholm convened a 26 member council to address the trends, causes, and consequences of unmanaged growth and development in Michigan (Executive Order 2003-4). The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (MLULC) provided more than 150 recommendations to the governor and the legislature designed to minimize the impact of current land use trends on Michigan's environment and economy. The council used the following smart growth tenets for many of the recommendations. These ten tenets can form the basis for establishing a set of state land use goals. 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 2. Create walkable neighborhoods 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective 6. Mix land uses Section 8: Action Plan 8-1
7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices 9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 10. Take advantage of compact development design Stakeholders who participated in the workshops consistently referred to the ten smart growth tenets but recognized that with regard to watershed management they encompass more than may be necessary for the WMPs purposes. Consequently, it was agreed that in the WMP any actions that were intended to mitigate developments’ impacts on waterways (e.g. BMPs like riparian buffers) would be referred to as “Water Quality Friendly Development.” Participants in the workshops also made the connection between surface water and groundwater; that they were two key components of the whole hydrologic cycle. As such, combining programs where appropriate only seems logical. It was recommended that the GLRC should look for ways to coordinate with groundwater protection initiatives and cooperate on grant applications. There was recognition by stakeholders of the need to be good neighbors due to potential upstream and downstream pollution impacts on water quality. This recognition was extended to rural areas too. Although NPDES permitting is only required for municipalities, it was felt there was a need to include the agricultural community. Stakeholders thought the best way to engage farmers was through existing agricultural programs (see Section 7). The current fiscal climate faced by municipalities dictates that they look for new and creative ways to deliver programming. Stakeholders recommended that municipalities and watershed committees look to form partnerships with existing organization to achieve their goals. Two examples of programs that have public service requirements in order for participants to achieve certification are MSU Extension’s “Master Gardner” and “Citizen Planner” programs. Benefits of Actions The permit requires an assessment of both the benefits and costs of the actions identified, although a “cost/benefit analysis” is not required. The costs associated with each action are identified in the Action Plan table. The benefit of each individual action is not specifically addressed but rather discussed in general terms because the ultimate goal of each action is really the same, i.e. to protect and improve the water resources in the watershed. The benefits of the actions associated with each goal are discussed in Table 8-1. 8-2 Looking Glass River Watershed April 2007
Page 2 and 3:
GLRC on Phase II Looking Glass Rive
Page 4 and 5:
P:\1666001\09 Looking Glass WMP\WMP
Page 6 and 7:
Table of Contents Organization of t
Page 8 and 9:
SECTION 10 - Plan Sustainability In
Page 10 and 11:
FIGURES Figure 1-1 Watershed Locati
Page 12 and 13:
Organization of the Plan This plan
Page 14 and 15:
9. Evaluation and Revision Section
Page 16 and 17:
! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 18 and 19:
The goals and objectives were then
Page 20 and 21:
Looking Glass Watershed The Looking
Page 22 and 23:
• methods for evaluation of progr
Page 24 and 25:
References Center for Watershed Pro
Page 26 and 27:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 28 and 29:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 30 and 31:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 32 and 33:
The majority of wetlands in the wat
Page 34 and 35:
commonly classified as hydrologic s
Page 36 and 37:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 38 and 39:
Significant Natural Features to be
Page 40 and 41:
References Centers for Disease Cont
Page 42 and 43:
3. Water Quality Conditions People
Page 44 and 45:
sanitary sewer treatment system has
Page 46 and 47:
Section 3: Water Quality Conditions
Page 48 and 49:
Data Analysis Tetra Tech summarized
Page 50 and 51:
! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 52 and 53:
! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 54 and 55:
Table 3-4 explains the problems fou
Page 56 and 57:
Vermillion Creek Assessment Vermill
Page 58 and 59:
Volunteers identify the species bas
Page 60 and 61:
Watershed Fish Consumption The Mich
Page 62 and 63:
The coldwater fishery use does not
Page 64 and 65:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 66 and 67:
Interpretation of Watershed Conditi
Page 68 and 69: 4. Community Outreach A watershed p
Page 70 and 71: Public Comment on Draft Plan A draf
Page 72 and 73: Public Education Plan Public educat
Page 74 and 75: determining goals and desires for t
Page 76 and 77: Table 5-1 Status of Designated Uses
Page 78 and 79: Sources The main sources of sedimen
Page 80 and 81: the time for the specified month. (
Page 82 and 83: Altered Hydrology Stream flows vary
Page 84 and 85: day as it is at a USGS gauging stat
Page 86 and 87: Figure 5-2 R-B Index at Eagle (USGS
Page 88 and 89: It should also be noted that the su
Page 90 and 91: Detergents are becoming a serious t
Page 92 and 93: Physical Pollutants Physical pollut
Page 94 and 95: Oil and grease are often referred t
Page 96 and 97: Table 5-14 Pesticide: Sources and C
Page 98 and 99: Introduction 6. Goals and Objective
Page 100 and 101: equirements, some objectives go bey
Page 102 and 103: Goal 3: Encourage Water Quality Fri
Page 104 and 105: general health of wetlands, primary
Page 106 and 107: References DAS Manufacturing. “Cu
Page 108 and 109: Several programs are available loca
Page 110 and 111: Better Site Design Better site desi
Page 112 and 113: Non-Storm Water Discharges Non-stor
Page 114 and 115: producers to meet personal objectiv
Page 116 and 117: Michigan Turfgrass Environmental St
Page 120 and 121: Table 8-1 Benefits of Goals No Goal
Page 122 and 123: 9. Evaluation Mechanisms “Not eve
Page 124 and 125: Evaluation Mechanisms Level One - A
Page 126 and 127: Program Implementation Program impl
Page 128 and 129: The MDEQ/MDNR have conducted analyt
Page 130 and 131: Assessing the evaluation mechanisms
Page 132 and 133: Goal 3: Encourage Water Quality Fri
Page 134 and 135: Goal 6: Protect and Increase Wetlan
Page 136 and 137: Evaluation Action Plan At the end o
Page 138 and 139: Evaluation Mechanisms Municipal Sta
Page 140 and 141: The committee defined appropriate w
Page 142 and 143: “It is the purpose of this Memora
Page 144 and 145: each other about how to protect and
Page 146 and 147: A-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 148 and 149: B-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 150 and 151: C-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 152 and 153: D-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 154 and 155: Appendix E Road Stream Surveys Appe
Page 156 and 157: Appendix F Vermillion Creek Corresp
show all

Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?