Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation Action Plan At the end of this section is the evaluation plan table. Summary The framework presented here is not meant to be inclusive, but rather a guide illustrating the embodiment of the watershed management plan. The emphasis of the plan is to focus on high priority constituents, sources, benefits etc. rather than all potential problems. Attention is given to the importance of long-term assessments that boast strategy rather than ambition. References CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). “Stormwater Practice Design; Watershed Leadership Kit.” Volume 5. Last accessed, June 2005. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. “Michigan Water Quality Monitoring Strategy Update.” April 2005. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. “Wastewater Discharge General Permit”. 1997. Mitchell, Mark K. and William B. Stapp. “Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring”. 2000. San Diego Municipal Storm Water Co-Permittees. “A Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Programs”. 2003. Section 9: Evaluation Mechanisms 9-15
Evaluation Mechanisms Water Quality Monitoring Water Quality Monitoring Water Quality Monitoring Water Quality Monitoring Water Quality Monitoring Road Stream Crossing Survey Road Stream Crossing Survey Road Stream Crossing Survey Road Stream Crossing Survey Road Stream Crossing Survey Public Awareness Assessment Public Awareness Assessment Public Awareness Assessment Public Awareness Assessment Public Awareness Assessment Eval No. Action No Action 1 1 Choose 15-25 monitoring sites (throughout all three watersheds) to monitor annually. 1 2 Determine funding and availability of local groups to conduct monitoring. Lead Agency Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com 1 3 Conduct monitoring Hab-Rec Com 1 4 Review results of Hab-Rec monitoring (from all Com groups such as Project Green, Mid-MEAC, ICHD, MDEQ, MDNR etc.) and evaluate implications on watershed activities 1 5 Post data and analysis to GLRC the GLRC Web site. Crd 2 1 Determine locations of all road stream crossings within watershed using GIS/maps. Group road stream crossing locations so that 20% of the total number of crossings are surveyed each year and 100% of the crossings are surveyed every five years. 2 2 Determine annual funding and availability of local groups to conduct monitoring. 2 3 Conduct road stream crossing surveys. Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com 2 4 Compile the data Hab-Rec Com 2 5 Post data and analysis to the GLRC Web site. 3 1 Develop a Public Awareness Assessment and provide opportunity for communities to review. 3 2 Develop an assessement sampling methodology GLRC Crd Schedule Material Cost Estimate Labor Hour Estimate Begin By Complete By Comment Jun-06 Dec-06 none 20 hours Jun-06 Dec-06 none 40 hours Jun-07 Long Term Annually $500-$2,000 per site TBD Aug 07 on-going Annually none 20-60 hours per year Dec-07 Long Annually none 40 hours Term Jun-06 Dec-06 none 20 hours Jun-06 Dec-06 none 40 hours Jun-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Long Term Long Term Long Term 3 3 Conduct assessment PEP Com Jun-07 Long Term 3 4 Evaluate the results and make recommendations for changes . 3 6 Post results to the GLRC Web site. Annually $50-$150 per site 40 hours Annually $3,000-$6,000 20 - 80 hours Annually none 40 hours annually PEP Com Jun-06 Dec-06 none 40 to 200 hours PEP Com Jun-06 Dec-06 none 40 to 200 hours PEP Com Sep-07 Long Term GLRC Crd Sep-07 Long Term Repeat every 2 to 5 years Repeat after each survey Typical Cost: $200 per survey TBD none TBD 10 hours annually 9-16 GLRC Watersheds 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 118 and 119: 8. Action Plan Source: Basetree, 20
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?