Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation Mechanisms Municipal Staff Training Surveys Municipal Staff Training Surveys Municipal Staff Training Surveys Student Awareness Survey/Tests Student Awareness Survey/Tests Student Awareness Survey/Tests Student Awareness Survey/Tests Student Awareness Survey/Tests Annual Canoe Trip with Stream Assessment Annual Canoe Trip with Stream Assessment Annual Canoe Trip with Stream Assessment Annual Canoe Trip with Stream Assessment Annual Canoe Trip with Stream Assessment Eval No. Action No Action 4 1 Develop a Staff Training Survey to assess and improve current municipal staff training effectiveness. 4 2 Distribute to staff following training. (Conduct in coordination with the trainings in Goal 7.) 4 3 Compile and evaluate results to assess if improvements in staff training are needed. 5 1 Develop a Student Awareness Survey to assess student knowledge on watershed awareness in schools using the watershed curriculum identified in Goal 1. 5 2 Distribute to School Administrators/Teachers. 5 3 Work with schools to see that the survey/test is administered. 5 4 Compile/Evaluate results to determine education level and areas of improvement needed in education. 5 5 Post results to the GLRC Web site. 6 1 Identify existing canoe trip programs 6 2 Partner and coordinate with existing canoe trip programs 6 3 Develop and/or coordinate with already developed river assessment forms for canoe trip participants 6 4 Compile river assessment forms and prepare a summary. 6 5 Post results to the GLRC Web site. Lead Agency Schedule Begin By Complete By PEP Com Jan-06 Long Term Permittee Dec-07 Long Term Permittee Dec-07 Long Term Comment Material Cost Estimate Labor Hour Estimate As-needed none 20 hours of developing survey As-needed ~$0.15 per copy, $10-$30 As part of trainings Annually none 40 hours per year PEP Com Jan-08 Apr 08 none 20 hours of developing survey PEP Com PEP Com PEP Com GLRC Crd Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com Hab-Rec Com GLRC Crd Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Jan-07 Mar 07 Oct-07 Oct-07 Long Term Assume schools pay for reproduction/ distribution costs none none none 20 hours of distributing 20 hours of coordinating 100 hours of compiling and evaluating 10 hours annually Annually $300-$1000 20 hours of coordinating; 10-20 volunteers, 8 hours each Oct-08 on-going Annually none 24 hours of compiling and summarizing Jan-09 on-going Annually none 10 hours annually Section 9: Evaluation Mechanisms 9-17
Source: stock.xchng, 2005. Original Phase II Jurisdictions Bath, Charter Township Delhi, Charter Township Delta, Charter Township DeWitt, Charter Township East Lansing, City Lansing, Charter Township Lansing, City Meridian, Charter Township Williamstown, Township Clinton, County Eaton, County Ingham, County Capital City Airport Authority Michigan State University Introduction 10. Plan Sustainability Plan sustainability refers to an essential component of watershed management planning that involves finding ways to continue efforts to implement this watershed management plan (WMP). Implementation involves taking the appropriate actions to achieve the goals and objectives, evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, and update / improve the plan when necessary. A key component of sustainability is obtaining and keeping a wide variety of local support. This support and public involvement will help maintain momentum for implementing this WMP. Local support will also help obtain funding through all available means and open doors for partnerships in areas where other groups have similar missions. This section of the plan discusses past implementation and future sustainability efforts. History of Greater Lansing Regional Committee On November 15, 1999, Delta Township and the City of Lansing hosted a meeting for several local communities. The meeting notice stated that this was to be “an informal meeting to discuss the Storm Water Phase II program and how, or if, there may be a way to pool resources on a regional basis”. Representatives from various communities, counties, and the MDEQ discussed the Federal Regulations for Storm Water Phase II and the MDEQ’s program allowing a “Voluntary Permit Program.” Originally, eleven communities and three counties were listed as designated Phase II communities by the MDEQ. Subsequent meetings were held to continue exploring the feasibility and cost of a cooperative effort. On June 8, 2000, a draft Resolution was prepared for the establishment of the “Greater Lansing Area Regional NPDES Phase II Storm Water Regulations Committee” for each of the communities to adopt. Each community was also asked to name a representative to serve on the committee. Throughout the remainder of 2000, the committee obtained Resolutions from each community, elected offices, received proposals, and interviewed four consulting firms. Tetra Tech was selected to assist the Committee in determining how to best comply with the Phase II Storm Water Rules. Tri- County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) also assisted the Committee in providing contractual, fiduciary, and administrative support. In May 2001, Tetra Tech completed the “Step 1 – Permit Strategy Development” study, which incorporated the Committee’s decision (April 20, 2001) to proceed as a group using the State’s Voluntary General Permit approach. The Committee then agreed to retain Tetra Tech to prepare the Voluntary General Permit Application for each of the nine communities. The cost for each community was based on a formula that included weighted factors for population and land area. Each of the nine communities then passed a second resolution agreeing to continue as a group to pursue a Voluntary General Permit using the previous distribution of costs. Section 10: Plan Sustainability 10-1
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 136 and 137: Evaluation Action Plan At the end o
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?