Michigan Watershed Plan Reviews

1
Michigan Watershed Plan Reviews

• Presentation at the Michigan Watershed-Based
  Planning Workshop, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
• -------------------------------
• Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech
• February 12, 2007

2
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

3
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

4
Plan review process

• Criteria
• Spreadsheet tool
• Multiple reviewers
• Site visits
• Assistance
• Reports

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Scoring Example
(a) Identification of the causes and sources of impairment or threats to the waterbody (a) Identification of the causes and sources of impairment or threats to the waterbody
Review Criteria Score (1-5) Comments Page and Section Recommendations
   
1. Water body use designations (from relevant Water Quality Standards) are listed for waters in the planning area 3 Plan references 303(d) listings for lake, river, and for watershed through 1998. p. iv, Executive Summary, 2 p. 5, MDEQ WQ Designation, last in section Describe specific listings by water body at the time of initial planning and currently.
9
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

10
National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of
USEPA)
Outreach
Identification
Criteria on progress
Assistance
Load reductions
11
Elements (a) and (b)Identification of sources,
load estimates, and load reductions

• Inventory of all waterbodies, with their
  designated uses and impairments
• Maps

• Contributions quantified by load, percentage,
  priority, or other method
• Reductions quantified from proposed measures
• Basis for the current approach

12
Complex modeling is not always necessary
13
Example of Source Load Estimatefrom Chesapeake
Bay Program
14
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

15
Work together and have fun
16
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

17
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)

18
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

19
National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of
USEPA)
Outreach
Identification
Criteria on progress
Assistance
Load reductions
20
Why plan?
21
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

22
More discussion Items

• Tracking progress in plan
• Commitments and flexibility
• Other comments and ideas?

23
Thanks for your time

• Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech, Inc.