Michigan Watershed Plan Reviews Presentation at the Michigan

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

Overview q Five watershed plans selected ü Geographically diverse ü Range in size from a few square miles to Saginaw Bay ü Urban, suburban, rural, forested, agriculture q Criteria from EPA guidance q Plans reviewed q Site visits q Report to MDEQ and planners Michigan Workshop 2

Purpose and Objectives Ø Existing plans pre-date the new guidance Ø How much effort and information needed to revise? Ø Assistance to planners Ø Information for MDEQ reviewers Ø EPA will be evaluating results Michigan Workshop 3

Plan review process Ø Criteria Ø Spreadsheet tool Ø Multiple reviewers Ø Site visits Ø Assistance Ø Reports Michigan Workshop 4

Michigan Workshop 5

Michigan Workshop 6

Michigan Workshop 7

Scoring Example (a) Identification of the causes and sources of impairment or threats to the waterbody Review Criteria Scor e (1 -5) Comments Page and Section 1. Water body use designations (from relevant Water Quality Standards) are listed for waters in the planning area Recommendations Plan references 303(d) listings for lake, river, and for watershed through 1998. 3 p. iv, Executive Summary, ¶ 2; p. 5, MDEQ WQ Designation , last ¶ in section Michigan Workshop Describe specific listings by water body at the time of initial planning and currently. 8

Findings q Plans varied as the watersheds and issues varied q Known/identified problems were targeted in detail q New requirements such as load estimates and interim milestones were usually at least partially missing q Similar to EPA “Best of the Nation” review Michigan Workshop 9

National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA) Outreach Identification Load reductions Assistance Michigan Workshop Criteria on progress 10

Elements (a) and (b) Identification of sources, load estimates, and load reductions Inventory of all waterbodies, with their designated uses and impairments q Maps q Contributions “quantified by load, percentage, priority, or other method” q Reductions quantified from proposed measures q Basis for the current approach q Michigan Workshop 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 q Should be associated with the impairments, sources, and loads q Most plans had detailed measures q Quantification of reductions q Technical, financial assistance needed Costs – precision not necessary ü Regulatory issues ü Michigan Workshop 14

Work together and have fun Michigan Workshop 15

Element (e) Public Information, Education, and Participation q Most plans had good to excellent outreach sections, as found by EPA q Goals and objectives q Link to implementation of proposed management measures q Strategy ü ü ü Target audience Activities Short and long-term Michigan Workshop 16

Elements (f) and (g) Schedule and Interim Milestones Actions to implement management measures q Interim measurable milestones q Logical sequence of dates q Short term = up to 3 years (more detail) q Long term = up to 10 years (less detail) q Michigan Workshop 17

Elements (h) and (i) Criteria to Assess Progress and Monitoring q Criteria to be used to measure progress ü ü ü Tied to impairment and use Activities Short and long-term q Monitoring approach q Non-environmental monitoring q General plan or schedule Michigan Workshop 18

National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA) Outreach Identification Load reductions Assistance Michigan Workshop Criteria on progress 19

Why plan? Michigan Workshop 20

Discussion Items q Revise or rewrite? q Load and load reduction estimates q How much info is enough to get started? q Ongoing use of the plan q No impairments on the 303(d) list - preservation only Michigan Workshop 21

More discussion Items q Tracking progress in plan q Commitments and flexibility q Other comments and ideas? Michigan Workshop 22

Thanks for your time Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech, Inc. Michigan Workshop 23