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

2. Michigan Workshop2 Overview  Five watershed plans selected Geographically diverse Geographically diverse Range in size from a few square miles to Saginaw Bay Range in size from a few square miles to Saginaw Bay Urban, suburban, rural, forested, agriculture Urban, suburban, rural, forested, agriculture  Criteria from EPA guidance  Plans reviewed  Site visits  Report to MDEQ and planners

3. Michigan Workshop3 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. Michigan Workshop4 Plan review process  Criteria  Spreadsheet tool  Multiple reviewers  Site visits  Assistance  Reports

5. Michigan Workshop5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8 (a) Identification of the causes and sources of impairment or threats to the waterbody Review Criteria Scor e (1-5)Comments Page and SectionRecommendations 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. Scoring Example

9. Michigan Workshop9 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. Michigan Workshop10 National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA) Identification Outreach Load reductions Assistance Criteria on progress

11. Michigan Workshop11 Elements (a) and (b) Identification of sources, load estimates, and load reductions  Contributions “quantified by load, percentage, priority, or other method”  Reductions quantified from proposed measures  Basis for the current approach  Inventory of all waterbodies, with their designated uses and impairments  Maps

12. Michigan Workshop12 Complex modeling is not always necessary

13. Michigan Workshop13 Example of Source Load Estimate from Chesapeake Bay Program Forest 11% Shoreline Erosion 47% Agriculture 33% Developed Land 9% Sediment (9.38 million tons in 2001)

14. Michigan Workshop14 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 Costs – precision not necessary Regulatory issues Regulatory issues

15. Michigan Workshop15 Work together and have fun

16. Michigan Workshop16 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 Target audience Activities Activities Short and long-term Short and long-term

17. Michigan Workshop17 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. Michigan Workshop18 Elements (h) and (i) Criteria to Assess Progress and Monitoring  Criteria to be used to measure progress Tied to impairment and use Tied to impairment and use Activities Activities Short and long-term Short and long-term  Monitoring approach  Non-environmental monitoring  General plan or schedule

19. Michigan Workshop19 National Trends (from Michael Scozzafava of USEPA) Identification Outreach Load reductions Assistance Criteria on progress

20. Michigan Workshop20 Why plan?

21. Michigan Workshop21 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. Michigan Workshop22 More discussion Items  Tracking progress in plan  Commitments and flexibility  Other comments and ideas?

23. Michigan Workshop23 Thanks for your time Ward Wilson, Tetra Tech, Inc.