My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998-01-22_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
199x
>
1998
>
1998-01-22_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2010 3:36:56 PM
Creation date
4/13/2010 10:45:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/22/1998
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
't -.are ;`~ . i-~;r <br />Table 3: A possible scheme for classifying and managing for headwater urban streams <br />based on ultimate imperviousness <br />Urban Stream Stressed Impacted Degraded <br />Classification (0-10% Imperv.) (11-25% /mperv.) (26-100% Imperv.) <br />Channel stability Stable Unstable Highly Unstable <br /> <br />Wafer quality <br />_. .. <br />Good <br />-,:.... <br />Fair <br /> <br />Fair-P:oor <br />Stream biodiversity Good-Excellent Fair•Good Poor <br />,._ <br />aesdurce objective _ ,. <br />Protect biodrversity <br />Maintain critical eie- <br />Minimize downstream. ,'; <br /> and channel sfabtl~ty ments of stream quality pollutant loads <br />Water quality Sediment and Nutrient and Control bacteria <br />objectives temperature metal loads <br />BMP~Selecfion ~~ Secondary enutronmental Removal efficiency Removal efficiency <br />Factors impacts -- . <br />Land Use Controls Watershed-wide imp. Site imp. cover limits Additional infill and <br /> cover limits (ICLs), (ICLs) redevelopment <br /> <br /> <br />, site ICLs <br />.. en^oura ed <br />~ g <br />; <br /> <br />Moniforrrr and ~ <br />g <br /> <br />GLS monifortn df im <br />g p. ~ - <br />- <br /> <br />Same as "Stressed _ <br />.:... <br /> <br />P,.Ilutant road <br />enforcement:- cover btomonttoring modeling <br />Development rights Transferred out None Transferred in <br />Ripanan buffers ,; 'Ntdest buffer network Average bufferw~Gth - Greenways <br />watershed-based zoning are as follows. First, a com- <br />munity undertakes a comprehensive physical, chemi- <br />cal and biological monitoring program to asses the <br />current quality oC its entire inventory of streams. The <br />data are used to identify the most sensitive stream <br />systems and to refine impervious/stream quality rela- <br />tionships. Next, existing imperviousness is measured <br />and mapped at the subwatershed level. Projections of <br />future impervious cover due to forecasted growth are <br />also made at this time. <br />The third step involves designating the futurestream <br />quality for each subwatershed based on some adapta- <br />tion of the urban stream classification scheme pre- <br />sentedearlier. The existing land use master plan is then <br />modified to ensure that future growth (and impervious <br />cover) is consistent with the designated stream classi- <br />tication for each subwatershed. <br />The final step in the watershed-based zoning pro- <br />cess involves the adoption of specific resource objec- <br />tives for each stream and subwatershed. Specific poli- <br />cies and practices on impervious cover limits, BMPs, <br />and buffers are then instituted to meet the stream <br />resource objective, and these practices directly applied <br />to future development projects.. <br />Watershed-based zoning should provide managers <br />with greaterconfidence that resource protection objec- <br />tives can be met in future development. It also forces <br />loeal governments to make hard choices ghoul which <br />strcams will be fully protected and which will become <br />at least partially degraded. Some environmentalists <br />and regulators will be justifiably concerned about the <br />streams whose quality is explicitly sacrificed under <br />this scheme. The explicit. stream quality decisions <br />which are at the heart of watershed-based zoning*, <br />however, are preferable to the ~,ni nfonned and random <br />"non-decisions" that are made every day under tl;e <br />present zoning system. <br />A cautiorrat}~ nole <br />While the research on impervious coverand stream <br />quality is compelling, it is doubtful whether itcan serve <br />as the sole foundation for legally defensible zoning and <br />regulatory actions at the current time. One key reason <br />is that the research has not been standardized. Different <br />investigators, for example, have used different metl;- <br />ods to define and. measure imperviousness. Second, <br />researchers have employed a wide number of tecl;- <br />niques to measure stream quality characteristics that <br />are not always comparable with each other. Third, <br />most of the studies have been confined to few ecoregions <br />in the country. Little research has been conducted iii <br />the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and semi-arid <br />Western regions. Lastly, none of the studies has yet <br />examined the effect of widespread application of BMPs <br />on imperviouscover/stream quality relationships. Until <br />studies determine how much BMPs can "cheat" the <br />impervious cover/stream quality relationship, it can be <br />argued that structural practices alone can compensate <br />for imperviousness effects. <br />108 ~j±,;f~r3~ - 4>> i~~~~~r.'3r~-~~~Ta~CL~~ a ~vt~7E> >~„1~ ~~ ~~ , ~ 1n--`~~i:~_~ o ;, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.