1.2 Stakeholder Concerns In 2011, Save the Dunes, NPS, and NWIPA partnered to convene meetings of LCEB stakeholders. Initial stakeholder meetings included a (SWOT) assessment to evaluate the viability of the LCEB watershed plan stakeholders as a group. In 2012, Save the Dunes was awarded an IDEM Section 319 grant to coordinate the development of a WMP for the LCEB watershed. Save the Dunes held the first official LCEB WMP stakeholder meeting in February 2012. The meeting included an exercise to elicit stakeholder concerns. All expressed stakeholder concerns are listed in Figure 2. Figure . LCEB stakeholder concerns
Table . Impaired water bodies from the 2004 Little Calumet and Portage Burns Waterway TMDL for E. coli Bacteria Subwatershed Old AUID New AUID Assessment Unit Name Cause of Impairment Category Year Listed REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM, UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 4A 2006 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 4A 2006 Table . 2008, 2010, and 2012 (draft) 303(d) listed streams Subwatershed AUID Assessment Unit Name Cause of Impairment Category Year Listed KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM, UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2008, 2010, 2012 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2008, 2010, 2012 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM E. COLI 5A 2008 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM PCBs (FISH TISSUE) 5B 2008, 2010, 2012 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK E. COLI 5A 2008, 2010, 2012 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK, UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2010, 2012
Table . 2014 (draft) 303(d) listed streams Subwatershed AUID AUID Name Cause of Impairment Category Year Listed REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 REYNOLDS REYNOLDS CREEK IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 REYNOLDS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM NUTRIENTS 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY NUTRIENTS 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014
KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY NUTRIENTS 5A 2014 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 KEMPER LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM PCBS (FISH TISSUE) 5B 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE WILLOW CREEK (UPSTREAM F CHRISMAN DITCH) DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY CHLORIDE 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, EAST ARM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY NUTRIENTS 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE COFFEE CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE PETERSON DITCH DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5A 2014 COFFEE PETERSON DITCH E. COLI 5A 2014 COFFEE PETERSON DITCH IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 5A 2014
Failing to meet water standards 35 sites (or 1.7 miles of stream) scored un-supporting (<36) for IBI and 41 sites or 2.2 miles of stream) scored un-supporting (<36) for mIB and 17 sites (or 0.6 miles of stream) scored poor for habitat (51 or less) for QHEI. Nearly all stream segments are listed as impaired on the 2014 draft 303(d) reassessment. Yes Yes Yes Yes Methods of dredging ditches are having multiple negative impacts on the LCEB There is no data showing the environmental impacts of dredging on this watershed. Yes No No Yes Emerald ash borer (EAB) killing trees, source of debris EAB was studied for Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy report. All ash in the region is expected to die within 5 years. Yes Yes Yes Yes Invasive plants impact biodiversity and have impact on water quality/wetlands There is currently no data quantifying the impact of invasive plants on water quality and wetlands in the LCEB. Yes No No Yes Increased volume and flow due to altered hydrology (regulated drains, ditches) Altered hydrology tends to increase stream flows and velocity; however, there is no data to confirm this claim. Stream gages are only located at the base of the watershed. Yes No No Yes LaPorte County Waste Management landfill, is closed but may have impact There is no data to support environmental impacts from the landfill. No No No No Fish Consumption The Fish Consumption Advisory listing provides data for fish consumption. Three fish species are listed under Advisory Group 4 and 2 fish species are listed under Advisory Group 3. No Yes No No, this is outside the scope of the project Need to understand geology and hydrology. Several habitat types in watershed Geology and hydrology have been described in this project. Habitats have also been described. Yes Yes Yes Yes Need permits for woody debris management and fisheries and habitat protections Permit acquisition is not within the scope of this plan. Fisheries and habitat protections will be explored for this plan. No No No No
Engage land owners in WMP process and increase communication Press releases, public educational events, and the social indicators study helped to engage land owners. Yes No No Yes Acquisition of land from farmers Land conservation is a goal for this plan. Yes Yes Yes Yes Fisherman may be eating fish, despite 303(d) impairment for PCBs in fish tissue The Fish Consumption Advisory Listing provides data for fish consumption. Three fish species are listed under Advisory Group 4 and two species are listed under Advisory Group 3. However, there is no data on personal consumption. Yes No No No Lack of Multijurisdictional Coordination Lack of funding to achieve all watershed goals Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No Yes Yes Lack of septic system inspection and operation and maintenance programs Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No Yes Lack of cooperation between agencies to achieve watershed goals Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No Yes Conflicting missions between agencies and organizations Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No No Local government adoption of the plan once complete Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No Yes Aging culverts and infrastructure Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No No Varied waterway use for owners and municipalities creates lack of mutual respect Stakeholder observation or perception Yes No No Yes
Table . Best management practices suggested for critical areas Reason for Being Critical Critical Area Suggested BMP Sediment (TSS) Drainage Area 12 Extended Wet Detention Porous Pavement Infiltration Swales Drainage Areas 30, 31, 24, 35, 36, and 43 Cover Crops Filter Strips Reduced Tillage Riparian Buffers Septic System Maintenance Tree & Shrub Planting Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) Drainage Area 22 Porous Pavement Extended Wet Detention Infiltration Swales Rain Barrels & Rain Gardens Forested Buffers Drainage Areas 22, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 43 Cover Crops Filter strips Reduced Tillage Nutrient Management Riparian Buffers Septic System Maintenance Tree & Shrub Planting E. coli Drainage Areas 12 and 22 Extended Wet Detention Infiltration Swales Drainage Areas 22, 30, 34, 43 Riparian Buffers Septic System Maintenance Biological Communities Drainage Areas 22 Porous Pavement Extended Wet Detention Forested Buffers Infiltration Swales Rain Barrels & Rain Gardens Drainage Areas 22, 30, 31, 35, and 43 Cover Crops Filter Strips Reduced Tillage Nutrient Management Riparian Buffers Septic System Maintenance Tree & Shrub Planting Dissolved Oxygen Drainage Areas 12 and 22 Porous Pavement Extended Wet Detention Infiltration Swales Drainage Area 22 Forested Buffers Rain Barrels & Rain Gardens Drainage Areas 22, 31, 34, 35, and 36 Cover Crops Filter Strips Reduced Tillage Nutrient Management Riparian Buffers
Tree & Shrub Planting 1 NA NA NA Reduction Sum 114.4 24.0 19757.5 Calculated percent reductions for the Reynolds Creek subwatershed (5-year goal) are 1% for nitrogen, 0.6% for phosphorus, and 10% for sediment.
Table . Kemper Ditch subwatershed critical area (5-year goal) load reductions from BMPs Critical Drainage Area 30 Critical Drainage Area 31 Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Cover Crop 53 24.3 1.7 400.0 Cover Crop 53 24.3 1.7 400.0 Filter Strips 5 13.2 3.1 2461.6 Filter Strips 5 13.2 3.1 2461.6 Reduced Tillage 53 122.1 28.6 15.6 Reduced Tillage 53 122.1 28.6 31245.5 Nutrient Management 53 19.7 7.0 0.0 Nutrient Management 53 19.7 7.0 0.0 Riparian Buffers 3 6.8 1.7 1692.5 Riparian Buffers 3 6.8 1.7 1692.5 Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA Tree & Shrub Planting 2 NA NA NA Tree & Shrub Planting 2 NA NA NA Reduction Sum 186.0 42.0 4569.7 Reduction Sum 186.0 42.0 35799.6 Critical Drainage Area 34 Critical Drainage Area 35 Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Cover Crop 106 48.5 3.4 800.0 Cover Crop 53 24.3 1.7 400 Filter Strips 5 13.2 3.1 2461.6 Filter Strips 5 13.2 3.1 2461.6 Reduced Tillage 106 244.2 57.1 62491.0 Reduced Tillage 53 122.1 28.6 15.6 Nutrient Management 106 39.4 14.0 0.0 Nutrient Management 53 19.7 7.0 0.0 Riparian Buffers 13 27.2 6.8 6769.9 Riparian Buffers 3 6.8 1.7 1692.5 Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA Tree & Shrub Planting 2 NA NA NA Tree & Shrub Planting 2 NA NA NA Reduction Sum 372.4 84.4 72522.5 Reduction Sum 186.0 42.0 4569.7
Table . Coffee Creek subwatershed critical areas (5-year goal) load reductions from BMPs Critical Drainage Area 12 Critical Drainage Area 22 Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lb/yr Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lb/yr Extended Wet Detention 5 16.0 2.0 1000.00 Porous Pavement 5 24.7 1.9 979.6 Porous Pavement 10 49.3 3.8 1959.1 Extended Wet Detention 5 16 2 1000.00 Infiltration Swale 5 14.5 1.9 1000 Forested Buffers 5 7.3 1.5 600.0 Tree & Shrub Planting 1 NA NA NA Infiltration Swale 5 14.5 1.9 1000 Reduction Sum 79.8 7.7 3959.1 Rain Barrels & Rain Gardens 10 58 5.8 2200 Cover Crop 21 9.7 3.3 800.0 Filter Strip 1 3.3 0.8 615.4 Reduced Tillage 11 23.6 5.4 2.8 Nutrient Management 21 8 3 0 Riparian Buffer 3 5.3 1.3 0.6 Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA Tree & Shrub Planting 1 NA NA NA Reduction Sum 170.2 26.7 7198.4 Calculated percent reductions for the Coffee Creek subwatershed (5-year goal) are 1% for nitrogen, 0.3% for phosphorus, and 2% for sediment.
Table . Kemper Ditch subwatershed (15-year and 25 year) load reductions from BMPs Target Timeline: 15 Years 25 Years Suggested BMP Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Acres Nitrogen lb/yr Phosphorus lb/yr Sediment lbs/yr Cover Crop 1324 1447 206 208,303 2,649 2,895 412 416,607 Forage & Biomass Crops 530 NA NA NA 1,059 NA NA NA Filter Strips, Ag 265 675 161 135,397 265 675 161 135,397 Reduced Tillage 795 1831 428 468,000 1,059 2,442 571 624,910 Riparian Buffers, Ag 53 109 27 15,623 265 544 135 312,455 Land Conversion: cropland to wetland 795 2867 681 6,200 1,059 3823 909 124,982 Land Conversion: cropland to grassland 530 966 309 27,079 1,059 1,932 618 135,397 Nutrient Management 1,059 393 145 612,412 2,649 983 362 816,550 Porous Pavement 10 49 4 333,286 25 123 9 666,571 Tree & Shrub Planting 200 NA NA NA 300 NA NA NA Septic System Maintenance NA NA NA NA NA NA Education & Outreach NA NA NA NA NA NA Sum 8,338 1,961 1,806,301 13,417 3,177 3,232,870 Needed Reductions 25,695 9,903 507,721 25,695 9,903 507,721 % Reduction 32% 20% 356% 52% 32% 637%
Implement 608 acres of cover crops in critical areas by 2021 $24,500 PP = Watershed Group (WG) & SWCD Increase filter strip. Infiltration swale, forested buffer, and riparian buffer acreage Reynolds Creek: increase buffers 8 acres by 2021 and 172 acres by 2031 Agricultural land owners and operators, urban and rural landowners Annually identify funding opportunities for filter strips and riparian buffers $1,000 PP = WG Kemper Ditch: increase buffers 60 acres by 2021 and 318 acres 2031 Develop and host a biannual BMP field day from 2016 - 2031 $20,000 PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance, location, and audience Coffee Creek: increase buffers 19 acres by 2021 and 377 by 2031 Develop a cost share program in 2016 *See Note PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance and promotion Implement 87 acres of buffers annually (2021-2031) $87,000 PP = WG & SWCD Implement 87 acres of buffers in critical areas by 2021 $8,700 PP = WG & SWCD Increase the acreage of fields using nutrient management Reynolds Creek: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 29 acres by 2012 and 571 by 2031 Agricultural landowners and operators Annually identify funding opportunities for nutrient management $1,000 PP = WG Kemper Ditch: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 371 acres by 2021 and 1,059 by 2031 Develop and host a biannual BMP field day (2016 – 2031) $20,000 PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance, location, and audience Coffee Creek: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 21 acres by 2021 and Develop a cost share program *See Note PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance and promotion
426 by 2031 Implement 206 acres nutrient management annually $31,000 PP = Watershed Group (WG) & SWCD Implement 421 acres of nutrient management in critical areas by 2021 $6,400 PP = WG & SWCD Increase the acreage of fields using reduced tillage Reynolds Creek: increase use of reduced tillage by 29 acres by 2021 and 571 by 2031 Agricultural landowners and operators Implement 158 acres of reduced tillage annually $5,000 PP = WG & SWCD Kemper Ditch: increase use of reduced tillage by 371 acres by 2021 and 795 by 2031 Coffee Creek: increase use of reduced tillage by 11 acres by 2021 and 106 by 2031 Implement 411 acres of reduced tillage in critical areas by 2021 $5,000 PP = WG & SWCD Increase landowner awareness of septic system maintenance Reynolds Creek: Reduce nutrient loading from septic systems Rural and urban landowners Develop and implement a workshop on septic system maintenance and education $40,000 PP = WG & Septics Coordination Group Kemper Ditch: reduce nutrient loading from septic systems Annually identify funding for septic system maintenance and education $1,000 PP = WG Coffee Creek: reduce nutrient loading from septic systems
Coffee Creek: Increase cover crops 21 acres by 2021 and 532 by 2031 Create a contractors list for specific cover crop seeding in 2016 $500 PP = WG Implement 260 acres of cover crops annually (2021 – 2031) $104,000 PP = WG & SWCD Implement 608 acres of cover crops in critical areas by 2021 $24,500 PP = WG & SWCD Increase filter strip, infiltration swale, forested buffer, and riparian buffer acreage Reynolds Creek: increase buffers 8 acres by 2021 and 172 acres by 2031 Agricultural land owners and operators, urban and rural landowners Annually identify funding opportunities for filter strips and riparian buffers $1,000 PP = WG Kemper Ditch: increase buffers 60 acres by 2021 and 318 acres 2031 Develop and host a biannual BMP field day from 2016 - 2031 $20,000 PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS, and Purdue Extension to provide guidance, location and audience Coffee Creek: increase buffers 19 acres by 2021 and 377 by 2031 Develop a cost share program *See Note PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD to provide guidance and promotion Implement 87 acres of buffers annually (2021-2031) $87,000 PP = WG Implement 87 acres of buffers in critical areas by 2021 $8,700 PP = WG Increase the acreage of fields using nutrient management Reynolds Creek: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 29 acres by 2012 and 571 by 2031 Agricultural landowners and operators Annually identify funding opportunities for nutrient management $1,000 PP = WG Kemper Ditch: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 371 acres by 2021 and 1,059 by 2031 Develop and host a biannual BMP field day from 2016 - 2031 $20,000 PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance, location, and audience
Coffee Creek: increase use of nutrient mgmt. 21 acres by 2021 and 426 by 2031 Develop a cost share program *See Note PP = WG & SWCD TA = SWCD, NRCS and Purdue Extension to provide guidance and promotion Implement 206 acres nutrient management annually $31,000 PP = WG & SWCD Implement 421 acres of nutrient management in critical areas by 2021 $6,400 PP = WG & SWCD Increase the acreage of fields using reduced tillage Reynolds Creek: increase use of reduced tillage by 29 acres by 2021 and 571 by 2031 Agricultural landowners and operators Implement 158 acres of reduced tillage annually $5,000 PP = WG & SWCD Kemper Ditch: increase use of reduced tillage by 371 acres by 2021 and 795 by 2031 Coffee Creek: increase use of reduced tillage by 11 acres by 2021 and 213 by 2031 Implement 411 acres of reduced tillage in critical areas by 2021 $5,000 PP = WG & SWCD Increase landowner awareness of septic system maintenance Reynolds Creek: Reduce nutrient & E. coli loading from septic systems Rural and urban landowners Develop and implement a workshop on septic system maintenance and education $40,000 PP = WG & Septics Coordination Group Kemper Ditch: reduce nutrient & E. coli loading from septic systems Annually identify funding for septic system maintenance and education $1,000 PP = WG
provide indications of progress. A social indicators survey will be conducted no less than five years after the start of implementation. The survey will be compared with the baseline survey to demonstrate progress. 10.5 Increase Public Awareness and Participation Table . Action register to increase public awareness and participation Objective Strategy Target Audience Milestone Cost Possible Partners (PP) and needed Technical Assistance (TA) Increase community involvement and participation with watershed implementation activities Develop a local volunteer water quality monitoring program using the Hoosier Riverwatch volunteer monitoring program General public, businesses, schools Facilitate training of key personnel and volunteers $3,500 PP = Watershed Group (WG) Annually recruit volunteers $5,000 PP = WG Profile volunteers on partner websites and marketing efforts (2015-2031) $3,500 PP = WG Monthly sampling at key sites throughout watershed $50,000 PP = WG Increase public awareness of watershed activities and participation in implementation activities Share and communicate past, current, and future activities General public, businesses, schools Update watershed group activities to Save the Dunes website and provide information to partner organizations $5,000 PP = WG Host semi-annual public meetings where stakeholders can receive updates and comment on watershed activities $10,000 PP = WG Create pamphlets, brochures, and marketing materials as needed $10,000 PP = Watershed Group (WG)
Create press releases quarterly or as needed $1,000 PP = WG Public understanding of water quality and watershed processes Develop and conduct a social indicators survey General public Develop social indicator survey (2019 and 2029) $20,000 PP = WG TA = Purdue University to do survey Disseminate survey to watershed home and landowners $20,000 PP = WG Compile and analyze results $20,000 PP = WG TA = Purdue University to do survey Increase public knowledge of water quality and watershed processes Host a field day or other educational event General Public Host field days with partner organizations to encourage the use of popular BMPs $30,000 PP = WG Host educational workshops highlighting water quality, water pollution , and stream ecology $10,000 PP = WG 10.6 Lack of Jurisdictional Coordination Table . Action register for jurisdictional coordination Objective Strategy Target Audience Milestone Cost Possible Partners Strengthen relationship with local governments to support watershed related policies Encourage all municipalities to adopt watershed plan Local politicians and other town officials Present watershed plan and Implementation programs to NIRPC, drainage boards, and town councils (2015 – $5,000 PP = WG
Your Water Resources 1. Of these activities, which is the most important to you? (Responses: 190) 9.5% For canoeing / kayaking / other boating 10.5% For eating locally caught fish 17.9% For swimming 10% For picnicking and family activities 15.8% For fish habitat 36.3% For scenic beauty 2. Do you know where the rainwater goes when it runs off of your property? (Responses: 222) 3. If you answered ‘Yes’ above, where does your rain water drain to? (see appendix for responses) Your Opinions Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the statements below. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Mean (SD) Valid/Total Responses 1. The way that I care for my lawn and yard can influence water quality in local streams and lakes. 5 5 6.3 54.8 28.9 3.97 (1) 239 / 239 2. It is my personal responsibility to help protect water quality. 1.3 1.3 13.1 51.3 33.1 4.14 (0.78) 236 / 236 3. It is important to protect water quality even if it slows economic development. 3.8 2.6 18.7 51.5 23.4 3.88 (0.93) 235 / 235 4. My actions have an impact on water quality. 3 2.6 12.1 57.3 25 3.99 (0.87) 232 / 232
Appendix 2. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE SPECIES VASCULAR PLANTS CURRENT RECORDS – 1951 TO PRESENT SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATE STATUS FED STATUS HABITAT Actaea rubra Red baneberry SR ** Wetland Andromeda glaucophylla Bog rosemary SR ** Wetland Arenaria stricta Michaux’s stitchwort SR ** Sand Dune, Prairie Botrychium matricariifolium Chamomile SR ** S Sand Dune, Forest Calla palustris Wild calla SE ** Wetland Carex atlantica capillacea Howe sedge SE ** Wetland Carex leptonervia Finely-nerved sedge SE ** Wetland, Forest Carex pedunculata Longstalk sedge SR ** Forest, Floodplain Carex scabrata Rough sedge SE ** Wetland, Forest Chrysosplenium americanum American ST ** Wetland Cypripedium calceolus Small yellow SR ** Forest Cypripedium candidum Small white SR ** Prairie, Wetland Diervilla lonicera Northern SR ** Forest Eriophorum angustifolium Narrow-leaved cotton-grass SR ** Wetland Eriophorum gracile Slender ST ** Wetland Juglans cinerea Butternut WL ** Forest Juncus articulatus Jointed rush SE ** Wetland Juncus balticus littoralis Baltic rush SR ** Wetland Lycopodium hickeyi Hickey’s clubmoss SR ** Forest Malaxis unifolia Green SE ** Wetland Panax trifolius Dwarf ginseng WL ** Forest Pinus banksiana Jack pine SR ** Forest Pinus stobus Eastern white pine SR ** Forest
STATUS STATUS Aeshna mutate Spatterdock darner SR ** Wetland Sympetrum semicimctum Band-winged meadowhawk ST ** Wetland STATE EX – Extirpated SE – Endangered ST – Threatened SR – Rare SC – Special concern WL – Watch list SG - Significant ** - Rarity warrants concern FEDERAL LE – Endangered LT – Threatened CA – Candidate ** - Not listed
Date Site ID Temp (deg C) DO (mg/l) pH (mg/l) Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/l) Total phosphorus (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) E. coli Chloride (mg/l) 11/13/12 48 11.8 11.0 8.03 0.7 0.4 <0.05 27 14.6 21