BEAR CREEK
WATERSHED PROJECT
STEWARDSHIP PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGER’S PREFACE ................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION.................................................. 6
Geophysical Features ....................................................................................................6
Demographics ..............................................................................................................13
Water Distribution and Use ........................................................................................14
Soils .............................................................................................................................20
Flow Regime ...............................................................................................................21
Established Drains ......................................................................................................24
Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................................24
Watershed Project Participants ...................................................................................26
WATER QUALITY ..........................................................................................................32
Sedimentation .............................................................................................................32
Bacterial Contamination .............................................................................................34
Contributing Factors ...................................................................................................35
Non-Point Sources ......................................................................................................41
PREVIOUS WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS .................................................................50
LAND USE GOALS .........................................................................................................52
CRITICAL AREAS, PRIORITY SITES AND
IMPLEMENTATION AREAS .........................................................................................54
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES ..........................................................58
Public Education and Participation .............................................................................58
Public Policy Initiatives ..............................................................................................64
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Program ............................................................65
MANAGEMENT PLAN INNOVATIONS ......................................................................69
PROJECTED PLAN BENEFITS .....................................................................................70
PROJECTED LOCAL PARTICIPATION .......................................................................71
ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES OF PLAN ..............................................................71
AUTHORITY FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................72
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .................................................................................74
EVALUATION STRATEGY ...........................................................................................74
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES .......................................................................................74
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................75
BMP Implementation Workplan ..................................................................................A
Supporting Documentation .......................................................................................... B
Maps ............................................................................................................................. C
Letters of Support ........................................................................................................D
Bear Creek Indicator .................................................................................................... E
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
Bear Creek Watershed .............................................................................7
Wetlands ..................................................................................................9
Adjacent Watersheds .............................................................................11
Subbasin Delineation .............................................................................12
Parcel Size Changes ...............................................................................15
Base Reference Map ..............................................................................16
Well Locations ..................................................................................... 19a
Aquifer Vulnerability Index .................................................................19b
Septic System Limitations .....................................................................22
County Drains ........................................................................................25
Sedimentation ........................................................................................33
Fecal Coliform Monitoring Sites ...........................................................37
Agricultural NPS Sites ...........................................................................44
Limitations for Basements .....................................................................46
Transportation-Related NPS ..................................................................49
Critical Area Designation ......................................................................56
Implementation Areas ............................................................................57
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
Lakes of Five or More Acres .................................................................17
24-Hour Rainfall Frequencies ................................................................19
Soil Types ..............................................................................................20
Soil Texture and Infiltration Rates .........................................................21
Monthly Exceedence Flows ...................................................................23
County Coliform Monitoring Results ....................................................36
Project Coliform Monitoring Sites ........................................................38
Project Coliform Monitoring Results ....................................................39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A STEWARDSHIP APPROACH TO PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND
RESTORATION
A. THE WATERSHED LOCATION:
The Bear Creek Watershed covers slightly more than 20,000 acres in northeastern Kent
County, Michigan. Kent County is in the western portion of the state, approximately 40
miles from Lake Michigan. Grand Rapids, the second largest city in the state, is located
here. The Bear Creek Watershed is a subwatershed of the Grand River Watershed and
Bear Creek enters the larger river some 45 miles upstream from Lake Michigan. The area
of the Bear Creek Watershed comprises about .60% of the total area of the Grand River
Watershed.
B. MAJOR WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED:
The Bear Creek Watershed has experienced dramatic population growth in the past two
decades. This residential and commercial growth has been superimposed upon an area
whose prior uses had been agricultural and recreational. The water quality problems
which currently exist are related both to the features of contemporary growth as well as to
historical patterns of land and water use.
Two water quality problems are primary:
1) Sedimentation
2) Bacterial contamination, principally with fecal coliform organisms
These two primary problems are associated with a variety of interrelated factors,
including but not limited to:
1) Soil erosion from water and wind on unprotected fields, construction sites, and
other vulnerable surfaces
2) Stormwater runoff, particularly from increasing amounts of impervious
groundcovers such as asphalt and concrete
3) Removal of native vegetative cover and lack of replacement vegetation,
particularly along the stream corridor
4) Improperly installed or poorly maintained septic systems
5) Improper disposal of animal wastes
6) Public and private stormwater drainage systems that increase both the volume and
velocity of the overland flow of water
7) Destruction or damage to watershed wetland areas
8) Historical and current practices of stream diversion, damming and channelization
with associated disturbances of stream processes and fish migration
9) Inadequate public knowledge base for dealing with complex water resource
issues, despite a high level of public interest in appropriate water and land
stewardship practices
In addition to the more easily recognizable problems of sediment and bacteria, several
other agents including nutrients, biocides and airborne toxins pose at least a potential
threat to surface and groundwater within the watershed. Limited evidence from previous
well studies indicates nitrate levels have exceeded safe drinking water standards for
groundwater at several locations in Cannon Township in the recent past (Kent County
Health Department; Michigan Department of Health). Lake treatment histories also point
to watershed lakes in high population areas experiencing nutrient loading from fertilizers,
detergents, and human and animal wastes. Furthermore, water sampling in 1992-1993 has
documented heightened levels of phosphates in Bear Creek (Grand Valley State
University, Water Resources Institute, 1993). And, although no testing has yet been
undertaken to determine the extent of water contamination resulting from the fallout of
airborne toxins in Bear Creek, the potential impact of these upon water quality cannot be
ignored. Clearly Bear Creek is impacted no less by toxic releases and emissions than any
other subwatershed of the Grand River - and the impact of these chemicals and metals on
the quality of the Grand River has been well-documented (Vail, GVSU Water Resources
Institute, September 1993).
It is important to note that hypotheses that nutrients, pesticides, and toxins exist in and
influence quality of waters in the Bear Creek watershed are based principally on tentative
data. Each of these hypotheses requires additional information upon which to base
ultimate rejection or support. It should also be underscored that efforts to explore the
relationship between water quality and levels of nutrients, fertilizers, toxins - and even
coliform - are confounded by the fact that current point source standards cannot easily be
extrapolated to nonpoint source pollution.
C. IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
The impacts of the water quality problems noted above are many, complex, and
obviously interconnected. Among them are the following:
1) Degradation of surface and ground water, not only within the Bear Creek
Watershed itself, but also for all points downstream, including Lake Michigan
2) Increased threats to human, livestock, and wildlife health and well-being
3) Decrease in the private and public recreational use and aesthetic value of the
stream and stream corridor
4) Loss of quality trout and other fish habitat in the creek, its tributaries and area
lakes
5) Degradation of the watershed as a significant habitat for diverse native wildlife
and vegetative species including threatened and endangered species
6) Increased vulnerability to floods and mass movements of earth, including
mudslides, streambank collapses, slope failure, and dam failure
7) Increased pressure on citizens and public officials to allocate resources to
preserve, protect and restore water quality within the watershed
D. SPECIFIC THREATS TO WATER QUALITY TO BE ADDRESSED
The specific threats to water quality in Bear Creek Watershed to be addressed by this
management plan are those considered to be threats from nonpoint sources, that is, not
identified with a specific, localized source. These threats include:
1) Sediment from all sources, including croplands,livestock farms, orchards, stream
and drain bank erosion, road-stream crossings, construction sites, and private
residential yards and lawns
2) Fecal coliform bacteria from livestock and human wastes
3) Nutrients from fertilizer use as well as animal and human wastes
4) Watershed residents’, developers’, and public officials’needs for appropriate
educational information on water quality and natural resource management
E. OBJECTIVES OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE BEAR CREEK
WATERSHED
This management plan will outline and describe a variety of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to protect, preserve and restore the Bear Creek Watershed. These BMPs are
directed toward the accomplishment of the following objectives:
1) Significantly reducing the sediment entering Bear Creek from all non-point
sources in the watershed
2) Significantly reducing the amount of bacterial contamination from all nonpoint
sources within the watershed
3) Significantly improving the habitat for fish and other wildlife species within the
watershed
4) Evaluating the extent of nutrient and biocide loadings to surface and ground water
within the watershed
In addition to the implementation of BMPs, a targeted public education and participation
strategy will be utilized to inform and support individuals, groups, organizations, and
public officials. The activities of the education and participation strategy will be directed
toward the accomplishment of the following objectives:
1) Educating residents, developers, and public officials about water quality concerns
in the watershed
2) Supporting opportunities for citizens, agencies and organizations to work together
for protecting, preserving and restoring the Bear Creek Watershed
3) 3.) Empowering citizens and public officials to participate in the protection,
preservation, and restoration of the the Bear Creek Watershed’s surface and
ground water resources
F. IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY OF THE BEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT
PLAN
This management plan approaches remediation of nonpoint water pollution through the
utilization of a two-pronged approach which includes the implementation of BMPs as
well as an aggressive and focused public education campaign. The BMPs are designed as
site-specific remedies to problems identified in the planning phase of this project. The
targeted educational effort and public participation plan are designed to provide
information and support to the several special populations whose needs are most evident.
These include streamside residents, farmers, fourth and fifth grade school children,
residential developers and builders, and public officials.
G. THE COST EFFECTIVENESS FEATURES OF THE BEAR CREEK
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cost effectiveness is an essential component of this plan. Attention will be directed
toward the cost-benefit ratio throughout as specific BMPs and aspects of the public
education campaign are implemented. The highest cost-benefit ratio (i.e., highest benefit
at the lowest cost) will be sought. Specific strategies to accomplish such a ratio will
include, but not be limited to the following:
1) Implementing BMPs within identified critical areas where implementation will
result in the greatest improvement in water quality
2) Utilizing BMPs specifically designed for each site in accordance with established
Soil Conservation Service standards and specifications
3) Prioritizing sites so that those contributing the most significantly to the
degradation of water quality receive the most immediate and thorough attention
4) Implementing a public education strategy which reaches the largest numbers of
individuals, agencies and organizations in the targeted groups with the most
appropriate information at the lowest per unit cost
5) Implementing a framework of support for voluntary participation by citizens and
public officials in water quality improvement activities as well as preservation
and restoration efforts
H. TOTAL COST OF IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
A summary of the total costs to implement this management plan is as follows:
Public Program
BMP Program
Staffing and Related
$662,820
$1,212,849
$399,298
MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL
$2,274,967
THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A STEWARDSHIP APPROACH TO
PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
I. THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
A. OVERVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL FEATURES
The Bear Creek Watershed drains 20,096 acres of rolling hills and steep slopes in
northeastern Kent County, Michigan. Although the watershed is located primarily within
Cannon Township, approximately 15% of its total area lies within Grattan Township, and
significantly smaller amounts are within Ada, Vergennes and Plainfield Townships as
well (See Figure 1). Slightly more than half of Cannon Township (55%) is encompassed
by this watershed.
The surface features of the watershed resulted from periods of glaciation some twelve to
twenty thousand years ago. Landforms created by glacial action include terminal
moraines which make up the steepest hills in the watershed; the gently rolling “swell and
swale” topography associated with the agricultural lands in the eastern part of the
watershed; Bear Creek and the surrounding valley along Cannonsburg Road which began
as an outwash channel for glacial meltwater; and kettle lakes formed in the depressions
where huge blocks of ice melted in situ.
Along with most of Kent County, the watershed is located on the boundaries of two of
Michigan’s principal bedrock formations: the Marshall and Michigan formations. These
are the first to be encountered beneath the area’s glacial deposits. The Michigan
formation underlies about half of the watershed, primarily to the northeast. The Saginaw
formation underlies most of the remainder. Thickness of glacial deposits overlaying
sandstone and shale bedrock ranges from approximately 50 to more than 300 feet in the
area, increasing generally from southwest to northeast, with no known outcropping of
bedrock in the watershed itself (Cannon Township Comprehensive Plan, 1992, p. C-1).
The geomorphology of the area has been strongly influenced by the confluence of the
Michigan and Saginaw glacial lobes, resulting in a rather chaotic and visually interesting
topography. The glacial till and outwash plains that dominate the surface were deposited
during the Wisconsin stage of the Pleistocene period. Drift deposits vary considerably,
depending of their mode of deposition, and consist mainly of unconsolidated sand, gravel
and clay. These are
Figure 1
Bear Creek Watershed
These are hydrogeologically important constituents of glacial drift aquifers (Lacey, 1991,
p. 5).
Bear Creek is the major watercourse in Cannon Township. As it runs east to west for
some 17 miles, the creek and its tributaries are surrounded by wooded upland areas which
slope abruptly downward toward the narrow floodplain of the creek’s main channel. The
result is a long and picturesque valley which is most evident when traveling along
Cannonsburg Road, a major thoroughfare of the area (Cannon Township Comprehensive
Plan, 1993, 2-3).
The watershed includes many tributaries, lakes and wetlands. Stout and Armstrong
Creeks are two of the largest tributaries which flow into Bear Creek from the north, while
many smaller perennial and intermittent streams contribute along its entire length. Lakes
range in size from 1 acre to slightly more than 200 acres and include Sunfish, Ratigan,
Bostwick, Little Bostwick, Hyser, Austin, McCarthy, Gavin and Pickerel Lakes as well
as a number of smaller (often unnamed) lakes and ponds, some of them private.
There are an estimated 2000 acres of wetlands in the watershed. These are primarily
located adjacent to Bear Creek and its tributaries (See Figure 2), in the eastern portion of
the watershed. For the most part, these wetlands are lowland forests and shrub swamps
and include the Saul Lake Bog. Many of the larger wetlands are contiguous; however,
there exist literally hundreds of isolated wetland areas throughout the watershed.
The average slope of Bear Creek is .35% (18.6 ft/mile). The tributaries in the eastern
portion are generally no steeper than this, in fact, some are flatter. On the other hand, the
tributaries in the western portion are much steeper, with slopes to 2.8% (150 ft/mile)
(Fulcher, 1991, Width of the stream ranges widely, from approximately 18 inches along
some branches to more than 30 feet in the main channel near the Grand River. The depth
ranges significantly as well, from long stretches just a few inches deep to pools several
feet in depth.
The slopes of the landforms adjacent to Bear Creek are significantly steeper. Substantial
areas of Cannon Township, for example, have slopes of 12% or greater. The absolute
topographic relief in Cannon varies from a maximum elevation of 1,000 feet in Section 1
to a minimum of 605 feet in sections 30 and 31, at the Grand River (Cannon Township
Comprehensive Plan, 1993, C-2).
Figure 2
Wetlands
Watersheds adjacent to Bear Creek include Rum Creek and Seely Creek to the north,
Barkley Creek to the northwest and Egypt Creek to the south. All of these, including Bear
Creek, are sub-watersheds of the Grand River (See Figure 3). Bear Creek enters the
Grand River approximately 45 miles upstream from Lake Michigan.
The northernmost headwaters of Bear Creek originate in springs near Bostwick Lake, the
largest lake in the watershed with a surface area of about 210 acres. From this point of
origin, the creek flows south some 2 miles, then turns west, through the village of
Cannonsburg and toward the Grand River. Several dozen feet before Bear Creek empties
into the Grand River, Waddell Creek enters Bear Creek (See Figure 4). Waddell Creek is
considered one of the many subwatersheds of the Bear Creek Watershed.
Another origin for Bear Creek is located in Section 7 of Vergennes Township, in an area
comprised both of springs and wetlands. Springs are prominent throughout the watershed,
the large majority of them perennial or flowing year-round. In some locations, five or
more springs can be found contributing water to the flow of Bear Creek in each half mile
section. In other locations, dozens of springs are found within visual distance of one
another along the main stream corridor.
There are two areas within the boundaries of the watershed which historically have been
considered as “noncontributing” (i.e., as retaining all of their rainfall except during
periods of very heavy rain). One of these areas drains into Bostwick, Little Bostwick and
Pickerel Lakes; the other, into Hyser and Austin Lakes. In the course of evaluating the
watershed, it has been determined that as the levels of these lakes have increased some
contribution to the watershed has begun to occur regularly, particularly from the area
around Bostwick Lake, an area which has experienced significant residential
development.
In late-1991, approximately 28% of the watershed area was shrub/scrub/swamp and
recreational land; 28% was agricultural (with some two-thirds of this devoted to row
crops, nearly a third to livestock farming, and less than one-tenth to orchard crops); 26%
was forested; 10% was urban; and nearly 8% was wetlands. One trend between 1991 and
1993 was toward the conversion of agricultural land to residential development, with
several new housing subdivisions underway. Another was
Figure 3
Adjacent Watersheds
Figure 4
Subbasin Delineation
toward the donation of private lands for conservation or natural resource preservation
purposes. Recreational land within the watershed includes both private and public land—
including the privately owned Cannonsburg and Pando Ski Lodges, Kent County’s
Townsend and Pickerel Lake Parks, Kent County’s Harry and Josephine Luton nature
conservancy, Natural Areas Conservancy of Western Michigan’s Saul Lake Bog,
Christian Youth Camp Association’s Camp Roger, Isaac Walton League’s Dwight Lydell
Chapter Preserve, and the Michigan DNR’s Cannonsburg State Game Area.
B. DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE WATERSHED
Population within the watershed has increased dramatically since 1950. Between 1980
and 1990, for example, Cannon Township experienced the largest growth of any political
unit in the county, with an increase from approximately 5,000 to nearly 8,000 in the
decade, a 59.1% increase. Other townships in the watershed also experienced marked
population growth in the period, including Plainfield (21%), Ada (17.1%), and Grattan
(11.7%). During the same period that these townships were growing rapidly, Kent
County as a whole recorded a modest 12.6% increase and the state of Michigan
experienced a meager .3% growth rate.
It is estimated that the watershed area itself has a population of approximately 6,000 in
1993, including the portions in Grattan, Ada, Vergennes and Plainfield Townships.
A report prepared some twenty years ago (Prien & Newhof, 1970) for Cannon Township
had anticipated this growth (though not its full extent) as well as its effect on the future
water quality of the area. The report read, in part:
“Cannon Township is experiencing a healthy growth rate as development around Grand
Rapids moves northerly. People are building in the attractive natural topography of the
Township and especially around the lakes (p.2).
“The beautiful rolling topography lends itself to development but soil conditions preclude
further development without an adequate sewage disposal system. Some of the area is
heavy soil where septic tanks will not properly function” (p.1).
Despite these early water quality concerns and professional cautions, a substantial
amount of residential development has occurred in all townships of the watershed,
particularly since 1980. In Cannon Township, for example, an average of 108 new homes
were built each year between 1982 and 1990
(Cannon Township Comprehensive Plan, 1993, 2-1). The rate of construction has not
lagged in the two and a half years since.
One consequence of development with an impact on water resources has been a change in
the average size of land holdings. In 1930, the average parcel size in Cannon Township
was more than 80 acres; by 1966, most of the large tracts had been divided and many
parcels smaller than 40 acres appeared. In the 1990s, large parcels in excess of 40 acres
are rare and smaller parcels of 10 acres or less predominate (See Figure 5 ).
The individuals who own these lands represent an overwhelmingly homogeneous group:
98% are non-Hispanic Caucasians, chiefly of English and German descent. Furthermore,
most households are comprised of married-couple families with children. The percentage
of home ownership is generally high -- 91% in Cannon Township, for example—and the
median value of owner-occupied housing is also well above the state and county average
($97,600 in Cannon Township).
Individuals in the watershed who do not work on their own agricultural lands generally
commute to the Grand Rapids metropolitan area (including nearby Rockford) for
employment.
C. WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WATER USE IN THE BEAR CREEK
WATERSHED
1. Surface Water
The Bear Creek Watershed is liberally dotted with bodies of water (See Figure 2, p.
9). The most prominent of these is Bear Creek itself which traverses the entire area on
its east to west course toward the Grand River. The most prominent named tributaries
of Bear Creek are Armstrong, Stout and Waddell Creeks all three located at or near
the western boundary of the watershed and generally flowing in a northeast to
southwesterly direction into Bear Creek.
Lakes and ponds of varied sizes are also much in evidence. At least 9 lakes have areas
of 5 acres or more. These bodies of water, their locations and areas (in acres) are
shown on the chart on page 17.
Figure 5
Parcel Size Changes
Figure 6
Base Reference Map
Table 1
Lakes of 5 Acres or More in Bear Creek Watershed
Lake
Name
C=Cannon/G=Grattan
Bostwick
Pickerel
Ratigan
Gavin
McCarthy
Sunfish
Hyser
Little Bostwick
Austin
Location
(Section #s)
C-11,14
C-14
C-36, G-31
G-29
G-30
C-15
C-28,33
C-14
C-34
Area
(Acres)
217.0
56.9
56.0
approx 25.0
approx 20.0
10.6
8.5
6.8
5.0
The watershed also has numerous unnamed smaller bodies of water, including farm
ponds. Some of these include Pike Pond (adjacent to Bostwick Lake), the Saul Lake
Bog, the mill pond remnants at Cannonsburg and Chauncey, and dozens of others.
Nearly 2000 acres or 9% of the watershed are wetlands. These areas include fens,
bogs and swamps, with the greatest concentration found in the eastern portion of the
area.
The surface waters and lands surrounding them in the Bear Creek Watershed are used
generally for recreational, agricultural, and residential purposes. Bear Creek itself is
described by MDNR District 9 Fisheries Biologist E.J. Trimberger as “a selfsustaining brook and brown trout stream”: however, many longtime residents believe
the quantity and size of trout in this waterway have decreased over the past decade.
Trimberger himself noted “urban sprawl in the last decade has put considerable
pressure on this stream through development in the watershed”(Trimberger, 1990,
correspondence).
The main stream channel winds through Townsend Park, the most widely used park
in Kent County, but is not used recreationally in this location except as an aesthetic
feature because of extensive sedimentation and the fact that it has been placed off
limits for
total body contact (i.e., swimming) by the Kent County Health Department due to
fecal coliform contamination. Several unnamed tributaries of the main stream
originate within or traverse the Cannonsburg Game Area, an area of some 600 acres
south of Bear Creek in Sections 27 and 28 of Cannon Township owned and managed
by the Michigan DNR. Apart from any recreational fishing which takes place in this
public wildlife preserve, fishing in the stream and its tributaries is mostly
accomplished from privately owned streambanks.
There is little public access to the Bear Creek stream corridor for public fishing,
camping, or other outdoor recreational activities, except hunting in the Cannonsburg
Game Area. Bear Creek is not now and apparently has never been a navigable stream.
Most streambank residents consider that the watercourse, as well as the land
surrounding it, is theirs and landowner permission must be secured to access nearly
all portions of the stream, either from the banks or from within the stream itself.
Several of the watershed lakes are also “ringed” by private property owners. These
include Bostwick Lake, Ratigan Lake, and Sunfish Lake, three of the largest bodies of
water. At these lakes, small lots completely encircle the water and individuals own
land right up to the water’s edge. Use of these lakes is primarily restricted to
individuals owning these properties. Uses include fishing, recreational boating and
canoeing, and waterskiing. In decades past, the homes around these lakes were
second or “summer” homes; however, more recently these residences are occupied
year-round by their owners who utilize them as their primary homesites.
Pickerel Lake and the approximately 200 acres surrounding it are currently being
developed into a Kent County park facility to be called Pickerel Lake-Fred Meijer
Nature Preserve. This preserve will allow public access for fishing and other outdoor
recreational activities on the site. Hyser and Austin Lakes are located mostly in the
Cannonsburg Game Area and may be fished by the public year-round: Ice fishing is a
popular sport on these bodies of water.
Most of the lakes in the watershed and the portions of the surface of Bear Creek and
its tributaries freeze in the winter months. Some of the springs feeding the stream
system flow only intermittently, in the spring
and early summer; however, most are perennial and continue to flow throughout the
winter months as well.
2. Groundwater
Wells provide all of the water for residential, commercial, and industrial use within
the watershed. Most of these wells draw from the confined glacial drift aquifer which
is separated from the ground surface by a confining layer of clay or rock. Some wells
draw from the unconfined aquifer which is more vulnerable to contamination from
the ground surface. Figure 7 identifies water well locations and the static water level
of unconfined glacial drift aquifers. Figure 8 identifies the relative risk of
groundwater contamination of wells in the area. As is evident, the sites at greatest risk
are not concentrated in one location, but are scattered throughout the watershed.
3. Rainfall in the Watershed
The 24-hour rainfall frequencies for the watershed from the Rainfall Frequency Atlas
of the United States (1961) are as follows:
Table 2
24-Hour Rainfall Frequencies in Bear Creek Watershed
Time
1 year
2 year
5 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
Amount
24 hour
24 hour
24 hour
24 hour
24 hour
24 hour
24 hour
2.20 inches
2.45 inches
3.15 inches
3.65 inches
4.15 inches
4.55 inches
4.90 inches
4. Floodplains in the Watershed
Updated floodplain boundaries for the watershed are currently being mapped by the
National Flood Insurance Program and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In
general, these areas are around Bostwick Lake and along the main stream corridor.
The floodplain areas are generally small and narrow because Bear Creek is a
relatively small stream and because runoff in the area is facilitated by the steep slopes
of much of the land area.
D. SOILS IN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
A modern soil survey was completed for Kent County in 1983 by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service. Soils identified in the Bear Creek Watershed were primarily sand,
loamy sand, sandy loam and loam with some muck soils in the low lying areas.These
soils are formed by glacial deposits acted upon by soil formation processes such as wind,
water and the decomposition of organic matter. As a result of the chaotic distribution of
parent materials by glacial action, soil types vary substantially from site to site in the
watershed . The percentage breakdown of these soils is shown in Table 3 below (Fulcher,
1991, p. 7):
Table 3
Soil Types in the Bear Creek Watershed by Group and Percentage
Soil Group
A.
B.
C.
D.
Soil Type
Sand, Loamy Sand
Sandy Loam, Loam
Silt Loam, Sandy Clay Loam
Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam,
Sandy Clay, Clay
Percentage
43%
37%
3%
17%
Because of the high percentage of soils from groups A and B (80%) in the watershed, the
runoff potential is very low when these soils are left undeveloped. As a result, Bear Creek
historically has not been prone to flash flooding during periods of above average rainfall.
Low runoff potential for soils is associated with a high infiltration rate. Infiltration rates
for the soils present are noted in the Table on the following page (Fulcher, 1991, p. 6).
Table 4
Texture Class and Infiltration Rates of Bear Creek Watershed Soils
Soil Type
Sand
Loamy Sand
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silt Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Clay
Minimum Infiltration Rate in inches per hour
8.27
2.41
1.02
.52
.27
.17
.09
.06
.05
.04
.02
According to the 1983 Soil Survey, substantial parts of the watershed have soils which
impose severe limitations on septic tank absorption fields. These soils are generally
concentrated in large groups, with some smaller units scattered through the area. Soils
with severe limitations for septic tanks comprise about 55% of the total watershed area.
Soils with moderate limitations comprise another 34% of the area, while soils with slight
limitations cover about 8%. Soils pose limitations for a variety of reasons including their
slope, wetness and permeability (Figure 9). Public sewer systems within the watershed
are available for developments around Bostwick Lake, Sunfish Lake and the Grattan
Township portion of Ratigan Lake.
The remainder of residential, commercial and recreational facilities are served by septic
systems. There is one septic dumping site located in the watershed where Cannon
Township septage is spread after it has been removed from township residents’ tanks.
Another feature of interest related to soil type and watershed management is Tc or “time
of concentration,” defined as the time it takes for rainfall to travel from the hydraulically
most distant point of a watershed to the outlet of the subbasin. Appendix A shows the Tc
(in hours) for the 37 subwatersheds within the Bear Creek Watershed identified by
Fulcher in 1991 (p. 15) using 1978 conditions. As is evident, the Tc ranges from 14.78
hours in subwatershed 4 located at the easternmost edge to .27 hours in
Figure 9
Septic System Limitations
subwatershed 24 located near Austin and Heyser Lakes adjacent to one of the areas
historically considered to be “noncontributory” (Fulcher, 1991, p. 15).
Flow measurements are also available for this watershed. Flow measurements were
taken at 10 locations by Fulcher (1991, pp. 18-19). The results are noted in Table 5. In
addition, the estimated 5% and 95% monthly exceedance flows were computed. The 95%
exceedance flow means that a given volume or more of water would be expected in the
stream 95% of the time, when averaged over a long period of time. The same is true for
the 50% exceedance flow. Estimated exceedance figures for the watershed are shown
below.
Table 5
Monthly exceedance flows for Bear Creek in cubic feet per second (cfs)
Month
95% exceedence
50%exceedence
16
18
22
25
18
15
11
11
12
13
16
20
24
25
42
44
29
24
21
19
20
23
26
28
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
The estimated annual flow durations for Bear Creek at 29.6 square miles in drainage area
have been calculated as:
10%
25%
50%
70%
75%
90%
95%
51
39
30
26
24
20
17
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
On the basis of these figures, the estimated average annual flow has been calculated at 28
cfs (Fulcher, 1991, p. 18). Again, these flow figures are consistent with Bear Creek’s
history of being a relatively non-flashy stream when soils, slopes, the streambank, and
streambed are in a relatively natural state.
E. DRAINS WITHIN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
Three established Kent County drains are located in the Cannon Township portion of the
watershed. One is located in the village of Cannonsburg, another at the north end of
Bostwick Lake (attached to the lake), and the third, at an unnamed tributary in Section 30
near the Chauncey Mill.
Other established drains within the watershed include those in the vicinity of Parnell,
particularly around the east side of Ratigan Lake. Since the volume of water flowing
through these drains is minimal, no negative impact on overall water quality is suspected.
Many other Kent County Road Commission drains dot the watershed. Generally these are
in the form of ditches, culverts or storm drains. Road Commission drains are created to
manage stormwater runoff from county roads (See Figure 10).
This drainage system completes the water flow pattern in the watershed.
F.WILDLIFE RESOURCES, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES, WITHIN THE WATERSHED
The watershed is the habitat of an abundance of wildlife species and there is high public
and governmental interest in maintaining these species and attracting others. Fish species
found within the creek and lake systems include brown and brook trout, carp, pan fish,
pike, bass, suckers and others. As discussed, much of the fishing is done by private
landowners along or in the sections of the watercourse which flow through their lands,
although Pickerel, Austin and Hyser Lakes do provide some public fishing acreage.
The many land uses and soil types in the watershed contribute to the diversity of other
wildlife species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and spiders as
well as to the presence of a wide range of native plants, including mushrooms, ferns,
wildflowers, grasses, shrubs, and deciduous and evergreen trees. Mammals such as
Figure 10
County Drains
rabbits, deer, raccoons, squirrels, chipmunks, skunk, mink, and woodchucks are much in
evidence. Less often seen but documented are beaver, river otter, and fox, to name just a
few mammalian species.
Amphibians including frogs, toads and salamanders of several species also abound along
the stream corridor and in areas near lakes and ponds. Reptiles such as the box turtle are
also found here, along with occasional non-poisonous snakes.
Insect species are varied and prolific and include a variety of stream-based macroinvertebrates (such as the caddis and mayfly) which are used as indicator species in
monitoring water quality. Butterfly species, ants, bees, ladybugs, flies, and many others
abound.
The watershed is also home to a wide range of game and non-game birds, including
pheasant, grouse, quail, dove, and wild turkey. Landowners have considerable interest in
managing their properties to attract game birds, as well as non-game species. Non-game
species presently found in the watershed include raptors such as hawks and owls,
bluebirds, bluejays, cardinals, finches, sparrows, crows, tanagers, killdeers, red-winged
blackbirds, and several varieties of woodpecker. Canadian geese are attracted to the
marshes and wetlands of the watershed, as are heron, mallard ducks, wood ducks, and
other species of waterfowl.
Endangered and threatened species of plants and wildlife or snecial plants and animals in
need of preservation that are found in the watershed include species of chestnut (Castanea
dentata), sedges (Carex), rushes (Juncus), Pitcher plant (Saracenia), sundew (Drosera
rotundifolia), box turtle (Terrapene), river otter (Lutra canadensis), red- shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus), and various species of ferns.
Special plant communities within the watershed include the Saul Lake Bog, the Tiffany
Avenue Bog and a southern hardwood forest on Waddell Creek.
G. WATERSHED PROJECT PARTICIPANTS: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INVOLVEMENT IN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
From its inception, a wide range of organizations and individuals representing a variety
of public and private interests have played important roles in the Bear Creek Watershed
Project. They have demonstrated their interest by active involvement in the planning
phase and have indicated support for the activities of the implementation phase as well.
These individuals and organizations include the following:
FEDERAL
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
Steve Utic, District Conservationist
Lowen Mills, Soil Conservation Technician
3260 Eagle Park Drive
Suite 101-B
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
616-940-1708
U.S.D.A. - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
David Bain, Executive Director
3260 Eagle Park Dr.
Suite 101-A
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Michigan Department of Natural Resources District - #9
Janice Tompkins, Surface Water Quality Division
Water Quality Analyst
350 Ottawa NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-456-5071
Tom Nederveld, Wildlife Biologist
3260 Eagle Park Dr.
Suite 101-C
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
616-456-2361
Michigan Department of Natural Resources - State Level
Thad Cleary, Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48224
517-335-4172
Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service
Dr. William Harrison, County Executive Director
836 Fuller NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-774-3265
KENT COUNTY
Kent County Board of Commissioners
Katherine Kuhn, Chair
300 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-774-3512
Kent County Drain Commission
Roger Laninga, Commissioner
1500 Scribner
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616-774-3688
Kent County Health Department
Douglas A. Mack, M.D., P.P.H., Director of Public Health
George Pio, Director of Environmental Health
Dave Kraker, Supervising Sanitarian
Randy Rapp, Sanitarian
Ken Terpstra, Director of Laboratory Services
700 Fuller NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-774-3030
Board of County Road Commissioners and Park Trustees of the County of Kent
Tom Byle, Director of Maintenance
Steve Warren, Director of Planning for Parks and Transportation
Roger Sabine, Kent County Landscape Architect
James Porritt, Managing Director
David Groenleer, Director of Engineering
Wayne Harrell, Assistant Director of Engineering and Bridge Engineer
1500 Scribner NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616-242-6900
TOWNSHIPS
Cannon Township Board of Trustees
John Weiss, Supervisor
Dan Barker, Treasurer
Bonnie Shupe, Clerk
George Scott, Trustee
James Alles, Trustee
Dick Davies, Trustee
Thom Longcore, Trustee
Cannon Township Center
6878 Belding Road
Rockford, MI 49341 616-874-6966
Cannon Township Planning Commission
Chuck Bloom, Chair
Robert Mack
Joel Gordon
James Lilley
Glenn Carwell
Erik Olsen
Robert McBrien
James LaPeer
James Alles
Cannon Township Center
6878 Belding Rd.
Rockford, MI 49341
616-874-6966
Grattan Township
Richard Herwyr, Supervisor
11676 Old Belding Rd.
Belding, MI 48809
616-691-8804
Grattan Natural Resource Research Group
Clifford H. Bloom, Vice-Chair
11676 Old Belding Road
Belding, MI 48809
616-691-8804
Ada Township
George Haga, Supervisor
7330 Thornapple River Dr.
Ada, MI 49301
616-676-9191
Vergennes Township
James B. Cook, Supervisor
10381 Bailey
Lowell, MI
616-897-5671
Plainfield Township
Beverly Rekeny, Supervisor
6161 Belmont
Belmont, MI 49306
616-364-8466
REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Grand Valley State University Water Resources Institute
Ron Ward, Ph.D., Director and Professor
John Koches, Research Associate
Mark Luttenton, Ph.D., Research Associate and Professor
Ra David, Research Associate
Kurt Thompson, Research Assistant
Stacey Skalka, Research Assistant
1 Campus Drive
Allendale, MI 49401
616-895-6611
Planning and Zoning Center, Inc.
Mark A. Eidelson, AICP, Senior Planner
Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP
Timothy J. McCauley
Brenda M. Moore, AICP, PCP
302 S. Waverly Rd.
Lansing, MI 48917
517-886-0555
West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC)
Elaine Pelc, Water Quality Program Director
Julie Stoneman, Public Lands Program Director
1400 Wealthy SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Natural Areas Conservancy Of West Michigan (NACOMI)
Randall VanDragt, Ph.D., Calvin College Biology Department
Peter Gustafson, Attorney
April Scholtz, Director
1400 Wealthy SE
Garden Level
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Trout Unlimited
Glen Blackwood, Board of Directors
Kent Intermediate School District
Howard Christiansen Nature Center
Pricilla Johnson, Naturalist
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
Preserving the Atmosphere of Cannon’s Environment (PACE)
Bonnie Shupe, President
Tony Zaidel, Treasurer
Citizen’s Advisory Committee for Environmental Affairs (CACEA)
Robert Schirado, Chair
Bear Creek Citizen’s Committee
Shelley Yeager, Chair
Robert Winslow, Co-chair
Bear Creek Watershed Project Steering Committee
Holly VanScoy, Ph.D., Chair
Patricia VanDyke, Project Manager
Janice Tompkins, MDNR, Water Quality Analyst
Steven Utic, SCS, District Conservationist
Tom Nederveld, MDNR, District Wildlife Biologist
Donald Osborne, Watershed resident
Gerald Kitson, Watershed resident
Elaine Pelc, WMEAC, Water Quality Program Director
Wayne Harrell, Kent County Road and Parks Commission, Assistant Director of
Engineering
Peter DeRitter, Photographer and community volunteer
Glenn Blackwood, Trout Unlimited
Ronald Poitras, Grand Valley State University, Associate Professor of Public
Administration
John Koches, Grand Valley State University, Water Resources Institute
Laura Ralwerda, Groundwater Education in Michigan (GEM)
John Wheeler, Rockford Construction Co.
Jon Peot, Forest Hills Public Schools, Secondary Science
David Rosander, Grand Rapids Public Schools, Secondary Science
Roger Laninga, Kent County Drain Commissioner
George Haga, Ada Township Supervisor
Charles Palazzolo
Grattan Township Treasurer
Rockford Public Schools
Dan Davis, Lakes School, Principal
Jim Wolnan, Lakes School, Teacher
Sharon Bennett, Cannonsburg School, Principal
Jan Mackie, Cannonsburg School, Teacher
Nancy Berg, Cannonsburg School, Teacher
II. WATER QUALITY IN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
A. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
A number of serious current or potential problems related to the quality of water in the
Bear Creek Watershed have been identified. Although a variety of factors can be
discerned as contributing to these problems, it is useful to consider most of them in
relation to two overarching concerns sedimentation and bacterial contamination - as well
as a variety of secondary, but clearly interrelated factors.
1. Sedimentation
Excessive levels of sediment are found throughout the watercourses of the Bear Creek
Watershed. The presence of sediment has been documented by a thorough field
inspection of the main stream channel and a significant proportion of the tributaries
during 1992-1993 by the staff of the Watershed Project, as well as by technical
support staff from the GVSU Water Resources Institute, the DNR District Water
Quality Analyst and Wildlife Biologist, the Kent County SCS District
Conservationist, WMEAC staff, Howard Christiansen Nature Center staff and many
others. There is unanimous agreement that much of Bear Creek’s original cobble and
gravel bottom is now inundated by many layers of sediment, at times nearly a foot
deep. Sediment is also present in the lakes of the watershed.
Figure 11 shows areas where visual inspection has documented stream sedimentation
problems. As this map illustrates, areas do exist where the original bottom is in
evidence. Even in these gravel or cobbled areas, however, the habitat of macroinvertebrates and trout is still threatened by the presence of sediment which has
collected in the spaces between the small and large stones, affecting habitat quality.
There are very few places within the waterway where sediment has not had some
negative effect.
Quantifying the exact levels of problematic nitrates and phosphates in this sediment
resulting from fertilizers and human and animal wastes in the waters or the exact
quantity of harmful chemicals from pesticide and herbicide use is a more difficult
task. There is little question, however, that these are present and have a deleterious
effect on water quality and the aquatic life it supports. The Project staff and technical
Figure 11
Sedimentation
consultants have documented numerous sites where livestock have access to the
stream; furthermore, many sites are known where adjacent residential, agricultural or
commercial stormwater runoff is believed to carry pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers which have been applied without full consideration of the nearby waterway.
In some instances manicured residential lawns and public lands are planted and
maintained down into the stream and lakes themselves, including use of fertilizers
and other chemicals - practices which potentially contribute to the problems
described.
In other locations, agricultural crops abut the waterway with little or no buffer zone to
remove the chemical agents applied for crop management. In still other places, the
waterway is undoubtedly utilized as a watering resource by wildlife which may
deposit significant amounts of fertilizing elements by excretory processes. Algae and
other aquatic plant growth is also found in locations and amounts which reflect the
effect of excessive phosphorous stimulation which has been documented by GVSU
WRI aquatic studies (David, 1993, draft). This evidence promotes the generation of a
hypothesis that damaging levels of nitrates, phosphates and other nutrients may be
present in the watershed.
2. Bacterial Contamination
The second major impact on present and future water quality comes from concerns
with levels of potentially harmful bacteria in the stream and lake system, particularly
fecal coliform organisms. The Kent County Health Department monitors fecal
coliform levels regularly at 2 to 4 sites in the watercourse and has “posted” Bear
Creek to discourage total body contact as a consequence of its regular findings of
high levels of these organisms in the water. Table 6 provides data on the fecal
coliform findings from the Kent County Health Department over the past 3 years (See
Appendix B for graphic illustration of Health Department results). It should be noted
that no definitive conclusions have been reached about the relative contribution of
human waste, livestock waste, wildlife waste or other coliformproducing sources to
these totals.
During the 1992-93 project year, water quality monitoring for fecal coliform levels
was undertaken upstream and downstream from an additional eight sites thought to be
potential contributors to bacterial loading to Bear Creek and its tributaries. Figure 12
and Tables
7 and 8 provide data on sites currently being monitored by the Bear Creek Project.
Scheduled samples are collected by Project staff from the downstream sites on a biweekly basis and from both downstream and upstream sites during rain events from
June through October and submitted to the Health Department for analysis.
3. Contributing and/or Related Factors Affecting Water Quality in the Bear Creek
Watershed
Water quality assessments are carried out by Project staff and community volunteers
utilizing alternative measures, including presence and type of macro-invertebrate
species, Ph and dissolved oxygen levels, and stream velocity. Groups of students
from Cannonsburg School and Lakes School, as well as members of the Grand
Rapids Public Schools’ Stream Teams and three Adopt-a-Stream teams which have
adopted Bear Creek and its tributaries are providing these assessments on a regular
basis to WMEAC and the Water Resources Institute. As a rule, Project staff
participate in these assessments and also have organized additional monitoring
efforts involving local colleges. Two Calvin Collge students are currently assessing
the impact of sedimentation on Stout Creek and tracking organic pollution from road
runoff in Bear Creek.
A variety of factors are associated with or contribute to the water quality concerns in
the Bear Creek Watershed, including those related to coliform levels and other
measures of water health. These include soil erosion from water and wind on
unprotected agricultural fields, construction sites, and other vulnerable surfaces;
stormwater runoff from impervious groundcovers such as concrete and asphalt;
removal or loss of native ground cover and failure to replace the cover with
appropriate vegetation; and inattention to appropriate maintenance of waste disposal
systems for human and livestock waste.
Other factors include problematic road and drain construction and/or maintenance on
public and private properties; destruction of or damage to watershed wetland areas;
historical and current practices of stream diversion and/or damming (with associated
obstructions of the natural patterns of fish migration and watercourse
flow); and, the presence of an unremediated former
Table 6
Fecal Coliform
Health Dept. Results
1989-1993
Figure 12
Bear Creek Project
Fecal Coliform Monitoring Sites
Table 7
Bear Creek Project
Fecal Coliform Monitoring Site List
Table 8
Bear Creek Project
Fecal Coliform Monitoring Results
Superfund site representing at least some potential for ground and/or surface water
contamination.
Still another potential factor may be the contribution of toxins and heavy metals from
airborne and waterborne sources. These toxins include those which are emitted in
Kent and adjacent counties as well as those which are carried into the watershed area
by the prevailing westerly wind pattern across the North American continent from
Wisconsin across Lake Michigan and into West Michigan. Although a precise
estimate of the amount of these toxins and metals found specifically in the waters of
the Bear Creek Watershed is not presently known, there is a likelihood that the
watershed is at risk for contamination from these sources.
Even without the contribution of toxins and heavy metals from other states, Kent
County has the greatest number of toxic release facilities and emissions of any county
in the entire Grand River Watershed, contributing 11 million pounds of releases and
transfers. Ottawa County ranks second, with 10 million pounds, and Muskegon (due
west of the Bear Creek Watershed, but only a small part of the Grand River
Watershed), ranks third with 9 million pounds.
It should be noted, that airborne emissions do not respect watershed boundaries, so
that contamination of subwatersheds of the Grand River such as Bear Creek from
emissions should be explored in greater detail.
Finally - as a contributing problem evident in the Watershed in 1992-1993 - the
citizens who live, work, or own property in the area do not have an adequate
knowledge base from which to address the documented number and variety of
complex water resource issues, despite a generally high level of interest in and
enthusiasm for water and land stewardship practices. The need for a comprehensive,
ongoing, and focused educational effort around water quality concerns is evident,
particularly for streamside residents, farmers (including “hobby farmers”), fourth and
fifth grade students in public and private schools, and residential developers.
Furthermore, the implementation of BMPs and the educational effort require the
active involvement of informed public officials at every governmental level, and of
private and public organizations and agencies. Steps toward the development a solid
foundation of
official support have been taken in the planning year of the Project, but need further
attention in the implementation stage(s) to follow if the overall project is to achieve
its most successful outcome.
B. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
At least four general categories of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution are found in the
watershed. These are agricultural, residential/urban, transportation-related, and, to a
lesser extent, stream-based pollution. At the present time, most of the areas of the
watershed are not developed for residential or commercial use, but this pattern of land
use is changing. With this change, the relative impact of each NPS within the watershed
is modified as well. For the present, it is most accurate to characterize concerns as
revolving principally around historical practices of agricultural land management and
evolving practices of residential/commercial land development. Strategies of dealing with
the former are restorative and remedial, while those of dealing with the latter are more
preventive and protective.
1. Agricultural NPS Pollution
A significant amount of the NPS pollution in the Bear Creek Watershed is associated
with longstanding agricultural practices including the management of crops and
livestock, including livestock waste and livestock watering needs. These practices are
associated with agricultural holdings large and small, including a number of small
acreage “hobby farms” which may have only a few horses or other farm animals.
According to the 1986 USDA Soil Conservation Service Kent County Soil Survey,
the character of the topology and texture of surface layer of soils in the watershed can
be described as gently rolling to very steep, somewhat excessively drained to welldrained with sandy and loamy soils formed in loamy and sandy deposits. The entire
area is generally mapped as representing soils from the Marlette-Chelsea-Boyer
association. The SCS uses a classification that divides land into eight land capability
classes according to its erosion hazard and other limitations. Class I land has few
limitations for crop land while Class IV land has a very severe erosion hazard when
used for crops.
Class V land has other limitations that preclude cropland use; Class VI land is
generally restricted to pasture or forestry uses due to erosion potential and other
limitations; and, Class VIII land has limitations that preclude even forest and pasture
usage.
Some soils in the watershed are considered prime farmland when they are found
under the specified conditions. These include Oswosso-Marlette sandy loams (Map
symbol 11B), on 2 to 6 percent slopes; Marlette loam (Map symbol 36B), on 2 to 6
percent slopes; and Marlette loam (Map symbol 83B), moderately wet, on 1 to 5
percent slopes. As noted earlier, the slope of most of the land in the watershed
exceeds 5 percent. In fact, much of the area has a slope in excess of 12 percent,
rendering these soils much less suitable for farmland uses than they would be on a
more level topography.
In general, Marlette-Chelsea-Boyer association soils have mid- to low-capability
agricultural ratings and are considered to yield few or no crops per acre, even under
high levels of management. In the Boyer association the land capability classes are
III, IV, and VII; in the Marlette association the capability classes are III, IV, VI and
VII; and in the Chelsea association capability classes are IV, VI and VII.
According to the SCS District Conservationist Steve Utic, approximately 40 percent
of the cropland acreage in the watershed is in need of conservation practices to
modify loss of soil to wind and water. There are a significant number of acres eroding
at a rate which exceeds the productivity level of the land. Much of this eroded soil
finds its way into the watercourses of the watershed where it becomes a major
contributor to in-stream sedimentation. Some 60% of the agricultural lands in the
watershed currently employ conservation tillage practices which reduce erosion
hazards significantly.
Other agricultural practices related to water quality issues include crop rotation
practices, fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide application methods, and practices related
to livestock management. Problematic livestock accessibility to the surface waters of
the stream system has been documented throughout the watershed, and there are
many feedlots which contribute significant levels of manure as runoff during rain
events or periods of snow melt. Not only do these management practices permit the
introduction of untreated animal wastes directly into the riparian environment, the
livestock also degrade the streambanks
and wetlands of their pastures and feedlots by compacting the soils and adding soil
materials to the stream. The extent of the impact of the confined animal operations to
severe, very severe or extremely severe nonpoint source pollution of the stream
system is not currently known.
Problems also exist with the application (or misapplication) of manure to croplands,
including overapplication and inappropriate incorporation of the manure into the soil.
A related concern - though not one strictly confined to agricultural land uses - is
stream diversion and damming with associated obstructions to the natural patterns of
fish migration and water flow. During the field inspection of the watershed, several
sites have been located where dams have been built along the main channel or
tributaries or where the stream has been diverted. Some of these structures and
diversions are very recent, others were completed 30 or more years ago.
At least one of these sites poses an imminent danger to areas of the streambank and
water channel downstream because the dam is old, spongy, and unstable. The dam at
this particular site is one of the older structures and its placement in the stream has
created a “hanging pond” of considerable volume at a height some 100 to 150 feet
above the natural stream bed.
At two other sites on the stream, remnants of old mill ponds exist. These continue to
influence water flow and determining the original or “natural” route of water is
difficult, as is conceptualizing ways to restore the sites without creating greater
disturbances than already exist.
At still another site, a tributary of Bear Creek was dammed to form a wildlife habitat
on private property. The landowner currently appears to be continuing with unknown
plans for site development which includes the pond created by stream damming.
Agricultural NPS pollution sites in the watershed are noted in Figure 13.
Figure 13
Agricultural NPS
2. Residential/Suburban NPS Pollution
As the watershed has evolved from an area once characterized as rural to an area now
more accurately characterized as suburban, the suitability of its land and water
resources for sustaining residential and commercial uses has required close
evaluation. Most of the soils in the watershed have moderate to severe limitations for
septic systems and basements (See Figures 9 and 14). The SCS notes that the
limitations on Marlette-Chelsea-Boyer association soils for building site development
as “severe” for shallow excavations and “slight” to “severe” for dwellings with or
without basements, small commercial buildings, and local roads and streets.
Limitations on these soils for lawns and landscaping is considered to be “moderate”
to “severe” due to small stones and slope.
It is interesting to note that the lands with the most severe limitations have generally
been the lands which have recently undergone the most residential development.
These include watershed parcels with extremely steep slopes, as well as areas around
lakes and near the stream corridor where septic or basement limitations are
particularly severe due to soil permeability, slope, or aquifer proximity.
The potential for septic system malfunction is high under the soil and slope
conditions within much of the watershed, particularly if septic system owners do not
maintain these systems appropriately with regular pumping. Since bacterial
contamination of the ground and surface water is a major concern, significant
attention has been directed toward determining the role septic systems have in this
contamination. At the present time, information is not available upon which to base
firm conclusions, however, it is obvious that, at the least, all present and future
watershed residents - along with residential and commercial developers - must be
educated about the appropriate installation and maintenance of septic systems.
Furthermore, at some point, residents and elected officials of the communities
comprising the watershed must determine whether alternative methods of human
waste disposal pose fewer health and environmental hazards than the septic systems
now in use.
The residential and small business focused commercial development which has
occurred in the watershed has been accompanied by an escalation of others threats to
Figure 14
Limitations for Basements
Bear Creek Watershed Project
Stewardship Plan
water quality. These include increases in the amounts of paved, impervious surfaces
and associated increases in the amount and velocity of stormwater runoff from
roadways, rooftops, driveways and parking lots; decreases in the amount of natural
vegetative cover, including trees, native grasses, and shrubs; increases in the amounts
and types of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals used on yards and
lawns (some of them adjacent to the stream system); and increases in the presence of
other NPS pollutants such as gasoline, fluorocarbons, anti-freeze, oil, and household
chemicals which may find their way into ground and surface waters. Furthermore and
not surprisingly, as residential development increases, the demand for golf courses
also increases, and golf course management typically involves the application of a
wide range of chemicals to maintain fairways, greens, trees, and insect populations.
Residential and commercial development also brings more and more humans into the
watershed on a regular basis and they are naturally drawn to the water resources.
Problems of increased amounts and types of litter and trash in the stream and along its
banks is one unfortunate and unsightly consequence. Adopt-a-Stream teams regularly
schedule “stream cleanups” to remove debris which has been thoughtlessly left by
humans using the stream for recreational purposes or as a convenient “dump” for
unwanted items. Paper, styrofoam, aluminum, glass, rubber, cloth and other
manufactured materials and items large and small are regularly removed as part of
these efforts designed to preserve the many aesthetic features of this unique stream
system.
3. Transportation Related NPS Pollution
As the Bear Creek Watershed has moved from low density agricultural land use to
higher density residential and commercial land use, certain transportation concerns
with an impact on water quality have become evident. Among these are gravel
roadways whose stormwater runoff contributes to stream system sedimentation;
concern with the appropriate design, installation and maintenance of ditches, culverts,
and drains which move water from roadways to the watercourses; concern with the
maintenance of stream-road crossings, and concern with the contribution of gasoline,
oil, anti-freeze and other transportation-related road surface contaminants to the
stream system via stormwater runoff.
In the winter, an additional concern is added with respect to the sodium chloride (salt)
used to de-ice roads and bridges. In particular, attention is directed toward the influx
of chloride into the stream system during the first flush of spring rains. Previous
studies have suggested that the presence of high levels of chloride during a period of
the year when biological activity is high (such as the early spring) can be particularly
damaging to aquatic life (Smith Drain Pilot Watershed Plan, 1990).
At the present time, approximately 80% of the roads in the watershed are paved.
These are maintained by the Kent County Road and Parks Commission. Many of the
unpaved roads of the area are located in the Cannonsburg Game Area. These roads
are particularly vulnerable and are not intended to accommodate levels of traffic
beyond the lowest service levels. Cannon Township has been paving, on average,
approximately one mile of gravel roadway in its townshi p boundaries each year.
While the paving reduces erosion-related water quality problems, these paved
surfaces add to runoff problems associated with water velocity and the roadway
pollutants already discussed. Furthermore, as the Cannon Township Comprehensive
Plan notes, improved roadway networks can attract new or expanded intensive land
uses - and these can place increasing demands on water resources as well as require
further improvements in the transportation infrastructure (Cannon Township
Comprehensive Plan, 1993, C-5).
As a result of the field assessment of the stream system, several sites of NPS pollution
related to transportation structures (roads, bridges, ditches, culverts, etc.) have been
identified. These are shown in Figure 15.
4. In-Stream/Lakefront Related NPS Pollution The most significant instream/lakefront source of NPS pollution is bank erosion which creates additional
sediment. Bank erosion is promoted by high water velocity, human and animal foot
traffic along banks and within the stream/lake system itself, and road and stream
crossings lacking appropriate BMPs for erosion control.
An estimated 10 percent of the entire stream system’s bank area was considered to
need stabilization to reduce NPS pollution.
Figure 15
Transportation Related NPS
C. PREVIOUS MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND ASSESSMENTS IN THE
BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
The records of the Bear Creek Watershed with respect to state concern for fisheries
management extends back at least to 1927, when the Department of Conservation (now
the DNR) assessed the main stream channel and began stocking it with brown trout. The
stream condition at the time was noted to be unpolluted, with clear water, gravel and sand
bottom, swift currents, and abundant plant and animal life including watercress, shrimp,
larvae, worms, and flies.
Stocking with brown trout, in numbers ranging from a high of 1,200 in 1948 to a low of
300 in 1952 and 1953 continued, and stocking of rainbow trout, in numbers ranging from
200 to 300 a year, was added in 1952. Starting in 1955, the stream was stocked once each
trout pre-season and once in season with both rainbow and brown trout numbering
approximately 500 in the pre-season and 200 in mid-season. In the first half of the 1960s,
stocking of brown and rainbow trout continued, however fewer fish were placed in the
stream each year during this time.
In 1953, 1954, 1959, 1962, and 1964 the institute of Fisheries Research conducted creel
census summaries on the creek. Over the period, the number of brook and brown trout
showed moderate stability, but the numbers of rainbow trout declined markedly. In 1962,
only two rainbow were caught in 49 hours of fishing in the stream. In 1964, none were
caught in 54 hours of fishing. In April 1965, the stream was reclassified and stocking of
all trout was discontinued.
In 1969, the Department of Conservation undertook a stream fish collection survey which
found the stream to be clear, with a gravel and sand bottom, good cover and no
vegetation. Natural food present included insects, crayfish, scuds and minnows.
Thereafter, in July 1972, the Department of Conservation conducted a general fish survey
which reported a fair trout population, but a lack of natural reproduction in the stream.
The water was clear, with a mostly fast velocity, and had no higher aquatic vegetation in
evidence. Natural food was reported as excellent to poor. A few brook, brown and
rainbow trout were caught, along with limited numbers of smallmouth bass, grass
pickerel, suckers, chubs, sculpin, brook stickleback, brook lamprey, blacknose dace,
blacksided and rainbow darters, redhorse, burbot, northern pike, pumpkin sunfish,
rockbass, and black crappie. Several sites were
monitored, with sand silt noted in several of these, especially in sites near the
Cannonsburg Ski Area which was under development at the time,
The largest numbers of fish in the 1972 survey were found downstream from the
Chauncey Road dam which had good cover composed of large rock and cement slabs,
and a bottom which was 30% rock, 40% sand, 20% gravel, and 10% silt with sparse
vegetation but good natural food sources including crayfish, minnows and aquatic
insects.
In April 1974, the Bureau of Water Management of the DNR undertook an extensive
biological survey of Bear Creek, focusing on the waters in the vicinity of Cannonsburg.
The survey found that the 1973-74 Cannonsburg Road reconstruction project by the Kent
County Road Commission had resulted in “substantial loading of eroded sediments to
Bear Creek and several tributaries” and “that erosion from the Cannonsburg Ski Area
prior to the fall of 1969 had also resulted in substantial sediment loading to the creek”
(Willson, 1974, Summary).
The report concluded that Bear Creek remained a high quality, high gradient coldwater
trout stream. Above the sources of sediment loadings, the stream substrate was clean
cobble and gravel, with no sand deposits evident. The benthic macroinvertebrate
community was seen as exceptionally diverse and productive.
In 1990, District 9 DNR Fisheries Biologist E.J. Trimberger wrote to Janice Tompkins,
DNR Surface Water Quality Division Analyst:
“Bear Creek is a self-sustaining brook and brown trout stream in west central Kent
County. It lies in an area that until recently has remained relatively undeveloped. The
urban sprawl of the last decade has put considerable pressure on this stream through
development within the watershed” (Trimberger, 1990, correspondence).
Since 1990, the Bear Creek Watershed has been the focus of considerable attention from
several associated research and conservation efforts. The GVSU Water Resources
Institute has undertaken mapping and modeling projects designed to provide the ongoing
Grand River Watershed initiative with detailed information on this subwatershed. Many
of the figures in this Management Plan were produced by the WRI as a part of this
cooperative effort.
In addition, several projects involving such practices as in-stream sediment moving
structures, fish surveys and sampling, and measures of pollutants are ongoing at the
current time, funded from a variety of sources including the Kellogg Foundation of Battle
Creek through the Groundwater Education In Michigan (GEM) Project and Grand Rapids
Foundation through the Grand River Watershed Study.
The general consensus of all of the previous studies is that Bear Creek has been and
continues to have the potential to be a productive trout habitat and a clean, non-polluted
water resource with significant recreational and aesthetic value. At the present time, this
habitat is threatened by many forces - some of recent origin, but many of several decades
duration. All research points to the need to take immediate action to preserve and protect
the remaining positive features of this unique ecosystem, as well as to restore the features
which have been lost over time through neglect and damaging land and water
management practices.
Treatment of lakes in the watershed - particularly Bostwick and Ratigan - have also been
undertaken in the past two decades as part of an ongoing effort at aquatic weed control.
Results of a single study of Bostwick Lake from the 1970s related to nitrate levels
showed normal levels, however, routine testing is no longer performed as part of the
treatment effort. Despite this lack of testing, Bostwick Lake was treated four times in
1993 by a commercial lake management company to remove aquatic vegetation.
III. GOALS AND DESIRED USES OF THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
As the foregoing description of the land and water resources has made clear, the Bear
Creek Watershed is a geophysical resource whose best use is probably not for residential,
commercial or even agricultural purposes. On the other hand, its steep slope, soil types,
abundance of streams, springs, wetlands and lakes, and varieties of native plants and
animals underscore its value as recreational land, wildlife habitat and forestry preserves.
A. GOALS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL LAND USE
Because of the proximity of the watershed to the Grand Rapids metropolitan area, the
watershed area is becoming more and more popular as a site for homes and small
businesses. Ironically, many of the features which make the watershed unsuitable for
development are the very features which attract homeowners to these properties including steep slopes, stream and lake system proximity, wetlands, and the unmistakable
ambiance of “country living”,
associated with many open vistas and wildlife species diversity.
In 1991, the amount of land developed for residential or commercial use comprised less
than 10 percent, or fewer than 2,000 acres, of the total watershed area. In the two years
since, several additional residential developments have been completed or are under
construction, and some commercial development has occurred as well. For the most part,
this development involves the transformation of agricultural land into residential or
commercial building sites. Despite the limitations posed by the environmental features of
the watershed it is unrealistic to set a goal of totally terminating or significantly reversing
this suburban/urban development.
Major goals of the project, therefore, are to work aggressively with the townships in
which the watershed lies to: a.) heighten public awareness, b.) provide targeted public
education around water quality concerns, c.) support the creation and implementation of
public policies which protect watershed resources, and d.) secure financial backing from
multiple sources for implementation of necessary BMPs to reduce or remove current NPS
pollution related to existing residential and commercial development.
A related goal involves working with current watershed landowners to support the
placement of undeveloped lands, stream corridors, forest stands and other parcels into
conservation easements and trusts administered by Kent County, townships, or
environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and Natural Areas
Conservancy of West Michigan (NACOWMI).
B. GOALS RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
The goals for the project with respect to agricultural land use are similar to those for
residential/commercial land use, however there is little thrust toward the creation of new
agricultural lands in the watershed. Indeed, the trend is in the opposite direction, with the
conversion of agricultural lands to residential/commercial lands readily evident. The
goals with agricultural lands, therefore, are not to develop and implement strategies
which focus on future development, but to develop and implement strategies which can
address current practices with negative impacts on watershed quality. In 1991, between
one-fourth to one-third - or about 5,500
acres - of the watershed was devoted to agricultural production, including row crops and
livestock. (Row crop acreage outnumbered livestock acreage about 2:1.) These
agricultural acres have been documented as contributing significantly to the variety and
severity of water quality problems, but nearly all of these contributions can be removed
or reduced with the implementation of appropriate site-specific BMPs. The goals are to
preserve the existing agricultural land base as an important economic, cultural, and social
resource; b.) to reduce negative environmental impacts on the watershed by
implementing BMPs; and, c.) to secure financial support for these efforts from a variety
of sources.
C. GOALS RELATED TO FORESTED AND RECREATIONAL LANDS
The forest and recreational lands of the watershed are a major resource toward which
serious attention must be directed. In 1991, nearly 55% of the area - or some 11,000 acres
- were devoted to these uses. As with agricultural lands, however, these lands are at-risk
from the push toward residential/ commercial development.
The major goals of this project with respect to these lands are: a.) to insure that the most
environmentally sensitive acreage remains in an undeveloped state; b.) to promote the
conversion of lands currently used for other purposes (such as agriculture) to this use;
and, c.) to promote appropriate management and use of the lands to minimize NPS
pollution.
Bear Creek Project staff and volunteers will support and participate in the development of
comprehensive plans to reduce NPS in recreational areas such as golf courses, lakes and
private and public off-road vehicle trails.
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL AREAS, PRIORITY SITES AND BMP
IMPLEMENTATION AREAS
The implementation strategies which follow depend upon first identifying “critical areas”
and “priority sites” in the Bear Creek Watershed. Based on topographic and hydrologic
considerations, a one-quarter mile corridor (along both sides of stream channels) has been
designated as the Critical Area. Critical areas are those where the largest number and
most serious NPS pollutants occur: priority sites are specific locations (generally within a
critical area) where the most serious contributions to NPS pollution have been
documented as occurring or having a high potential to occur in the future. As a general
rule, proximity to the stream system and related bodies of water is associated
quantitatively and qualitatively with the effects of NPS pollutants on water quality:
The closer the pollutant source, the higher the likelihood that its impact will not only be
more extensive, but also more severe.
Efforts to address NPS pollution in watersheds such as Bear Creek are best
conceptualized as Best Management Practices (BMPs). These are structural, vegetative,
or managerial practices used to treat, prevent, or reduce water pollution in surface or
groundwaters (DNR, 1993, p. 2).
For this reason, the Bear Creek Watershed Steering Committee’s Technical Advisory
Subcommittee has defined these critical areas, priority sites, and implementation areas as
follows:
A Critical Area has been identified along the stream and its tributaries which includes
all watercourses, and an area ¼ of a mile (about 1500 feet) on either side. The Critical
Area also includes all lakes and a ¼ mile corridor around these lakes, as well as all
wetland areas in the watershed (See Figure 16).
Priority Sites have also been identified. These are specific locations where existing
NPS pollution has been documented or is likely to occur. Visual identification of NPS
pollution by project staff and data from the SCS (on slope, soil type, field crop history
and rotation, and current crop or livestock management practices), from the WRI (on
basement and septic limitations), and from the Kent County Health Department (on
bacterial contamination) have been used in prioritizing these sites. Priority sites are
those sites designated on the agricultural, residential and transportation-related NPS
maps presented previously in this report.
Six Implementation Areas have been created to further focus the implementation
efforts (See Figure 17). These are Implementation Areas and the number of priority
sites each contains are as follows: 1.) North Branch Implementation Area (37 sites);
2.) East Branch Implementation Area (13 sites); Upper Main Channel Implementation
Area (26 sites); Middle Main Channel Implementation Area (19 sites); and, 5.) Lower
Main Channel Implementation Area (29 sites).
Figure 16
Critical Area Designation
Figure 17
Implementation Areas
V. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Three highly related and interwoven programs are proposed as the means to reach the
goals and achieve the desired uses of land described in Section III. The first of these
programs is a targeted Public Education and Participation Program; the second, a Public
Policy Program; and the third, a BMP Program designed to provide assistance in the
design, installation and maintenance of site-specific BMPs, particularly those within the
critical area.
1. The Public Education and Participation Program The Public Education and
Participation Program is an important component of the project. The experiences of
the planning year support the observation that, in general, citizens of the watershed
are not well-informed about water quality issues. On the other hand, interest in water
quality is high and many citizens are motivated to action when they receive
appropriate information. The activities proposed for implementation under this grant
will build on efforts begun in the planning year, but will move toward providing
information designed for and delivered to targeted audiences as well as to the general
population. These targeted audiences include streambank and lakeside residents,
fourth and fifth grade students in public and private schools, farmers, residential and
commercial developers and public officials.
a. Newsletter production and distribution
The Bear Creek Indicator and The Creeky Chronicle have each been published
and distributed four times during the planning year of the project to all households
in the watershed. Each issue of the Indicator has been 4 to 12 pages in length; the
Creeky Chronicle has been 2 pages. In addition to the distribution to households,
the Chronicle has been distributed to 300 elementary school children at Lakes and
Cannonsburg Schools in their classrooms. Appendix E contains copies of the
Indicator and Creeky Chronicle.
The Indicator is directed toward the general population with an emphasis on
environmental, particularly water-related, education. Members of
the BCWP Steering Committee have contributed articles on a regular basis on
such topics as riparian concerns, stormwater runoff, erosion, and the water cycle.
The newsletter is also used to inform the community about planned meetings,
environmental events, grants-in-progress, Steering Committee activities, and any
other news of interest.
The Creeky Chronicle is focused on the education of children at a middle to late
elementary school level. It includes one feature story each issue about a waterrelated topic (such as glaciers, indicator species, the importance of trees) and
poems, drawings, puzzles and other information of interest to the targeted age
level. Despite the fact that The Creeky Chronicle is primarily written for young
children, watershed residents of all ages report reading and enjoying each issue.
The continued publication of both The Bear Creek Indicator and The Creeky
Chronicle on the same schedule for the life of the project is proposed. These
newsletters are the backbone of the pubic education campaign.
b. Watershed Hydrologic Environmental Education Laboratory (WHEEL)
Project WHEEL (Watershed Hydrologic Environmental Education Laboratory) is
conceptualized as a mobile water resources education classroom. This classroom
will be created in a van. The van will be equipped with materials and supplies to
provide hands-on environmental education experiences for school age children again, with a primary emphasis on water quality topics.
Funding will be sought to secure the van, its materials and supplies (for example,
books, stream monitoring equipment, a portable weather station, computer
hardware and software, maps, and instruments for hydrologic investigation), and a
part-time driver/volunteer coordinator/ naturalist. Project WHEEL will be
available to all residents of the Bear Creek Watershed, but its efforts will be
addressed particularly to fourth and fifth grade students in public and private
schools and their teachers.
c. Hydrologic Education Line for Partners (HELP)
Project HELP (Hydrologic Education Line for Partners) is a program feature
designed to take advantage of emerging telecommunications technology for
conveying specific information tailored to individual needs. The HELP line will
feature an extensive data base of water quality issues, concerns, community
resources available by telephone tapes to watershed residents and interested
others. A “branching menu-driven” format will be employed, allowing the caller
to utilize a touch tone telephone to secure information by responding to a series of
instructions (eg., “If you would like information on soil testing, press 8; if you
would like information on water testing, press 9; if you would like information on
trout habitat, press 3”).
The information will be available on brief (3 minutes or less) tapes. At the end of
each topical tape, the name of other agencies or individuals who can provide more
complete information will be provided to the caller.
The program is envisioned as providing information on reporting emergency
water quality problems (oil spills, road damage, flooding), septic systems,
scheduled meetings relating to the Bear Creek Project, Adopt-A-Stream
information, information on conservation trusts and easements, general
information on the Bear Creek Project, and telephone numbers and addresses of
local officials, organizations and agencies to call for more information.
Information will also be put on the HELP Line about who to contact in specific
situations, for example, if a landowner wants to divert the stream, change wetland
areas, build a bridge or otherwise impact some part of the watershed critical area.
HELP will be widely publicized in The Indicator as well as by posters and in
public speaking engagements.
d. The Bear Creek Players
The Bear Creek Players will be a troupe of citizen volunteers under the direction
of a paid director who will provide water quality education in
an interactive “skit” format to community groups in and around the Bear Creek
Watershed.
The skits will revolve around water quality issues and, in general, they will be
created to stimulate audience discussion and involvement, rather than for pure
entertainment. Proposed audiences for the BC Players include schools, churches,
developer’s organizations, 4H clubs, Scout troops, garden clubs, and community
forums. Topics will generally incorporate the themes of responsible stewardship
and environmental choices. For example, skits might include an enactment of the
different points of view of a farmer and a builder about the use of a piece of
lakeside property; or, a dramatization of the differing points of view around the
need for and uses of environmental ordinances and laws.
The BC Player director will be an experienced discussion leader capable of
involving each audience in the performance. The director will also train
performers, oversee script production, conduct rehearsals, publicize the Players,
schedule performances, and participate in the evaluation of the Program
accomplishments.
e. Presentations and Meetings
The Project Manager has presented at a variety of educational meetings during the
first program year. These include presentations to citizens groups, to school
children, to governmental officials, and to professional audiences. It is anticipated
that these presentations will continue and, in fact, increase over the
implementation period.
Other members of the Steering Committee and Citizens Committee are involved
in presentations and meetings as well in pursuit of Project goals. These are
expected to continue and increase as well.
f. Bear Creek Citizens Committee
The Bear Creek Citizens Committee was formed during the Project’s first year as
a grass-roots organization of residents focused on watershed
needs. The Citizens Committee will continue to function over the life of the
Project and beyond.
In the next 3 years, the Citizens Committee will be involved in creating and
distributing specific literature targeted to identified groups within the watershed for example, streambank residents. They will also be intimately involved in the
formation and promotion of riparian clubs.
It is anticipated that the Citizens Committee will also take the lead in organizing
and sponsoring an annual Water Quality Awareness/”Earth Day” in the watershed
each spring. At such a community-wide event, considerable environmental
education will be possible in an informal, neighbor-to-neighbor approach.
The Citizens Committee will utilize its funds for the creation, publication, or
purchase of pamphlets, and for the materials and supplies necessary to design and
publicize Water Quality Awareness activities.
g. Bear Creek Watershed Video Production(s)
In the first Project year, raw footage for a 20to 30-minute videotape production
was shot of the Bear Creek Watershed by a professional photographer. In the next
three years additional footage will be secured and all of the film will be edited
into a finished product or into several finished products, duplicated, and
distributed.
It is expected that the videos produced will be suitable for public access
television, the local Health Channel (which airs films with environmental
themes), and to public groups, including school children, civic groups, church
groups, Scout troops, 4-H clubs, and so on.
Costs associated with the Video Production in the implementation phase include
cost for materials, for additional footage, editing, duplication, promotion, and
distribution.
h. Riparian Clubs
Riparian Clubs are envisioned as groups of residents who live generally in the
critical area
along the streambank or around the edges of lakes. These individuals and families
often have many environmental concerns in common with their immediate
neighbors, for example, a shared concern with streambank erosion, fish health,
sedimentation or bacterial contamination.
Although these areas are rural in nature, it is believed that the common riparian
concerns of adjacent landowners will be strong enough to provide a foundation
for the formation of “clubs.” These would be similar in concept to “block clubs”
in urban settings, except that the “blocks” would generally be linear on either side
of a stream corridor or around a lake.
Riparian Clubs will serve many of the same functions as urban Block Clubs,
including shared responsibility for problem-solving around common problems,
watchfulness for neighbor’s property, and as a forum from which to address
elected officials, agencies, and organizations. Funds secured for this program will
be used to publicize and organize Riparian Clubs, to secure materials for
membership training and empowerment, and to evaluate the effectiveness of this
approach.
i. The 4-H Program
The 4-H Program is seen as an opportunity to involve urban youth, including
inner-city minority young people, with an environmental project which has a
strong rural character. In addition, watershed residents will gain exposure to urban
youth and have opportunities to work cooperatively with them in watershed
improvement projects.
The funds secured for this purpose will be used to recruit, train, and employ 6
youth, 2 crew leaders, and a supervisor to install and maintain BMP structures,
principally on agricultural sites. The program will be carried out during the
summer, providing summer employment for urban young persons. Mileage and
program administration costs are also provided for.
j. Water Resources Institute (GVSU) Program
This is a combination education-evaluation approach which has five public
education and
participation components and four evaluative components. The educational
components are modeling of land use changes through the year 2020; creating
BMP-based evaluation through digital elevation modeling; developing ground
water protection strategies; developing septic system maintenance programs; and
identifying greenspace, wildlife and wetland areas.
Also included are the creation of two automated and six semi-permanent
monitoring sites at Townsend Park and the mouth of Bear Creek; modeling
coliform movement; and studying toxic metal contamination and movement.
k. Consumers Power Program
This would be a partnership between Consumer’s Power and agricultural
landowners in the watershed. The utility would recognize and provide support for
use of conservation practices on these agricultural lands.
1. The Environmental Umbrella
The Environmental Umbrella is envisioned as an organizational structure which
would provide 501c-3 status to its participant organizations. The Umbrella would
be comprised of all environmental groups in the watershed. The Umbrella would
be utilized to seek foundation funds and to promote coordination of efforts among
participating organizations.
2. Public Policy Initiatives
As a part of its continuation, the Bear Creek Watershed Project anticipates significant
involvement in the development or modification of public policy over the next several
years. These public policy initiative can be broken down into the following program
components:
a. Research
This component will support formal research into city, county, township and state
ordinances regarding water quality. Special emphasis will be placed upon projects
with applicability to watersheds approximately the same size as Bear Creek which
have related concerns.
The research will be prepared in written form, edited, and prepared for
distribution to public officials, citizens, and others.
b. Presentation Materials
The Project will secure a permanent display booth. Funds will be used for
materials, design, construction, maintenance, and storage. Furthermore, the
display booth will have a wide range of printed materials for distribution from the
booth at meetings, forums, and other community presentations.
This booth will be constructed in the first year of the implementation Project and
thereafter, it will be revised or modified, as needed, utilized, maintained, and
stored.
c. Consultation on Public Policy
The GVSU Water Resources Institute has available a software package to
facilitate ongoing consultation and dialogue with township officials, especially
planning staff. This software will assist in making land use decisions at a
watershed level.
d. Ordinance Development
All of the townships in the watershed need assistance in the development of
appropriate ordinances to preserve, protect and restore the features identified as
important to the survival of the Bear Creek Watershed. Funds secured under this
section will be used to procure legal advice, to research options, and prepare,
review and modify suggested ordinances or laws.
The Watershed Project will also provide expert testimony and consultation not
only to townships, but to Kent County, metropolitan area agencies, and the State
of Michigan on matters which impact the watershed.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Program Component
A wide range of BMPs have been identified as appropriate to address the problems of
the Bear
Creek Watershed. These BMPs will be utilized to protect, preserve, and restore the
area’s water and land resources.
Although described as a Project activity, implementation and maintenance of BMPs
depend on landowner cooperation and participation, including sharing a portion of the
costs. For this reason, an important part of BMP implementation and maintenance is
dependent on the public education efforts. Without an informed landowner base, the
likelihood of implementing these BMPs successfully is very low. On the other hand,
with the support of educated and enthusiastic landowners, the likelihood of successful
BMP installation and maintenance is very high.
The BMPs recommended fall generally into one of four categories, although some
overlap is unavoidable since the stream system problems are so interrelated. These
categories are:
a. Critical Area Planting Practices
Critical area planting BMPs are those used to (re)establish vegetation. They are
generally applied to any and all areas rendered bare of vegetation, either by
human-induced or natural forces such as water or wind.
Critical area planting BMPs include mulching; shaping; tree, shrub and ground
cover planting; seeding; fertilizing; sodding; and soil management.
Critical area planting BMPs will be undertaken on agricultural, residential,
commercial, and recreational lands to improve water quality and support
appropriate land use.
b. Stream and Lake Protection and Improvement Practices
Many specific activities address the need to directly protect and/or improve the
surface water in the watershed. These include practices implemented within the
waters themselves, or on lands adjacent to the waters in the critical area.
The BMPs selected for implementation in the Bear Creek Watershed include
fencing; critical area stabilization with vegetative materials; control of livestock
access to surface waters through appropriate fencing; provision of alternative
water sources for livestock; utilization of buffer and filter strips; and installation
of sediment basins. Others include use of grassed waterways; implementation of
contour planting, conservation tillage practices, integrated crop management and
integrated pest management on agricultural lands; household pollutant
management; animal waste management; and the construction of erosion control
structures.
Still other BMPs for stream/lake protection and improvement include pond
restoration; instream erosion repair; transportation-related stormwater reduction
and control; and stream-road crossing repair.
Finally, sediment removal BMPs, including vectoring are recommended for
implementation in sections of the stream itself where sediment deposition has
particular impact on the quality of aquatic habitat.
Stream/lake protection and improvement BMPs will be implemented on
agricultural, residential, commercial, and recreational lands, as appropriate to
each specific site.
c. Wetland Restoration and Protection Practices
The wetlands of the watershed are at risk from many sources, including
development, agricultural practices, and natural forces. Some wetland areas have
been lost, others are at-risk, and still others have recently received protection
through public land trusts and easements.
For those in need of restoration and protection, the BMPs that address soil erosion
and stormwater runoff as well as restorative techniques such as dam building and
replanting are recommended. Wetlands will also benefit from other BMPs
implemented within the critical area where the vast majority of wetlands are
located.
d. Trout Habitat Improvement and Protection Practices
BMPs will be implemented in the waters of the watershed to improve the habit of
trout and other aquatic species. These include the construction of in-stream
structures (eg., log weirs) providing cover, pools, and spawning and feeding
habitat. The planting of trees and shrubs at waters’ edge will also enhance trout
habitat, by cooling the stream and further stabilizing the banks.
Habitat-enhancing BMPs will be utilized on all sites - including residential,
agricultural, and recreational - where the encouragement of trout and other aquatic
species is desired.
e. Improvement and Protection Practices in Non-Critical Areas
BMPs will be concentrated within the previously described Critical Area(s) to
achieve cost effectiveness. However, there is little land in the Bear Creek
Watershed that is not either in or extremely close to the Critical Area. On sites
lying outside the Critical Area where a NPS pollution problem has been
documented or has the potential to develop, every effort will be made to extend
assistance.
In particular, this principle applies to erosion sites outside of the Critical Area,
since much of the eroded materials eventually end up being transported into the
Critical Area and the stream/ river system.
Use of Clean Water Act - Section 319 funds would be limited to improving sites
within the critical area only. Sites outside the critical area will be addressed with
funds from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
Agricultural Conservation (ACS) funds, other grant funds, other federal, state and
local funds, and through ongoing education and technical assistance.
f. BMP Prioritizing Strategy
Individual BMPs will be prioritized within each of the five Implementation Areas.
The priority will
be based upon the severity of the NPS problem identified or anticipated and the
availability of funds to address that specific problem as determined by the Project
Manager, the Steering Committee, and Project consultants.
B. INNOVATIONS IN THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The implementation effort provides an opportunity to incorporate several innovative
approaches and practices to watershed improvement. These include:
1. Highly visible partnerships between public and private organizations and
individuals to achieve goals. To date, a wide range of “players” have been involved
in the planning effort, including local township officials, county commissions and
boards, environmental advocacy organizations, local schools and universities, and
private citizens. The establishment and maintenance of close working relationships
between these entities is expected to be a hallmark of this Project.
2. A visible, active public education and participation component. Many of the
program features designed to achieve an informed public are innovative, including
WHEELS, HELP, The Bear Creek Players, the Bear Creek Citizens Committee, the
video(s), Riparian Clubs, and the 4-H Project.
3. A focused, creative public policy initiative to insure the creation of ordinances or
laws, as well as a high level of voluntary compliance with watershed protection
practices.
4. The creation of BMPs to serve the entire watershed region, especially where sitespecific BMP implementation would be prohibited by excessive costs. In the area of
animal waste management, for example, the large number of geographically dispersed
livestock sites renders the construction and maintenance of individual site-by-site
containment and manure treatment structures too expensive for consideration.
Instead, attention will be directed toward the development of a process and associated
structures which can contain and treat livestock wastes in a single location for use by
all livestock owners.
5. The improvement of fish habitat via in-stream structures. The GVSU WRI is
currently implementing a
grant-funded demonstration project to construct trout habitat structures in Bear Creek.
These structures have the potential to enhance the aquatic diversity of the entire
stream system.
VI. PROJECTED BENEFITS OF THE BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. PRIMARY BENEFITS
The primary benefits of the Bear Creek Management Plan are projected to be the
reduction of sedimentation and bacterial contamination in the surface and groundwaters
of the area. These benefits have direct and positive public health and environmental
consequences, as well as the potential to improve the overall quality of life for watershed
inhabitants.
At the present time, water pollution is a fact of life in the Bear Creek Watershed.
Sedimentation and bacterial contamination has destroyed much aquatic vegetation and instream species diversity; bacterial contamination has rendered the stream system unfit for
total body contact. A tradition of using the waters and lands of the area for recreation and
sport is threatened by these developments. If sedimentation and bacterial contamination
can be controlled, removed, and prevented from reoccurring, the waters and their
surrounding land areas have the potential to rebound to their most productive uses.
Direct environmental benefits would extend to the soils, the lakes and to the wildlife
species which have been able to survive in the watershed. Soil loss would be minimized;
lower nutrient concentrations would occur; and excessive plant growth in lakes would be
checked.
B. SECONDARY BENEFITS
All of these direct benefits would be enhanced by one another. The entire ecological
system would acquire a new, healthier balance from the implementation of this
management plan.
Secondary benefits of implementation would relate to improvements in agricultural
production, improvement in wetland habitats, lower drainage maintenance costs, and
increased citizen and public official awareness.
VII. PROJECTED PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. ESTIMATES OF LOCAL PARTICIPATION
The Kent County ASCS Office reports that a significant percentage of eligible farmers
currently participate in the governmental programs. Furthermore, public interest in water
quality is high. Local citizens have established four Adopt-A-Stream teams to cleanup
Bear Creek, and two existing, local organizations - PACE and CACEA - have been
joined by the Bear Creek Watershed Citizens Committee to provide action and advocacy
opportunities for residents.
B. RELATED PARTICIPATION IN THE WATERSHED
Several projects are currently underway or planned which will enhance or contribute to
the Management Plan. These include efforts under the direction of the Water Resources
Institute being carried out as part of the Grand River Watershed Initiative funded by
Grand Rapids Foundation; efforts being carried out by the WRI as part of the Kellogg
Foundation funded Groundwater Education in Michigan (GEM) project; the construction
of trout habitat in Bear Creek by WRI staff; a Small Business Administration/DNRfunded streambank planting on sites along Bear Creek in Townsend Park; and a urban
forestry initiative funded by the DNR within Cannon Township.
The Kent County Health Department and Kent County Road and Parks Commission are
also active participants historically and currently in the watershed.
Furthermore, the WRI maintains a comprehensive water quality studies program, which
includes charting well-log data, conducting water quality tests, and providing computer
maps and models related to water quality problems.
VIII. ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
No adverse environmental, public health, or social problems are anticipated as a
consequence of implementing the management plan. A variety of checks and balances
have been established utilizing the Steering Committee, citizen groups, and public
officials to insure that Project activities are appropriate and in keeping with community
values and current scientific practices.
IX. AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Management Plan will be implemented as a cooperative venture by a variety of
agencies and organizations, but Cannon Township will assume primary responsibility for
administration and Project oversight. Input from and feedback to officials of the other
townships within the watershed will be utilized to insure the maximum feasible level of
public participation and cooperation at this governmental level.
Management will be accomplished by the employment of a full-time Project Manager,
and appropriate support staff to carry out the Management Plan in an efficient and timely
manner. The Project Manager will be responsible for reaching Project goals and
objectives.
Other agencies and organizations expected to participate include:
1. Kent County Soil Conservation District
The Soil Conservation District will be responsible for entering into agreements with
landowners or land users. District staff offer technical assistance through the Soil
Conservation Service. Soil Conservation Districts are legally recognized entities in
the State of Michigan authorized to administer soil and water conservation activities
and programs within their boundaries.
Duane Roberts is the chairman of the Kent Soil Conservation District Board.
2. USDA Soil Conservation Service
The SCS was formed by the US Congress in 1935 to address soil loss problems
highlighted by the “dust bowl” era. Today the SCS assists landowners, land users and
other with planning activities, application practices, and land and water conservation
and maintenance. Assistance is offered for planning, layout, supervision, and
certification of BMPs. Most assistance from the Soil Conservation Service is offered
through Soil Conservation Districts by District Conservationists. Steven Utic is the
Kent County District Conservationist.
3. United States Department of Agriculture - Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service ASCS provides cost-sharing on soil and water conservation and
pollution prevention practicing. Most of these funds are channeled through the
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) for landowners and other applying soil,
water, and wildlife conservation practices on agricultural lands in production.
David Bain serves as Kent County Executive Director of the ASCS.
4. United States Department of Agriculture - Cooperative Extension Service The
Cooperative Extension Service is the educational arm of the USDA. It offers
landowners, homeowners and others information on conservation programs and
practices. The CES is also the link between the general public and the land-grant
university (Michigan State University) which originates this educational information.
Dr. William Harrison is the Kent County CES Director.
5. Michigan Department of Agriculture
Technical and financial assistance to soil conservation districts is provided through
the MDA. Guidelines for Michigan’s “Right to Farm” laws are coordinated by the
MDA as well. Jim Johnson serves as MDA Environmental Division staff from the
Lansing office; Kurt Thalen, serves as “Right to Farm” staff from the Lansing office.
6. Michigan Department of Natural Resources The MDNR oversees protection of the
state’s natural resources, including water, land, air, and wildlife.
The agency provides technical assistance and financial incentives for the protection
and preservation of farmland, forestland, wetlands, and open space. The Bear Creek
Watershed Management Plan will utilize the MDNR for assistance with aquatic and
other wildlife habitat restoration and protection, stream improvements, pollution site
management, and animal and human waste facilities control.
Janice Tompkins is the MDNR, District #9 Environmental Water Quality Analyst
stationed in Grand Rapids; Amy Hilt is District #9 Fisheries Division staff; and, Tom
Nederveld is District #9 Wildlife Division Biologist.
Thad Cleary, Surface Water Quality Division, Nonpoint Source staff member is
headquartered in Lansing.
7. Kent County Road Commission
The Kent County Road Commission can identify and remediate present and potential
stream-road sites of NPS. Ronald Sytsma is the Chair of the Kent County Road
Commission.
8. Kent County Drain Commission
The Drain Commission is responsible for the establishment general maintenance, and
repair of county drains. Roger Laninga is Kent County Drain Commissioner.
Letters of support from these and other cooperating agencies and organizations are
appended to this report.
X. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The Bear Creek Watershed Project has completed its first, planning year of existence. It
has moved confidently into its second year of existence with a focus on public education
and continued watershed study, along with preparing for the installation and maintenance
of BMPs.
Approval of this Management Plan which would allow implementation of projects
funded with federal 319 funds to begin in April 1994 is anticipated.
Efforts are also underway to secure funding sources for portions of the Plan which will
require other support. In the 1993-94 project year, contacts will be made with foundations
and companies which support environmental projects.
XI. PROJECT EVALUATION STRATEGY
The proposed Management Plan involves the implementation of a complex,
interconnected set of activities. Evaluation of the Project outcomes must therefore be
multi-faceted, interconnected, and creative.
An evaluation consultant will be utilized to design and oversee this effort. At a minimum,
the design will involve site-specific assessments of sedimentation and bacterial
contamination, along with measurements of other biological indicators of environmental
quality.
Funds will be sought to secure baseline measures of NPS pollutants such as toxic
chemicals and heavy metals, and to monitor any changes in these levels which occur over
time. Changes in fish, macroinvertebrate and wildlife populations will also be monitored,
along with the extent and quality of vegetative cover in the watershed.
The maintenance of BMPs by landowners will also be monitored and evaluated as part of
the overall evaluation effort.
XII. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
The projected costs for full implementation of the Management Plan over a 3-year period
can be considered in terms of three broad areas: Public Program Costs, BMP Costs, and
Personnel Costs.
Public Program Costs include costs for all educational programs, as well as for public
policy initiatives. BMP Costs include costs for technical assistance and consultation, as
well as for installation and maintenance of BMP structures. Personnel Costs include costs
for Project staff, including fringe benefits.
These figures are as follows:
Public Program Costs
BMP Implementation Costs
Personnel Costs
Total Estimated Budget
$ 662,820
$ 1,212,849
$ 339,298
$ 2,274,967
A. PUBLIC PROGRAM COST DETAIL
Public Program Costs have been estimated as
1. Public Education/Participation Programs follows:
Newsletter
12 issues
@
$ 1,400
WHEELS
1 vehicle
@
$ 15,000
Operating $
@
$ 15,000 yr.
HELP
Operating $
@
$ 833 yr.
BCWP Players
720 hrs.
@
$ 10 hr.
5,616 hrs
@
$ 5 hr.
Materials
@
$ 8,220
BC Citizens Comm.
Operating $
@
$ 5,400
Video production
Production$
@
$ 6,000
Riparian Clubs
Operating $
@
$ 8,000
4H Program
Operating $
@
$ 38,520
WRI Program
Modeling,etc. @
$150,000
Consumer’s Power
Partnership
@
$300,000
Environ. Umbrella
Operating $
@
$ 7,500
2. Public Policy Programs
Ordinance Develop.
Operating $
@
$ 6,900
Presentations
Operating $
@
$ 4,100
Consultation
Operating $
@
$ 13,600
SUBTOTAL: PUBLIC PROGRAMS
$ 662,820
$ 16,800
$ 15,000
$ 45,000
$ 2,500
$ 7,200
$ 28,080
$ 8,220
$ 5,400
$ 6,000
$ 8,000
$ 38,520
$150,000
$300,000
$ 7,500
$ 6,900
$ 4,100
$ 13,600
B. BMP COST DETAIL
1. Agricultural Sites
Cr. Area Plant
8 acres
@
$ 700 acre
$ 5,600
2. Stream Protection
Fencing
9,200 ft
@
Planting
Access
Crossing
13 acres
3 sites
5 sites
@
@
@
$ 70 acre
$ 1,275 site
$ 1,275 site
$ 910
$ 3,825
$ 6,375
3. Alternative Water Supply
Tank/Well
12 units
Pond
1 pond
@
@
$ 900 each
$ 4,000 each
$ 10,800
4,000
4. Integrated Crop Management/Integrated Pest Management
Row crops
1,300 ac.
@
$ 15 acre
Fruit crops
50 ac.
@
$ 30 acre
$ 19,500
$ 1,500
5. Others
Buffer strips
Manure contain.
Grassed watwy
Contour plowing
Contill
Sediment Basin
Erosion Control
Tree Planting
Stream Improv.
Roadside Protect.
Wetland Improv.
plant
Hobby Farm Improv.
Wetland Restor.
Rd/Stream Cross.
Repair/vactor
Runoff control
Strmbnk stab (veg)
Comm. strmbnk.
Comm. instrm.eros.
Trout habit. impr.
Dam removal
Bank Restoration
Dump Cleanup
Lake street clean
Strt. sweep
$ 95 per 100 ft $ 8,740
21 ac.
22 sts.
5 ac.
25 ac.
200 ac.
2 sts.
5 str.
16 ac.
3 sts.
2 sts.
2 dams
5 ac.
25 sts.
5 sts.
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
$ 725 acre
$19,545 each
$ 2,500 acre
$ 50 acre
$ 30 acre
$ 1,535 each
$ 1,000 each
$ 50 acre
$ 1,530 each
$ 2,500 each
$ 1,300 each
$ 3,000 acre
$ 2,357 each
$12,500 each
10 sts.
5 sts.
21 sts.
3 sts.
6 sts.
15 sts.
2 sts.
1 st.
7 sts.
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
$21,000 each $ 210,000
$ 1,000 each
$ 5,000
$1,000 each
$ 21,000
$2,500 each
$ 7,500
$1,500 each
$ 9,000
$1,400 each
$ 21,000
$2,500 each
$ 5,000
$10,400 each
$ 10,400
$ 975 each
$ 6,825
$ 3,600 total
$ 3,600
$ 250 sweep
$ 3,000
12 swp.
6. 307 Superfund Site Cleanup
Cleanup
SUBTOTAL; BMP PROGRAMS
$ 15,225
$ 430,000
$ 12,500
$ 1,250
$ 6,000
$ 3,070
$ 5,000
$ 800
$ 4,590
$ 5,000
$ 2,600
$ 15,000
$ 58,929
$ 7,500
$ 275,000
$ 623,024
C. PERSONNEL AND RELATED COST DETAIL
1. Personnel Costs
Project Manager
3yr.
@
Interns
2,016 hrs.
@
Proj. Asst
720 hrs.
@
Fringes
@
Mileage
25,000 mi.
@
2. Evaluation Costs
Evaluation Design
WRI Monitoring and Evaluation
Stream Monitoring
$ 13 hr.
$ 10 hr.
$ 8 hr.
20 %
$ .27 mi.
$ 81,020
$ 20,160
$ 5,760
$ 21,408
$ 6,750
$ 17,500
$ 180,000
$ 24,600
3. Administrative Overhead Costs
Administration
14% x $300,000 Federal funds
$ 42,000
PERSONNEL & RELATED COST SUBTOTAL
$399,298
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET:
$2,274,967
Of this total, $300,000 is requested from Section31: 9-17-f-ederal funds, $10,000
is expected as a local match, and $1,824,967 is expected from other sources such
as foundations and companies: