Bear Creek Watershed Management Plan

BEAR CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT STEWARDSHIP PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGER’S PREFACE i LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Geophysical Features 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 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 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 youth, 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Public Education/Participation Programs follows: Newsletter 12 issues @ $ 1,400 WHEELS vehicle @ $ 15,000 Operating $ @ $ 15,000 yr HELP Operating $ @ $ 833 yr BCWP Players 720 hrs @ $ 10 hr 5,616 hrs @ $ 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 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 Agricultural Sites Cr Area Plant acres @ $ 700 acre $ 5,600 Stream Protection Fencing 9,200 ft @ Planting Access Crossing 13 acres sites sites @ @ @ $ 70 acre $ 1,275 site $ 1,275 site $ 910 $ 3,825 $ 6,375 Alternative Water Supply Tank/Well 12 units Pond pond @ @ $ 900 each $ 4,000 each $ 10,800 4,000 Integrated Crop Management/Integrated Pest Management Row crops 1,300 ac @ $ 15 acre Fruit crops 50 ac @ $ 30 acre $ 19,500 $ 1,500 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 ac 25 ac 200 ac sts str 16 ac sts sts dams ac 25 sts 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 sts 21 sts sts sts 15 sts sts st 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 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 Personnel Costs Project Manager 3yr @ Interns 2,016 hrs @ Proj Asst 720 hrs @ Fringes @ Mileage 25,000 mi @ Evaluation Costs Evaluation Design WRI Monitoring and Evaluation Stream Monitoring $ 13 hr $ 10 hr $ hr 20 % $ 27 mi $ 81,020 $ 20,160 $ 5,760 $ 21,408 $ 6,750 $ 17,500 $ 180,000 $ 24,600 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: ... 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. .. 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... 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