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 1: Bear Creek Watershed ...... 7 FIGURE 2: Wetlands ...... 9 FIGURE 3: Adjacent Watersheds ...... 11 FIGURE 4: Subbasin Delineation ...... 12 FIGURE 5: Parcel Size Changes ...... 15 FIGURE 6: Base Reference Map ...... 16 FIGURE 7: Well Locations ...... 19a FIGURE 8: Aquifer Vulnerability Index ...... 19b FIGURE 9: Septic System Limitations ...... 22 FIGURE 10: County Drains ...... 25 FIGURE 11: Sedimentation ...... 33 FIGURE 12: Fecal Coliform Monitoring Sites ...... 37 FIGURE 13: Agricultural NPS Sites ...... 44 FIGURE 14: Limitations for Basements ...... 46 FIGURE 15: Transportation-Related NPS ...... 49 FIGURE 16: Critical Area Designation ...... 56 FIGURE 17: Implementation Areas ...... 57 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Lakes of Five or More Acres ...... 17 TABLE 2: 24-Hour Rainfall Frequencies ...... 19 TABLE 3: Soil Types ...... 20 TABLE 4: Soil Texture and Infiltration Rates ...... 21 TABLE 5: Monthly Exceedence Flows ...... 23 TABLE 6: County Coliform Monitoring Results ...... 36 TABLE 7: Project Coliform Monitoring Sites ...... 38 TABLE 8: 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 $662,820 BMP Program $1,212,849 Staffing and Related $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 Location Area Name (Section #s) (Acres) C=Cannon/G=Grattan

Bostwick C-11,14 217.0 Pickerel C-14 56.9 Ratigan C-36, G-31 56.0 Gavin G-29 approx 25.0 McCarthy G-30 approx 20.0 Sunfish C-15 10.6 Hyser C-28,33 8.5 Little Bostwick C-14 6.8 Austin C-34 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 self- sustaining 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 Amount

1 year 24 hour 2.20 inches 2 year 24 hour 2.45 inches 5 year 24 hour 3.15 inches 10 year 24 hour 3.65 inches 25 year 24 hour 4.15 inches 50 year 24 hour 4.55 inches 100 year 24 hour 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 Soil Type Percentage

A. Sand, Loamy Sand 43% B. Sandy Loam, Loam 37% C. Silt Loam, Sandy Clay Loam 3% D. Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, Clay 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 Minimum Infiltration Rate in inches per hour Sand 8.27 Loamy Sand 2.41 Sandy Loam 1.02 Loam .52 Silt Loam .27 Sandy Clay Loam .17 Clay Loam .09 Silty Clay Loam .06 Sandy Clay .05 Silty Clay .04 Clay .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

January 16 24 February 18 25 March 22 42 April 25 44 May 18 29 June 15 24 July 11 21 August 11 19 September 12 20 October 13 23 November 16 26 December 20 28

The estimated annual flow durations for Bear Creek at 29.6 square miles in drainage area have been calculated as:

10% 51 cfs 25% 39 cfs 50% 30 cfs 70% 26 cfs 75% 24 cfs 90% 20 cfs 95% 17 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 macro- invertebrates (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 macro- invertebrates 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 bi- weekly 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 well- drained 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 in- stream/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 water- related 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 site- specific 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 in- stream 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/DNR- funded 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 $ 662,820 BMP Implementation Costs $ 1,212,849 Personnel Costs $ 339,298 Total Estimated Budget $ 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 $ 16,800 WHEELS 1 vehicle @ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Operating $ @ $ 15,000 yr. $ 45,000 HELP Operating $ @ $ 833 yr. $ 2,500 BCWP Players 720 hrs. @ $ 10 hr. $ 7,200 5,616 hrs @ $ 5 hr. $ 28,080 Materials @ $ 8,220 $ 8,220 BC Citizens Comm. Operating $ @ $ 5,400 $ 5,400 Video production Production$ @ $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Riparian Clubs Operating $ @ $ 8,000 $ 8,000 4H Program Operating $ @ $ 38,520 $ 38,520 WRI Program Modeling,etc. @ $150,000 $150,000 Consumer’s Power Partnership @ $300,000 $300,000 Environ. Umbrella Operating $ @ $ 7,500 $ 7,500

2. Public Policy Programs Ordinance Develop. Operating $ @ $ 6,900 $ 6,900 Presentations Operating $ @ $ 4,100 $ 4,100 Consultation Operating $ @ $ 13,600 $ 13,600 SUBTOTAL: PUBLIC PROGRAMS $ 662,820

B. BMP COST DETAIL 1. Agricultural Sites Cr. Area Plant 8 acres @ $ 700 acre $ 5,600 2. Stream Protection Fencing 9,200 ft @ $ 95 per 100 ft $ 8,740 Planting 13 acres @ $ 70 acre $ 910 Access 3 sites @ $ 1,275 site $ 3,825 Crossing 5 sites @ $ 1,275 site $ 6,375

3. Alternative Water Supply Tank/Well 12 units @ $ 900 each $ 10,800 Pond 1 pond @ $ 4,000 each 4,000

4. Integrated Crop Management/Integrated Pest Management Row crops 1,300 ac. @ $ 15 acre $ 19,500 Fruit crops 50 ac. @ $ 30 acre $ 1,500

5. Others Buffer strips 21 ac. @ $ 725 acre $ 15,225 Manure contain. 22 sts. @ $19,545 each $ 430,000 Grassed watwy 5 ac. @ $ 2,500 acre $ 12,500 Contour plowing 25 ac. @ $ 50 acre $ 1,250 Contill 200 ac. @ $ 30 acre $ 6,000 Sediment Basin 2 sts. @ $ 1,535 each $ 3,070 Erosion Control 5 str. @ $ 1,000 each $ 5,000 Tree Planting 16 ac. @ $ 50 acre $ 800 Stream Improv. 3 sts. @ $ 1,530 each $ 4,590 Roadside Protect. 2 sts. @ $ 2,500 each $ 5,000 Wetland Improv. 2 dams @ $ 1,300 each $ 2,600 plant 5 ac. @ $ 3,000 acre $ 15,000 Hobby Farm Improv. 25 sts. @ $ 2,357 each $ 58,929 Wetland Restor. 5 sts. @ $12,500 each $ 7,500 Rd/Stream Cross. Repair/vactor 10 sts. @ $21,000 each $ 210,000 Runoff control 5 sts. @ $ 1,000 each $ 5,000 Strmbnk stab (veg) 21 sts. @ $1,000 each $ 21,000 Comm. strmbnk. 3 sts. @ $2,500 each $ 7,500 Comm. instrm.eros. 6 sts. @ $1,500 each $ 9,000 Trout habit. impr. 15 sts. @ $1,400 each $ 21,000 Dam removal 2 sts. @ $2,500 each $ 5,000 Bank Restoration 1 st. @ $10,400 each $ 10,400 Dump Cleanup 7 sts. @ $ 975 each $ 6,825 Lake street clean @ $ 3,600 total $ 3,600 Strt. sweep 12 swp. @ $ 250 sweep $ 3,000

6. 307 Superfund Site Cleanup Cleanup $ 275,000 SUBTOTAL; BMP PROGRAMS $ 623,024 C. PERSONNEL AND RELATED COST DETAIL 1. Personnel Costs Project Manager 3yr. @ $ 13 hr. $ 81,020 Interns 2,016 hrs. @ $ 10 hr. $ 20,160 Proj. Asst 720 hrs. @ $ 8 hr. $ 5,760 Fringes @ 20 % $ 21,408 Mileage 25,000 mi. @ $ .27 mi. $ 6,750

2. Evaluation Costs Evaluation Design $ 17,500 WRI Monitoring and Evaluation $ 180,000 Stream Monitoring $ 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: