NEWAYGO
Dayton Twp Sherman Twp Everett Twp Big Prairie Twp
Black Creek
Fremont
Montague Twp Townline Creek
Trib to Fourth Lake
White River Twp Richland Twp
Blue Lake Twp Holton Twp Garfield Twp Brooks Twp Croton Twp Reynolds Twp Winfield Twp Cato Twp Belvidere Twp Home Twp
Sheridan Twp
Montague Whitehall Twp Newaygo
Flat River
Whitehall
Rogue River
Flat River
Fruitland Twp Dalton Twp Cedar Creek Twp Ensley Twp Pierson Twp Maple Valley Twp Pine Twp Douglass Twp Day Twp Ferris Twp
Bridgeton Twp Ashland Twp Grant Grant Twp
Flat River Unnamed Trib
Rogue River
Black Creek
MUSKEGON Alder Creek Drain Clear Creek MONTCALM
Laketon Twp Crockery Creek Duke Creek
Flat River
Muskegon Twp Rogue River Dickerson Creek
North Muskegon Solon Twp Nelson Twp Spencer Twp Montcalm Twp Sidney Twp Evergreen Twp Crystal Twp
Egelston Twp Moorland Twp Casnovia Twp Tyrone Twp
Duke Creek
Muskegon Coopers Creek
Cedar Springs
Dickerson Creek
Flat River
Muskegon Heights Rogue River Coopers Creek
Roosevelt Park N Br Crockery Creek Prairie Creek
Rogue River
Greenville Carson City
Sullivan Twp
Stegman Creek
Fairplain Twp Bushnell Twp Bloomer Twp
Norton Shores Norris Creek Ravenna Twp Chester Twp Sparta Twp Algoma Twp Courtland Twp Oakfield Twp
Bacon Creek
Fruitport Twp Nash Creek Beaver Dam Creek Wabasis Creek
Crockery Creek Dickerson Creek
Crockery Creek Eureka Twp
Rogue River Rockford
Spring Lake
Rogue River Prairie Creek
Spring Lake Twp
Belding Unnamed Trib
Lake Drainage Mill Creek Seely Creek
Ferrysburg Polkton Twp Rogue River Flat River
Sand Creek Ronald Twp North Plains Twp
Grand River Crockery Twp Crockery Creek Wright Twp Alpine Twp Cannon Twp Grattan Twp Orleans Twp
Deer Creek Plainfield Twp Otisco Twp
Coopersville Bear Creek
Grand Haven Grand River Prairie Creek
Unnamed Trib
East Fork
Sand Creek Bellemy Creek
Grand River
Grand River
Grand River
KENT Flat River
Bellemy Creek
Indian Mill Creek Grand River
Pottawattomie Bayou Prairie Creek
Grand Haven Twp Easton Twp Ionia Twp
Robinson Twp Grand Rapids Twp Honey Creek Keene Twp Lyons Twp
Tallmadge Twp Vergennes Twp Ionia
Bass River Grand River Ada Twp Grand River
Grand River Grand River
Allendale Twp Red Creek
Grand River
Sand Creek Grand Rapids
Grand River Libhart Creek
OTTAWA Walker Grand River
East Grand Rapids Grand River
Flat River
Grand River
Grand River
IONIA Goose Creek
Lowell
Bass Creek Grand River
Grand River Taylor Drain
Grand River Grand River Grand River
Plaster Creek Little Libhart Creek
Thornapple River Berlin Twp Portland Twp
Georgetown Twp Grandville Boston Twp Orange Twp
Port Sheldon Twp Olive Twp Blendon Twp Cascade Twp Lowell Twp Sessions Creek
Rush Creek Grand River
Kentwood Lake Creek
Wyoming
Portland
Buck Creek Libhart Creek
Hudsonville
Pratt Lake Creek
Plaster Creek
Thornapple River
Bear Creek
Holland Twp East Branch Creek Duck Creek
Campbell Twp Odessa Twp Sebewa Twp Danby Twp
Park Twp Zeeland Zeeland Twp Jamestown Twp Byron Twp Gaines Twp Caledonia Twp Bowne Twp
Buck Creek
Little Thornapple River
Thornapple River
Coldwater River
Holland
Grand Ledge
Duncan Creek Coldwater River Coldwater River Mud Creek
Sunfield Twp Roxand Twp Delta Twp
Thornapple Twp Irving Twp Carlton Twp Woodland Twp Oneida Twp
Thornapple River Thornapple River Lansing
Thornapple River
Mud Creek
Thornapple Drain
Thornapple River Scipio Creek
Thornapple River Thornapple River
Hastings
Castleton Twp Vermontville Twp Chester Twp Benton Twp Windsor Twp
Yankee Spr Twp Rutland Twp Hastings Twp
Potterville
Thornapple River
Thornapple River Little Thornapple River
Glass Creek
BARRY Thornapple River
EATON
Butternut Creek
Cedar Creek Thornapple River
Quaker Brook
Fall Creek
Shanty Creek Charlotte
Eaton Rapids Twp
Baltimore Twp Maple Grove Twp Kalamo Twp Carmel Twp Eaton Twp
Orangeville Twp Hope Twp
Qauker Brook
Cedar Creek High Bank Creek
Lacey Creek
Eaton Rapids
Assyria Twp Bellevue Twp Walton Twp Brookfield Twp Hamlin Twp
Prairieville Twp Barry Twp Johnstown Twp
Olivet
Thornapple River
Mud Creek
Thornapple Drain
Thornapple River Scipio Creek
Thornapple River Thornapple River
Hastings
Castleton Twp Vermontville Twp Chester Twp Benton Twp Windsor Twp
Yankee Spr Twp Rutland Twp Hastings Twp
Potterville
Thornapple River
Thornapple River Little Thornapple River
Glass Creek
BARRY Thornapple River
EATON
Butternut Creek
Cedar Creek Thornapple River
Quaker Brook
Fall Creek
Shanty Creek Charlotte
Eaton Rapids Twp
Baltimore Twp Maple Grove Twp Kalamo Twp Carmel Twp Eaton Twp
Orangeville Twp Hope Twp
Qauker Brook
Cedar Creek High Bank Creek
Lacey Creek
Eaton Rapids
Assyria Twp Bellevue Twp Walton Twp Brookfield Twp Hamlin Twp
Prairieville Twp Barry Twp Johnstown Twp
Olivet
Lansing
wp
ds
p
wp
ds
p
Watershed Name: Grand River
Subwatershed Name: Reeds Lake
Identification Number: 14_89A
Watershed Description:
Size (acres) 2090.7 Land Use (percent of total)
Agricultural 4.09%
Percent Impervious 12.85% Barren Land 0.00%
Forest Land 17.53%
Range Land 8.58%
Urban and Built-up 48.65%
Water 13.59%
Wetlands 7.56%
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Watershed
City of East Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids Twp, Kentwood, City of Grand Rapids
MDEQ Surface Water Quality Assessment Surveys
NONE
Trout Streams NA
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Mercury
TMDL Implementation Date 2010
Watershed Management Plan None
Watershed Organization NA
NA
NA
Wellhead Protection Area(s) NO
Storm Water Master Plan NONE
Hydrologic Studies NA
Last Update: 8/27/2004
11/15/2011
Grand River
Reeds Lake
Off NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ NA per NA NA
Off NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ NA per NA NA
Off NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ NA per NA NA
Off NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ NA per NA NA
Off NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ NA per NA NA
Add Rows
Watershed: Grand River
Sub Watershed: Reeds Lake
Watershed ID: 14_89A
Designated Designated Type of Pollutant Source Total
Use Use - Status Rank Pollutant Status Rank Source Status Rank Potential Cause Objective Type of BMP BMP Unit Cost Units Total Cost
Total
$ -
Cost
11/15/2011
Page 12 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
PRETREATMENT (ex. Sediment traps, drainage channels, water quality inlets)
Moderate to high;
70% of total
Devices that are inserted into the storm High; Remove and
suspended
drain inlets to filter or absorb sediment, dispose of sediment, trash
solids(5); 90%
Low. Perform periodic
undeveloped land where the existing reductions in sediment and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/d
High to Moderate inspections to identify
vegetation is left intact, or it may be land Runoff from nitrate concentrations; ocuments/deq-swq-nps-
Sediment and (streambank concentrated flows and to
planted with vegetation. Practice parking lots, roof Will reduce the Low. $350/acre (10). buffer/filter strips do a bfs.pdf
Vegetated Buffers or attached erosion) (12) verify that vegetative
protects water bodies from pollutants tops, and outflow Conservation tillage in 10-20 years Low. NRCS available velocity of storm $250/ herbaceous reasonably good job of Typical in counties of
Filter Strips (NRCS pollutants, cover is maintaining its Widely applicable Low. $10/acre (9)
such as sediment, nutrients and organic from ponds, soil agricultural areas (9) for assistance water runoff and acre (11) - CRP, removing phosphorus the LGRW. ftp://ftp-
Practice 393) nutrients, thermal Insignificant effectiveness. Address
matter, prevents erosion, provides erosion, increase infiltration. EQIP attached to sediment, but fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
pollution (runoff/ flooding) stream bank erosion if
shade, leaf litter, and woody debris. agricultural runoff are relatively ineffective in actice-
(12) identified. Damaged areas
Buffer/filter strips often provide several removing dissolved standards/standards/393.pdf
should be repaired.
benefits to wildlife, such as travel phosphorus (Gilliam,
corridors, nesting sites and food 1994).
sources.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 14 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
PRETREATMENT (ex. Sediment traps, drainage channels, water quality inlets)
Keep south and west sides
of streams wooded to
provide shade. Several
High (sheet, rill, Low. Perform periodic researchers have
wind, streambank, inspections to identify measured >90%
Runoff from ftp://ftp-
Sediment and soil mass concentrated flows and to Low. $475/forrested reductions in sediment and Ottawa County
Forested or Wooded parking lots, roof Moderate to high. Trees in the fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
attached movement, road verify that vegetative Poor or lack of maintenance acre (11) nitrate concentrations; Parks, typical in
Riparian Buffer (NRCS Forested or wooded areas adjacent to tops, and outflow 15 years NRCS/MDA floodplain may catch 1% of original cost actice-
pollutants, bank/construction Filter strip cover is maintaining its Widely applicable may cause increased erosion - CRP, EQIP buffer/filter strips do a counties of the
practice 390) stream from ponds, soil (9) available for debris and impede (11) standards/standards/390.pdf
nutrients, thermal erosion; organics, effectiveness. Address if trees fall into stream reasonably good job of LGRW (e.g. Barry
erosion, storm assistance flow.
pollution fertilizers, stream bank erosion if removing phosphorus County)
water runoff
pesticides, runoff/ identified. Damaged areas attached to sediment, but
flooding) (12) should be repaired. are relatively ineffective in
removing dissolved
phosphorus (Gilliam,
1994).
A practical procedure that can be used
throughout the Midwest to correctly size
the fluvial channel and minimum bench
widths for stable effective discharge
features in agricultural drainage ditches.
The fluvial channel design dimensions
are determined by measuring the Two-stage ditches Evidence and theory both
In comparison to
effective discharge features at the have improved suggest that ditches prone
The Nature conventional ditches, May result in less
project site and making regional curve May require less conveyance capacity to filling with accumulated
Two-stage channel Sediment, Conservancy has additional costs are annual O&M costs
measurements. The benches of two- Agricultural runoff Filter/buffer strips maintenance then Widely applicable. compared to sediment may require less
design hydrologic flow information available related to increased then conventional
stage ditches act as a floodplain within conventional ditches. conventional ditches frequent "dipping out" if
for assistance. width and more initial ditches.
the ditch to dissipate energy, reduce the and enhance constructed in a two-stage
earthwork.
erosive potential of high flow volumes, drainage form.
and reduce the shear stress on the
bank toe. Two-stage ditches will have
improved conveyance capacity, will be
more self-sustaining, will create and
maintain better habitat, and will improve
water quality.
INFILTRATION (ex. Infiltration basin)
Avoid areas with potential
hazardous material
contamination. Soils with
high infiltration rates
required. Cold climates
may hinder infiltrative
Provides full control
Nutrients, Site specific; capacity, fines will clog
An excavated trench (3 - 12 feet deep), of peak discharges
sediment, Low to Moderate - Annual; depends on soils. pore space in soil, and
backfilled with stone aggregate, and High; 100% of for small sites,
metals, Remove and dispose of Moderate. Design Soil infiltration rates If storm water runoff contains practice is not suitable for
lined with filter fabric (fine particulates total suspended Sediment basin, Short; 10 provides Moderate; Average
hydrologic flow Storm water sediment, trash and and installation must be greater high amounts of soluble 9% of capital cost steep slopes. Use as part MDOT, Ottawa and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/d
Infiltration Trench should not be routed to this BMP). solids(4); 60% of buffer/filter strips, oil/grit years or less groundwater $8/cubic feet of
(soluble runoff debris. Eroding or barren should be done by a than 0.52 inches per contaminants, groundwater (1) of a "treatment train," Barry Counties ocuments/deq-swq-nps-it.pdf
Infiltration trenches remove fine total phosphorous. separators, filter fabric (1) recharge, may storage (1)
pollutants - areas must be professional hour, with clay contamination can occur. where soluble organic
sediment and the pollutants associated augment base
dependent on revegetated. content less than substances, oils, and
with them. stream flow, and
holding time) 30%. coarse sediment are
allow infiltration.
removed prior to storm
water entering the trench.
A very high failure rate
occurs with infiltration
trenches if they are not
maintained.
Water impoundment over permeable Sediment forebay or Avoid areas with potential http://www.deq.state.mi.us/d
Nutrients, Storm water Site specific Potential to contaminate May recharge
Infiltration Pond soils which received storm water runoff High other form of 25+ years Annual Moderate Moderate Moderate hazardous material MDOT ocuments/deq-swq-nps-
sediment, metals runoff depends on soils groundwater groundwater
and contains it until it infiltrates the soils. pretreatment contamination ib.pdf
Thermal This BMP is experimental
Promotes infiltration and filtering of Road and parking Moderate, maintenance of Not feasible in all Increased weed growth
Green Parking (MDOT) pollution, solids, High for MDOT until proven MDOT, OCDC
storm water runoff, roof tops nuisance plants areas requiring chemical herbicides
sediments valuable and cost effective
Provides soil
Permeable asphalt or interlocking
Moderate; Bi-annual This practice should infiltration, Pre-treatment of storm
paving blocks providing infiltration.
sweeping required. only be used on attenuation of peak water is recommended
When the brick or concrete is laid on a Potential risk to groundwater
Nutrients, Vacuum sweeping, Periodically inspect, Low. Design and sites with soils flows, reduction in where oil and grease or
permeable base, water will be allowed due to oils, greases, and other MDOT, East Grand http://www.deq.state.mi.us/d
Porous or Modular sediment, High; 95% TSS Storm water Subsurface Drains, especially after large installation should be which are well or the volume of runoff other potential
to infiltrate. Benefits include; removal of 10+ years substances that may leak onto Moderate Low to moderate Rapids - Reed's ocuments/deq-swq-nps-
Pavement metals, removal rate (2) runoff Extended Detention storms. If severe clogging done by a moderately well leaving the site and groundwater contaminants
fine particulates and soluble pollutants; the pavement and leach into Lake boat launch pap.pdf
hydrologic flow Basin, Infiltration Basin. occurs, may have to professional drained. Must use entering storm are expected. Avoid areas
attenuation of peak flows; reduction in the ground.
replace (clogged) filtering special materials for sewers, and with potential hazardous
the volume of runoff; reduction in soil
material. high traffic areas groundwater material contamination
erosion; and groundwater recharge.
recharge.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 15 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
PRETREATMENTSandSediment traps, drainage channels, water quality inlets)
FILTRATION (ex. (ex. filters)
Does not require a large
land area. Should not be
High; 75% - 80%
A broad, shallow channel consisting of Moderate; Remove and Highly applicable to used in steep areas or well
of total suspended
Vegetated Swale or Bio- dense vegetation and designed to Storm water dispose of sediment, trash residential areas, Potential to contaminate Low; $0.50/square $0.03/square head areas. Soils
Sediment solids (2)(4); 50% Native vegetation 20-50 years Moderate Slows flow MDOT
filtration accommodate concentrated flows runoff and debris, and repair not suited to steep groundwater foot of swale (7) foot/year. (7) adequate for infiltration
of total
without erosion. erosion. slopes required to discourage
phosphorous (4)
ponding on slopes less
than 2%.
Suitable for
Area designed to hold and treat the first Sediment, Moderate; 83% Moderate to high individual 5% of initial
Storm water Yet to be developments; Will not filter soluble nutrients BMP performance is still
Sand Filters half inch of runoff over the directly Bacteria, TSS removal rate depending on amount of Moderate Low to moderate construction costs
runoff determined requires less land and toxics experimental
connected impervious area. Nutrients, Metals (2) sediment (1)
and can be placed
underground.
AGRICULTURAL BMPS
ftp://ftp-
10 years (use
fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
Fencing to exclude cattle access and Buffer/filter strip, exclusion)
Sediment and Additional BMPs (e.g. actice-
Cattle Exclusion protect the stream. Fencing prevents alternative water (15) Repair fence as needed. $1.90/ft of fence (9) - Typical in counties of
attached Moderate to high Increased grazing in confined Fencing in floodplain Buffer/Filter Strips) are standards/standards/472.pdf
cattle from trampling banks, destroying Livestock access, sources, planned Remove off-stream NRCS available for EQIP (use exclusion) the LGRW (e.g.
pollutants, for fencing and Widely applicable areas may reduce vegetative may catch debris $0.05/ft of fence (9) needed to prevent animal
(NRCS practices: Use vegetation, depositing waste in the animal manure grazing system, stream 20 years watering systems in the assistance Barry County)
Exclusion (472), Fence (382))
nutrients, use exclusion (12) cover and restrict flow - waste runoff from entering ftp://ftp-
stream, and stirring up sediment in the crossing and livestock (fence) (9) winter, if needed. WHIP (fence)
pathogens the stream. fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
streambed. access
actice-
standards/standards/382.pdf
A waste storage impoundment that
protects water bodies from manure
runoff by storing manure until conditions Inspect storage structures
Leaks or seepage of the
are appropriate for field application. Cattle exclusion fencing, for leaks or seepage
Moderate structure could add nutrients Typical in counties of
Several options exist including an roof runoff periodically and make Slight decrease in Storage period should be 6 ftp://ftp-
(organics (12), and bacteria to downstream Approximately the LGRW (e.g.
Agricultural Waste earthen storage pond, above or below Nutrients, management, diversion, necessary repairs. Repair NRCS available for runoff/ flooding and $250 - 1,000 months unless winter fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
fertilizers (12), and Animal manure 15 years (15) Widely applicable water bodies via runoff. $10,000 - 250,000 Barry County, Ottawa
Storage Facility (313) ground tank, pit underneath a pathogens Comprehensive Nutrient any damaged fences assistance excess subsurface maximum (14) applied risk index is actice-
polluted storm However, if building is (14) - (12) - EQIP County)
confinement facility, or a sheltered Management Plan immediately. Empty water completed. standards/standards/313.pdf
water runoff) according to specifications this
concrete slab area. Allows for field (CNMP) storage structure twice a
would not occur.
application when conditions are right. year.
Field application cuts fertilizer costs and
reduces nutrient losses.
Watering facility: check for
materials in the trough
which may restrict the
inflow or outflow system;
A readily available source of clean ftp://ftp-
check for leaks and repair
drinking water for cattle located away Areas adjacent to source fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
10 years / immediately; check the 2% original cost
Alternative Water from water bodies that will minimizing Sediment and Cattle Exclusion that will be trampled by Typical in counties of actice-
watering automatic water level (watering facility)
Sources waste deposition near these areas. attached Well: Moderate Fencing, buffer/filter Depending on the structure, it livestock should be the LGRW (e.g. standards/standards/614.pdf
Livestock access, facility (15) device to insure proper NRCS available for $1,050 / water facility (11)
Reduces the direct deposition of cattle pollutants, (sheet, rill, wind strip, planned grazing Widely applicable may not protect watercourse if Diversion of water graveled, paved, or Barry County, Ottawa
animal manure operation. assistance (11) - EQIP
(Watering Facility (614), Water waste into water bodies by changing nutrients, erosion) (12) system, stream crossing contiguous with it. otherwise treated to County) ftp://ftp-
Well (642))
20 years / 1% original cost
animal behavior through providing and pathogens and livestock access provide firm footing and fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
water well (15) Water well: create a (water well) (11)
encouraging use of alternate drinking reduce erosion. actice-
maintenance plan
water. standards/standards/642.pdf
including a statement of
identified problems,
corrective actions taken,
etc.
A crop of close-growing grasses,
legumes, or small grain grown primarily
High (sheet, rill,
for seasonal protection and soil
Sediment and wind, gully
improvement. It usually is grown for 1
attached irrigation induced
year or less, except where there is Pest management, Significant decrease
pollutants, erosion, runoff/ Plant cover crop annually, ftp://ftp-
permanent cover as in orchards. nutrient management, Widely applicable. Requires pest management in runoff/ flooding, Can be used for livestock
nutrients, flooding) (12) Soil erosion, kill cover crop in the NRCS available for Organic Farmers of fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
Cover Crop (340) Temporarily protects ground from wind / conservation crop 1 year (9) Consider soil type, (IPM) to ensure that pesticide moderate reduction $30/acre (9) - EQIP $0/acre (9) feed or left alone to build
chemicals agricultural runoff spring, restrict grazing if assistance the LGRW actice-
water erosion, adds organic matter to rotation, crop residue slopes, etc. use is appropriate. in excess subsurface soil organic matter.
(pesticide), Moderate (salts, necessary standards/standards/340.pdf
the soil, recycles or holds nutrients, management water
hydrologic flow, organics,
improves soil tilth, reduces weed
chloride (salt) fertilizers,
competition, retained soil moisture by
pesticides) (12)
acting as a mulch, and fixes
atmospheric nitrogen (legumes).
Rows of trees and shrubs that protect
Consider if the mature
areas from wind and provide food and ftp://ftp-
Sediment and Control competing Will reduce storm $150 - 1,000 windbreak will cast a Muck farmers in
Windbreak/Shelterbelt cover for wildlife. Reduces wind High (wind erosion NRCS available for Over application of herbicides 10% of original cost fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
attached Soil erosion Cattle exclusion fencing 15 years (9) vegetation, inspect Widely applicable water runoff and seedlings (13) - shadow over the driveway Barry, Kent, Ottawa,
Establishment (380) erosion, conserves energy, provides only) (12) assistance or pesticides possible (11) actice-
pollutants regularly increase infiltration EQIP, WHIP or nearby road, prolonging and Allegan Counties
food and cover for wildlife, and standards/standards/380.pdf
icy conditions.
beautifies a farmstead.
Establishing and maintaining perennial If necessary, mow during
Use of fertilizers,
vegetative cover to protect soil and the establishment period
High (sheet, rill, pesticides and other
water resource on land retired from to reduce competition
wind, gully chemicals should not
agricultural production. Reduces Sediment and from annual weeds. Significant decrease
erosion; runoff/ Upland wildlife habitat compromise the intended Typical in counties of ftp://ftp-
erosion and increases soil tilth due to attached Annual mowing of the in runoff/ flooding,
Conservation Cover flooding) Soil erosion, management, wildlife NRCS available for Over application of herbicides $260 - 460/acre (9) - purpose. Maintenance the LGRW (e.g. fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
perennial cover establishment of pollutants, 10 years (15) conservation cover stand Widely applicable moderate reduction $35/ acre (9)
(327) agricultural runoff food plot, tree/shrub assistance or pesticides possible CRP, EQIP practices and activities Barry and Ionia actice-
species adapted to site. Improves hydrologic flow, for general weed control is in excess subsurface
Moderate establishment should not disturb cover County) standards/standards/327.pdf
water quality when nutrients and nutrients not recommended. water
(streambank during the primary nesting
sediments are retained on the field. Control noxious weeds.
erosion) (12) period for grassland
Reduces weed sources. Wildlife food,
species in each state.
cover, and water needs will be met.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 16 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
PRETREATMENT (ex. Sediment traps, drainage channels, water quality inlets)
Planting grass and legumes to reduce
soil erosion and improve production in a
Sediment and High (sheet, rill,
low-producing pasture, hayfield, or Do not mix warm and cool
attached wind ephemeral
eroding cropfield. Reduces soil erosion Significant decrease season grasses in the ftp://ftp-
pollutants, gully, irrigation Nutrient management, Mow weeds, apply
Pasture and Hayland by wind and/or water, extends length of Soil erosion, NRCS available for Widely applicable. Over application of herbicides in runoff/ flooding $75/acre (11) - 5% of original cost same pasture. Choose Typical in counties of fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
nutrients, inducted erosion; pest management, 10 years (9) fertilizer and herbicide as
Planting (512) the grazing season, provides cover and agricultural runoff assistance Consider soil type or pesticides possible and excess EQIP, CRP per unit (11) species that will help the LGRW actice-
chemicals fertilizers, prescribed grazing needed
habitat for wildlife, protects water subsurface water reduce the use of standards/standards/512.pdf
(pesticides), pesticides, runoff/
quality by filtering runoff and increasing pesticides and herbicides.
hydrologic flow flooding) (12)
filtration, and adds organic matter to the
soil
Establishing permanent vegetation on
High (sheet, rill,
sites that have or are expected to have
wind, gully,
high erosion rates, and on sites that Use native plants with low
streambank, soil Diversions, riprap, grade
have physical, chemical or biological Periodic burning (if Widely applicable. long term maintenance
mass movement, stabilization structures, Use of non-native or invasive Will reduce the Typical in counties of ftp://ftp-
conditions that prevent the Sediment and needed), prohibit grazing Consider soil type, $460 - $815/acre requirements. Soil tests
Critical Area Planting road Soil erosion, filter/buffer strips, NRCS available for species is not recommended. velocity of storm 1 % of original cost the LGRW (e.g. fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
establishment of vegetation with normal attached 10 years (9) until year 2, prevent slopes, etc. Apply (2001 and 2004) should be done to
(342) bank/construction agricultural runoff subsurface drains, assistance Use by recreational users may water runoff and per unit (11) Ottawa County) actice-
practices. Stabilizes areas with existing pollutants, salts overgrazing, inspect after on any area which is EQIP, WHIP, WRP determine the nutrient and
erosion) (12) grassed waterways, degrade area. increase infiltration. standards/standards/342.pdf
or expected high rates of soil erosion by severe storms difficult to stabilize. pH content of the soil for
nutrient management
water and wind. Restores degraded vegetative practices.
Moderate (salts)
sites that cannot be stabilized through
(12)
normal methods.
High (ephemeral
Yearly regrading Design and A nurse crop, temporary
The establishment and shaping of grass gully erosion) (12) $800/acre (without
Sediment and reseeding and inspection installation should be Better conveyance enhances cover or mulching may be ftp://ftp-
in a natural drainageway to prevent tile) (9)
Grassed Waterway attached Soil erosion, Grade stabilization of subsurface drain and done by a storm water runoff velocities Drainageway directs necessary until permanent Typical in counties of fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
gullies from forming. Vegetation filters Low (reduction in 10 years (9) Widely applicable $105/acre (9)
(412) pollutants, agricultural runoff structure related outfall. Fertilize as professional. NRCS and possible contamination to runoff to an outlet cover is established. Avoid the LGRW actice-
runoff after and provides cover for classic gully $4,500/acre (with
hydrologic flow needed and mow available for surface waters planting end rows along standards/standards/412.pdf
wildlife. erosion, runoff/ tile) (9) CRP, EQIP
periodically. assistance. the waterway.
flooding) (12)
High (ephemeral
gully erosion,
runoff/ flooding)
(12)
Widely applicable.
Moderate (classic Catches storm water
Earthen embankment that directs runoff Sediment, Do not build in high
gully, soil mass Sediment basin or Clear outlet of debris, Design and runoff and prevents it Important as SESC in ftp://ftp-
water from a specific area. Reduces soil nutrients, sediment producing
movement, road Soil erosion, stabilized outlet, maintain vegetative cover installation should be Over application of fertilizer from reaching developing sites. Each fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
Diversion (362) erosion on lowlands. Vegetation filters chemicals 10 years (9) areas unless other $5.00/ft (9) - EQIP $0.26/ft (9) ?
bank/construction agricultural runoff buffer/filter strip, nutrient on ridge, ridge repair, done by a possible lowlands, reducing diversion must have an actice-
runoff water and provides cover. Allows (pesticide), conservation
erosion) (12) management fertilize as needed professional runoff velocity and outlet. standards/standards/362.pdf
better crop growth on bottomland soils. hydrologic flow measures are
increasing infiltration
installed.
Low (sheet, rill,
streambank
erosion, organics,
fertilizers,
pesticides) (12)
OTHER BMPS TO CATEGORIZE
Well decommissioning seals an
abandoned well. Abandoned wells are
Sediment and High: Professional
wells which are no longer in use or are
attached required. A drilled, Filling a well with
in such disrepair that groundwater can $50 - $500/closure -
pollutants, deep bedrock and Will prevent surface rocks/gravel won't reduce
Abandoned Well no longer be obtained from them. Michigan ftp://ftp-
chemicals Agricultural runoff, Low - Inspect closure artesian wells should water from reaching the groundwater Spring Lake Village,
Closures Benefits include: a) Reduces the risk of Groundwater contamination Groundwater fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
(pesticides), High (13) hazardous waste Stand alone practice 20 years (9) mechanism periodically be closed by a Widely applicable. the groundwater Low (14) contamination risk. Ionia and Barry
groundwater contamination, may already be present. Stewardship actice-
nutrients, spills for structural integrity licensed well driller. supply via the Technical assistance is County
(Well Decommissioning (351)) b) Eliminates the risk of injury, Program, MDA, standards/standards/351.pdf
chloride (salt), Farm*A*Syst abandoned well. required to properly close
c) Avoids liability under the Michigan EQIP
pathogens, available for an abandoned well.
Polluter Pay Law
hydrocarbons assistance.
Treatment(s) used to stabilize and
protect banks of streams or constructed
Since each reach of a
channels, and shorelines of lakes,
Geotextile materials (i.e. watercourse is unique,
reservoirs, or estuaries. Benefits Widely applicable:
Filters) are often used Site inspections, Consult the MDEQ stream bank protection
include: site-specific
underneath Riprap. conducted to ensure the (Water Division or techniques must be
practices will ftp://ftp-
Streambank and Sediment and High (streambank Consider livestock stream bank structures Land Division), Maintains the selected on a site-by-site
a) Prevents the loss of stream bank depend on soil type, EQIP: 50% cost 10% of original cost Barry County Drain fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr
Shoreline Protection attached erosion, soil mass Soil erosion exclusion, prescribed 20 years (9) are staying in place, within local Conservation capacity of the basis; the specifications for
vegetation slope of the bank, share (15) (11) Commission actice-
(580) pollutants movement) (12) grazing, buffer/filter the first few months of District, NRCS, or stream channel. each technique differ.
b) Reduces sediment loads to streams river gradient, flow, standards/standards/580.pdf
strips, diversions, or installation and following other agencies or Utilize vegetative species
c) Maintains the capacity of the stream and uses of the
additional sediment storm events. consultants. that are native and/or
channel watercourse.
control measures. compatible with local
d) Improves or enhances the stream
ecosystems.
corridor for fish and wildlife habitat,
aesthetics, recreation
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 17 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
PRETREATMENT (ex. Sediment traps, drainage channels, water quality inlets)
A number of studies
Recent studies show removals
Releases made from dams commonly (River Alliance of
of small dams can have
cause a decrease in summer Wisconsin 2003,
limited negative environmental Good proportions of aging
temperatures and an increase in winter American Rivers
impacts while restoring stream dams are no longer
temperatures downstream. Dam 2003) have found
functions. Negative impacts economically practical or
removal benefits fish by: (a) removing removal costs to be
include elevated sediment cost-effective to operate.
obstructions to upstream and up to three to five Stronach Dam, on
loads in addition to Similarly, dam operation
downstream migration; (b) restoring Dam removal will times less than the the Pine River,
Will depend on the Widely applicable to transformed channel and maintenance costs
natural riverine habitat; (c) restoring Design and removal restore natural cost of repair, Manistee County
effects of dam removal. unsafe dams and morphology and hydrology. tend to increase as a dam
Dam Removal natural seasonal flow variations; (d) Thermal pollution Dam Permanent should be done by a stream flow and especially when the None
Streambank stabilization dams that no longer Dam removal may also wreak ages. These increased
eliminating siltation of spawning and professional natural seasonal flow benefits of the dam Big Rapids Dam on
may be necessary. serve a purpose. havoc on already highly costs, combined with the
feeding habitat above the dam; (e) variations. are minor. Funding Muskegon River,
disturbed ecosystems. potentially lower revenue,
allowing debris, small rocks and sources include: Mecosta County
Reservoirs that store high allow for removal to
nutrients to pass below the dam, private or community
levels of contaminants will be become the most cost-
creating healthy habitat; (f) eliminating foundation funding,
released following removal effective alternative for the
unnatural temperature variations below environmental
and can create contaminant dam owner.
the dam; and (g) removing turbines that grants, and state or
plumes.
kill fish. federal assistance
programs.
Outlets are areas which receive
discharge water. Stabilized outlets are
outlets which reduce the velocity of
discharge water to non-erosive
velocities. Stabilized outlets help If the outlet is a county or
reduce erosion in the area in which the inter county drain,
water is released. Some outlets may All of the BMPs cited in permission to discharge
Stabilized outlets Practice will reduce
also provide treatment of various types Sediment and Storm water the section above require If practices are not maintained, must be obtained from the
Dependent on Dependent on should be designed the velocity of
of pollutants depending on the type of attached runoff, regular maintenance. excessive sediment may be Dependent on type Dependent on type drain commissioner or www.deq.state.mi.us/docum
Stabilized Outlets type of outlet Riprap, if needed type of outlet by registered Widely applicable. discharge water to
outlet used. Types of outlets include the pollutants, streambank Follow the maintenance introduced to surface waters of outlet used. of outlet used. drain board. The actual ents/deq-swq-nps-so.pdf
used. used. professional non-erosive
following: Conveyance Outlets hydrologic flow erosion sections in the outlet downstream. structure may require a
engineers. velocities.
(Grassed Waterway, Stone Filters, (BMP) selected. MDNR permit if the outlet
Stormwater Conveyance Channel), is in a watercourse or if
Water Storage Outlets (Sediment wetlands are impacted.
Basin, Infiltration Basin, Detention/
Retention Basin, Oil/Grit Separators,
Wet ponds and wetlands), Conduits,
and Outlet Protection.
Kit materials capture oil, gasoline, and
Emergency Spill Kit Hydrocarbons Boat spill Applicable to lakes
diesel line spills on the water.
Pond Construction and A water impoundment made by Sediment and Low (gully erosion, Storm water Slope/Shoreline 20 years Moderate to High Design and Depends on soil Purple loosestrife (Lythrum Ponds can be used 1% of original cost For excavated ponds, City of Grand
Management (378) constructing an embankment or by attached streambank runoff Stabilization, Seeding, (2004) installation should be suitability. Build salicaria) is an undesirable, for storm water per unit (2001) consider drainage Rapids, Barry and
excavating a pit or dugout. Excavated pollutants, erosion, flooding) Mulching, Sodding, done by a ponds in areas exotic perennial which often management. characteristics, including Ionia County
ponds are made for conditions which chemicals, Pond Sealing or Lining professional where the water becomes established in depth to the water table.
require a small supply of water such as nutrients, None (sheet and supply is adequate disturbed sites. For embankment ponds,
a golf course hazard. Embankment flooding rill erosion) for the intended consider upstream
ponds hold larger volumes of water. use. drainage characteristics
Ponds can be used for storm water N/A (chemicals, and how the pond will
management and to attract wildlife. nutrients) affect downstream flows,
Properly designed and maintained temperatures, etc.
embankment ponds provide a safe,
reliable means of water supply, and
may become the settling area for
sediment and contaminants in the
drainage area. If water quantity is more
critical than quality, the runoff can be
used to maintain higher pond levels of
an excavated pond.
Composting Facility A facility for the biological stabilization Nutrients, low ? Upland source NA 15 years / Composting requires Design and Widely applicable to Waste needs to be composted NA $37,000/ composting Annual As of March 27, 1993, yard Green Rock
(317) of waste organic material. The DO (yard trimmings composting proper aeration, watering installation should be dense residential or and correctly applied as facility (2004) Maintenance: waste collected or Landscape Supply,
purposed is to treat waste organic and kitchen facility (2004) and mixing in order to done by a riparian sites. Soils, fertilizer. Possibility of runoff of $370/ year generated in Rockford
material biologically by producing a waste) result in a useable end- professional topography and compost application /composting facility Michigan on public property
humus-like material that can be product. Product can be climate will all affect contaminating surface waters. (2004) is banned from land fills Phoenix Resources,
recycled as a soil amendment and sold, delivered, and the types of and incinerators. Alto
fertilizer substitute or otherwise utilized applied. composting options
in compliance with all laws, rules, and available. Eagle Ottawa
regulations. Keeps organic debris out of Leather Company,
surface waters and away from Grand Haven
floodplains will help prevent the
depletion of oxygen in surface waters.
Mulching (484) The process of placing a uniform layer Sediment and Low to moderate Soil erosion Seeding, Soil 1 year (2004) Low - inspect mulched Low Widely applicable None known. Seeded area will $3.00/acre (2001) Annual Mulch should be applied City of Grand
of straw, wood fiber, wood chips or attached Management, Fertilizer areas following storm eventually reduce Maintenance: immediately after seeding Rapids, Barry County
other acceptable materials over a pollutants Management, Grading events to ensure mulch the velocity and 100% of original has occurred. Anchoring of Drain Commission
seeded area to protect the seed bed. Practices, Diversions (if has stayed in place. increase infiltration of cost per unit (2001) the mulch should be done
Helps keep soil particles and their needed). storm water runoff. immediately after the
associated mulch is applied.
attached chemicals (e.g. phosphorus &
pesticides) from entering surface
waters. Will suppress weed growth and
provide a moist area for vegetative
growth.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 18 of 39
STRUCTURAL & VEGETATIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL BMPS HYDROLOGIC OPERATION AND
BEST MANAGEMENT POLLUTANT EXPECTED MAINTENANCE TRAINING APPLICABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL INSTALLATION SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
DESCRIPTION REMOVAL SOURCES OF TO COMPLETE EFFECTS TO MAINTENANCE MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
PRACTICES ADDRESSED LIFE SPAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS TO SITE CONCERNS COSTS CONSIDERATIONS USING BMP
EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTS TREATMENT TRAIN CONSIDER COSTS
Sediment inlets) High
PRETREATMENT (ex. Sediment traps, drainage channels, water quality and
Riprap A permanent cover of rock used to Soil erosion, Filters. (Riprap is often 10 + years Low - Periodically inspect Low - consult Widely applicable: Potential to cause additional Reduces $70/square yard ? An MDEQ permit may be Road Commissions
stabilize stream banks, provide in- attached agricultural runoff used in making (SV) underlying fabric, adjust technical resources Riprap is most often erosion downstream. downcutting and (2003b) required if placed in waters within the watershed
stream channel stability, and provide a pollutants Stabilized Outlets, in and add riprap as needed. used in stream lateral cutting of of the state. Explore
stabilized outlet below concentrated Stream bank banks, on slopes, erosive flow Including geotextile downstream impacts.
flows. The use of riprap protects stream Stabilization, etc.) and at outlets. velocities. Typically
banks and discharge channels from not a significant
higher erosive flow velocities and velocity reducer.
decreases sediment input to a
watercourse.
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for MDOT. 2002.
Bannerman, Roger T., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Source Area and Regional Storm Water Treatment Practices: Options for Achieving Phase II Retrofit Requirements in Wisconsin. 2002.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan.1996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Pollutant Removal Performance Database. June 2000.
Personal Communication with Hydro-Compliance Management, Inc. staff. 2004.
Gruenwald, Paul E. Governmental Accounting Focus, Estimating Useful Lives for Capital Assets. May 2002.
Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Planning and Cost Estimating Criteria for Best Management Practices. April, 2001. TR-NPS25.00.
Rain Gardens of West Michigan. Beautiful Solutions for Water Pollution. [Online] 2003. Available at http://www.raingardens.org/Index.php.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Office Technical Guide, Section 1 Cost Information (draft). 2004.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Michigan Area 3 Component Data. June 2003.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Sample County Practice and Maintenance Costs. 2001.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Conservation Practice Physical Effect Worksheet[s]. 2004.
Personal Communication with Technical Committee of the Lower Grand River Watershed Project. 2004.
Personal Communication with District Conservationist of the NRCS Grand Rapids Service Center. 2004.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. FY04 Michigan EQIP Statewide Eligible Practice List, Land Management Practices (Incentive Payments). 2004.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls Structural 11/15/2011
Page 19 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
Consider if crop will produce enough residue. ftp://ftp-
Planning for residue cover should begin at fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
Leaving last year's crop residue on the
harvest. Time, energy, and labor savings are standards/standards/329a.pdf
surface before and during planting $28-36/acre (includes no-till and strip
possible with fewer tillage trips. Equipment for ftp://ftp-
operations provides cover for the soil at a Ground cover prevents soil erosion and till, ridge till) (11). Maintenance costs
specialized tillage techniques needed. Additional fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
Crop Residue Management (329A-C, critical time of the year. The residue is left protects water quality. Residue improves are 100% of original cost (11). EQIP Typical in Counties of the Lower
Sediment and attached chemical treatments may be necessary to control standards/standards/329b.pdf
344) includes no till, mulch till, ridge on the surface by reducing tillage soil tilth and adds organic matter to the Agricultural runoff, soil erosion (for mulch till, ridge till, and seasonal Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent
pollutants pests. Assistance available from USDA office or ftp://ftp-
till, and seasonal operations and turning the soil less. Pieces soil as it decomposes. Fewer trips and residue management). Equipment County)
Conservation District. No local government fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
of crop residue shield soil particles from less tillage reduces soil compaction. rental or purchase $40+ per acre.
controls in place. Crop reside reduces the velocity standards/standards/329c.pdf
rain and wind until plants can produce a Consider costs for pest control.
of storm water runoff. Rainfall stays in the crop ftp://ftp-
protective canopy.
field allowing the soil to absorb it. Moderate to fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
high decrease in runoff/ flooding. standards/standards/344.pdf
· Reduces sheet, rill, and wind erosion
Rotations that include small grains, such as corn,
· Maintains or improve soil organic
or meadow provide better erosion control. Where
matter content
excess plant nutrients or soil contaminants are a
An adapted sequence of crops designed to · Manages the balance of plant nutrients
concern, utilizing deep rooted crops or cover
provide adequate organic residue for · Improves water use efficiency
crops in the rotation can help recover or remove Typical in Counties of the Lower ftp://ftp-
maintenance or improvement of soil tilth. · Manages saline seeps Sediment and attached
Conservation Crop Rotation (328) Soil erosion, agricultural runoff the nutrient or contaminant from the soil profile. $4.00/acre (11) - EQIP Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
Other BMPs to use include nutrient and · Manages plant pests (weeds, insects, pollutants
Over application of fertilizer or pesticide possible, County) standards/standards/328.pdf
pest management, buffer/filter strips, cover and diseases)
it used. Switch crops to maintain perennials in the
crops · Provides food and cover for wildlife
rotation, if necessary. Plants will reduce the
- Reduces fertilizer needs and may
velocity of storm water runoff and increase
reduce pesticide needs
infiltration.
Keep fencing secure. Apply fertilizer and nutrients
Pasture is divided into two or more
according to soil tests, mow or hay paddocks if
pastures or paddocks with fencing. Cattle
Improves vegetative cover, reduces needed, & update rotation schedule if needed.
are moved from paddock to paddock on a
erosion, and improves water quality by Sediment and attached Practice is widely applicable. Consider adequacy Typical in Counties of the Lower
re-arranged schedule based on forage EQIP can fund establishment. $25/acre
Planned Grazing System reducing sediment and nutrient runoff. pollutants, nutrients, Soil erosion, agricultural runoff of the mix of grass and legumes to meet livestock Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent
availability and livestock nutrition needs. for maintenance (14)
Rotating also evenly distributes manure pathogens needs. Sediment and nutrient runoff is not County)
Other BMPs to use include alternative
and nutrient resources. eliminated just reduced. This practice will increase
water source, cattle exclusions, nutrient
harvest efficiently and help ensure adequate
management, and soil testing
forage throughout the grazing season.
Poor management may allow the loss of dissolved
Management of the irrigation system
Determining and controlling the rate, substances from the irrigation system to surface
should provide the control needed to
amount, and timing of irrigation water in a or groundwater. There is an insignificant
minimize losses of water, and yields of Sediment and attached Typical in Counties of the Lower ftp://ftp-
planned and efficient manner. Other BMPs reduction in runoff/ flooding and slight reduction in
Irrigation Water Management (449) sediment and sediment-attached and pollutants, nutrients, Agricultural runoff EQIP can fund establishment. Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
to use include Nutrient management, pest excess subsurface water. Consider the effects
dissolved substances, such as plant hydrologic flow County) standards/standards/449.pdf
management, crop residue management, irrigation water has on wetlands, water related
nutrients and herbicides, from the
soil conservation measures wildlife habitats, riparian areas, cultural resources,
system.
and recreation opportunities.
Keep strip widths consistent from year to year.
Crop rotation and contouring combined in Meadow slows runoff, increases
Make adjustments in rotation schedule if needed.
equal-width strips of corn or soybeans infiltration, traps sediment and provides
Over application of fertilizer possible, if used. Will Typical in Counties of the Lower ftp://ftp-
planted on the contour and alternated with surface cover. Ridges formed by Sediment and attached
Contour strip cropping (585) Agricultural runoff, soil erosion reduce the velocity of storm water runoff and $10.00/acre (9) - EQIP Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
strips of oats, grass, or legumes. Other contoured rows slow water flow which pollutants, hydrologic flow
increase infiltration. Strip cropping is not as County) standards/standards/585.pdf
BMPs to use include field border, fertilizer reduces erosion. May reduce fertilizer
effective if crop strips become too wide, especially
management, grassed waterways. costs.
on steep slopes.
Page 20 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
To avoid having to lay our new key contour lines
every year, establish a narrow permanent strip of
grass along each key contour line. Practice will
Farming with row patterns is done nearly Reduces sheet and rill erosion and
reduce the velocity of storm water runoff, increase
level around a hill - not up and down the transport of sediment and other water-
infiltration, moderately decrease runoff/ flooding,
hill. Crop row ridges built by tilling and borne contaminants. Ridges, built by Typical in Counties of the Lower ftp://ftp-
Sediment and attached and slightly increase excess subsurface water.
Contour farming (330) planting on the contour create hundreds of tilling and planting on the contour, slow Agricultural runoff, soil erosion $10.00/acre (9) Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
pollutants, hydrologic flow Contouring is less effective in preventing soil
small dams. Other BMPs to use include water flow and increase infiltration which County) standards/standards/330.pdf
erosion on steeper or longer slopes. All tillage and
field border, grassed waterways, and reduces erosion by as much as 50%
planting operations should be performed parallel
terraces or strip cropping if needed. from up and down hill farming.
to the key contour line. Contouring can reduce soil
erosion by as much as 50% from up an down hill
farming.
Crops are scouted to determine type of
pests and the stage of development. The
potential damage of the pest is then
weighed against the cost of control.
Continue scouting to best identify pests and
Finally, if pest control is economical, all Specific treatments for specific pests on
control methods. Keep records to track costs and ftp://ftp-
alternatives are evaluated based on cost, specific areas of a field prevents over-
Pest Management (595) Chemicals (Pesticide) Agricultural runoff chemical application. Calibrate spray equipment. 100% of cost/unit (11) - EQIP fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
results, and environmental impact. treatment of pests. Using fewer
Consider which soils on farm are likely to leach standards/standards/595.pdf
Precaution is taken to keep any chemicals chemicals improves water quality.
pesticides. Consider pest control alternatives.
from leaving the field by leaching, runoff,
or drift. Other BMPs include buffer/filter
strips, crop rotation, and erosion control
measures.
Maintenance requirements:
- Perform a periodic plan review to determine
necessary adjustments
- Protect nutrient storage facilities from weather
and accidental leakage/ spillage
After taking a soil test, setting realistic - Calibrate application equipment and document
This practice properly budgets and
yield goals, and taking credit for application rates
supplies nutrients for plant production. It
contributions from previous years' crops - Spread wastes away from waterbodies on an
also reduces the potential for nutrients to
and manure applications, crop nutrient adequate land base and incorporate ASAP
wash or infiltrate into water supplies by
needs are determined. Nutrients are then - Analyze manure and other organic waste for
Nutrient Management (590) preventing over application. Correct $5.00/acre (9) - EQIP (Costs
applied at the proper time by the proper nutrient content before field application Typical in Counties of the Lower ftp://ftp-
manure and sludge application on all Agricultural runoff, over application associated with waste water collection,
application method. Nutrient sources Nutrients - Test soils once every three years according to Grand River Basin (e.g. Kent fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-
(Comprehensive Nutrient fields can improve soil tilth and organic of fertilizers. soil testing, ICM are low but have a
include animal manure, sludge, and Extension recommendations County) standards/standards/590.pdf
Management Plan (CNMP) matter. It is very applicable on high start up.)
commercial fertilizers. Other BMPs - Establish a winter cover crop if nitrogen
Concentrated Animal Feeding
include manure testing, soil testing, soil leeching is possible due to poor crop yield
Operations (CAFOs).
conservation measures, waste
management system, waste storage * Consider the Michigan Agriculture
facility, and waste utilization. Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP).
Must be trained technical person to compile a
CNMP (service provided by NRCS or Cons.
District). Consider potential groundwater
contamination - proximity to waterbodies critical.
Page 21 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
Organic farming differs from other farming
systems in a number of ways. It favors Organic farming conserves biodiversity,
renewable resources and recycling, provides a wide range of habitats, saves
returning to the soil the nutrients found in energy, improves soil fertility, and
waste products. Where livestock is protects groundwater and surface waters
concerned, meat and poultry production is from nitrates, phosphates, and
regulated with particular concern for pesticides. Organic food is grown without
Roseland Organic Farms,
animal welfare and by using natural using any synthetic pesticides,
Organic farming methods are usually more labor Cassopolis, MI
foodstuffs. Organic farming respects the herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, EQIP funds supporting practices such
intensive than conventional farming, so the cost of
environment's own systems for controlling fertilizers, or hormones. Nutrients, chemicals as cover crops, conservation crop
Organic Farming Practices Agricultural runoff organic farming will usually be more. Reliance on FOGG Organic Farmers and
pests and disease in raising crops and (pesticides) rotation, nutrient management, pest
external inputs, whether chemical or organic, is Market, Leslie, MI
livestock. Organic farmers use a range of management.
reduced as far as possible.
techniques that help sustain ecosystems
and reduce pollution. Other BMPs include
filter/buffer strips, crop rotation, organic
manuring, composting, limited chemical
intervention, conservation of wildlife and
natural habitats, management of livestock,
recycling of organic materials.
Farm Bill programs that offers a rental
payment to landowners that agree to take Areas enrolled in Farm Bill programs are not
environmentally sensitive areas out of Creates incentive for landowners to Sediment, nutrients, protected in perpetuity. Fertilizer cannot be
In some counties soil rental rates can
Agriculture Incentive Programs production. Continuous sign-ups for the conserve riparian buffers, wetlands, and hydrologic flow, pathogens, Agricultural runoff applied to areas under contract. In some cases, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/
be very high
program are available to riparian and wildlife habitats chemicals (pesticides) land values or crop yields may discourage
wetland areas. Rental rates are set by landowners to use these incentive programs
county boards.
ZONING ORDINANCES/LAND USE POLICIES
Stronger regulatory oversight can ensure
that septage is applied correctly and
limited to those areas where it is Stronger regulatory oversight will reduce
Stronger county and state regulatory If existing and future regulations are not enforced,
appropriate. Septic system alternatives the over application and misapplication
oversight of over application and Nutrients, E. Coli Agricultural runoff they will be useless in preventing over application NA
should be encouraged where such of septage and help prevent nutrients
misapplication of septage. and misapplication of septage.
alternatives prove economical and and E. Coli from entering waterbodies.
technically sufficient in order to protect
public health and the environment.
Ordinance can provide for the regulation
and control of storm water runoff; provide
Establishing storm water management control will
for storm water permits an the procedures
Storm water runoff rates and volumes minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes
and standards for the issuance, provide
are controlled in order to protect from identified new land development and
regulations for the inspection, sampling
floodways. Controls soil erosion and encourage groundwater recharge. Proposed
Development/Enforcement of Storm and monitoring of storm water and other Sediment and attached $8,000 / ordinance development Algoma, Cannon, and Courtland
sedimentation; minimizes deterioration of Storm water runoff Model Storm Water Ordinance for Kent County
Water Ordinance discharges; establish performance and pollutants, hydrologic flow (Grand Valley Community Survey) Townships of Kent County
existing watercourses, culverts, bridges, recommends the following release rates:
design standards for storm water
etc.; and encourages groundwater 0.05 cfs/acre for a 2-year storm event for Zone A
management in specified zones of the
recharge. 0.13 cfs/acre per Kent County Drain Commission
Township/Municipality; and provide
rules for Zone B
penalties for the violations of the
ordinance.
Ordinance protects a given area of buffer
Moderate to high. Reduces the risk of Lack of maintenance can increase erosion if trees
adjacent to stream systems. Protected Sediment and attached Storm water runoff from impervious
Development/Enforcement of Stream sediment and contaminants entering the fall into streams. At a minimum, keep south and $8,000 / ordinance development
buffers can provide numerous pollutants, nutrients, surfaces (e.g. parking lots and roof Cannon Township
Buffer Ordinance stream. Practices give a long term west sides of streams wooded to provide shade. (Grand Valley Community Survey)
environmental protection and resource thermal pollution tops) and outflow from ponds.
solution to water quality concerns. Trees in floodway can impede flow.
management benefits.
Page 22 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
Part 303, section 324.30307 authorizes local units
Benefits offered by wetlands are
Ordinance promotes a policy to avoid or of government to adopt and administer their own
restored. Wetlands provide natural Sediment and attached
minimize damage to wetlands and wetland regulations that address wetlands not
pollution control by removing pollutants, pollutants, hydrologic flow,
Development/Enforcement of coordinate the planning and zoning protected by the state, provided they are at least $8,000 / ordinance development
filtering and collecting sediment, nutrients, pathogens, Storm water runoff Salem Township
Wetland Ordinance process with federal and state programs as restrictive as state regulations. The DEQ must (Grand Valley Community Survey)
reducing both soil erosion and chemicals (pesticides),
designed to preserve, protect, or enhance be notified if a community adopts a wetland
downstream flooding, and recharging salts
wetland values. ordinance, but it has no review or approval
groundwater supplies.
authority.
$3/sqft. Land acquisition and
Green Space Protection Ordinance - High if properly executed. Provides Thermal pollution, Ottawa County Parks and
Can also use filter strips and tree planting Construction zones, developed management costs depend on site.
preserving environmentally sensitive protection of natural pollutant removal sediment, nutrients, Recreation Commission, Land
to enhance protection. parcels, agricultural land May double as park/open space usage
and open areas methods. hydrologic flow Conservancy of West Michigan
with related costs.
Low Impact Design practices - Involves careful site planning to reduce the
Thermal pollution, solids,
bioretention, dry wells, filter strips, impact to water resources by eliminating Numerous water quality benefits. Long
sediments, nutrients, Rainfall, runoff, solar, fertilizers http://www.lid-stormwater.net/
vegetated buffers, grass swales, rain impervious surfaces and protecting term solution to concerns.
metals
barrels, cisterns, infiltration trenches infiltration areas.
$2/ac (assuming 1 system monitored
Program to seek out and prohibit illicit
High if properly executed. Eliminate every 5 sq. miles. Maintenance
Illicit Discharge Ordinance (MDOT) discharges and connections to municipal Hazardous wastes Industrial, Residential, commercial Phase II communities, MDOT
hazardous and harmful discharges program. $0.83/acre/year $50/ac/yr
separate storm sewers
(with TV inspection)
Ordinance can be enhanced by installing
Pet waste disposal ordinance and Animals, dogs or other household Public entities/parks and open space
signs and pet waste collection facilities in Moderate Nutrients, bacteria
collection facilities pets areas often have pertinent regulations
high traffic areas
Ordinance abates water pollution caused
Ordinance can be used to enforce
by failing on-site sewage disposal systems,
regular maintenance of disposal systems Lack of ordinance enforcement (regular
Development/Enforcement of Septic minimizes infiltration of seepage from $8,000 / ordinance development
which will minimize threats to public Bacteria Septic systems inspection) can introduce pollution into Wayne County
System Ordinance systems into the storm water drainage (Grand Valley Community Survey)
health and combat the degradation groundwater reserves.
system, and establishes penalties for its
surface and subsurface waters.
violation.
Ordinance prohibits the disposal of yard
Proper disposal of yard and kitchen
and kitchen waste on streambanks and If yard and kitchen waste are composted on
Development/Enforcement of Yard waste ensures that these nutrients are $8,000 / ordinance development
outlines acceptable disposal methods such Nutrients Upland source (yard/kitchen waste) landowner's premises, nutrient runoff should not
and Kitchen Waste Ordinance not released into surface and (Grand Valley Community Survey)
as composting or disposal at a permitted reach nearby surface water bodies.
groundwater supplies.
disposal facility.
Ordinance prohibits the operator of a Issues concerning trespass, disorderly conduct, or
Development/Enforcement of recreational watercraft to exceed a "slow - Enforcing "no wake" zones will reduce Sediment and attached damage caused to private property by the wake of $8,000 / ordinance development City of Detroit (Detroit and Rouge
Recreational watercraft
Watercraft Control Ordinance no wake" speed when within x feet of the streambank erosion. pollutants vessels are not valid safety considerations for (Grand Valley Community Survey) River)
shoreline. establishing a local ordinance.
Ordinance controls access to a designated By controlling public access to a
Sediment and attached Consider using porous/ modular pavement at boat $8,000 / ordinance development
Public Access Ordinance waterbody by limiting hours of access, waterbody, sediment pollution is Public access, boat wakes
pollutants launches locations. (Grand Valley Community Survey)
number of users, etc. reduced.
Fertilizers containing more than 1% by
Development/Enforcement of weight of anhydric phosphoric acid are Moderate; can be other sources of Locations of low phosphorus fertilizers are few. High: $8,000 / ordinance development
Phosphorus Fertilizers East Grand Rapids
Fertilizer Ordinance NOT allowed in the Reeds Lake phosphorus Costs assessed to resident (Grand Valley Community Survey)
Watershed.
RECYCLING/COMPOSTING
Proper buying, using, storing and disposal
Moderate: eliminates disincentives and
Household hazardous waste of Hazardous materials such as Residents, Used oil, paints, cleaning Proper credentials needed for management. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
discourages illegal dumping of products Hazardous wastes Recycling station expenses.
management automotive waste, household cleaners and products, etc Typically consultant based. ts/deq-swq-nps-hhhw.pdf
into storm sewers and onto the ground
paint.
Keeping organic debris out of surface
Compost piles placed near floodplains will
Converting plant debris, grass, leaves, waters and away from floodplains. Will
contribute to the depletion of oxygen in surface Recycling vs. garbage hauler costs. Larger facilities are generally
pruned branches, etc. to compost. Use help prevent the depletion of oxygen in Nutrients, chemicals, and
neighborhoods, agricultural areas, waters. Composting requires proper aeration, Establishment of large scale facility operated by private business. Ex: in
Composting with lawn maintenance, pesticide and surface waters. Widely applicable to pesticides, low DO, trash
yard, and kitchen waste watering and mixing in order to result in a useable $190,000, land dependant. $70,000 sec 36 Zeeland Township, Ottawa
fertilizer management, and diversions (if dense residential or riparian sites. Soils, and debris
end-product. Soils, topography and climate will all annual maintenance. County
needed) topography and climate will all affect the
affect the types of composting options available.
types of composting options available.
Cascade Township, City of
Waste needs to be composted and correctly Wyoming, City of Kentwood, City of
Widely applicable to dense residential or Nutrients and organic
Yard waste collection and disposal Composting of collected refuse Yard waste and leaf litter applied as fertilizer. Need large collection facility Low Grand Rapids, Byron Township,
riparian sites sediment, trash and debris
for compost operations. Ada Township, City of Coopersville,
Georgetown Twp
Page 23 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
Some materials may require more energy to
Collection of recyclable materials either by Reduction in potential clogging and trash, used construction
Recycling Program (MDOT) Highways, travelers, vehicle debris collect and recycle than using new products. $200,000/year. $1.15/person/yr
curb-side pick up or at drop off centers harmful discharge material reuse
However, recycling programs do build awareness
$79 - $179 recovery charge.
Central collection facilities that allow Used oil and other Administrative costs to organize.
Vehicle maintenance disposal
residents to drop off used motor oil. Can Reduces risk of surface water and transportation fluids reuse, Oil may easily become contaminated during Minimal personnel cost to collect and
Used oil recycling program (MDOT) facilities and vehicle or other MDOT, OCRC
be operated by local governments or groundwater contamination hydrocarbons, metals, collection making it a hazardous waste. temporarily store oil. Opportunity to be
equipment requiring lubrication
businesses that recycle oil nutrients paid by private business for waste
material
Page 24 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
TURF MANAGEMENT
Use of all available strategies (Resistant
Turf, Cultural controls, Biological controls,
Mechanical controls and Pesticides) to
manage pests so that an acceptable yield Public parks, administrative offices
Pesticide management for turf grass Harmful chemicals, Must have proper training and credentials to Pesticide management should reduce http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
and quality can be achieved economically Moderate to high Landscaping, storm water runoff thru out region. Typically private
and ornamentals pesticides, insecticides commercially apply and manage. application rates and related costs. ts/deq-swq-nps-pm.pdf
with the least disruption to the contractor based
environment. Used with lawn
maintenance, fertilizer management, and
soil management
Includes mowing, irrigating, pesticide and
Lawn alternatives may reduce mowing
fertilizer management, soil management Phosphorus, nutrients, and Consider minimizing lawn with more native Not widely used. Many applications http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
Lawn maintenance Landscaping, storm water runoff but still require regular maintenance of
and the disposal of organic debris such as sediments species would be retrofit ts/deq-swq-nps-lm.pdf
weed control and pert management.
lawn clippings and leaves.
Includes the proper selection, use, Material cost reduction may conflict
application, storage and disposal of with traditional aesthetic values.
E. coli and other bacteria, Consider consulting professional, such as http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
Fertilizer management fertilizers. Used with pesticide Moderate; can be other sources Landscaping, storm water runoff Fertilizer management should reduce
nutrients Michigan State University Extension. ts/deq-swq-nps-fm.pdf
management, soil management, lawn chemical costs but may impact
maintenance, and nutrient management maintenance and watering.
Typically yearly testing required,
contact local MSU Extension office.
Typically associated with private
Test results may result in operations
Soil testing of lawns and gardens See Soil Management Nutrients Lawn and garden fertilizer Testing should be done at qualified lab property or public administration
and maintenance costs. Low cost tool
sites.
in management of lawns and gardens.
$9.50 per test.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Erosion of road footprint and related
Sediment, hydrocarbons, MDOT, OCRC and other Public
Operation and maintenance programs infrastructure., leaking equipment, Labor intensive. Equipment required.
metals, nutrients Works Departments
etc
Materials needed for emergency structural repairs $150-$9,000 depending on the BMP.
A regular inspection and maintenance
BMP Inspection and Maintenance Sediment, hydrocarbons, may not be easily obtainable and may require Specialized BMP installation involves MDOT, Drain Commission's and
program will maintain the effectiveness Road related sediments /pollutants
Plan (MDOT) metals, nutrients, etc. stockpiling (MDOT). Should be designed and planning, design, construction and other Public Works Departments
and structural integrity of the BMPs.
implemented by trained professional. maintenance costs.
Employee expense. Plan preparation
Identified hazardous and non-hazardous Varies depending on type of material
and updates. Inspections mandated.
materials in the facility. Assures that al Chemicals and other usage at specific facilities. Oil, salt,
Extensive training typically required to prepare Plan development typically needs
Material Management Plan (MDOT) containers have labels. Identifies potentially hazardous degreasers, solvents, antifreeze, MDOT, Public Works Departments
and administer plan. consultant or knowledgeable employee.
hazardous chemicals that require special materials. etc. Industrial sites where chemicals
Operation typically employee
handling, storage, and disposal. are used
dependant.
$21/acre/year, $45-60 per acre (rural).
Prevent erosion in channels. Improve Development, natural erosion,
Clean and maintain storm drain Sediment, trash, woody Channels are less expense to construct MDOT, Public Works Departments,
capacity by removing sediment. Remove vehicle remnants, road winter safety Should be implemented by trained professional.
channels (MDOT) debris and easier to maintain than enclosed Road and Drain Commission's
debris toxic to wildlife. operations
systems.
Moderate; Reduces pollutant slugs Moderate/high; Total annual cost per
during the first flush, prevents Requires continual maintenance every 1 - 3 years. catch basin = ($8/catch basin) + City of Grand Rapids, East Grand
Clean and maintain storm inlets and Catch basins are periodically inspected Solids, sediments, metals,
downstream clogging, and restores Storm water runoff, automobiles General fund, KCRC road maintenance budget - ($40/catch basin) = $48/catch basin. Rapids, KCRC contracts out to
catch basins (MDOT) and cleaned out using a vacuum truck. oils
sediment trapping capacity of the catch $250,000 (GR BMP Study). $21/acre/year Plummer's Environmental, MDOT
basin. maintenance.
Moderate; regular inspection can
Inspections of stream crossings for
Annual Road/Crossing Inspections Moderate Sediment Erosion of streambank prevent major expenditures for potential Coopersville, OCRC, KCRC
evidence of erosion, debris, etc.
major points of erosion
Page 25 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
KCRC maintains State trunk lines
KCRC winter maintenance budget - for Michigan Department of
Moderate, all KCRC equipment operators are
Removal of snow and ice from roadways, $3.5 million. Maintenance costs Transportation (MDOT), primary,
Snow and ice control operations Salts Snow melt runoff trained. Training of road maintenance crew
utilizing plows, salt, and sand. $1000/lane/mile, dependant on severity local and gravel roads within Kent
required.
of winter. County. Subdivisions and Platted
areas contracted out.
Low upfront cost. Long term equipment
Calibration does not guarantee efficient
maintenance vs. reduced salt.
Calibrated Salt Delivery Low Salts Over application of salt application of road salt. Annual training and Wyoming, KCRC, OCRC
Equipment costs $1500 per truck,
calibration necessary.
minimal additional cost.
Low/Moderate; $25/lane/mile,
High if also used with environmentally
Pre wet road salt Salts Road salt Equipment maintenance costs - $5000 East Grand Rapids, OCRC
friendly alternatives to salt
per truck.
Snow storage may damage vegetation and
possible soil erosion. Piled snow melts at a slower
Snow removal storage on grassy Sediment, metals, Dependant on amount of trucking, City of Grandville, City of Grand
Low Snow melt runoff rate. Need ROW for snow removal. Need large
areas hydrocarbons, salt distance to site, etc. Cleanup after melt Haven, City of Holland
grassed area adjacent to buildings and parking
areas and properly spaced from waterbody.
Minimizing effects from road deicing Maintaining agency, Snow melt
Salts & chemicals Varies MDOT
(MDOT) runoff, spring rains
The use of specialized equipment to Moderate; 60% TSS removal rate.
Sweeping may wash sediments into catch basins KCRC Road maintenance budget -
remove litter, loose gravel, soil, vehicle Reduction in potential clogging of storm City of Grand Rapids, City of East
if wash is not vacuumed. Disposal of collected $300,000/yr Ottawa County Local units.
debris and pollutants, dust, de-icing drain material. Some oil and grease Grand Rapids, Cascade Township,
materials must be handled by the governing Mechanical - Total cost per curb mile =
chemicals, and industrial debris from road control (MDOT). When done regularly, Sediment, metals, City of Wyoming, City of Kentwood, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
Street Sweeping Atmospheric, construction, vehicles agency (MDEQ, Public Health, Transportation). $14.40 + $65 + $40 = $119.40/curb
surfaces. There are generally 2 types of can remove 50 - 90% of street pollutants hydrocarbons Gerald R. Ford International Airport - ts/deq-swq-nps-sw.pdf
Sweeping schedules and timing critical - sweep mile. Vacuum Assisted - Total cost per
sweepers; mechanical broom street (1), makes road surfaces less slippery in Mostly contracted out to Sanisweep
after snow melt and before spring rains. Vehicle curb mile = $12.95 + $35 + $40 =
sweepers and vacuum-type street light rains, improves aesthetics by by KCRC, MDOT
maintenance required. $87.95/curb mile (GR BMP Study)
sweepers. removing litter, and controls pollutants.
The use of specialized equipment to Moderate; 60% TSS removal rate.
Sweeping may wash sediments into catch basins KCRC Road maintenance budget -
remove litter, loose gravel, soil, vehicle Reduction in potential clogging of storm City of Grand Rapids, City of East
if wash is not vacuumed. Disposal of collected $300,000/yr Ottawa County Local units.
debris and pollutants, dust, de-icing drain material. Some oil and grease Grand Rapids, Cascade Township,
materials must be handled by the governing Mechanical - Total cost per curb mile =
chemicals, and industrial debris from road control (MDOT). When done regularly, Sediment, metals, City of Wyoming, City of Kentwood, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
Street Sweeping Atmospheric, construction, vehicles agency (MDEQ, Public Health, Transportation). $14.40 + $65 + $40 = $119.40/curb
surfaces. There are generally 2 types of can remove 50 - 90% of street pollutants hydrocarbons Gerald R. Ford International Airport - ts/deq-swq-nps-sw.pdf
Sweeping schedules and timing critical - sweep mile. Vacuum Assisted - Total cost per
sweepers; mechanical broom street (1), makes road surfaces less slippery in Mostly contracted out to Sanisweep
after snow melt and before spring rains. Vehicle curb mile = $12.95 + $35 + $40 =
sweepers and vacuum-type street light rains, improves aesthetics by by KCRC, MDOT
maintenance required. $87.95/curb mile (GR BMP Study)
sweepers. removing litter, and controls pollutants.
Plans detail emergency procedures to Speed and containment are critical. Requires a
Low to high, depending on Management plan preparation with
respond to a release of hazardous Equipment, poor training, accidents, well-planned and clearly defined plan, updated
Emergency Spill Response and preparedness. Can be highly effective at upgrades. Cost of simulations. In public Ottawa County, MDOT, Kent
materials. Also plans that describe Hazardous wastes Industrial, commercial, residential, regularly. May require training, protective gear,
Prevention Plan reducing the risk of surface and ground sector, typically subcontracted to County, local municipalities
procedures for proper handling and and transportation related spill. containment and retrieval knowledge. Equipment
water contamination private contractor
storage of chemical materials. must be readily available. (MDOT)
High if properly executed. Reduce
Plans that specify the actions that will be Act 91 mandated, ongoing local
erosion and sedimentation during unvegetated areas, land State training, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
SESC plans taken on a construction site to minimize Sediment administrative costs. Fee based to Wyoming
construction project. Increased removal development Control and/or Certified Operator.
erosion and sedimentation. landowner option.
using Floc Logs through construction
Using measures such as Watering, $100 to $500 per treatment. Employee
High if properly executed. Prevents soils Salt and other potential pollutants are used in the
Fencing, Mulching and Vegetation to administrative expense. Maintenance of
and attached chemicals, such as Lack of vegetation typically assoc dust control mixture. Rural, urbanizing, and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documen
Dust Control (MDEQ) prevent soil and attached pollutants from Sediment water truck (minimal) - Roads-50-55
fertilizer and pesticides, from entering with gravel roads transportation sites subject to wind erosion. Air ts/deq-swq-nps-dc.pdf
leaving a site and/or entering nearby cents per gal - 1500 gal per mile for a
surface waters. pollution issue if neglected.
waterways. single pass
Moderate to high. Increases greenspace,
Management of woods and trees in an Thermal pollution, solids, Woody debris and detritus may require annual
Urban forestry reduces storm water runoff and thermal Rainfall, Solar
urban setting. sediments maintenance. May eliminate original line of sight
pollution. Long term solution to concerns.
Page 26 of 39
MANAGERIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POLLUTANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SPECIAL
BEST MANAGERIAL PRACTICES DESCRIPTION BENEFIT COMPARATIVE COSTS COMMUNITIES USING BMP MDEQ/ NRCS LINK
ADDRESSED POLLUTANTS CONCERNS
AGRICULTURAL
OTHER
Invasive alien plants thrive in disturbed sites.
Native plant communities fragmented by human
disturbance are most vulnerable to invasion, but
Invasive plant species are controlled using the most invasive species can infest even intact
Population and spread of invasive plant Accidental/purposeful introduction, Grand Rapids Audubon Society
Invasive plant species management appropriate and effective removal methods Invasive plant species ecosystems. Invasive alien plants are free of
species is reduced or eliminated. natural dispersion (garlic mustard)
for particular species. natural controls such as insects and diseases that
keep them in balance in their native habitats.
Invasive species can also significantly reduce
forest regeneration.
INFORMATION & EDUCATION
Can reduce improper disposal of METRO Council, Grand Rapids
Public Education Program (MDOT) Potentially all $200,000/year
hazardous waste City, MACC
Nutrients and organic Leaf litter, grass clippings, fertilizer, Cascade Township, City of
Grounds maintenance training Moderate Low
sediment and pesticides Grandville, City of Grand Rapids
Low cost and easy to implement storm
Employee Training (MDOT) Potentially all MDOT
water management BMPs
Moderate; Educates the general public Volunteers need to take care with paint around
Painting Storm Drain Inlets with "No
that the storm drain discharges into a storm drains. Permanent castings or decals may $0.45/inch - Mylar stencils $5-$6
Dumping" (of such materials as Oil, Pet Hazardous waste and Household hazardous waste, motor East Grand Rapids, MDOT, Spring
Storm Drain Stenciling natural waterbody. Can tie into be more effective. Public education campaign is each - ceramic tiles $100 or more -
Waste and Grass Clippings) signs and nutrients oil, and yard waste Lake Lake Board
hazardous waste collection, yard waste also needed for effective reduction in illegal metal stencils
symbols.
collection dumping. Short term effectiveness.
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for MDOT. 2002.
Bannerman, Roger T., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Source Area and Regional Storm Water Treatment Practices: Options for Achieving Phase II Retrofit Requirements in Wisconsin. 2002.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan.1996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Pollutant Removal Performance Database. June 2000.
Personal Communication with Hydro-Compliance Management, Inc. staff. 2004.
Gruenwald, Paul E. Governmental Accounting Focus, Estimating Useful Lives for Capital Assets. May 2002.
Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Planning and Cost Estimating Criteria for Best Management Practices. April, 2001. TR-NPS25.00.
Rain Gardens of West Michigan. Beautiful Solutions for Water Pollution. [Online] 2003. Available at http://www.raingardens.org/Index.php.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Office Technical Guide, Section 1 Cost Information (draft). 2004.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Michigan Area 3 Component Data. June 2003.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Sample County Practice and Maintenance Costs. 2001.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Conservation Practice Physical Effect Worksheet[s]. 2004.
Personal Communication with Technical Committee of the Lower Grand River Watershed Project. 2004.
Personal Communication with District Conservationist of the NRCS Grand Rapids Service Center. 2004.
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service. FY04 Michigan EQIP Statewide Eligible Practice List, Land Management Practices (Incentive Payments). 2004.
METHODS FOR IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
Regulatory Land Protection Techniques.
1) Natural Resource Preservation Ordinances. Development and other land altering activities cause m
impacts to water quality. Increased soil erosion, loss of natural habitat, and increased storm water runoff a
examples of negative impacts directly or indirectly related to development activities. Local ordinances that
maintain natural vegetation and habitats such as woodlots and wetlands are effective strategies to maintai
vegetative cover and keep the negative impacts from development to a minimum. Natural resource prese
are generally not effective tools to improve water quality, but rather a tool used to maintain existing water q
watershed. Overlay Zoning Techniques: Greenways, overlay zoning regulation. Natural Resource Protecti
Preservation Ordinance, Scenic Resource Preservation
2) Eminent Domain. Eminent domain is a tool used by government agencies to obtain land that is neede
good”, but is unavailable for purchase. Generally, eminent domain is used for development projects such
construction, but it has also been used to obtain natural lands for parks and wildlife refuges. Government
usually hesitant to use eminent domain, and prefer to deal with willing sellers.
3) Designing Development to Protect Wetlands. Part 303 of the Michigan Natural Resources and Env
Protection (Act P.A. 451 of 1994), protects all wetlands that are contiguous to a great lake, an inland lake o
pond that is greater than 1 acre in size. Non contiguous wetlands greater than 5 acres in size are also pro
that have a population of more than 100,000. Because of the regulatory barriers, time constraints, and the
mitigating wetland impacts, developers should avoid directly impacting state regulated wetlands whenever
Developers should also take steps to minimize any secondary impacts as well. Wetlands and other natura
amenities that can be incorporated into developments and bring premium sale prices for the lots that adjoin
4) Cluster Development/ Open Space Preservation. The theory behind cluster development is to allow
develop a smaller area of land at a higher density, so that the remaining undeveloped land can be preserv
open space. Cluster development is a win-win situation. The developer still gets the same number of unit
likely incurring smaller infrastructure costs for utilities, roads, etc. The natural features within the open spa
developed, is preserved in perpetuity and continues to contribute to maintaining existing water quality and
habitat. Open Space Protection Techniques: Lot widths, site preservation requirements, development setb
preservation development
5) Farmland Preservation Techniques. Exclusive Use Zoning, Sliding Scale Zoning, Quarter/Quarter Zo
Zoning, Agricultural Buffers. Rural zoning that does not allow subdivision of parcels below 30 acres (perha
subdivision is allowed below, say, 30 acres (perhaps more). Farmland and is protected from subdivision. T
from an increase in development and impervious surfaces. Lawn fertilizers. Habitat loss.
Non-Regulatory Land Protection Techniques.
1) Land Donations. Land donations are a legal mechanism whereby a landowner donates property to another
Often the landowner receives positive tax considerations from a land donation. Obtaining donations of land is a
effective method to protect naturals resources for the long term. Donations are obtained at no costs and therefo
generally be a significant part of an overall land protection strategy. However, there are often costs associated w
ownership such as taxes and land management that must be taken into consideration. Ideally the most environm
sensitive and valuable properties would be priorities for obtaining donations.
2) Conservation Easements. Conservation easements are a legal mechanism whereby a landowner either se
Non-Regulatory Land Protection Techniques.
1) Land Donations. Land donations are a legal mechanism whereby a landowner donates property to another
Often the landowner receives positive tax considerations from a land donation. Obtaining donations of land is a
effective method to protect naturals resources for the long term. Donations are obtained at no costs and therefo
generally be a significant part of an overall land protection strategy. However, there are often costs associated w
ownership such as taxes and land management that must be taken into consideration. Ideally the most environm
sensitive and valuable properties would be priorities for obtaining donations.
2) Conservation Easements. Conservation easements are a legal mechanism whereby a landowner either se
donates certain rights to property to another entity. A common conservation easement deals with an landowner
donating the development rights to property, to a local land conservancy. The individual still owns the land but h
sold or donated the right to ever develop the land. The land conservancy holds the easement and has the right
Often the landowner receives positive tax considerations from granting an easement. Purchasing or obtaining c
easements is a very effective method to protect natural resources for the long term. Conservation easements ca
obtained at less costs than purchases, and therefore can generally be a significant part of an overall land protec
Ideally the most environmentally sensitive and valuable properties would be priorities for obtaining conservation
3) Deed Restrictions and Covenants. Deed restrictions and covenants are legal mechanisms to limit or preve
activities from occurring on a specific parcel of property. They are similar in nature to a conservation easement,
as effective. Deed restrictions and covenants are more easily removed or altered than conservation easements
4) Purchase of Land. Purchasing land to preserve its natural characteristics is the best method to protect natu
resources for the long term. However, purchases are usually very costly and generally can only provide a small
overall land protection strategy. There are also costs associated with ownership such as taxes and land manag
expenses that must be taken into consideration. Ideally the most environmentally sensitive and valuable proper
priorities for purchase.
5) Tax Incentives. There are often favorable tax implications to landowners who donate land to a government
non profit organization. There are also favorable tax implications to landowners who donate or sell conservation
to such organizations.
6) Private Landowner subsidies. There are numerous governmental programs available that encourage land
improve the environmental health of their land. Programs exist to restore wetlands, reestablish native prairies, r
farmland and correct an array of environmental problems. These programs will generally pay most if not all of th
necessary to achieve the environmental improvements. There is usually very little or no cost to the landowner.
other programs that in addition to covering the expenses to make the improvements, will actually pay the landow
participate in the program. These payments may be in the form of an annual rental payment on retired farmland
of 10 to 15 years, or a one time payment to purchase a 30 year or perpetual conservation easement.
Non-Regulatory Land Protection Techniques.
7) Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program
The community, such as a county, twp, or city, purchases the development rights from interested farmers i
permanently protect farmland from subdivision and development. The benefits have a similar setup and ad
conservation easements. Prevents urban runoff. Addresses impervious surfaces, urban runoff. Use with Bu
Farmland is preserved as long as the development rights are not repurchased for the purpose of developm
government can provide information about this program if it exists within their jurisdiction. Applicable to cou
landowner can legally sell the development rights to his or her property. If development rights are bought b
landowner and farmland was developed, impervious surfaces and urban runoff would both be potential sou
Farmland unlike impervious surfaces will reduce the velocity of storm water runoff and increase infiltration.
Private agencies, state bond referendums, grants, donations, P.A. 116 lien fund, or an increase in other loc
sources. None of these programs are entirely permanent and may be designed to allow some way out by p
stringent tests that keeping the land open for productive agriculture is no longer possible. Most programs a
to buy back development rights.
8) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Transfer of development rights is a voluntary preservation option that compensates the landowner for not d
Farmland is preserved as long as the development rights are not repurchased for the purpose of developm
government can provide information about this program if it exists within their jurisdiction. Applicable to cou
landowner can legally sell the development rights to his or her property. If development rights are bought b
landowner and farmland was developed, impervious surfaces and urban runoff would both be potential sou
Farmland unlike impervious surfaces will reduce the velocity of storm water runoff and increase infiltration.
Private agencies, state bond referendums, grants, donations, P.A. 116 lien fund, or an increase in other loc
sources. None of these programs are entirely permanent and may be designed to allow some way out by p
stringent tests that keeping the land open for productive agriculture is no longer possible. Most programs a
to buy back development rights.
8) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Transfer of development rights is a voluntary preservation option that compensates the landowner for not d
land by allowing the development rights to be transferred to a development district. TDR becomes a tool to
from one area of the community to another.
9) Bargain Sale
Land is sold by a willing seller at below market value to a conservation group or agency (e.g., a parks depa
Conservancy) for permanent conservation.
The land owner receives some income from the sale of the property and receives a tax deduction for the g
value. The property is conserved (e.g., as a nature preserve) in perpetuity for less cost. In perpetuity. Som
required at nature preserves, minimal compared with parks. Varies. Minimal at nature preserves as compa
Some restoration might be needed. High; requires a staff dedicated to a conservation-based stewardship p
nature preserves are vulnerable to adverse changes to hydrology elsewhere in the watershed. Low costs.
stewardship endowment fund. A stewardship endowment is needed in order to be good stewards of a natu
Conservancy of West Michigan has implemented this practice.
ER QUALITY
er land altering activities cause many negative
d increased storm water runoff are typical
activities. Local ordinances that protect and
e effective strategies to maintain existing
nimum. Natural resource preservation ordinances
sed to maintain existing water quality within a
ation. Natural Resource Protection Measures: Tree
cies to obtain land that is needed for the “public
for development projects such as road or drain
d wildlife refuges. Government agencies are
rs.
an Natural Resources and Environmental
to a great lake, an inland lake or stream, or a
han 5 acres in size are also protected in counties
arriers, time constraints, and the high costs of
e regulated wetlands whenever possible.
well. Wetlands and other natural features are
ale prices for the lots that adjoin or surround them.
cluster development is to allow an individual to
developed land can be preserved in perpetuity as
ll gets the same number of units he desired, while
ral features within the open space that is not
ining existing water quality and providing wildlife
requirements, development setbacks, open space
cale Zoning, Quarter/Quarter Zoning, Large Lot
of parcels below 30 acres (perhaps more?). No
is protected from subdivision. Thermal pollution
. Habitat loss.
wner donates property to another entity.
Obtaining donations of land is a very
obtained at no costs and therefore can
there are often costs associated with
eration. Ideally the most environmentally
m whereby a landowner either sells or
wner donates property to another entity.
Obtaining donations of land is a very
obtained at no costs and therefore can
there are often costs associated with
eration. Ideally the most environmentally
m whereby a landowner either sells or
asement deals with an landowner selling or
individual still owns the land but has either
s the easement and has the right to enforce it.
ement. Purchasing or obtaining conservation
erm. Conservation easements can be
cant part of an overall land protection strategy.
orities for obtaining conservation easements.
egal mechanisms to limit or prevent certain
ture to a conservation easement, but are not
ed than conservation easements.
s the best method to protect natural
enerally can only provide a small part of an
p such as taxes and land management
ally sensitive and valuable properties would be
who donate land to a government agency or
s who donate or sell conservation easements
ms available that encourage landowners to
nds, reestablish native prairies, retire
l generally pay most if not all of the expenses
ttle or no cost to the landowner. There are
ments, will actually pay the landowner to
ental payment on retired farmland for a period
nservation easement.
rights from interested farmers in order to
efits have a similar setup and advantages as
faces, urban runoff. Use with Buffer/filter strip.
sed for the purpose of development. Local units of
eir jurisdiction. Applicable to counties where a
development rights are bought back by the
noff would both be potential sources of pollution.
runoff and increase infiltration. High costs.
fund, or an increase in other local funding
gned to allow some way out by proving through
nger possible. Most programs allow the landowner
pensates the landowner for not developing their
sed for the purpose of development. Local units of
eir jurisdiction. Applicable to counties where a
development rights are bought back by the
noff would both be potential sources of pollution.
runoff and increase infiltration. High costs.
fund, or an increase in other local funding
gned to allow some way out by proving through
nger possible. Most programs allow the landowner
pensates the landowner for not developing their
district. TDR becomes a tool to redirect growth
up or agency (e.g., a parks department or the Land
ceives a tax deduction for the gift of the remaining
for less cost. In perpetuity. Some stewardship
al at nature preserves as compared to parks.
nservation-based stewardship program. Isolated
e in the watershed. Low costs. Donations to a
er to be good stewards of a nature preserve. Land
Introduction to Hydrology
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3684_3724-9352--,00.html
Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Analysis
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3684_3724-57034--,00.html
Stream Stability and Channel Forming Flows
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-water-mgmt-hyd-nps-stability.pdf
Hydrologic Impacts Due to Development:
The Need for Adequate Runoff Detention and Stream Protection
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-water-mgmt-Impact_4620_7.pdf
24-9352--,00.html
4-57034--,00.html
d-nps-stability.pdf
pact_4620_7.pdf
Page 35 of 39
West Michigan
Last Stream Stream Stream Stream MDEQ Road Watershed Watershed Information Wellhead Watershed West Michigan Regional Shoreline West Michigan
Watershed ID Surface Water Quality SWQAS Inventory Search Search Search Search Stream Watershed Management Management and Education Hydrologic Wellhead Protection Protection Plan Wellhead Floodplain Wastewater Storm Water Michigan Natural Size Percent Agricultur Forest Range Urban and NPDES Phase II Watershed Organization Contact Phone Timberland Envionmental Action Grand Valley Ottawa County Muskegon Metropolitan Development Regional Planning
Number Major Watershed Subwatershed Tributaries Assessment Surveys Study Performed by: Results 2003 Results 2002 Results 2001 Results 2000 Crossing Water Quality Monitoring Fish Consumtion Advisories TMDL TMDL Date Trout Streams Management Plan Plan Status Plan Type Strategy Study Area Status Protection GIS Storm Water Master Plan Hydrologic Studies Watershed Type Mapping Dams Treatment Plants Ordinance Features Inventory Superfund Sites (acres) Impervious e Barren Land Land Built-up Water Wetland Communities Organization Contact Number Funding Sources Adopt-a-Stream Groups Conservation Organizations RC&D Potawatomie RC&D Council Metropolitan Council Regis Planning and Grants Planning Organization Commission Commission
Date Revised 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 6/21/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04 5/18/04
GVSU-Annis Water Marne Conserv ation Club, Friends of
A Hy drologic Study of the West Michigan
14_100 Grand Riv er 1996 Resources 2002 Poor Fish Sand Creek and its Completed Y ES Y ES 8.37% Walker, Tallmadge Sand Creek the Musketawa Trail, Ottawa Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Sand Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/039 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed GVSU-AWRI Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2006 Sand Creek CMI NO NA NONE Sand Creek Watershed, Rural Y ES Walker MNFI 14 100 NONE 10144.137 37.35% 28.37% 17.80% 14.77% 0.81% 0.90% Ms. Linda Brown (616) 846-8219 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Institute/Herman Community tributaries Twp Watershed Group Conserv ation District, Sand Creek Council and Grants Planning Commission
MDEQ, Fongers, 2003 Council
Miller/Volunteers Watershed Parnters
Tallmadge Twp, West Michigan
14_101 Grand Riv er 1981 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA Rural, Urban, 13.22% Marne Conserv ation Club, Ottawa Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 003920, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA NO NA NONE Y ES Walker MNFI 14 101 NONE 6366.439 18.49% 22.77% 13.55% 34.63% 6.29% 4.28% Walker, Georgetown Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er Conserv ation District Council and Grants Planning Commission
Twp Council
Poor Fish
Community ,
Pathogens, Low West Michigan
14_102 Grand Riv er 1999 Complete Not Started NA NA 7.24% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Deer Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Dissolv ed Oxy gen, 2011 None NA NO NA Urban, Rural MNFI 14 102 NONE 22374.232 74.12% 8.82% 8.31% 7.39% 0.55% 0.82% Coopersv ille Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Council and Grants Planning Commission
Untreated Sewer Council
Discharge,
Nutrients, Fish
Kills West Michigan
14_103 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Completed NA Y ES Ottawa County Drain Commissioner Rural, Urban, 10.34% Allendale Twp, Marne Conserv ation Club, Ottawa Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed STORET (Grand Riv er @ Eastmanv ille) 2009 Hager Creek CMI NO NA MNFI 14 103 NONE 18131.336 39.43% 0.01% 23.20% 14.49% 17.19% 5.31% 0.36% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Hager Creek Storm Water Plan Grand Riv er Georgetown Twp Conserv ation District Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
NPS Pollution Inf luences on
West Michigan
14_104 Grand Riv er 1968 Not Started NA NA Water Quality in Three Rural 5.45% Allendale Twp, Blendon Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Bass Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14 104 NONE 14591.222 57.28% 15.52% 17.06% 6.17% 3.56% 0.40% Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Watersheds. Frederick Twp, Georgetown Twp Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
Bev is, AWRI, 1991.
Pathogens, Poor
NPS Pollution Inf luences on
Fish Community , West Michigan
14_105 Grand Riv er 1968 Not Started NA NA Water Quality in Three Rural 4.35% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Bass Riv er 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Poor 2006 None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14 105 NONE 17428.487 52.28% 21.41% 12.04% 4.95% 7.38% 1.94% Allendale Twp Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Watersheds. Frederick Council and Grants Planning Commission
Macroinv ertebrate Council
Bev is, AWRI, 1991.
Community
West Michigan
14_106 Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300, 1999 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA 5.54% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA NO NA Rural, Grand Riv er MNFI 14 106 NONE 6569.186 61.38% 14.76% 8.53% 7.06% 5.87% 2.40% None Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095 Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
Smith Drain, N.
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095,
14_107 Grand Riv er North Branch Crockery 1999 Branch Crockery Completed Y ES 3.43% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
MI/DNR/SWQ-88/069, Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Crockery 319 Rav enna Designation Rural, Lake MNFI 14 107 NONE 22839.679 69.55% 17.75% 8.49% 2.64% 0.97% 0.60% None Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D REGIS
Creek Creek and its Council and Grants Planning Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-95/024
unnamed tribs
004340, 24300, MI/DEQ/SWQ- Ov idhall Lake Creek, West Michigan Regional
14_108 Grand Riv er 1999 Completed Y ES Conceptualization, 4.44% Muskegon Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Crockery Creek 00/095, MI/DNR/SWQ-91/071, Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Crockery Creek, Crockery 319 Grant, Rav enna Rural, Urban, Lake MNFI 14 108 NONE 29550.749 58.26% 27.29% 9.11% 4.19% 0.31% 0.85% None Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
Designation Planning Organization Planning Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-95/024 Indian Run Commission
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095, Untreated Sewer
West Michigan Regional
14_109 Grand Riv er MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/118, 1999 Discharge, Completed Y ES 5.25% Muskegon Conserv ation District, Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning Muskegon Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Crockery Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2003 Crockery Creek Crockery 319 Rav enna Designation Rural, Urban MNFI 14 109 NONE 16912.995 65.37% 0.02% 19.51% 8.74% 6.05% 0.26% 0.05% None Timberland RC&D Regis Shoreline Planning
MI/DNR/SWQ-91/071, Pathogens (Rio Ottawa Conserv ation District Council and Grants Planning Organization Planning Commission
Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-95/024 Grande)
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095, West Michigan Regional
14_110 Grand Riv er 1999 Completed Y ES 3.04% Muskegon Conserv ation District, Muskegon Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Crockery Creek MI/DNR/SWQ-91/071, Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Crockery Creek Crockery 319 NO NA Rural MNFI 14 110 NONE 12309.367 57.70% 0.06% 30.86% 9.10% 1.86% 0.07% 0.35% None Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
Ottawa Conserv ation District Planning Organization Planning Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-95/024 Commission
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095,
14_111 Grand Riv er 1999 Completed Y ES 5.05% Muskegon Conserv ation District, Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Crockery Creek MI/DNR/SWQ-91/071, Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Crockery Creek Crockery 319 NO NA Rural MNFI 14 111 NONE 20702.643 58.86% 0.02% 22.50% 8.66% 4.92% 1.59% 3.45% None Timberland RC&D REGIS
Ottawa Conserv ation District Council and Grants Planning Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-95/024
West Michigan
14_112 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA 4.48% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA NO NA Rural, Grand Riv er MNFI 14 112 NONE 4813.993 13.80% 36.10% 14.28% 13.04% 18.34% 4.44% None Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_113 Grand Riv er 1968 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Tribs of Not Started NA NA 14.09% Grand Hav en, Grand Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Pottawatomie Bay ou 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Urban, Rural MNFI 14 113 NONE 9802.489 13.45% 0.63% 32.58% 11.27% 23.58% 17.00% 1.48% Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs Pottawatomie Bay ou Hav en Twp Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan Regional
14_114 Grand Riv er 1999 Progressiv e AE (Spring Lake--Nutrients, Norris Creek, Completed Y ES NO 5.62% Muskegon Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Norris Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Spring Lake CMI NO NA Rural MNFI 14 114 NONE 16118.992 24.72% 0.66% 52.71% 13.08% 8.41% 0.04% 0.38% Fruitport Twp Muskegon Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
DO, Chloro) Rhy mer Creek Planning Organization Planning Commission
Commission
Village of Spring Lake,
Spring Lake Twp, West Michigan Regional
14_115 Grand Riv er 1999 Progressiv e AE (Spring Lake--Nutrients, Completed Y ES NO 15.44% Spring Lake Lake Muskegon Conserv ation District, Ottawa County Planning Muskegon Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Spring Lake 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Spring Lake CMI NO NA Urban, Lake, Rural MNFI 14 115 NONE 16263.073 7.71% 0.10% 43.65% 9.82% 28.58% 8.91% 1.23% Village of Fruitport, Spring Lake Lake Board Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
DO, Chloro) Board Ottawa Conserv ation District and Grants Planning Organization Planning Commission
Fruitport Twp, Commission
Ferry sburg
Tribs of Millhouse,
Crockery Twp, Grand
14_116 Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300, 1999 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Stearns, Lloy d , Not Started NA NA Urban, Rural, 11.10% Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA NO NA MNFI 14 116 NONE 29558.586 12.89% 0.02% 33.42% 12.94% 18.99% 13.97% 7.77% Hav en Twp, and City Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D REGIS
MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/095 Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Dermo, and Bruce Grand Riv er, Lake Council and Grants Planning Commission
of Grand Hav en
Bay ous
Urban, Grand West Michigan
14_117 Grand Riv er 1970 STORET (Grand Riv er @ mouth and at Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA 22.41% Ferry sburg, Grand Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 00570, 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009, 2011 None NA NO NA Riv er, Lake MNFI 14 117 NONE 2369.287 1.68% 5.99% 20.64% 6.47% 41.67% 19.33% 4.22% Ottawa Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Spring Lake) Riv er PCBs bipheny ls, Mercury Hav en Council and Grants Planning Commission
Michigan, Bay ou Council
West Michigan
14_56 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Unnamed trib of Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 7.10% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001671 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local Portland Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 56 NONE 6003.836 70.87% 10.60% 3.71% 10.57% 1.65% 2.60% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_57 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Unnamed trib of Completed No No Commercial sites 4.43% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001672 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural, Grand Riv er MNFI 14 57 NONE 9757.559 71.96% 12.66% 2.82% 4.73% 6.78% 1.05% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_58 Grand Riv er NA Goose Creek and Completed No No Commercial sites 3.21% West Michigan Regional
Goose Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 58 NONE 5865.07 87.78% 7.52% 2.62% 0.81% 0.00% 1.27% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
unnamed trib only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_59 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 5.23% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001674 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local Muir Grant Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 59 NONE 4072.9 57.49% 0.00% 22.67% 6.46% 6.46% 5.69% 1.25% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_60 Grand Riv er NA Completed No No Commercial sites 4.56% West Michigan Regional
Libhart Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 60 NONE 15084.904 82.99% 0.00% 8.63% 1.67% 2.69% 0.10% 3.91% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_61 Grand Riv er NA Completed No No Commercial sites 5.46% West Michigan Regional
Tay lor Drain NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 61 NONE 6398.428 83.46% 6.61% 2.11% 3.86% 3.96% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_62 Grand Riv er NA Completed No No Commercial sites 3.94% West Michigan Regional
Little Libhart Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 62 NONE 9441.004 84.57% 9.61% 1.96% 2.08% 1.79% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_63 Grand Riv er NA Completed No No Commercial sites 2.78% West Michigan Regional
Libhart Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 63 NONE 4250.595 70.83% 19.23% 7.20% 0.94% 1.80% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_64 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 3.82% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001674 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 64 NONE 3007.299 38.13% 0.00% 43.70% 8.13% 5.80% 0.29% 3.96% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Council
14_65 Grand Riv er 1980 Not Started NA NA 3.11% West Michigan Regional
Prairie Creek 003750 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Prairie Creek None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14 65 NONE 13018.181 73.93% 14.50% 7.24% 1.29% 0.21% 2.82% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Planning Commission
14_66 Grand Riv er NA Not Started NA NA 2.91% West Michigan Regional
Bacon Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Bacon Creek None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14 66 NONE 5564.524 65.30% 21.15% 5.31% 1.27% 0.10% 6.87% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Planning Commission
14_67 Grand Riv er NA Prairie Creek and its Completed No No Commercial sites 2.87% Montcalm Conserv ation District, Ionia West Michigan Regional
Prairie Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 67 NONE 18624.108 63.10% 25.60% 4.20% 1.42% 0.37% 5.31% None Timberland RC&D
unnamed tribs. only Conserv ation District Planning Commission
West Michigan
14_68 Grand Riv er NA Unnamed tribs to Completed No No Commercial sites 3.34% West Michigan Regional
Unnamed Trib NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 68 NONE 10683.716 70.35% 18.63% 1.72% 1.95% 0.00% 7.36% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Grand Riv er. only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_69 Grand Riv er NA Prairie Creek and its Completed No No Commercial sites 3.05% West Michigan Regional
Prairie Creek NONE Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 69 NONE 13084.308 73.23% 18.38% 2.62% 1.37% 4.40% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
unnamed tribs. only Planning Commission
Council
American Anodco, Inc.
(MID006029102, deleted 2002), West Michigan
14_70 Grand Riv er 1999 Prairie Creek and its Completed No No Commercial sites 6.31% West Michigan Regional
Prairie Creek MI/DEQ/SWQ-99/154 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed STORET (Prairie Creek @ M-21) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local Ionia Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Urban, Rural MNFI 14 70 Ionia City Landfill 4558.259 61.28% 18.17% 9.53% 9.04% 1.97% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
unnamed tribs. only Planning Commission
(MID0980794416, continual long- Council
term monitoring)
West Michigan
14_71 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Unnamed tribs to Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 9.91% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local Ionia Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 71 NONE 7456.619 52.98% 18.95% 7.78% 17.53% 0.04% 2.71% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er. only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_72 Grand Riv er 1983 Completed No No Commercial sites 3.37% West Michigan Regional
Sessions Creek 003040, 004470, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural, Lake MNFI 14 72 NONE 10967.565 80.59% 12.42% 3.70% 1.03% 0.03% 2.24% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_73 Grand Riv er 1998 Fair/Good Poor/Good Bellemy Creek and Completed No No Commercial sites 2.91% West Michigan Regional
Bellemy Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Excellent Fair Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 73 NONE 13262.422 81.79% 13.22% 2.04% 0.60% 0.04% 2.31% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
(Lee Creek) (Lee Creek) its tribs. only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_74 Grand Riv er 1998 Spring Brook, Bellamy Resource Completed No No Commercial sites 4.12% West Michigan Regional
Bellemy Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Local Ionia Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 74 NONE 7385.417 64.50% 22.63% 5.57% 4.00% 3.30% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Bellemy Creek Plan only Planning Commission
Council
Tibbets Creek, West Michigan
14_75 Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300, 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 9.10% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 Unnamed Tribs of WCLMI Resource Plan Local Ionia Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 75 NONE 11455.15 58.93% 16.84% 7.19% 13.89% 3.14% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
003120 (Tibbets Ck.) Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Grand Riv er Council
West Michigan
14_76 Grand Riv er 1968 Completed No No Commercial sites 3.15% West Michigan Regional
Red Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural MNFI 14 76 NONE 5871.391 69.57% 21.37% 5.58% 1.41% 2.09% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
only Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14_77 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Timberlin Creek, Completed No No Commercial sites 3.55% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural, Grand Riv er MNFI 14 77 NONE 8827.223 54.30% 27.50% 9.13% 5.00% 4.08% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Crooked Creek only Planning Commission
Council
25300, 004560, 004580, Lake Creek, Little Lake Ionia Department of West Michigan
14_78 Grand Riv er 1985 Complete Progressiv e AE (Morrison Lake--Nutrients, Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Morrison Poly chlorinated Completed Y ES No Commercial sites 5.70% Morisson Lake West Michigan Regional
Lake Creek 005410, 63893, MI/DNR/SWQ- Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2010 Creek, and unnamed Morrison Lake Management SARANAC, NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural, Lake MNFI 14 78 NONE 18171.886 67.58% 16.68% 5.57% 5.82% 2.03% 2.31% None Ms. Arleen Spalding (616) 642-9222 Recreation, Clean Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
E. coli, chloro) Lake PCBs bipheny ls only Improv ement Board Planning Commission
87/033 tribs. of Lake Creek. Plan Lakes Program, and Council
319 West Michigan
14_79 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 5.55% West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 Toles Creek WCLMI Resource Plan Local SARANAC, NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP MNFI 14 79 NONE 9623.262 47.61% 29.19% 9.74% 7.24% 1.43% 4.79% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Grand Riv er Planning Commission
Council
001502, 001670, 25300, Plankton in the Lower Grand West Michigan
14_80 Grand Riv er 1995 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Unnamed tribs to Completed No No Commercial sites Urban, Rural, 4.71% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er MI/DEQ/SWQ-96/057 (Trout Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed STORET (Trout Creek @ Oberley Rd) 2009 WCLMI Resource Plan Local NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Riv er at Lowell, Michigan, MNFI 14 80 NONE 9860.493 28.82% 0.00% 39.02% 19.34% 6.72% 1.62% 4.47% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er. only Grand Riv er Council Planning Commission
Cr.) 004780 (Trout Cr.) 2001-2002. Council
1502, 1670, MI/DEQ/SWQ-
Plankton in the Lower Grand West Michigan
14_81 Grand Riv er 99/020 (Cherry Cr.), 1998 Poly chlorinated Lee Creek, Unnamed Not Started NA NA Urban, Rural, 7.09% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2009 None NA NO NA Riv er at Lowell, Michigan, MNFI 14 81 NONE 11649.865 26.26% 38.60% 23.26% 9.88% 1.11% 0.89% None Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 (Lee bipheny ls Trib to Grand Riv er Grand Riv er Council Planning Commission
2001-2002. Council
Creek)
West Michigan
14_82 Grand Riv er 1970 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Unnamed trib to Not Started NA NA Cascade Twp, 5.42% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA Ada Twp Grant Rural, Grand Riv er MNFI 14 82 NONE 9294.341 21.64% 0.00% 43.92% 22.84% 8.48% 2.42% 1.71% None Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er Ada Twp Council Planning Commission
Council
Honey Creek and West Michigan
14_83 Grand Riv er 1992 Not Started NA NA 4.90% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Honey Creek 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-93/003 Good Excellent/Fair Good Fair/Good Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None unnamed trib to None NA Ada Twp Grant Rural, Lake Ada Twp MNFI 14 83 NONE 9265.014 32.31% 37.70% 20.96% 6.36% 0.43% 2.24% Ada Twp Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Council Planning Commission
Honey Creek Council
002452, 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ- Bear Creek Stewardship Plan
Poor Fish Complete Cannon Twp, West Michigan
14_84 Grand Riv er 95/009, MI/DNR/SWQ-92/211, 1996 STORET (Bear Creek @ Chauncey Rd), Stout Creek, Waddell Completed Y ES Y ES (1992), Bear Creek 8.40% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Bear Creek Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Community , f or Bear Creek 319 Lake Bella Vista Delineation Rural, Lake Grattan Twp, MNFI 14 84 NONE 20323.025 23.40% 31.60% 23.76% 14.78% 2.31% 4.15% Cannon Twp. Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
MI/DEQ/SWQ-96/024, KCHD (E. coli) Creek, Bear Creek Hy drologic Inv estigation, Council Planning Commission
Sediment Sediment Ada Twp Council
MI/DEQ/SWQ-96/047 MDNR, September, 1991.
001502, 001670, 25300, Plainf ield Twp,
MI/DNR/SWQ-91/002, Sunny Creek, Egy pt Plainf ield, Grand West Michigan
14_85 Grand Riv er 1992 STORET (Grand Riv er @ Knapp St), Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA Urban, Rural, Cannon Twp, 9.27% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/042, Good Good Good/Fair Good 2009 Creek, Unnamed trib None NA Ada Twp, Plainf ield Twp Grant, Program MNFI 14 85 NONE 26322.55 16.71% 36.64% 22.06% 20.29% 2.59% 1.72% Rapids Twp, Grand Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
KCHD (E. coli) Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Grand Riv er Grand Rapids Council Planning Commission
MI/DNR/SWQ-88/017 (Egy pt to Egy pt Creek Rapids, Ada Twp Council
Twp, Ada Twp
Creek), MI/DNR/SWQ-93/003
West Michigan
14_86 Grand Riv er 1992 STORET (Grand Riv er conf luence) KCHD Poor Fish Mill Creek and its Not Started NA NA Plainf ield Twp, 8.64% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Mill Creek 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-94/039 Not Assessed Poor/Good Fair/Good Fair Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2007 None NA NO NA Alpine Twp (In Progress) Urban, Rural, Lake MNFI 14 86 NONE 12950.556 64.36% 10.57% 10.73% 12.91% 1.02% 0.41% Alpine Twp Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
(E. coli) Community tribs. Alpine Twp Council Planning Commission
Council
25300, 001502, 001670, West Michigan
14_87 Grand Riv er 1970 Excellent/Goo Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA Urban, Rural, State Disposal Landfill 23.96% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er MI/DNR/SWQ-94/040 (Scott Not Assessed Good Fair 2009 None NA Plainf ield Twp Program Plainf ield Twp MNFI 14 87 9525.915 10.71% 26.54% 13.89% 43.54% 4.49% 0.85% Plainf ield Twp Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
d Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Lake, Grand Riv er (MID980609341, submitted 2001) Council Planning Commission
Creek) Council
Indian Mill Creek Watershed Storm
Indian Mill Creek, Alpine
Water Management Plan (1993), City of West Michigan
14_88 Grand Riv er 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/021, 1998 Brandy wine Creek, Not Started NA NA Township, Folkertsma Refuse 18.81% Alpine Twp, Walker, Steepletown Ministries, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Indian Mill Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Poor Fair Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None None NA NO NA Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Urban, Rural FEMA MNFI 14 88 10979.073 37.53% 12.29% 15.92% 33.44% 0.03% 0.79% Friends of the Walker/Highland Trail Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
MI/DNR/SWQ-93/022 and unnamed tribs of Walker, Grand (MID980609366, Deleted in 1996) Grand Rapids Trinity Ref ormed Church Council Planning Commission
Management Master Plan (1994), Alpine Council
Indian Mill Creek Rapids
Twp (In Progress)
Poly chlorinated Plainf ield Twp, Butterworth #2 Landfill Grand Rapids,
001502, 001670, 25300,
bipheny ls, City of Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Alpine Twp, (MID062222997, continued Plainf ield Twp, Alpine West Michigan
14_89 Grand Riv er 003920, MI/DNR/SWQ-93/019 1981 FTCH/WMEAC/MDE Complete Reeds Lake (Nutrients, chloro, E. coli, Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Y ork Creek, Completed Y ES Y ES Combined Sewer Ov erf low Urban, Grand 40.34% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Poor Poor/Fair Poor/Fair Mercury , Poor Fish 2010, 2011 Y ork Creek 319 NO NA Management Master Plan (1994), Grand Y ES Walker, Grand MNFI 14 89 monitoring until 2030), Reliable 21926.438 2.95% 9.43% 9.46% 72.20% 4.04% 1.93% Twp, Grand Rapids Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
(Y ork Creek), MI/DNR/SWQ- Q DO) KCHD (E. coli) Riv er PCBs, Reeds Lake PCBs Lamberton Creek Study (1990) Riv er Council Planning Commission
Community (Y ork Rapids Twp (In Progress) Rapids, Grand Equipment (MID006407969, Twp, East Grand Council
95/064 (Y ork Creek)
Creek) Rapids Twp remov ed) Rapids, Kentwood
City of East Grand
West Michigan
14_89A Grand Riv er NA FTCH/WMEAC/MDE Reeds Lake (Nutrients, chloro, E. coli, Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Not Started NA NA East Grand 12.85% Rapids, Grand Rapids Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Reeds Lake NONE Fair Fair Poor Not Assessed Mercury 2010 None NA NO NA NONE Urban MNFI 14 90 NONE 2090.7 4.09% 17.53% 8.58% 48.65% 13.59% 7.56% The Frey Foundation Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Q DO) KCHD (E. coli) Riv er PCBs, Reeds Lake PCBs Rapids Twp, Kentwood, City Council Planning Commission
Council
of Grand Rapids
Poor Fish Buck Creek and Plaster Creek Storm VanWaters & Rogers Inc.
Community , Poor Water Management Master Plan (1991), Cascade Twp, (MID980681696, def erred to West Michigan
14_90 Grand Riv er 25300, 002980, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 2001 Completed NO Y ES Plaster Creek Storm Water 14.56% Kentwood, Cascade Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Plaster Creek Poor/Poor Fair Fair Not Assessed KCHD (Plaster Creek--E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Macroinv ertebrate 2002 Plaster Creek CMI NO NA City of Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Urban, Rural Y ES Caledonia Twp, MNFI 14 90 RCRA), Kentwood Landfill 16668.722 37.51% 10.72% 29.53% 20.39% 0.06% 1.79% Calv in Engineering Club Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
01/107 Quality Study (1992) Twp, Gaines Twp Council Planning Commission
Community , Management Master Plan (1994), Gaines Kentwood (MID000260291, completed Council
Pathogens Twp (In Progress) 1999)
Cascade Twp,
East Grand New Branches School,
Poor Fish Buck Creek and Plaster Creek Storm Grand Rapids Twp,
Rapids, Grand Lacks Industries Calv in College
Community , Poor Water Management Master Plan (1991), Grand Rapids, Ada West Michigan
14_91 Grand Riv er 25300, 002980, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 2001 STORET (Plaster Creek @ Market Av e), Completed NO Y ES Rapids, (MID006014666, remov ed), 42.73% Env ironmental. Coalition, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Plaster Creek Fair Fair Fair Poor/Fair Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Macroinv ertebrate 2002 Little Plaster Creek CMI NO NA City of Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Whiskey Creek (on-going) Urban Y ES MNFI 14 91 19777.146 2.37% 8.52% 14.39% 73.32% 0.38% 1.02% Twp, Cascade Twp, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
01/107 KCHD (E. coli) Kentwood, Chem. Central (MID980477079, Oakdale Christian M.S., Council Planning Commission
Community , Management Master Plan (1994), Grand East Grand Rapids, Council
Grand Rapids continued monitoring until 2004) Alger Park CRC, Grand
Pathogens Rapids Twp (In Progress) Kentwood, Wy oming
Twp, Ada Twp, Rapids WWTP
Wy oming
West Michigan
14_92 Grand Riv er 001502, 001670, 25300, 1981 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Grand Poly chlorinated Not Started NA NA City of Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Combined Sewer Ov erf low Urban, Grand 57.19% East Grand Rapids, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2009 None NA NO NA Grand Rapids MNFI 14 92 NONE 2666.934 2.60% 3.75% 91.47% 2.43% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
003920 Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Management Master Plan (1994) Study (1990) Riv er Grand Rapids Council Planning Commission
Council
By ron Township Storm Sewer Master
Plan Sections 15, 16, 21, and 22 (1977), West Michigan
14_93 Grand Riv er 1991 2003 Completed NA NA 14.08% Wy oming, By ron Twp, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Buck Creek 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-92/212 MDEQ/FTCH Not Assessed Not assessed Good Not Assessed Calv in Christian High School Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Buck Creek Buck Creek WMP CMI NO NA Buck Creek and Plaster Creek Storm Rural, Urban Wy oming MNFI 14 93 NONE 13744.667 38.84% 17.68% 21.08% 21.74% 0.28% 0.38% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Gaines Twp Council Planning Commission
Water Management Master Plan (1991), Council
Gaines Twp (In Progress)
Buck Creek and Plaster Creek Storm
Sharps Creek, Pine Grandv ille, Wy oming,
Water Management Master Plan (1991), Behan-Foley Drain Grand Rapids, West Michigan
14_94 Grand Riv er 1991 2003 Hill Creek, Buck Completed NA NA Kentwood Detention Ponds 39.00% Grand Rapids, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Buck Creek 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-92/212 MDEQ/FTCH Not Assessed Poor Good Good KCHD (Buck Creek--E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Pathogens 2006 Buck Creek WMP CMI NO NA Wy oming Storm Water Management Urban, Rural Floodplain Wy oming, MNFI 14 94 NONE 18645.008 8.19% 7.20% 13.50% 70.61% 0.17% 0.33% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Creek and Unnamed (1985) Kentwood, Gaines Council Planning Commission
Master Plan Sections 28-35 (1996), Analy sis (1993) Kentwood Council
trib of Buck Creek Twp, By ron Twp
Gaines Twp (In Progress)
Georgetown Twp,
West Michigan
14_95 Grand Riv er East Branch Rush Creek 1968 Not Started NO Y ES Bliss Creek Intercounty Drain WMP 8.55% Grandv ille, Jamestown Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
25300 Not Assessed Not assessed Good Fair/Excellent KCHD (Buck Creek--E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None None NA NO NA Rural, Urban Wy oming MNFI 14 95 NONE 18089.525 51.24% 12.21% 20.25% 15.77% 0.28% 0.25% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
(Bliss Creek Drain) (1994) Twp, Wy oming, By ron Council Planning Commission
Council
Twp
Grandv ille,
West Michigan
14_96 Grand Riv er 1968 Not Started NO Y ES Huizenga Intercounty Drain Watershed 22.37% Georgetown Twp, Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Rush Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None None NA NO NA Urban, Rural, Lake Wy oming MNFI 14 96 NONE 19949.083 35.43% 8.13% 15.11% 38.75% 2.07% 0.50% Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Management Plan (1995) Hudsonv ille, Blendon Council and Grants Planning Commission
Council
Twp, Wy oming
H. Brown Company,
Inc.(MID017075136, continued
00690, 001502, 25300, 002780 monitoring until 2004), Organic
Combined Sewer Ov erf low Walker, Grand Walker, Grand Rapids, West Michigan
14_97 Grand Riv er (Roy 's Creek), 004620 (Roy 's 1996 Complete STORET (Grand Riv er @ M-11), KCHD Unnamed tributary , Not Started NA Y ES (Hogadone) City of Grand Rapids, MI, Storm Water Urban, Grand Chemical Co. (MID990858003, 28.68% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Grand Riv er FTCH Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Pathogens 2006 None NA NO NA Study (1990), Roy 's Creek Rapids, MNFI 14 97 14193.039 6.89% 22.03% 15.20% 51.47% 2.97% 1.44% Tallmadge Twp, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Creek), 003920, MI/DEQ/SWQ- (Grand Riv er--E. coli) Roy 's Creek Management Master Plan (1994) Riv er, Rural continued monitoring until 2032), Council Planning Commission
Watershed Study 1997 Wy oming Wy oming, Grandv ille Council
96/056 Spartan Chemical Co.
(MID079300125, monitoring until
2003)
GVSU-Annis Water
In progress, will adopt Kent County A Hy drologic Study of the Alpine Alpine Twp, Walker, West Michigan
14_98 Grand Riv er 1996 Resources 2002 Poor Fish Sand Creek and its Started Y ES Y ES 10.71% Sand Creek Friends of the Walker/Highland Trail, Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
East Fork Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/038 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2005 Sand Creek CMI NO NA Model Ordinance in Walker, Alpine Twp Sand Creek Watershed, Rural, Urban Township, MNFI 14 98 NONE 11175.182 58.27% 12.60% 13.41% 13.71% 0.18% 1.82% Wright Twp, Tallmadge Ms. Linda Brown (616) 846-8219 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Institute/Herman Community unnamed tribs Watershed Group Sand Creek Watershed Parnters Council Planning Commission
(In Progress) MDEQ, Fongers, 2003 Walker Twp Council
Miller/Volunteers
GVSU-Annis Water
A Hy drologic Study of the Marne Conserv ation Club, Friends of West Michigan
14_99 Grand Riv er 1996 Resources 2002 Poor Fish Sand Creek and its Completed Y ES Y ES 5.32% Sand Creek Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Sand Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/039 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed GVSU-AWRI Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory 2006 Sand Creek CMI NO NA Sand Creek Watershed, Rural FEMA MNFI 14 99 NONE 13757.361 69.34% 11.51% 13.41% 4.88% 0.62% 0.24% Wright Twp Ms. Linda Brown (616) 846-8219 the Musketawa Trail, Sand Creek Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Institute/Herman Community unnamed tribs Watershed Group Council and Grants Planning Commission
MDEQ, Fongers, 2003 Watershed Partners Council
Miller/Volunteers
Thornapple Riov er
14D_1 Thornapple Riv er 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001, 1998 Initiativ e NA NA 4.20% Thornapple Riv er
Thornapple Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Headwaters MNFI 14D 1 NONE 18237.183 66.19% 15.81% 12.17% 3.89% 0.21% 1.73% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x114 Watershed Stream Team Riv er Network, Thornapple-Grand CD Potawatomie RC&D
MI/DNR/SWQ-92/320 Watershed Council
(Activ ity Varies)
Thornapple Riov er
14D_10 Thornapple Riv er 1982 Initiativ e NA NA 2.53% Thornapple Riv er
Scipio Creek 25300, 003900 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Vermontv ille Program Rural MNFI 14D 10 NONE 6240.323 54.74% 20.93% 18.14% 0.90% 0.11% 5.19% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x115 Watershed Stream Team Riv er Network, Thornapple-Grand CD Potawatomie RC&D
Watershed Council
(Activ ity Varies)
Thornapple Riov er
14D_11 Thornapple Riv er 1992 Initiativ e NA NA Rural, Urban, 5.02% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Thornapple-Grand CD,
Thornapple Riv er 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-92/320 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Barry -Eaton HD (E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Nashv ille, Vermontv ille Program , Program NRCS MNFI 14D 11 NONE 9969.097 61.02% 18.99% 12.58% 4.95% 0.24% 2.22% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x116 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D
Thornapple Watershed Council Barry Conserv ation District
(Activ ity Varies)
Thornapple Riov er
14D_12 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 3.12% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Quaker Brook 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Quaker Brook Flat Riv er NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14D 12 NONE 4996.397 57.30% 21.87% 7.88% 2.48% 0.43% 10.05% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x117 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D
Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies)
Quaker Brook, Thornapple Riov er
14D_13 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 4.38% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Quaker Brook Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Unnamed trib. to Flat Riv er NA Nashv ille Program Rural MNFI 14D 13 NONE 7205.515 60.17% 20.83% 7.67% 4.92% 0.47% 5.95% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x118 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D
02/001, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/029 Watershed Council District
Quaker Brook (Activ ity Varies)
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_14 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 3.82% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Thornapple Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed STORET (Thornapple Riv er @ Barger Rd) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Nashv ille Program Rural, Thornapple NRCS MNFI 14D 14 NONE 8875.406 58.43% 26.60% 6.87% 3.10% 0.13% 4.87% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x119 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
02/001, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/029 Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er Ionia Conserv ation District, Riv er West Michigan
14D_15 Thornapple Riv er 1990 Initiativ e NA NA 3.86% Thornapple Riv er
Mud Creek 25300, MI/DNR/SWQ-91/052 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Mud Creek PL_556 NO NA Rural, Lake, Urban MNFI 14D 15 NONE 18705 79.24% 0.00% 12.87% 2.88% 2.23% 1.46% 1.32% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x120 P.L. 566 Watershed Stream Team Network, Thornapple-Grand CD, Barry Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council
(Activ ity Varies) Conserv ation District Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_16 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DNR/SWQ- 1993 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 2.81% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Mud Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed STORET (Mud Creek @ Barger Rd) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Mud Creek PL_556 NO NA Rural MNFI 14D 16 NONE 19911.32 69.91% 0.00% 21.63% 3.89% 0.93% 0.16% 3.48% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x121 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
91/052, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/029 Watershed Council District, Thornapple-Grand CD
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_17 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DNR/SWQ- 1998 2002 STORET (High Banks Creek @ Thornapple Initiativ e NA NA 3.51% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
High Banks Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None High Bank Creek Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Lake MNFI 14D 17 NONE 21809.114 53.97% 21.89% 7.33% 3.12% 3.26% 10.44% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x122 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
91/052, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/030 Lake Rd) Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Pierce Cedar Creek
West Michigan
14D_18 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 3.64% Thornapple Riv er Institute, Thornapple Pierce Cedar Creek Institute, Riv er
Cedar Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Cedar Creek Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Lake MNFI 14D 18 NONE 21032.451 43.32% 0.00% 28.96% 9.29% 3.70% 4.89% 9.84% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x123 Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council Riov er Watershed Network, Barry Conserv ation District
Council
Stream Team (Activ ity
Varies)
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_19 Thornapple Riv er 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/029, 1998 2002 Kellie Creek, Cedar Initiativ e NA NA 3.21% Thornapple Riv er Pierce Cedar Creek Institute, Riv er
Cedar Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Lake MNFI 14D 19 NONE 8590.552 39.31% 35.13% 11.24% 2.79% 1.26% 10.26% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x124 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Creek Watershed Council Network, Barry Conserv ation District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er
14D_2 Thornapple Riv er 1968 Initiativ e NA NA 11.04% Thornapple Riv er
Butternut Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None 2006 Thornapple Riv er NA Charlotte Program Urban, Rural MNFI 14D 2 NONE 10015.018 48.98% 9.76% 17.37% 20.79% 0.13% 2.97% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x125 Watershed Stream Team Riv er Network, Thornapple-Grand CD Potawatomie RC&D
Watershed Council
(Activ ity Varies)
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_20 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DNR/SWQ- 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 4.26% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Thornapple Riv er NRCS Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Barry -Eaton HD (E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Thornapple NRCS MNFI 14D 20 NONE 6043.94 39.01% 29.02% 10.11% 6.85% 7.69% 7.32% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x126 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
91/052, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/030 Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_21 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 4.50% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Fall Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Hastings Designation Rural, Lake MNFI 14D 21 NONE 15870.038 36.56% 29.34% 10.58% 6.11% 4.65% 12.76% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x127 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
25300, 003900, MI/DEQ/SWQ-
02/001, MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/029, Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_22 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 STORET (Thornapple Riv er @ McKeown Initiativ e NA NA Urban, Rural, 7.45% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation Grand Valley Metropolitan
Thornapple Riv er MI/DNR/SWQ-91/001, NRCS Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Hastings Designation MNFI 14D 22 NONE 18104.85 46.19% 25.05% 11.73% 12.26% 0.23% 4.54% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x128 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Rd) Thornapple Watershed Council District Council
MI/DEQ/SWQ-98/023 (Fish (Activ ity Varies) Council
Hatchery Cr.)
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_23 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Initiativ e NA NA 2.36% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Glass Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Glass Creek Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Rural, Lake MNFI 14D 23 NONE 23511.078 30.14% 45.64% 9.86% 1.94% 2.79% 9.64% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x129 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_24 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DNR/SWQ- 1989 Initiativ e NA NA Rural, Lake, 4.14% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Thornapple Riv er NRCS Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA NO NA Gaines Twp (In Progress) MNFI 14D 24 NONE 24879.649 45.67% 34.17% 7.86% 4.40% 2.34% 5.55% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x130 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
91/001 Thornapple Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_25 Thornapple Riv er 25300, 003900, MI/DNR/SWQ- 1978 Barry -Eaton HD (E. coli), Duncan Lake Initiativ e NA NA 4.29% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Duncan Creek Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Caledonia Twp Testing Rural, Lake Caledonia Twp MNFI 14D 25 NONE 15049.547 76.10% 12.07% 5.02% 4.32% 1.05% 1.44% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x131 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
91/002 Water Quality Monitoring (E. coli) Watershed Council District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_26 Thornapple Riv er 1968 Thornapple Riv er, Initiativ e Commercial sites 5.89% Thornapple Riv er Riv er Network, Ionia Conserv ation West Michigan Regional
Little Thornapple Riv er 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Barry -Eaton HD (E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Mercury 2011 NA Lake Odessa Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Urban, Lake, Rural MNFI 14D 26 NONE 16187.482 74.20% 11.40% 2.37% 6.93% 3.42% 1.69% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8056 x132 Watershed Stream Team Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
WCLMI Resource Plan only Watershed Council District, Barry Conserv ation District Planning Commission
(Activ ity Varies) Council
Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_27 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Completed Y ES NO 3.19% Coldwater Riv er Riv er Network, Ionia Conserv ation
Coldwater Riv er 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Volunteer/AWRI Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Pathogens 2006 Coldwater Riv er CMI NO NA ICDC Road Crossing Study Rural, Urban MNFI 14D 27 NONE 29517.073 75.52% 17.73% 2.08% 1.51% 0.33% 2.83% None Mr. Jim Oosting (616) 891-8444 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council District, Barry Conserv ation District
(Activ ity Varies) Council
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-97/085, Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_28 Thornapple Riv er 1998 2002 Completed Y ES NO 3.64% Coldwater Riv er Riv er Network, Barry Conserv ation
Coldwater Riv er MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/051, AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Volunteer/AWRI, KCHD (E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Coldwater Riv er Coldwater Riv er CMI Freeport Grant Rural, Urban Bowne Twp MNFI 14D 28 NONE 8006.416 69.18% 0.00% 20.67% 3.67% 2.65% 0.25% 3.58% None Mr. Jim Oosting (616) 891-8444 Watershed Stream Team Potawatomie RC&D Env ironmental Action
Watershed Council District
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 (Activ ity Varies) Council
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/051, Thornapple Riov er West Michigan
14D_29 Thornapple Riv er 1998 Coldwater Riv er, Completed Y ES NO Commercial sites 2.86% Coldwater Riv er Riv er Network, Ionia Conserv ation West Michigan Regional
Duck Creek MI/DEQ/SWQ-97/085, AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Good Volunteer/AWRI Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Delisted Duck Creek CMI NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP ICDC Road Crossing Study Rural Bowne Twp MNFI 14D 29 NONE 17753.911 81.07% 14.41% 1.71% 0.47% 0.00% 2.34% None Mr. Jim Oosting (616) 891-8444 Watershed Stream Team Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
WCLMI Resource Plan only Watershed Council District Planning Commission
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 (Activ ity Varies) Council
14D_3 Thornapple Riv er 1998 Initiativ e NA NA 5.18% Thornapple Riv er
Thornapple Drain 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/001 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Thornapple Riv er NA Delta Township Program Rural NRCS MNFI 14D 3 NONE 13717.259 71.56% 10.10% 12.37% 5.54% 0.06% 0.37% None Ms. Kim Walton 269-948-8
Watershed Council
Page 36 of 39
WATERSHED INFORMATION INVENTORY DATA WATERSHED PLANNING LAND USE PLANNING LOCAL PARTICIPATION REGIONAL PLANNING
West Michigan
Last Stream Stream Stream Stream MDEQ Road Watershed Watershed Information Wellhead Watershed West Michigan Regional Shoreline West Michigan
Watershed ID Surface Water Quality SWQAS Inventory Search Search Search Search Stream Watershed Management Management and Education Hydrologic Wellhead Protection Protection Plan Wellhead Floodplain Wastewater Storm Water Michigan Natural Size Percent Agricultur Forest Range Urban and NPDES Phase II Watershed Organization Contact Phone Timberland Envionmental Action Grand Valley Ottawa County Muskegon Metropolitan Development Regional Planning
Number Major Watershed Subwatershed Tributaries Assessment Surveys Study Performed by: Results 2003 Results 2002 Results 2001 Results 2000 Crossing Water Quality Monitoring Fish Consumtion Advisories TMDL TMDL Date Trout Streams Management Plan Plan Status Plan Type Strategy Study Area Status Protection GIS Storm Water Master Plan Hydrologic Studies Watershed Type Mapping Dams Treatment Plants Ordinance Features Inventory Superfund Sites (acres) Impervious e Barren Land Land Built-up Water Wetland Communities Organization Contact Number Funding Sources Adopt-a-Stream Groups Conservation Organizations RC&D Potawatomie RC&D Council Metropolitan Council Regis Planning and Grants Planning Organization Commission Commission
West Michigan
14E_19 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Completed Commercial sites 4.07% West Michigan Regional
Unnamed Trib 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Mercury 2011 Unnamed Tributary WCLMI Resource Plan NA NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Rural, Lake MNFI 14E 19 NONE 14221.765 41.94% 35.97% 5.45% 4.95% 3.13% 8.56% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
Riv er PCBs only Planning Commission
Council
14E_2 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA 2.54% West Michigan Regional
Black Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed not assessed Good/Fair Good None None NA NO NA Rural, Headwaters MNFI 14E 2 NONE 16741.52 58.72% 26.96% 8.43% 0.55% 0.21% 5.14% None Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Planning Commission
14E_20 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA 2.56% West Michigan Regional
Dickerson Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None Dickerson Creek None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14E 20 NONE 13640.509 35.28% 39.22% 12.08% 1.81% 0.39% 11.22% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Planning Commission
West Michigan
14E_21 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA 3.67% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Seely Creek 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Rural, Lake Grattan Twp MNFI 14E 21 NONE 20310.38 40.32% 0.00% 24.27% 22.08% 3.58% 4.54% 5.21% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs Council Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14E_22 Flat Riv er 25300, 003910, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Poly chlorinated Completed Commercial sites Urban, Rural, Flat H&K Sales, (MID001271535, 9.18% West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed KCHD (Scalley Lake--E. coli) 2010 WCLMI Resource Plan NA Belding Program Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Natural Riv er Plan MNFI 14E 22 13741.703 49.24% 24.21% 9.56% 14.38% 0.23% 2.38% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action
02/004 Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Riv er deleted 1998) Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14E_23 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Poly chlorinated Completed Commercial sites Rural, Lake, Flat 3.11% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er 25300 Good Excellent Good Excellent KCHD (Flat Riv er--E. coli) 2010 WCLMI Resource Plan NA NO NA Ionia Drain Commissioner SWMP Natural Riv er Plan Grattan Twp MNFI 14E 23 NONE 28120.77 48.53% 27.98% 15.37% 2.57% 2.54% 3.01% None Ionia Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs bipheny ls only Riv er Council Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14E_24 Flat Riv er 25300, 003910, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Poly chlorinated Initiativ e NA NA Urban, Rural, Flat 13.58% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed 2010 None NA NO NA Natural Riv er Plan MNFI 14E 24 NONE 2481.982 12.98% 37.98% 21.13% 21.86% 5.40% 0.65% None Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
02/004 Riv er PCBs bipheny ls Riv er Council Planning Commission
Council
14E_3 Flat Riv er 1968 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA 5.88% West Michigan Regional
Townline Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Rural, Lake MNFI 14E 3 NONE 5207.073 45.94% 28.04% 5.67% 8.95% 6.18% 5.23% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Planning Commission
25300, 000330, 000420,
14E_4 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA Rural, Urban, Flat 3.54% West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er 00730, 003910, 83970, Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Natural Riv er Plan MNFI 14E 4 NONE 22668.733 60.50% 19.02% 8.45% 2.69% 1.76% 7.58% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Riv er Planning Commission
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004
Potterville Train Derailment
14E_5 Flat Riv er 1698 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA 2.98% West Michigan Regional
Unnamed Trib 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14E 5 (MIN000508477, not a national 8223.6 72.44% 15.98% 6.07% 1.76% 0.50% 3.25% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Planning Commission
priority )
14E_6 Flat Riv er 25300, 003910, MI/DEQ/SWQ- 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Initiativ e NA NA Rural, Flat Riv er, 2.87% West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Natural Riv er Plan MNFI 14E 6 NONE 18899.905 60.98% 24.76% 4.66% 1.76% 0.90% 6.94% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
02/004 Riv er PCBs Lake Planning Commission
14E_7 Flat Riv er 1998 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Unnamed trib to Flat Initiativ e NA NA 2.90% West Michigan Regional
Flat Riv er 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/004 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Natural Riv er Plan Rural, Lake MNFI 14E 7 NONE 15700.897 44.59% 36.91% 8.20% 2.45% 2.83% 5.02% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D
Riv er PCBs Riv er Planning Commission
West Michigan
14E_8 Flat Riv er 1968 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Not Started NA NA 3.83% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Alder Creek Drain 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Rural, Urban Nelson Twp MNFI 14E 8 NONE 9272.254 41.20% 27.22% 23.53% 3.53% 1.12% 3.39% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs Council Planning Commission
Council
West Michigan
14E_9 Flat Riv er 1968 2001 Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Flat Not Started NA NA Spencer Twp, 2.92% Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Black Creek 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed None None NA NO NA Rural MNFI 14E 9 NONE 19869.022 60.02% 24.80% 8.25% 1.39% 1.06% 4.48% None Montcalm Conserv ation District Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er PCBs Nelson Twp Council Planning Commission
Council
Nature Conserv ancy , Ducks West Michigan Regional
14F_1 Rogue Riv er 1968 2000 Completed Y es NO Rural, Lake, 2.86% Rogue Riv er
Rogue Riv er 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None None Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA MNFI 14F 1 NONE 7083.093 44.88% 40.11% 8.76% 1.80% 2.94% 1.51% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3092 Unlimited, Land Conserv ancy , Riv er Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
Headwaters Watershed Council
Network, Neway go Conserv ation Commission
000270, 25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ- An Assessment of Water District
Steelheaders, T.U.., Izaak Walton
Not Not Courtland Twp,
99/007 (Cedar Creek), Good, Rogue Riv er, Little Quality and Aquatic Habitat League, Nature Conserv ancy , Land West Michigan
14F_10 Rogue Riv er 1993 Assessed, Assessed, Good, Good 2000 AWRI (stream v elocity , temperature, Completed Y es NO Rural, Rogue Algoma Twp, 8.82% Rogue Riv er Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er MI/DNR/SWQ-90/111 (Cedar AWRI Excellent Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Cedar Creek, Cedar Rogue Riv er 319 Cedar Springs Work plan and Recommendations f or MNFI 14F 10 NONE 19143.067 35.19% 26.63% 25.30% 11.44% 0.05% 1.40% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3093 Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Excellent Excellent (Cedar) macroinv ertebrates) Riv er, Urban Nelson Twp, Watershed Council Council Planning Commission
Creek), MI/DNR/SWQ-91/070 (Cedar) Creek the Cedar Creek Watershed Friends of the White Pine Trail, Riv er Council
(Cedar) (Cedar) Solon Twp
(Cedar Creek) (1995), Natural Riv er Plan Network
Not Not Not Not Rogue Riv er: AWRI (f ish shocking,
An Assessment of Water Plainf ield Twp, Steelheaders, T.U.., Izaak Walton
000500, 000270, 25300, Assessed, Assessed, Assessed, Assessed, temperature, stream v elocity ,
Rogue Riv er, Quality and Aquatic Habitat Cannon Twp, Rockf ord, Courtland League, Nature Conserv ancy , Land West Michigan
14F_11 Rogue Riv er MI/DNR/SWQ-94/036 (Rum 1968 Good Good Good Good 2000 macroinv ertebrates), KCHD (E. coli), Completed Y es NO Urban, Rogue 12.83% Rogue Riv er Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er AWRI Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Barkley Creek, Rum Rogue Riv er 319 Plainf ield Twp, Rockf ord Program , Work plan and Recommendations f or Courtland Twp, MNFI 14F 11 NONE 19800.535 15.99% 25.15% 30.86% 22.54% 3.55% 1.91% Twp, Cannon Twp, Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3094 Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Creek), MI/DEQ/SWQ-97/060 (Barkley ), (Barkley ), (Barkley ), (Barkley ), Barkley Creek: Progressiv e AE (Nutrients, Riv er, Rural Watershed Council Council Planning Commission
Creek, Shaw Creek the Rum Creek Watershed Algoma Twp, Plainf ield Twp Friends of the White Pine Trail, Riv er Council
(Shaw Creek) Good (Rum), Good (Rum), Good (Rum), Good (Rum), E. coli, chloro), My ers Lake: KCHD (E.
(1995), Natural Riv er Plan Rockf ord Network
Fair (Shaw) Fair (Shaw) Fair (Shaw) Not Assessed coli)
(Shaw) Steelheaders, T.U.., Izaak Walton
League, Nature Conserv ancy , Land West Michigan
14F_12 Rogue Riv er 1968 2000 Completed Y es NO Urban, Rogue 20.05% Rogue Riv er Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er 000270, 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Rogue Riv er Rogue Riv er 319 Plainf ield Twp Program Natural Riv er Plan Plainf ield Twp MNFI 14F 12 NONE 2997.672 9.35% 0.00% 31.56% 15.74% 43.14% 0.00% 0.00% Plainf ield Twp Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3095 Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Riv er, Rural Watershed Council Council Planning Commission
Friends of the White Pine Trail, Riv er Council
Network
Veen boer Drain, Nature Conserv ancy , Land
West Michigan Regional
14F_2 Rogue Riv er 1968 Excellent/Goo 2000 Hilbrand Drain, Geers Completed Y es NO 2.74% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited,
Rogue Riv er 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Good AWRI (stream v elocity ) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA Rural, Headwaters MNFI 14F 2 NONE 26610.177 47.14% 0.02% 38.95% 10.38% 1.32% 0.72% 1.48% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3096 Timberland RC&D Shoreline Planning
d Drain, Hickory Watershed Council Riv er Network, Neway go
Commission
Creek, Rogue Riv er Conserv ation District
Not Izaak Walton League, Nature
Rogue Riv er, Walter West Michigan
14F_3 Rogue Riv er 1968 Assessed, 2000 AWRI (f ish shocking, macroinv ertebrates, Completed Y es NO 3.28% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Land Conserv ancy , Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Creek, Spring Creek, Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA Natural Riv er Plan Rural, Rogue Riv er Solon Twp MNFI 14F 3 NONE 19028.556 34.03% 37.03% 20.25% 3.24% 0.43% 5.01% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3097 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Good temperature) Watershed Council Ducks Unlimited, Friends of the Council Planning Commission
Post Creek Council
(Spring), White Pine Trail, Riv er Network
Good (Post) Izaak Walton League, Nature
Poor West Michigan
14F_4 Rogue Riv er 1968 2000 Duke Creek, White Completed Y es NO Nelson Twp, 7.35% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Land Conserv ancy , Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Duke Creek 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Macroinv ertebrate 2006 Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA Natural Riv er Plan Rural, Lake MNFI 14F 4 NONE 15423.251 37.93% 28.97% 17.10% 8.32% 1.67% 6.00% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3098 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Creek Solon Twp Watershed Council Ducks Unlimited, Friends of the Council Planning Commission
Community Council
White Pine Trail, Riv er Network
Izaak Walton League, Nature
Poor West Michigan
14F_5 Rogue Riv er 1968 2000 AWRI (f ish shocking, stream v elocity , Duke Creek, Frost Completed Y es NO 3.49% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Land Conserv ancy , Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Duke Creek 25300 AWRI Good Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Macroinv ertebrate 2006 Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA Natural Riv er Plan Rural Solon Twp MNFI 14F 5 NONE 5837.155 43.10% 31.86% 16.04% 3.61% 0.16% 5.23% None Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3099 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
temperature, macroinv ertebrates) Creek Watershed Council Ducks Unlimited, Friends of the Council Planning Commission
Community Council
White Pine Trail, Riv er Network
Izaak Walton League, Nature
West Michigan
14F_6 Rogue Riv er 1968 2000 Completed Y es Y ES 5.70% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Land Conserv ancy , Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Nash Creek 25300 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Nash Creek Rogue Riv er 319 Sparta Program Urban, Rural Y ES MNFI 14F 6 NONE 10885.173 73.10% 7.77% 11.59% 5.69% 0.03% 1.82% Sparta, Sparta Twp Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3100 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Watershed Council Ducks Unlimited, Friends of the Council Planning Commission
Council
White Pine Trail, Riv er Network
25300, 005400 (Ball Creek),
Izaak Walton League, Nature
MI/DEQ/SWQ-01/086 (Ball Ball Creek Algoma Twp, West Michigan
14F_7 Rogue Riv er 2001 2000 KCHD (Long Lake--E. coli), f ish shocking, Rogue Riv er, Ball Completed Y es NO Rural, Urban, Kent City Mobile Home Park, 6.07% Rogue Riv er Conserv ancy , Land Conserv ancy , Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er Creek), MI/DEQ/SWQ-01/087 AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Delisted in Rogue Riv er 319 Sparta Program Natural Riv er Plan Kent City , MNFI 14F 7 16893.531 40.17% 27.10% 19.80% 8.72% 2.23% 1.98% Sparta, Sparta Twp Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3101 Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
stream v elocity , macroinv ertebrates Creek Rogue Riv er, Lake (MDI981089915, deleted 1995) Watershed Council Ducks Unlimited, Friends of the Council Planning Commission
(Ball Creek), MI/DNR/SWQ- 2003 Solon Twp Council
White Pine Trail, Riv er Network
89/062 (Ball Creek)
Steelheaders, T.U.., Izaak Walton
25300, 025675 (unnamed),
Plainf ield Twp, League, Nature Conserv ancy , Land West Michigan
14F_8 Rogue Riv er 000270, MI/DNR/SWQ-88/046 1988 2000 Completed Y es NO Sparta Landfill, (MID00268136, 8.29% Rogue Riv er Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Rogue Riv er AWRI Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed AWRI (f ish shocking ) KCHD (E. coli) Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory None Rogue Riv er Rogue Riv er 319 Plainf ield Twp, Sparta Program , Program Natural Riv er Plan Rural, Rogue Riv er Alpine Twp, MNFI 14F 8 16780.068 28.77% 28.14% 29.59% 10.65% 0.93% 1.93% Sparta, Sparta Twp Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3102 Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
(unnamed), MI/DNR/SWQ- deleted 2000) Watershed Council Council Planning Commission
Algoma Twp Friends of the White Pine Trail, Riv er Council
88/117 (unnamed)
Network
An Assessment of Water
25300, MI/DEQ/SWQ-00/063 Steelheaders, T.U.., Izaak Walton
Quality and Aquatic Habitat
(Unnamed Trib.), AWRI (f ish shocking, stream v elocity , Poor League, Nature Conserv ancy , Land West Michigan
14F_9 Rogue Riv er 1996 2000 Stegman Creek, Completed Y es NO and Recommendations f or Courtland Twp, 8.02% Rogue Riv er Grand Valley Metropolitan West Michigan Regional
Stegman Creek MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/107, AWRI Good Fair Fair Fair/Good macroinv ertebrates, temperature (Becker Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory Macroinv ertebrate 2006 Rogue Riv er 319 NO NA Rural MNFI 14F 9 NONE 7046.961 31.15% 30.45% 24.38% 12.58% 0.03% 1.41% Algoma Twp Ms. Nicole Stout (616) 331-3103 Conserv ancy , Ducks Unlimited, Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Becker Creek the Stegman Creek Algoma Twp Watershed Council Council Planning Commission
MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/010 (Becker Creek)) Community Friends of the White Pine Trail, Riv er Council
Watershed (1995), Natural
Cr.) Network
Riv er Plan
Inland Lakes Mercury Adv isory , Lake West Michigan
14L_1 Lake Michigan NA Not Started NA NA Grand Valley Metropolitan Ottawa County Planning West Michigan Regional
Lake Drainage 25300 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Michigan PCBs, Chlordane, DDT, and None None NA NO NA MNFI 14F 1 NONE Grand Hav en Timberland RC&D Env ironmental Action REGIS
Council and Grants Planning Commission
Dioxin Council
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\75d749fa-9db2-47e0-94c9-8f512c0dee4c.xls 11/15/2011
Name of BMP Cost of BMP $ Cost per Unit Unit Source
Structural BMP
Agricultural Waste Storage Structure $100 per Acre 100 Acre
Alternate Water Supply $4500 per unit 4500 Unit NRCS - Kent County
Buffer / Filter Strips $460 per acre 460 Acre NRCS - Kent County
Catch Basin Inlet Device $200 per inlet 200 Inlet Stormwater Center
Check Dam $5 per linear foot 5 Linear Foot Stormwater Center
Combination Curb 0 0 0
Constructed Wetland $20,000 per acre 20000 Acre USEPA
Containment Facility 0 0 0
Dry Detention Basin 0 0 0
Exclusion Fencing $1.05 per linear foot 1.5 Linear Foot NRCS - Ottawa County
Filter Strips $455 per acre 455 Acre NRCS - Ottawa County
Flow Diversions $5 per linear foot 5 Linear Foot USDA
Grade Control Structure $800 per unit 800 Unit USDA
Household Hazardous Waste Program 0 0 0
Hydrodynamic Separator Unit $15000 per acre 15000 Acre Bannerman
Infiltration Pond $2 per cubic foot 2 Cubic Foot Stormwater Center
Infiltration Trench $5 per cubic foot 5 Cubic Foot Stormwater Center
Lengthen Culvert 0 0 0
Pet Waste Stations $300 per station 300 Station
Physical Removal 0 0 0
Pond Type Detention $1 per cubic foot 1 Cubic Foot MDOT
Porous Pavement $2 per square foot 2 Square Foot Stormwater Center
Realign Culvert 0 0 0
Realign Outlet 0 0 0
Recycling Program 0 0 0
Rock Ford Crossing $30 per linear foot 30 Linear Foot USDA
Sand Filter $5 per cubic foot 5 Cubic Foot Tom Schueler
Sediment Basin $0.60 per cubic foot 0.6 Cubic Foot MDOT
Septage Management Program $40 per household 40 Household USEPA
SESC measures 0 0 0
Signage at Boat Ramps to "Wash Off Boats" 0 0 0
Signs and Trash Receptacles 0 0 0
Streambank Stabilization (Riprap and/or Bioengineering) $70 per square yard 70 Square Yard
Tile Outlet Protection $35 per square foot 35 Square Foot USDA
Valley Gutter 0 0 0
Vegetated Swale $0.50 per square foot 0.5 Square Foot Stormwater Center
Wetland Restoration 0 0 0
Managerial BMP
Alternate De-Icing Materials 0 0 0
Biological Control (Beetles) 0 0 0
BMP Inspect and Maintenance 0 0 0
Calibrated Salt Delivery $1500 per truck 1500 Truck Kent County Road Commission
Chemical Control (Pest/Herbicides) 0 0 0
Clean Drain Channels 0 0 0
Clean Sweep 0 0 0
Composting $190,000 large facility 190000 Large Facility Ottawa County
Comprehensive Manure Management Plans $125,000 per farm 125000 Farm USDA
Conservation Cover $450 per acre 450 Acre USDA
Crossing Inspections 0 0 0
Dumping / Littering Ordinance 0 0 0
Dust Control Measures $500 per site 500 Site MDOT
Emergency Spill Response 0 0 0
Farm A Syst 0 0 0
Fertilizer (Nutrient) Ordinance 0 0 0
Fertilizer Management 0 0 0
Filter Strips $455 per acre 455 Acre USDA
Goose Management 0 0 0
Green Parking 0 0 0
Green Space Protection 0 0 0
Household Hazardous Waste Program 0 0 0
Inspect & Maintain BMP 0 0 0
Lawn Maintenance 0 0 0
Low Impact Design 0 0 0
Maintain Inlets & Catch Basins $48 per catch basin 48 Catch Basin City of Grand Rapids
Manure Management $30,000 per facility 30000 Facility
Oil Recycling Program $4000 per unit per year 4000 Unit per Year
Pasture Management 0 0 0
Pesticide Management Plan 0 0 0
Pet Waste Disposal Ordinance and Collection Facilities $300 per unit 300 Unit
Planning and Zoning 0 0 0
Pre Wet Road Salt $5000 per truck 5000 Truck City of East Grand Rapids
Prohibit Illicit Discharge 0 0 0
Rain Gardens $4 per square foot 4 Square Foot
Recycling Program $1.15 per person per year 1.15 Person per Yr.
SESC Inspections 0 0 0
Soil testing $3.50 per test 3.5 Test NRCS - Ottawa
Storm Drain Stenciling $5 per inlet 5 Inlet
Stream Buffer Ordinance 0 0 0
Streambank Protection 0 0 0
Street Sweeping $90 per curb mile 90 Curb Mile City of Grand Rapids
Urban Forestry 0 0 0
Wetland Construction $20,000 per acre 20000 Acre USEPA
Wetland Restoration $7,000 per acre 7000 Acre USEPA
Woody Debris Management 0 0 0
Yard Waste Collection 0 0 0
0 0 0 0