Comprehensive Restoration Plan

Transcription

Project Clarity:
Restoring the Macatawa Watershed
Comprehensive Restoration Plan
Summary
Our goal is to remediate the water quality issues of Lake Macatawa and the
Macatawa Watershed. This multi-phased approach provides solutions focused
on land restoration, Best Management Practices (BMPs), community education,
and long term sustainability. The advantage of this phased approach is that
each phase builds on its predecessor, thereby avoiding redundancy and
providing flexibility in implementation. We include solutions that address the
problems of Lake Macatawa both at the source (passive wetland restoration) and
further downstream.
Project Location:
Project Duration:
Lake Macatawa, Holland, MI, Ottawa County
5 years (project duration is an estimate as project
Macatawa Watershed, Allegan & Ottawa Counties, MI
goal attainment will be based on funding and land
availability)
Project Start Date:
November 1, 2012
Project Budget:
$11,976,000
2
I. Background And Rationale
The Watershed
The Macatawa Watershed is a 175-square mile watershed located in southwestern
Michigan. All of the land over which water drains to Lake Macatawa is the Macatawa
Watershed (a watershed, in general, is an area of land that drains to a common
point). The townships of Laketown, Fillmore, Overisel, Holland, Park, Zeeland, Port
Sheldon, Olive and Blendon, and the cities of Holland and Zeeland have some land in
the Macatawa Watershed.
The watershed includes Lake Macatawa,
the Macatawa River, and nearly 700 miles
of rivers, streams and ditches. European
settlement of the region involved clearcutting native forests, draining natural
wetlands, and straightening tributaries,
leading to chronic widespread surface
runoff (sediment erosion) into Lake
Macatawa. In fact, nearly 90% of the
historic Holland area wetlands were lost
to development. The resulting increased
flow of runoff water has led to increased
sedimentation and associated nutrient-rich conditions throughout the watershed.
In addition, Lake Macatawa has had increased numbers of E. coli outbreaks, causing
potential health risks and frequent beach closures.
3
Introduction
In March of 2011, the Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa Greenway, Macatawa Area
Coordinating Council, and Hope College (with help from Grand Valley State University’s
Annis Water Resources Institute and Michigan State University) began an 18 month
study to determine the exact source of the sediment, nutrient and bacterial pollution that
is plaguing Lake Macatawa and the Macatawa Watershed. The collaborative effort was
privately funded and was considered Phase One of a multi-year research and restoration
project. This remediation plan aims at dramatically improving water quality. The goal is
to substantially reduce the sediment, nutrient and bacterial pollution in Lake Macatawa by
at least 70 percent. This is an ambitious, but obtainable goal. We recognize that there is no
simple fix to our water quality problems. The proposed plan is a multi-faceted approach
that will systematically begin restoring the water quality of the Macatawa Watershed and
Lake Macatawa. This is a Legacy Project that will have a lasting profound impact on the
economy, environment, and community as a whole.
The goal is to substantially reduce
the sediment, nutrient and bacterial
pollution in Lake Macatawa by at
least 70 percent.
4
Work Accomplished To Date
In the Spring of 2011, the Phase One 18 month study was launched to identify areas within
the watershed that are contributing the highest levels of sediment and nutrients, and to
determine the source of the bacteria. Results indicated that sediment, nutrients, and
bacteria originate in areas near the outer edges of the watershed, washing downstream
during large rain and snowmelt events. The main nutrient of concern, phosphorus,
is mostly attached to the sediment, meaning that both can be addressed with the same
remediation solutions. The vast majority of the bacteria found in the watershed are from
an environmental source, likely having originated in tile drains located under crop
fields. For the first time, we now know that the majority of the pollution problems originate
in rural areas and we can begin to develop an approach that could clean up the lake.
Determining Next Steps
With the results in hand from the Phase One research, a team of water quality experts was
consulted to determine the best course of action to remediate the water quality issues.
A three part approach was determined to be the best way to address the identified
issues, resulting in the greatest benefit to water quality for the dollars spent. The
three part approach includes: (1) Wetland Restoration and Engineered Water Quality
solutions, (2) Water Quality Best Management Practices implementation in Urban
and Agricultural areas, (3) Community Information and Education about the issues
impacting water quality within the Macatawa Watershed.
5
II. Objectives
Remediation Plan
The five year prioritized plan will allow the community to invest the necessary resources
to permanently clean, restore and maintain the waters of Lake Macatawa. The plan
will:
1. Identify key land areas and engineered solutions that would maximize water filtration
2.Prioritize restoration/remediation options to maximize benefit
3. Identify BMPs to be promoted and implemented in both urban and agricultural settings
4.Create an Information/Education program to increase community awareness
about the watershed
5.Provide for a long-term management and maintenance plan for the watershed
...to permanently clean, restore and
maintain the waters of Lake Macatawa.
6
III. Project Implementation
1. Implementation
1. Land Acquisition:
In order to properly restore land within the watershed that will result in water quality
improvement, we will need to acquire a variety of strategically located land parcels.These
parcels are ideally 20+ acres in size – located where the geography and geology of the
area could support and function as a wetland. The Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa
Greenway is ideally suited as a land holding conservation organization that has worked
to obtain, restore and hold land for habitat and water quality purposes. It is important
that the land acquired be in strategic locations in the South Basin, North Basin, Peter’s
Creek Basin, and Upper Macatawa Basin where the greatest level of runoff pollution
exists. Numerous properties have already been identified for restoration and we will
need to continue to seek additional optimal locations.
Estimated cost: $1,300,000 (see Appendix A for details)
2. Passive Wetland Restoration:
These wetland restoration projects would rely on passive infiltration from flowing waters
into wetlands adjacent to streams. As the water enters and is detained in the wetland,
phosphorus and sediment concentrations are reduced due to biological uptake and settling.
Passive infiltration projects are easier to implement and maintain than a more highly
engineered solution, and less expensive to construct. The focus areas for this work would
be the South Basin, North Basin, Peter’s Creek Basin, and Upper Macatawa Basin where
we would seek to implement up to 8 passive wetland restoration projects.
Estimated cost: $3,530,000 (See Appendix B for details)
7
Implementation (continued)
3. Engineered Solutions:
These systems would apply alum (aluminum sulfate) to key tributaries, located
preferentially in the sub-watersheds identified above, to remove phosphorus directly
from the flowing waterways. Alum treatment would be followed by removal of the
alum floc through biofiltration or other means. These engineered solutions rely
on an alum application to bind and remove phosphorus from the water column.
This is a proven treatment to reduce phosphorus concentrations and algae blooms,
primarily by removing phosphorus from the water and preventing phosphorus
release from lake sediments. Once applied, alum binds with phosphorus and settles
to the bottom as a floc. To maximize cost-efficiency and flexibility, we propose the
construction and monitoring of one facility to start; based on monitoring results
and pollution reduction efficacy, we will evaluate the feasibility of constructing
multiple upstream facilities (in strategic locations throughout the watershed) or a
large downstream facility (see below) during years 4 and 5 of the project. At that
time, a thorough analysis will be conducted assessing the pros and cons of each
approach (additional alum inactivation systems vs. a large downstream facility)
based on the cost-effectiveness, pollution reduction potential, regulatory hurdles,
land availability, etc.
Estimated Cost: $1,445,000 (See Appendix C for details)
8
4. Best Management Practice Implementation & Promotion:
There are three specific Best Management Practice (BMP’s), or BMP-related, efforts
that we are recommending be implemented within the watershed. Each practice
will target a specific need in both urban and rural regions. BMP implementation
will help with overall water quality improvements, and will help build awareness to
the overall need for water quality remediation within the community.
BMP 1: Drainage Improvements: Sediment Trap, Two Stage Ditch,
& Floodplain Development
Establish sediment traps, two-stage ditches, and flood plain restoration throughout
critical areas in the watershed to expand the capacity of drainage corridors to hold
water during peak flow events, and allow the trapping of sediment in engineered
retention zones. The project goal would be to install 20,000 feet (3.8 miles) of
two-stage ditches, develop 5-10 sediment traps in the priority restoration area
basins, and provide substantial buffering throughout the watershed.
Estimated cost: $1,460,000 (See Appendix D for details)
BMP 2: Provide LiDAR data and software for advanced conservation planning
and earthworks projects
Provide all project stakeholders with LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) data
for planning purposes. LiDAR uses laser range finders mounted on aircraft to
generate detailed topographic maps which can lower the time and cost necessary
for planning basins, wetlands, grassed waterways, and other earthworks.
Estimated cost: $105,000 (See Appendix D for details)
BMP 3: Urban stream bank erosion and runoff retention
Implementation of ten urban water quality BMP projects, including but not limited
to shoreline restoration programs, stream bank restoration, and rain garden/bioretention programs.
Estimated cost: $835,000 (See Appendix D for details)
9
5. Information/Education:
It will be critical to educate the community on the current conditions, restoration
opportunities and plans, and the overall benefit of cleaning up Lake Macatawa.
Without widespread community understanding and support, the significant
restoration effort needed to clean up the Lake could become the responsibility of
only a few community members and may be ineffective. Each and every land owner
and resident within the watershed must get involved in some way to help restore and
maintain water quality.
Estimated Cost: $301,000 (See Appendix E for details)
6. Water Quality Endowment:
In order to ensure that funds are permanently available to manage and maintain the
restoration projects, research and monitoring needs, and the overall management of
the water quality restoration, we are proposing the development of an Endowment
Fund to be established at the Community Foundation of the Holland/Zeeland Area.
The fund would be in the name of Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa Greenway
and be restricted for the use of monitoring, maintenance, and overall management
of the restoration efforts. Assuming an annual average return of 5% on the invested
funds, $3,000,000 would yield the necessary $150,000 a year.
Total Cost to Establish Endowment: $3,000,000
10
Project Benefits
The Lake Macatawa Water Quality project will provide significant benefit for the greater
Holland and Zeeland area including:
1.
The Holland and Zeeland community was founded largely based on the access to
clean water and the benefits that water provides to our quality of life. The water
quality can and should be better. We owe this to the current and future generations
of people who call Holland and Zeeland home.
2. A greater potential for increasing the value of property along all of the Macatawa
River tributaries and for properties surrounding Lake Macatawa.
3. Flood capacity storage and filtration will be increased.
4. Economic impact would be significant as a result of increased tourism, water-based
recreation and business development along the water front.
5. This project will make Holland/Zeeland a destination area for natural resource
managers, watershed planners, and scientists as an example of holistic watershed
management, thus stimulating interest in the area and increasing the region’s reputation.
6. Health and human safety concerns would be minimized due to the reduction in
bacterial runoff.
7. Ecological benefits for wildlife (both flora and fauna) would be significant as wetland
habitats are considered to be some of the most diverse ecosystems in the United States.
8. The restoration project will further develop the Macatawa River Greenway, a 10
mile corridor of protected land preserved for water quality, land protection,
habitat preservation and recreation.
9.
The fisheries resource that once existed in Lake Macatawa and throughout the
river system could be restored, significantly diversifying and growing the population
of aquatic vertebrates and fish. The health of our community depends on the health
of the entire ecosystem.
10.Current dredging practices required due to the enormous amount of sediment
carried down river and deposited in Lake Macatawa cost the community millions
of dollars each year. Restoration efforts would reduce the sediment loading and
therefore save money.
11
Implementation Management of the Project
The Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa Greenway will be the overall project manager,
but will implement the plan through a collaborative team of Advisors, Engineers, Water
Quality Scientists, and Ecologists.
Additional partners and collaborators will be necessary to fully meet the goals and
objectives for this project. The ODCMG has strong relationships with the following
entities who will partner on this project:
1. Annis Water Resources Institute (GVSU): Technical advisors and lead
consultants supporting the on-going research as well as assisting with the
development and implementation of restoration initiatives
2.Macatawa Watershed Project (MACC): Critical intergovernmental partner
that currently is focused on Best Management Practice implementation in both
agricultural communities as well as the urban environment.
3.Hope College: Lead project researchers. They will support on-going research
and maintenance efforts.
4.Niswander Environmental: Restoration consultants and project design/
implementation specialists
5.Progressive AE: Water quality restoration consultants and project design/
implementation specialists
...will provide significant benefit for
the greater Holland and Zeeland area.
12
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10
IV. Timeline & Budget
Timeline
Year
Land Acquisition
Passive Wetland Restoration
In-stream Phosphorus Interception
Two-Stage Ditch Projects
LiDAR Imaging
Urban Erosion and Runoff
Education
Estimated Budget (see Appendices for budget details)
Land Acquisition
$1,300,000
$3,530,000
In-stream Phosphorus interception/alum inactivation system
$1,445,000
BMP Implementation
$2,400,000
Information/Education
$ 301,000
Endowment
$3,000,000
Total
$11,976,000*
*Note: If projects come in under budget, the remaining funds would be added to the endowment fund
helping to increase the long-term management, maintenance and sustainability of the restoration efforts.
13
Appendix A:
Target Properties for Wetland Restoration:
Property Restoration Area
(sub basin, tributary)
Total Acres Estimated
Estimated
Status
Available Purchase Cost In-kind Value
Peter’s Creek
Priority Area 1
130 acres
$400,000
$250,000
ODCMG has property in this basin
Upper Macatawa
Priority Area 2 130 acres
$750,000
Zeeland Township has property in
this basin
North Branch (Tulip Inter County Drain) 150 acres
Priority Area 3
$250,000
$500,000
Haworth Inc and Lumir have
property in this basin
Noordeloos Creek
Priority Area 4
100 acres
$150,000
$350,000
DenHerder Families and Holland
Township own land in this basin
South Branch
Priority Area 5
100 acres
$500,000
610 acres
260 acres
350 acres
$5,000
$5,000
$1,300,000
$1,750,000
(to be purchased)
(in-kind)
Total Acres:
Cost Per Acre: $5,000
Total Cost:
31
#6
#4
#4
Lower
#6
Noordeloos Creek
#7
Noordeloos
Lower
Pine#7
Creek Macatawa
Creek
Macatawa
River
River
Pine Creek
121
196
#2
#2
Upper Macatawa
River
Upper
Macatawa
196
River
Lake Michigan
#8
#8
Direct Lake
Lake Tributaries
Direct
Tributaries
31
196
#1
#1
Peters Creek
#3
North#3
Branch
North Branch
Peters Creek
#5
South 40Branch
#5
South Branch
Legend
Legend
Roads
31
Streams
196
City and Township Boundaries
Priority Subbasins in the Macatawa Watershed
Priority Subbasins in the Macatawa Watershed
14
Data Source: Michigan Geographic Data Library, MDEQ
0
2.5
5
10
Miles
Appendix B:
Timeline
The timeline for passive wetland projects would be years 1-4 (see below)
Technical Feasibility, Design, and Probable Costs: year 1
The first task is to conduct a hydrologic model on each of the five identified watersheds. That would include surveys of
each stream crossing. Once sites for restoration are identified and purchased/easement obtained, additional topographic
surveys will be required dependent on size and type of vegetative cover. In-stream designs and off-stream storage
impoundments would be an additional component needed for engineering plan preparation. The engineering design
would also include the development of the project construction/delivery cost estimate, which would include the use of
all of the above collected data.
Monitoring: years 1-3
Monthly upstream and downstream base flow monitoring, along with 3-4 storm events, for each of the wetland
restoration projects is required to measure phosphorus and sediment load reductions and efficacy. These data would be
essential to gauging the effectiveness of this approach and assessing the need for other technologies in the watershed.
Permitting: year 1
DEQ and USACE permits will be required to conduct this project and the cost of these are figured into the overall
project construction/delivery cost.
Construction: years 1-2
Depending on the size of each project, start date of the work, and the overall scope each project will have a different
time table. They could be completed in just a few months, but could take up to 18 months.
Report of Findings and Recommendations: year 4
After a project is complete, the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project’s effectiveness at meeting the sediment
and nutrient reduction goals would be assessed. This will insure that we make prudent adjustments along the way.
Because there is no “silver bullet” fix to the problem and the recommendation for remediation is a multi-tiered
and leveled approach, we will continually evaluate throughout the process. All data, recommendations, and conclusions
would be compiled in a written report. This report will analyze the overall effectiveness of the restored wetlands in
reducing phosphorus and sediment.
Estimated Cost Breakdown:
• Hydrologic modeling: $60,000
• Topographic Survey and Engineering Design: $115,000
• Construction and Final Cost Estimates for up to 8 projects: $2,600,000
• Monitoring: $225,000
• Permitting: $15,000
• Reporting, Project Meetings, and Engineering Modifications: $35,000
• Report of Findings and Recommendations: cost included in monitoring
• Contingencies (25%): $480,000
Total: $3,530,000
Land Acquisition
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Review Feasibility
Design
Permitting
Construction
Monitoring
Report & Recommendations
15
Appendix C:
Engineered Solutions
Timeline
The timeline for engineered solution wetland projects would be years 1-5 (see below)
The optimal location for the installation of an engineered wetland has been identified in the Middle Macatawa River
region. The engineered wetland would be placed near the main channel of the river where several hundred acres of
land could be engineered to filter the river water before it enters Lake Macatawa. The engineered facility would be
designed to help filter the phosphorus and sediment from the watershed. Topographic surveys will be performed
at these sites and an assessment will be made of stream morphometry (i.e., size, shape, and depth), existing land
cover, soils, and the stream-flow characteristics. Stream samples will be collected to measure in-stream phosphorus
fractions and sediment characteristics, and laboratory tests would be performed to determine the alum dosing
rates required to maximize phosphate and sediment removal. These data will be used to evaluate the technical
feasibility of alum dosing and floc removal methodologies, and will provide a basis for design and preparation of
engineering specifications and construction documents. A preliminary estimate of probable costs to construct
in-stream phosphorus inactivation and floc removal facilities is $750,000 per facility, with annual operation and
maintenance costs of $60,000.
Monthly upstream and downstream base flow monitoring, along with 3-4 storm events, for each of the wetland
restoration projects is required to measure phosphorus and sediment load reductions and efficacy. In addition,
upstream and downstream analyses of both benthic invertebrate and fish communities should be conducted to
discern biological impacts. These data would be essential to gauging the effectiveness of this approach and the
cost-benefit of applying this technology in other problem areas in the watershed.
Permitting: year 1
This project will require federal, state, and local permits and considerable interaction with regulatory agencies.
Documentation of project impacts will be essential to obtaining permits and approvals for the project.
All data, recommendations, and conclusions would be compiled in a written report. This report will provide a basis for
decision making regarding the utility of applying this technology in other portions of the watershed.
Cost Breakdown : Analytical:
• Data Compilation and Review: $17,000
• Technical Feasibility, Design, Construction Documents,
and Final Cost Estimates: $125,000
• Monitoring: $170,000
• Permitting: $35,000
• Report of Findings and Recommendations: $15,000
• Contingency (25%): $80,000
Subtotal: $442,000
Total: $1,445,000 per facility (initial budget is for one)
Construction/O&M:
• Construction: $850,000 per facility, initial budget is for one
• Operation and maintenance ($60,000/yr for 10 years):
$600,000 THIS IS COVERED BY ENDOWMENT
• Contingency (25%): $203,000
Subtotal: $1,003,000
In-Stream Phosphorus Interception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Review Feasibility
Design
Permitting
Construction
Monitoring
16
Appendix D:
Best Management Practice
Implementation & Promotion
Work Plan: BMP 1 - Two-Stage Ditch, Sediment Trap, and Floodplain Projects
Timeline
The timeline for passive wetland projects would be years 1-3 (see below)
Working with land owners and the drain commission offices, key ditches would need to be identified for two stage ditch
implementation. Private land owners and local units of government would also need to be engaged for sediment trap
development. Cost for each project will vary based on presence of trees, amount of soil to be removed and placed
elsewhere, presence of tiles, etc. Target goal would be 20,000 feet of Two-stage ditch implementation in the four target
basins, plus the development of 5-10 sediment trap areas (number will vary based on size/location). This work would also
lead to an increased floodplain shelf along waterways.
Monthly upstream and downstream base flow monitoring, along with 3-4 storm events, for each Two-stage ditch project
is required to measure phosphorus and sediment load reductions and efficiency. These data would be essential to
gauging the effectiveness of this approach and the cost-benefit of applying this technology in other problem areas in
the watershed. Sediment traps will be an easier installation project. Sites would be identified in each of the main basins
of concern where traps could be ideally located to retain water and trap sediment before the water flow continues
downstream.
Permitting: year 1
This project will require collaborative support from the County Drain Commission Offices as well as support from land
owners. In addition, permitting will be required for installation.
Report of Findings and Recommendations: years 3-4
All data, recommendations, and conclusions would be compiled in a written report. This report will provide a basis for
decision making regarding the utility of applying this technology in other portions of the watershed.
Cost Breakdown:
Permitting: $15,000
Two stage ditch construction: $30.00 per foot, initial goal of 20,000 = $600,000
Sediment Trap Development: $600,000
Management & Monitoring: $235,000
Reporting: $10,000
Reporting: $10,000
Total: $1,460,000
Two-Stage Ditch Projects
Review Feasibility
Design
Permitting
Construction
Monitoring
17
Appendix D (continued):
Work Plan: BMP 2 – LiDAR Imaging
Timeline
The timeline for LiDAR imaging would be 1 year (see below)
We would contract to have the LiDAR imaging done in the spring of 2013. Software would be purchased at the same
time allowing the system to be up and running within the first 6 months of 2013.
None required, software would be updated annually.
Permitting: None
Construction: None
Once LiDAR system was in place, data would be shared with all stakeholders working to improve the water quality of the
Macatawa Watershed
Cost Breakdown:
LiDAR imaging: $80,000
Software: $5,000 per year (we would focus on renewing for a 5 year period = $25,000)
Total: $105,000
LiDAR Imaging
Review Feasibility
Design
Permitting
Imaging
Distribution
18
Appendix D (continued):
Work Plan: BMP 3 – Urban BMP Implementation
Timeline
The timeline for the Urban BMP implementation would be 2 years (see below)
Working with local MS4 Permittees and land owners, 10 BMP projects would be implemented in the critical urban focus
areas identified by past research efforts. Each project would be designed to meet the needs of the specific environment
which can widely vary in an urban environment.
Monthly upstream and downstream base flow monitoring, along with 3-4 storm events for each BMP project is required
to measure phosphorus and sediment load reductions and efficacy. These data would be essential to gauging the
effectiveness of this approach and the cost-benefit of applying this technology in other problem areas in the watershed.
Permitting:
Depending on location, permitting may or may not be required. Detailed development plans will be created and will
likely need to be approved by planning commissions or other authority groups within the urban areas.
The overall benefit of the BMP implementation will be tracked and a report will be created to illustrate the impact and
efficiency of this practice.
Cost Breakdown:
Permitting, Planning and Engineering: $85,000
Construction: $750,000 (based on average of $75,000 per project x 10 = $750,000)
Total: $835,000
Urban Erosion & Runoff
Review Feasibility
Design
Permitting
Construction
Monitoring
19
Appendix E:
Information/Education
Work Plan: Information & Education
Timeline
The timeline for information and education projects would be ongoing during the entire 10 year plan
Specific Projects:
Lake Macatawa Documentary Project: Professionally developed PBS documentary on the Macatawa Watershed. Focus
on current conditions, reasons for impairment, solutions for restoration, and pathways for improvement. Documentary
will be designed so it can be used to educate all levels of the public about our water resources and the role the
community plays in sustaining them.
Community Watershed Event: Event in August or September, 2013 where we unveil the documentary. Potentially multiple
events. Establish an entire week of focus on the watershed.
K-12 Education: A curriculum will be developed to educate area students about the watershed they live in. This
community initiative must be cross-generational so that the future leadership and stakeholders have a strong
understanding of the watershed issues and a vested interest in its sustainability. Program to be offered to all students in
targeted grades throughout the watershed.
Community Awareness/Education: Government Leaders, Community Stakeholders, Waterfront Owners, Community
Presentations will be developed and audiences will be solicited to share the information gained during the research
phase and restoration planning phases of the project. Sharing the story will be a critical aspect to building community
interest, support and awareness around the watershed.
Literature Development & Distribution: Targeted audiences will receive literature from programs designed to promote
awareness and support for the watershed restoration.
Agricultural Education: Producers & Growers A variety of soil conservation materials will be developed/purchased
and distributed to the farming community to promote interest and understanding about the role the agricultural
industry can play in protecting and preserving farm resources and water quality.
Estimated Cost Breakdown: Over a 5 year period
• Lake Macatawa Documentary Project: $75,000
• Community Watershed Event: $15,000
• K-12 Education: $85,000
• Community Awareness/Education: $40,000
• Literature Development & Distribution: $25,000
• Signage: $20,000
• Agricultural Education: Producers & Growers: $41,000
Total: $301,000
Education
Design
Facilitate Program
Monitor & Report
Contact
Travis Williams, Executive Director
Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa Greenway
616-393-9453 travis@outdoordiscovery.org 4214 56th Street Holland, MI 49423

Comprehensive Restoration Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Yardsticks Creative Strategy Brief

December 2013 edition - Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

GLSM Tour Brochure 120909-2

Historic Ottawa Beach Parks

THE SURGE July 2016

Fitger`s Lake View Office

Ducks Unlimited Canada - Red Deer River Watershed Alliance

John M Steed