Region 14 coastal areas of particular concern

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR

CONCERN REGION 14

1978

TC
330
R44
1978

-0 r COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR
CONCERN REGION 14

1978

REGION 14

COASTAL AREAS OF
PARTI,CULAR CONCERN

c @Xl
95;,

WMSROC
September 1970

REGION 14

COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

t@ WH

. .. ... .. . . ... ..... .

VIM

,Mgsp

Prepared by'
Comprehensive Planning Division
West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission

September 30, 1978

This document was prepared through financial assistance provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and in
cooperation with the Coastal Management Program, Division of Land Resource
Programs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

- i -

WEST MICHIGAN SHORELINE

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . Alfred C. Fairchild
Vice-Chairman . . . . . Herbert Wybenga
Secretary . . . . . . . . . . Evelyn Carter

David G. Bringedahl
William E. Farwig
Herman Ivory
Donald Johnson
Clark H. Rager
Ruth Stevens

Rillastine Wilkins
Joseph Taylor
Kenneth Kessler
Lloyd Newsted
Roberto Loera

Gerald De Windt
Terry Hofmeyer
William Kennedy
Lidyia Villagran
Marilyn Sherwood

SHORELANDS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT STAFF

Executive Director: James L. Arnold
Director, Comprehensive Planning Programs: Donald E. Reisl

Project Staff

John K. Koches . . . . . . . Senior Planner
James Lockman . . . . . . . Graphic Technician
Da rlene Vanderstelt Graphic Technician
Denise Guerrido . . . . . . Secretary

FORWARD

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission was
voluntarily created in 1970 by local governments in Oceana, Muskegon , and
Ottawa Counties. A 19-member Governing Board comprised of local elected
and appointed officials directs agency policy and has final a'uthori6
over its activities. The Commission supports an experienced professional
pl.anning staff which shares a variety of expertise.

The Commission's principal purpose is to aid local governments in
solving what have been termed "Regional Problems.". Regional Problems
are basically those problems which (1) cross jurisdictional lines, (2)
those where action or no action by one jurisdiction affects another, and
(3) those where public. funds can be*obtained and saved through coopera-
tion in planning and operation. Using the above criteria, the manage-
ment of coastal resources is identified as a "Regional Concern."

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission wishes
to maximize shoreland use without the wasteful destruction of unique
shoreland resources. The Commission recognizes that this objective can
only be attained through the rational and thoughtful development of-
shoreland areas. It is for this reason that the Commission endeavo Irs to
provide the technical background needed by local governments when making
important land use and development decisions.

This document represents one element in the Commission's continuous
coastal management efforts. This document identifies specific areas
within the three county region which deserve particular.atteniion. The
management of these areas is essential to the successful implementation
of a comprehensive coastal management strategy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CPO
Chapter Page

Chapter I - Introduction . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .
Chapter II - APC Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 4
Chapter III - APC Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Standard Sand - Sand Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Sand Mine (Golden Towns.hip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Construction Aggregates - Sand Mine . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area . . . . . . . . 37
5. Pigeon Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . 45
6. Swett Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7. Pioneer County Park . . . . . . . . 59
. . . . . . . . . . .
8. Cedar Point Township Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9, "Whiley's Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11. Idlewood Beach ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12. Postma Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
13. Gray Dunes Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
14. Kirk Park . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
15. Tunnel Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
16. Michillinda Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
17. Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, 112
and Bronson Park
19. Mona Shores School District Property . . . . . . 117
20. Stickney Ridge . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
21. Cobmoosa Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 127
22. Cedar Bluff .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131,
23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands 135
24. Flower Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
25. Little Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
0

Table of Contents (cont.)
Page

26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River . . . . 151
27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

28. White Lake and White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
219. Silver Lake and Upper Silver Lake . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 166
30. Pentwater Lake and River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 176
32. Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek . . . . . . . 187
34. Stony Lake Watershed .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 193
35. Benona Orchard s . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . 198
36. White River Row Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
37. Clay Banks Orchards & Row Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
38. Golden Broadcast Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
0 39. City of Grand Haven Island Property . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
40. Mouth Cemetery . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
41. Port Sheldon . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
42. Indian Mounds . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . 227
43. White Lake Lighthouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
44. Rix Robinson Trading Post . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 236
45. Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
46. Silver Lake Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
47. Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 248
48. North Shore Sand Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

49. Flower Creek Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
50. Clay Banks Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
0 51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . . 267
52. Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
53. Old White Lake Channel and Bayou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
54. Lost Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Chapter IV - APC PRIORITIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Chapter V - Conclusions . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Pace

is)
111- 1 Region i4 CZM Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111- 2 General Location - Standard Sand - Sand Mine . . . . 21,
111- 3 Site Description - Standard Sand - Sand Mine . . . . . . . . 2,3
111- 4 General Location - Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) . . . . . . . . . 28
111- 5 Site Description - Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) . . . . . . . . . 30
111- 6 General Location - Construction Aggregates Sand Mine . . . . 33
111- 7 Site Description - Construction Aggregates Sand Mine . . . . 35
111- 8 General Location - Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area 38
111- 9 Site Description - Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area 40
III-10 General Location - Pigeon Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
III-11 Site Description - Pigeon Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
111-12 General Location - Swett Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,3
111-13 Site Description - Swett Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
111-14 General Location - Pioneer County Park . . . . . . . . . . . 60
111-15 Site Description - Pioneer County Park . . . . . . . . . . . 62)
111-16 General Location - Cedar Point Park . . . . . . . . . . . . 66)
111-17 Site Description - Cedar Point Park . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
111-18 General Location - Whitey's Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
111-19 Site Description - Whitey's Woods . ... . . . . . . . . . . 72
111-20 General Location - Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park . . . . . . . . 75
111-21 Site Description - Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park . . . . . . . . 7*,7
111-22 General Location - Idlewood Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
111-23 Site Description - Idlewood Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
111-24 General Location - Postma Subdivision . . . . 8!-)
111 25 Site Description - Postma Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . 87
111-26 General Location - Gray Dunes Subdivision . . .I . . . . . . 81)
111-27 Site Description - Gray Dunes Subdivision . . . 91
111-28 General Location - Kirk Park . . . . . . . 9:3
111-29 Site Description - Kirk Park . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 95
111-30 General Location - Tunnel Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
111-31 Site Description - Tunnel Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

vi i-

List of Figures (cont.

Figure Title Page

111-32 General Location - Michillinda Beach . . . . . . . . 104
111-33 Site Description - Michillinda Beach . . . . . . . . . . . 106'
111-34 General Location - Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands . . . . . . 109
111-35 Site Description - Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands . . .
- Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park,t . . . 3
111-36 General Location Pere Marquette Park, & Bronson Park

111-37 Site Description - Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, 115
Pere Marquette Park, & Bronson Park

111-38 General Location - Mona Shores School District Property 118
111-39 Site Description - Mona Shores School District Property 120
111-40 General Location - Stickney Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
111-41 Site Description - Stickney Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125)
111-42 General Location - Cobmoosa Shor es . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
111-43 Site Description - Cobmoosa Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
111-44 General Location - Cedar Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322
111-45 Site Description - Cedar Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
111-46 General Location - Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated 136
Wetlands
111-47 Site Description - Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated .138
Wetlands

111-48 General Location - Flower Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
111-49 Site Description - Flower Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
111-50 General Location - Little Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . 147
111-51 Site Description - Little Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . 149
111-52 General Location - Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the 1521
Muskegon River
111-53 Site Description - Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the . . . 154
Muskegon River
111-54 General Location - Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake . . . . . . . 15-11
111-55 Site Description - Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake . . . . . . . 159
111-56 General Location - White Lake and White River . . . . . . . 162
111-57 Site Description - White Lake and White.River . . . . . . 164
111-58 General Location - Silver Lake and Upper Silver Lake . . . 167
111-59 Site Description - Silver Lake and Upper Silver Lake . . . 169
111-60 General Location - Pentwater Lake and River . . . . . . . . 172
111-61 Site Description - Pentwater Lake and River . . . . . . . . 174

viii

List of Figures (cont.)

Figure Title Page

111-62 General Location - Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River 177
111-63 Site Description - Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River 179
111-64 General Location - Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek . . . . . 183
111-65 Site Description - Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek . . 1. ... 185
111-66 General Location - Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little 188
Black Creek
111-67 Site Description - Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little 190
Black Creek
111-68 General Location - Stony Lake Watershed . . . . . . . . . 194
111-69 Site Description - Stony Lake Watershed . . . . . . . . . 196
111-70 General Location - Benona Orchards . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
111-71 Site Description - Benona Orchards . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
111-72 General Location - White River Row Crops . . . . . . . . . 203
111-73 Site Description - White River Row Crops . . . . . . . . . 205
111-74 General Location - Clay Banks Orchards and Row Crops . . . 207
111-75 Site.Description - Clay Banks Orchards and Row Crops . . . 209
111-76 General Location - Golden Broadcast Crops . . . . . . . . 211
111-77 Site Description - Golden Broadcast Crops . . . . . . . . 213
111-78 General Location - City of Grand Haven Island Property 215
111-79 Site Description - City of Grand Haven Island Property 217
111-80 General Location - Mouth Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
111-81 Site Description - Mouth Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
111-82 General Location - Port Sheldon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
.111-83 Site Description - Port Sheldon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
111-84 General Location - Indian Mounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
111-85 Site Description - Indian Mounds . . . . . . . . 230
111-86 General Location - White Lake Lighthouse . . . . 232
111-87 Site Description - White Lake Lighthouse . . . . 234
111-88 General Location - Rix Robinson Trading Post . . . . . 237
111-89 Site Description - Rix Robinson Trading Post . . . . . 239
111-90 General Location - Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier . . . '. 241
111- 91 Site Description - Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier . . . . 243
111-92 General Location - Silver Lake Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . 245
111-93 Site Description - Silver Lake Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Li st of Figures (cont.)

Figure Title Page

111- 94 General Location - Ferrysburg Dune Blow-Out . . . . . . . 249
111- 95 Site Description - Ferrysburg Dune Blow-Out . . . . . . . 251
111- 96 General Location - North Shore Sand Dunes . . . . . . 254
111- 97 Site Description - North Shore Sand Dunes . . . . . . 256
111- 98 General Location - Flower Creek Dunes . . . . . . . . . . 260
111- 99 Site Description - Flower Creek Dunes . . . . . .. . . . . 262
III-100 General Location - Clay Banks Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . 264
III-101 Site Description - Clay Banks Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . 266
111-102 General Location - P. J. Hoffmaster State Park . . . . . 268
111-103 Site Description - P. J. Hoffmaster State Park . . . . . 270
111-104 General Location - Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) . . . . 272,
111-105 Site Description -,Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) . . . . 274
111-106 General Location - Old White Lake Channel and Bayou . . . 276
111-107 Site Description - Old White Lake Channel and Bayou . . . 278
111-108 General Location - Lost Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
111-109 Site Description - Lost Lake . . . i . . . . . . . . . . 283

V-1 Oceana County Coastal Areas of Immediate Concern . . . . 297
V-2 Oceana County Coastal Areas of Long Term Concern . . . . 298
V-3 Muskegon County Coastal Areas of Immediate Concern . . . 299
V-4 Muskegon County Coastal Areas of Long Term Concern 300
V-5 Ottawa County Coastal Areas of Immediate Concern 301-
V-6 Ottawa County Areas of Long Term Concern . . . . . . . . 302

x -

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

II-1 Region 14 Coastal Areas of Particular Concerr 7
IV-:1 Coastal Areas of Immediate Concern (August 11376) 286
IV-2, Coastal Areas of Immediate Concern (September 1978) 291

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph Title Page

111- 1 Aerial View of "Rosy Mound," Standard Sand Sand Mine 20
111- 2 Aerial View of Sand Mine in Golden Township . . . . . 27
111- 3 Aerial View of Construction Aggregates - Sand Mine . . . . . 32
111- 4 Aerial View of Nugent Sand and CWC Sand Mines . . . . . . . 37
111- 5 Nugent Sand Company, North of Winnetaska Road . . . . . . . 41
111- 6 Nugent Sand Company, South of Winnetaska Road . . . . . . . 41
111- 7 Nugent Sand Company, Erosion Control Efforts near the . . . 42
western end of Winnetaska Road
111- 8 Aerial View of "Pigeon Hill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
111- 9 Access to "Penninsula Park" off Fulton Street . . . . . . . 48
III-10 Aerial View of the Swett Property in the City of Norton 52
Shores
III-11 Scene as viewed midway into the Swett Property looking . . . 55
East in the direction toward Lake Harbor Road, showing
the extent of past and present sand mining activity
111-12 Scene as viewed looking west showing-extensive natural 55
area and Lake Michigan in background
111-13 Pioneer Park Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
111-14 Shoreline Erosion at Pioneer County Park . . . . . . . . . . 63
111-15 Treacherous Beach Access at Ceda,r Point Park . . . . . . . . 65
111-16 Chair Swing in Privately owned and Developed Picnic Area 69
111-17 Eroded bluff in Cheyenne Hills and Fawn Park Vicinity . 74
111-18 The Idlewood Beach Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
111-19 Shoreline Erosion in the Postma Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . 84
111-20 Shoreline as seen from the beach at Gray Dunes Subdivision 88
111-21 Entrance to Kirk Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
111-22 The "Tunnel" at Tunnel Park . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97'
111- 23 Revegetation at Tunnel Park . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 101
111-24 Erosion in the Michillinda Area . . . . . . . 103
111-25 Erosion in the Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands,vicinity . . . 108
111-26 "Rip Rap" protecting Beach Road at Pere Marquette Park . . . 112
111-27 Mona Shores School District Property located just North of 117
thp Swett Property and the Textron Sand Mine Pictured
111-28. Scene Common in the Stitkney Ridge Area . . . . . . . . . . 122

xii

List of Photographs (cont.)

Photograph Title Page

111-29 Cobmoosa Shores Shoreline . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 127

111-30 Cedar Bluff Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 31
111-31 Holiday Inn on the Grand River in Spring Lake Village 135.
111-32 Scenic Beauty of the Flower Creek Watershed . . . . . . 141
111-33 Little Black Lake - An Important Wildlife Habitat . . . . 146
111-34 Muskegon Lake - An Important Recreation Resource . . . . 151
111-35 Duck Lake - Site of Future State Park and Existing Recrea- 156
tion Resource
111-36 Aerial View of White Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161
111-37 Aerial View of Silver Lake and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . 166
111-38 Aerial View of Pentwater Lake . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 171

111-39 Lake Macatawa As Viewed from the Public Boat Launch at 176
the Macatawa State Park
111-40 Pigeon Lake with Consumers Power J. H. Campbell Plant in 182
Background
111-41 Aerial View of Mona Lake Looking East from Over Lake 187
Michigan
111-42 Aerial View of Stony Lake . . . I . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 193
111-43 Aerial View of Benona Township Agriculture . . ; . . . . 198
111-44 Agricultural Land Use in White River Township . . . . . . 202
111-45 Agriculture in the Clay Banks Vicinity . . . . . . . . . 206
111-46 Golden Township Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
1'11-47 An Aerial View of Harbor Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
111-48 Entrance to Mouth Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
111-49 Site of Port Sheldon Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
111-50 Aerial View of Indian Mounds Vicinity Exact Location. 227
was not revealed
111-51 White Lake Light Station Marine Museum . . . . . 231
111-52 White Lake Lighthouse Setting . . . . 235
111-53 Sign Commemorating Rix Robinson Trading Post 236
111-54 Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier..
. . . . . . . . .. . . . 240

111-55 Silver Lake Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
111-56 Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
1 11-57 Aerial View of the North Shore Sand Dunes Area . . . . . 253
111-58 Flower Creek Dunelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

xiii

List of Photographs (cont.)

Photograph Title Page

111-59 Aerial View of Clay Bluffs in Clay Banks Township . . . . 263
IH-60 Parabolic Blow Outs of P. J. Hoffmaster State Park . . . 267
111-61 Aerial View of Bigsbee Lake and the Orwig Property . . . 271
111-62 Sign Commemorating the "Old Channel Area" as an histori@ 275
site
111-63 Sadony Bayou as seen looking northeast on Old Channel 279
Trail Bridge
111-64 The Old White Lake Channel as seen from the same bridge 279
looking southwest
111-65 Lost Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 280

xiv

APC INDEX
Page

I. MINERAL RESOURCE AREAS OF.PARTICULAR CONCERN
1. Standard Sand - Sand Mine . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Construction.Aggregates - Sand Mine 32
4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area . . . . . . . . 37

Il. RECREATION AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
5. Pigeon Hill . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . 45
6. Swett Property . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 52
7. Pioneer County Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8. Cedar Point Town-ship Park . . . . . . 65
9. Whitey's Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
14. Kirk Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 92
15. Tunnel Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 97
19. Mona Shores School District Property . . . . . . . . . . 117
33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek . . . , . 187
51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

III. HIGH RI,SK EROSION AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11. Idlewood Beach . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12. Postma Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 84
13. Gray Dunes Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
14. Kirk Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
15. Tunnel Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
16. Michillinda 'Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
17. Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands . . . 108
,ark, 112
18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette P
and Bronson Park
19. Mona Shores School District Property . . . . . . . . . . 117
20. Stickney Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
21. Cobmoosa Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 127
22. Cedar Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

APC Index (cont.)

Page

IV. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands 135
24. Flower Creek J41
25. Little Black Lake 146
26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River 151
27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake 156
28. White Lake and White River 161
29. Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake and Holiday Lake 166
30. Pentwater Lake and River 171
31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River 176
32. Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek 182
33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek 187
34. Stony Lake Watershed 193

V. COASTAL LAKES AND RIVERS OF P,ARTICULAR CONCERN
13* Grand liver, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands 135
25. Little Black Lake 146
26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River 151
27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake 156

28. White Lake and White River 161
29. Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake and Holiday Lake 166
30. Pentwater Lake andRiver 171

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River 176
32. Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek 182
33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek 187
34. Stony Lake Watershed 193

VI. ECOLOGICALLY,SENSITIVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlan'ds 135
27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake 156

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River 176
33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek 187
5 4. Lost Lake 280

xvi

APC Index (cont.)

Page
VII. NATURAL AREAS OF*PARTICULAR CONCERN

24. Flower Creek 141

51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park 26-7
52. Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) 271
53. Old White Lake Channel. and Bayou' 275

VIII. URBAN AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River 151

IX. AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

35. Benona Orchards 198
0 36. White River Row Crops 202
37. Clay Banks Orchards and Row Crops 206
38. Golden Braodcast Crops 210

X. ISLAND AREAOF PARTICULAR CONCERN
39. City of Grand Haven Island Property 214

XI. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
40. Mouth Cemetery 219
41. Port Sheldon 223

42. Indian Mounds 227
43. White Lake Lighthouse 231
44. Rix Robinson Trading Post 236
45. Grand Haven Lighthouse 240
53. Old White Lake Channel and Bayou 275

XII. SAND DUNE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

46. Silver Lake Dunes 244
47. Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out 248
48. North Shore Sand Dunes 253

49. Flower Creek Dunes 259
50. Clay Banks Dunes 263

xvii

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission has actively
pursued the rational management of shoreland resources since its conception
in 1970, the same year Michigan's Legislature passed Public Act 245 -1the
Shorelands Protection and Management Act. In 1 972, Congress.passed the
federal.Coastal Zone Management Act, Public Law 92-583. This legislation
gave rise to Michigan's Coastal Management Program. In 1.974, the Commission
joined the State of Michigan in a coordinated coastal management endeavor.

Like other shoreland regions, the WMSRDC was to provide the State with
certain preliminary information essential to its planning purpose. The
Commission took significant steps in identifying population trends, land use
patterns, physiographic processes, and shoreland sensitivity specific to its
planning area. This i nformation was substantive input to the agency's two
volume report entitled, A Shorelands Planning and Zoning Study, published in
June 1975.

In addition to the collection of the inventoried data mentioned above,
the Commission also began to develop an impressive public participation pro-
cess. Questionnaires were distributed, citizen advisory councils were
formed, and special meetings were held to discuss coastal management issues.
As a result of these efforts, a number of regional goals and several specific
objectives were eventually formalized. These goals and objectives are
summarized below.

Goal I:

To preserve unique and sensitive shoreland
areas for the welfare of all citizens.

Objectives:

A. Locate and identify areas of a unique
0 and sensitive nature.
B. Secure areas considered of special
worth.

C. Restrict those uses which are incompatible
with the.areas's unique and sensitive qualities.

0
Goal II:

To control industrial, commercial, and residential
development in shoreland environments so as to
provide social and economic needs without the need-
less and wasteful destruction of unique and sensi-
tive shoreland areas.

Objectives:

A. Locate and identify areas along'the Lake Michi-
gan shoreline which can effectively accomodate
development.

B. Provide alternatives to that development which
intends to locate on the shoreline and speci-
fically on the primary dune.

C. Organize and coordinate the use of erosion con-
trols when and where appropriate.

D. Provide shoreline setback requirements in those
areas which demonstrate a need for such.

Goal III:

To provide recreational opportunities within shore-
land areas for all citizens, while maintaining en-
vironmental integrety.

Objectives:

A. Identify recreational needs.
B. Locate and identify areas of access.
C. Provide a means or avenue of transport.
D. Maintain facilities.

In the time since the Commission published its Shorelands Planning and
Zoning Study, considerable work has been directed toward the anaIysis of
shoreland sensitivity and the understanding of imposed developm@Intal con-
straints. This work has lead to the preparation of township maps which describe
general erosion potentials, septic system suitability, slope hazards, and
ensitive environments such as floodplains and wetlands. This information is
intended to undergo further refinement with eventual computerization.
s

In addit.ion to the sensitivity analysis just described, the Commission
has taken important steps to identify "special shoreland areas" within Region
14. The State refers to these as "Areas of Particular Concern" (APC's).
'This document is intended to describe those APC's identified within 06eana,
Muskegon, and Ottawa Counties' Coastal Zone.
Chapter II examines the various types of APC's as defined by the@State
of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources. This chapter will also
summarize the APC nomination process and list those APC's recognized by the

WMSRDC.

Chapter III will examine each recognized APC in Region 14. The APC's
will be reviewed following a given format. First, each APC will be located
on a simple map. Second, each APC will be briefly described. Third, all
major concerns will be identified. Forth, management needs will be evaluated
and alternatives sometimes suggested. And last, a short status report will
examine the planning emphasis assigned to each identified APC.

Chapter IV will explain the CommissioWs APC action priorities. Existing
priorities will be described. Changes in APC status will be examined. And,
projected priorities will be suggested.

Chapter V will summarize planning achievements. Concluding remarks will
be directed specifically at continued APC review and the CZM planning process.
Reference will be made to the Commission's Comprehensive Development Strategy
and the role of its CZM planning program.

CHAPTER II

APC NOMINATIONS

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land Re-
source Programs, defines "Areas of Particular Concern" in its eight
volume report entitled, A Proposed_Program for Michigan's Coast, published
in August 1977. The above mentioned report groups APC's into six major
types. These six broad categories are further divided into fourteen de-
tailed elements. Michigan's APC classification system is outlined below.

I. Areas of Natural Hazard to Development
A. High Risk Erosion Areas
B. Flood Hazard Areas

II. Areas Sensitive to Development
A. Ecologically Sensitive Areas
B. Natural Areas

C. Sand Dune Areas

D. Islands

III. Areas Fulfilling Recreational or Cultural Needs
A. Recreation Areas
B. H istoric and Archaeologic Sites

IV. Areas of Intensive or Conflicting Use
A. Coastal Lakes, River Mouths and Bays
B. Urban Areas

V. Areas of Natural Economic Potential
A. Mineral Resource Areas
B. Agricultural Areas
C. Prime Industrial Areas
D.. Water Transportation Areas

VI. Areas for Preservation or Restoration

The same DNR report goes on to describe how APC's are nominated and
examines the process whereby these APC's are reviewed. Region 14's APC's
were nominated and reviewed in the same general manner as indicated by
the DNR. Specific procedures undertake .n by the Re.gion 14 Commissiol@ are
summarized as follows.

1. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commissio
began soliciting APC nominations late in 1975. Commission
staff prepared its own nomination forms and distributed
these questionnaire type leaflets during all shoreland re-
lated meetings. Nomination forms were sent to all shoreland
advisory council members and to each coastal governmental
unit. Regional staff followed this distribution with per-
so'nal interviews. In addition, Regional staff,contacted
and interviewed many noteable academicians familiar to the
local scientific community. By January 1976 the Regional
staff had collected, reviewed, and summarized approximately
87 coastal APC nominations.

2. Regional staff began to weed through the APC nominations
it had on file, and began grouping those which referred to
the same general area. In the months which followed our
first APC nomination efforts, several additional nomina-
tions began-to appear as a result of DNR's campaign efforts.
Many of these new nominations simply supported areas already
under consideration. Few areas were actually added to the
Region's APC list. By March 1976, 54 general areas of con-
cern had been identified and documented.

3. On March 11 and 12, 1976, the West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development Commission sponsored a "Critical Areas
Workshop" held in each of the three counties. All munici-
palities were notified as to the nature and importance of
these meetings. Other interested citizens and noted in-
fluentials were also invited. 'Input received during these
meetings was eventually capsulized in a selection of APC
nominations supported by the WMSRDC staff.

.4. On July 19, 1976 the West Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission gave formal recognition to the 54
Areas of Particular Concern presented by its planning staff.
Since that time, the Commission has received only nomina-
tions which support this original APC selection. Th@ Com-
mission.still recognizes a total of 54 Areas of Particular
Concern.

Table II-1 lis-ts the 54 APC's recognized by the Region 14 Commission.
This table also indicates the type of area as defined by the DNR's classi-
fication scheme. You will note that some areas fall within more than
one.category of,concern. This multiple categorization is.u,sually the

result of several nominations directed at the same area. This phenomenon
reflects the many varied concerns associated-with these individual areas.

TABLE II-1
REGION 14 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
OCEANA COUNTY APC's

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(2) Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) Golden Twp. T15N-R18W-Sec. 17 & 18 Mineral Resource Area
(8) Cedar Point Twp. Park Gol den Twp. T15N-R18W-Sec. 4 Recreation Area
(10) Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park Benona Twp. T14N-R19W-Sec. 13 & 24 High Risk Erosion Area

Juniper Beach, Sahara Sands Golden Twp. T15N-R19W-Sec. 7 & 18 High Ri'sk Erosion Area
(21) Cobmoosa Shores Benona Twp. T14N-Ri9W-Sec. 36 High Risk Erosion Area
TWI-R18W-Sec. 31
(22) Cedar Bluff Pentwater Twp. T16N-Rl8W-Sec. 33 High Risk Erosion Area
(24)7 a
Flower Creek Clay Banks Twp. T13N-R18W-Sec. 26, Flood Hazard Area
(29) Si 27- 14--35. Natural Area
lver Lake, Upper Silver Lake, Golden Twp. T15N-R19W-Sec. 25 & 36 Flood Hazard Area
and Holiday Lake T15N-R18W-Sec. 16, 17, 19, 20, Coastal Lake
21, 29, 30, & 31.
(30y-p-
entwater Lake & Pentwater River Pentwater Twp. & Pentwater Village, T16N- Flood Hazard Area
R18W-Sec. 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, & 26. Coastal Lake
a. Area shared by Muskegon County

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OCEANA COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(")Stony Lake & Watershed Benona Twp-, Benona Village, & Clay Banks Twp- Flood Hazard Area
T14N-R18W-Sec. 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, Coastal Lake
34, & 35.
T13N-R18W-Sec. 3, 4, 5, & 6.
(35)
Benona Orchards Benona Twp. T14N-R19W-Sec. 1, 12, & 13 Agricultural Area
(37 )Clay Banks Orchards & Clay Banks Twp. T13N-R18W-Sec. 8, 9, 16, 21, Agricultural Area
Row Crops, 27, 28, 33, & 34.
(38) Golden Broadcast Crops Golden Twp. T15N-R18W-Sec. 8 & 17 Agricultural Area
co (42) Indian Mounds Benona Twp. T13N-R18W-Sec. 5 Archaeologic Site
(46) Silver Lake Dunes Golden Twp. Tl@N-R19W-Sec. 24 & 25. T15N- Sand Dune Area
R18W-Sec. 17, 18, 19, 20, & 30.
@(49) Flower Greek Dunes a Clay Banks Twp. T13N-R18W-Sec. 33 Sand Dune Area

a. Area shared by Muskegon County

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OCEANA COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area.Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(50) Clay Banks Dunes Clay Banks Twp. T13N-Rl8W-Sec. 6, 8, 17, 21, 28, & 33 Sand Dune Area
(52) Bigs.bee Lake (Orwig Benona Twp. T14N-R19W-Sec. 24. T14N-R18W-Sec. 19 Natural Area
Property)

TABLE II-1 (continued)
MUSKEGON COUNTY APC'S

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(4)
Nugent Sand and Campbell City of Norton Shores T9N-Rl7W-Sec. 3 Mineral Resource Area
Wyant & Cannon Mineral
Resource Area
(5) Pigeon Hill City of Muskegon T1ON-R17W-Sec. 28 Recreation Area
(6) Swett Property City of Norto n Shores T9N-Rl7W-Sec. 14 Recreation Area
(7) pio neer County Park Laketon Twp. T1ON-R17W-Sec. 6 Recreation Area
(9) Whitey's Woods City of Norton Shores T9N-R17W-Sec. 14 Recreation Area
CD (13) Gray Dunes Subdivision White River Twp. T12N-R18W-Sec. 15 High Risk Erosion Area
(16)
Michi.llinda Beach Fruitland Twp. T11N-R18W-Sec. 1.1, 13, & 24 High Risk Erosion Area
(18)pi oneer Park Laketon Twp. & City of Muskegon T1ON-RI7- High Risk.Erosion Area
Muskegon State Park Sec. 6, 7, 17, 20, 21, 28, & 33. T9N-
Pere Marquette Park R17W-Sec. 3
Bronson Park

TABLE II-1 (continued)
MUSKEGON COUNTY APCIS (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type

(19)
Mona Shores School District City of Norton Shores T9N-Rl6W-Sec. 14 High Risk Erosion Area
Property Recreation Area
(23 )Grand River, Spring Lake c Fruitport Twp. and Fruitport Village Flood Hazard Area
and Associated Wetlands T9N-Rl6W-Sec. 35 & 36. Ecologically Sensitive Area
Coastal Lake
(21 )Flower Creek b White River Twp. T12N-Rl8W-Sec. 3 & 4 Flood Hazard Area
Natural Area
(25 kittle Black Lake c City of Norton Shores T9N-Rl6W-Sec 31 & 32 Flood Hazard Area
Coastal Lake
(16)Mus kegon Lake, Bear Lake City of Muskegon, City of North Muskegon, & Flood Hazard Area
-and Muskegon River Laketon Twp. T1ON-R17W-Sec. 12, 13, 14, Coastal Lake & River
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, & Mouth
36. Urban Area
TlON-Rl6W-,Sec, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, & 22.
(27 )Duck Lake, Muskrat Lake Fruitland Twp. T11N-R18W -Sec. 24 & 25. Flood Hazard Area
T11N-Rl7W-Sec. 18, 19, & 30. Coastal Lakes
Ecologically Sensitive Areas,
b. Area shared by Oceana County
c. Area shared by Ottawa County

TABLE 11-1 (continued)
MUSKEGON COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(28 )White Lake, White River Fruitland Two., White River Twp., City of Flood Hazard Area
Whitehall, City of Montague. T11N-Rl8W- Coastal Lake & River
S-ec. 2, 11, 12. T11N-R17W-Sec. 4, 5, 6,
7. T12N-R17W-Sec. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34.
(33) Mona Lake, Black Creek, City of Norton Shores, City of Muskegon Flood Hazard Area
Little Black Creek Heights. T9N-R17W-Sec. 12, 13, & 14. Coastal Lake
T9N-Rl6W-Sec. 7, 8, 9, 17, 18. Ecologically Sensitive
Area
Recreation Area
(36 )White River Row Crops White River Twp. T12N-Rl8W-Sec. 22 23, Agricultural Area
& 26.
40 )Mouth Cemetery White River Twp. T11N-Rl8W-Sec. 2 Arch aeol ogic Area

TABLE II-1 (continued)
MUSKEGON COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(43) White Lake Lighthouse Fruitland Twp. T11N-R18W-Sec. 2 Historic Area
(49 )Flower Creek Dunes'b White River Twp. T12N-R18W-Sec. 4 Sand Dune Area
(51 )Hoffmaster State Park c City of Norton Shores t9N-Rl7W-Sec. 25 & 36. Natural Area
T9N-R16W-Sec. 31
(53 )Old WhiteLake Channel & White River Twp. T11N-R18W-Sec. 2 Natural Area
Bayou Historic Area
(54 )Lost Lake Laketon Twp. T1ON-R11W-Sec. 16 Ecologically Sensitive
Area

b. Area shared by Oceana County
c. Area shared by Ottawa County

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OTTAWA COUNTY APC'S

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(1) Standard Sand - Sand Mine Grand Have'n Twp. T7N-Rl6W-Sec. 4 & 5. Mineral Resource Area
(3) Construction Aggregates City of Ferrysberg T8N*-Rl6W-Sec. 17 & 18 Mineral Resource Area
Sand Mine
(")Idlewood Beach Park Twp. T5N-R16W-Sec. 28 High Risk Erosion Area
(12 )Postma Subdivision Port Sheldon Twp. T6N-R16W-Sec. 21 High Risk Erosion Area
(14
)Kirk Park Grand Haven Twp. T7N-Rl6W-Sec. 33 High Risk Erosion Area
(15)Tunnel Park Park Twp. T5N-R16W-Sec. 21 High Risk Erosion Area
(20) Stickney Ridge Grand Haven Twp. T8N-Rl6W-Sec. 32 High Ri sk Erosion Area

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OTTAWA COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(23 )Grand River, Spring Lake, and a C, t' y of Ferrysburg, City of Grand Haven, Flood Hazard Area
Associated Wetlands Spring Lake Village, Spring Lake Twp., Ecologically Sensitive
Grand Haven Twp., T8N-Rl6W-Sec. 1, 2, Area
3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, Coastal Lake & River
21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35,
& 36. T7N-Rl6W-Sec. 1, 2, 3
(25) Little -Black Lake a Spring Lake Twp. T8N-Rl6W-Sec. 5 & 6 Flood Hazard Area
Coastal Lake
(31) Lake Macatawa, Macatawa River City of Holland, City of Zeeland, Park Flood Hazard Area
Twp., Holland Twp. T5N-R16W-Sec. 25, Ecologically Sensitive
Ul 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, & 36. T5N-Rl5W- Area
Sec. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, Coastal Lake and River
29, 30, & 31

a. Area shared by Muskegon County

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OTTAWA COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(32)piq eon Lake, Pigeon Creek Port Sheldon Twp. T6N-R16W-Sec. 12, 13, 14, Flood Hazard Area
15, 16, 21, & 22 Coastal Lake & River
(39) City of Grand Haven City of Grand Haven T8N-R16W-Sec. 16, 17, Island Area
Island Property 20, & 21
41 )Port Sheldon (Village) Port Sheldon Twp. T6N-R16W-Sec. 15 & 16 Historic Area
(44 )Rix Robinson Trading Post- City of Grand Haven T8N-R16W-Sec. 21 Historic Area
(")Grand Haven Lighthouse & City of Grand Haven T8N-R16W-Sec. 30 Historic Area
Pier
(47 )Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out City of Ferrysburg T8N-RI6W-Sec. 18 Sand Dune Area
(48) North Shore Sand Dunes City of Grand Haven T8N-R16W-Sec. 19 & Sand Dune Area
20

TABLE II-1 (continued)
OTTAWA COUNTY APC'S (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) General Location Area Type
(51 )Hoffmaster State Parka Spring Lake Twp. T8N-R17W-Sec. 1. T8N- Natural Area
R16W-Sec. 6

lj
a. Area shared by Muskegon County

CHAPTER III

APC DESCRIPTIONS

As previously indicated, this chapter will examine each recognized APC in
Region 14. Each APC will first be located using a simple map. Figure III-1
(page 19) is provided so as to help the reader orient him or herself lith re-
gards to the region in general. Figure III-1 shows Oceana, Muskegon, and
Ottawa Counties and the Region 14 defined Coastal Zone Boundary.

After locating each APC, a general description will indicate those speci-
fic attributes which made the site an area of particular concern. A sketch
will be provi ded to show what the site looks like and how its physical dimen-
sions relate to neighboring land uses.

Next follows a brief discussion of major concerns. Problems affecting each
APC will be spelledout and examined. The severity and persistance of.these
problems will be the focus of attention.

Management needs. will be evaluated and management alternatives sometimes
suggested. Some suggestions may boarder on being impractical. Some very
promising management options may have inadvertently been omitted. The discussion
of management alternatives is intended to stimulate some thought in hopes of
attaining some workable and implementable solutions to the problems and poten-
tial problems identified.

Finally, a "status report" will highlight recent and expected developments
regarding each identified APC. This discussion will aid in reassigning regional
action priorities to be outlined in Chapter IV.

---------------------------

V@ 1, A CR@STAL COJ F A X

OPT N I
WATER

iD[l EISRIOGE LEAVITT 1>
I
HART

r)
10

SH, ELBY NEWFIELD
RENONA FERRY

GRANT

C L AY OTTO GREENWOOD
BANKS !4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -
W IE
R TER MONTA

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
iWHITE-
HA LL

1.@%,-,d CI.b

DALICN CEDAR CREEK
IkUlItA 0

MUSKEGON CO.
0 USKEG
LAKETON

ECEILSTON OORtAND CASNOVIA

4 L SULLIVAN

R RAVENNA CHESTER

'77 - - - - - - - - - -
SPRING LAQ
POILKTON I
FIGURE III-1 WRIGHT
CROCKERY

G-d
REGION 14

CZM BOUNDARY

GIZ
ROBINSON ALLENDALE TALL ADGE 0

>
PORT OLIVE 8L E IOU-
V.11 B--ml-y 5HELD
10

PARK,., HOLLAND

Z E E I AN L) JAMESTOWN
/'p A,'

1. STANDARD SAND SAND MINE

kl.
IN
vl@ q

-4

Photograph III-1
Aerial View of "Rosy Mound," Standard Sand Sand Mine

MINERAL RESOURCE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

Standard Sand - Sand Mine

A, LOCATION: Grand Haven Twp., Ottawa County TM-R16W-Sections 4 & 5.

NEWAYGO Co.

L AX ETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N SU L L I VAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

EGO N Co.
MUSK
S P R I t,@

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAM@ESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO,
2 6 8 10 MILES ALLEGAN G().

Figure 111-2
General Location,
S K @EG 0 N rE G I
4]NA

Standard Sand - Sand Mine

B. DESCRIPTION:

The Standard Sand Corporation and the Construction Aggregate's Corpor-
ation own approximately 300 acres of dune land along Lakeshore Dtive in
Sections 4 and 5 of Grand Haven Township, Ottawa County. Lakes2re Drive
divides this property into two parcels, the biggest of which lie@ west of
the road and consists of approximately 230 acres. This larger parcel has
been actively mined since 1926 and has a reserve expected to last another
75 years.. The Standard Sand Corporation has indicated that it plans to
mine sand west of Lakeshore Drive until its reserves are exhausted and
then develop the site as a Planned Unit Development following Grand Haven
Township guidelines.

Only a small portion of this site is at present actively mined. The
site is pretty much hidden from passers-by along Lakeshore Drive by the
steep, heav-ily wooded slopes which border the road. A quick look down the
railroad sp ur and access road which follow into the site will afford the
interested observer a glance at some small buildings, a conveyor system,
and perhaps the earth moving vehicle the company uses in its mining opera-
tion. The only other evidence which suggests that the area is being mined
is bulldozer and conveyor noise, and the sometimes bothersome sand which
is blown over the dune face onto Lakeshore Drive just south of the site's
access point.

In viewing the site from the air or from Lake Michigan, the 50 years
of previous mining becomes much more apparent. The dunes in this area
vary in elevation from 600 feet to 800+ feet above sea level. Extending
southwest from the existing sand mining site is what appears to be a
blown out area of approximately 70 acres. This is the arealwhich has al-
ready been mined and remains only partially vegetated. The Company
apparently intends to expand this already mined area along all sides.
Figure 111-3 describes the area's general setting and adjac6nt land uses.

Standard Sand Sand Mine

L"j.
0
"g,

HAYE
a A.-

-:-X

OSY
X
MOUND
SCHOOL
M.

0)
'16
64

LEGEND

Current Standard Sand Mining Site

Area Already Mined
Additional Property, Owned by @N
Standard Sand and Construction
Aggregates SCALE
Residential Use l'inch 2,000 feet

Industrial.use

Figure 111-3
Site Description
Standard Sand Sand.Mine

Standard Sand Sand Mine (cont.)

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The removal of dune sand can have very significant socia' -economic
consequences and very definite environmental impacts. There re im-
portant benefits as well as numerous costs associated with ea h mining
operation. The WMSRDC staff uses two criteria when it.eval.ua@es a
given mining operation: 1) does the operator seek to minimize the
loss'of natural and environmental values, and 2) are anticipated re-
clamation efforts consistent with surrounding land uses and the
community's long range goals.

In looking at the Standard Sand site, it is obvious that the area
has tremendous environmental and asthetic value. There are, however,
no known endangered plant or animal species in the area. (An in-
vestigative study would be required to confirm the absense of endangered
species). The mining operation itself is screened from view by an ex-
isting buffer zone. Standard Sand will most probably continue to main-
tain this buffer zone and thus retain some measure of asthetic values.

In that the site has been mined for.the last 50 years, the real
concern centers upon the area'.s reclaimed or secondary use. Company
spokesmen maintain that the area will be developed as a Planned Unit
Development capitalizing on the sites' residential Values. This con-
cept would appear consistent with existing land uses as described in
Figure 111-2. A preliminary site plan has been prepared for Grand
Haven Township describing anticipated secondary use. Township repre-
sentatives are, however, reluctant to approve a plan which will take
more than 50 years before it is implemented. Town,ship representatives
also seem somewhat apprehensive concerning the expansion' of mining
operations at this site given the character and asthetic!. values
associated with these dunes.

Standard Sand - Sand Mine (cont.)

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Sand Dune Protection and Management Act, Public Act 222, was passed
by the Michigan Legislature in 1976. The Act provides for the study, pro-
tection, management, and reclamation of Great Lakes sand dunes. 1his
legislation was specifically enacted so as to control the sometimes indi-
scriminate destruction of dune environments through the min,ing ofisand.
Surprisingly enough, this legislation might not have been adopted if it
hadn 't finally received some support from the mining industry.

Public Act 222 requires each mining operator to obtain a mining per-
mit from the Department of Natural Resources. In order to obtain a permit,
each operator must prepare and submit an environmental impact statement a
progressive cell-unit mining and reclamation plan, and a 15-year mining
plan. The Commission of Natural Resources has just recently adopted Admini-
strative Rules designating certain sand dune areas and, thus, requires a
permit from mining operators in these areas. Much of.Grand Haven Township's
shoreline is designated as a sand dune area to be protected by.P.A. 222.
Standard Sand will thus be required to obtain a DNR permit. Standard Sand,
like all mining operations subject to this permit requirement, must in addi-
tion pay a fee of not more than 1 cent per ton of sand mined so as to
compensate DNR for surveillance, monitoring, administration, and enforcement
of P.A. 222.

The enactment and enforcement of P.A. 222 holds considerable promise
concerning the management of Standard Sand's Grand Haven site. What happens
to this area once the site is mined out remains up to the Company and Grand
Haven Township. The eventual development of this site poses,significant
opportunities and requires thoughtful consideration. There is much
sand yet to be mined but the 75 year estimated reserve consiIders a speci-
fic rate of withdrawal. If for some reason sand was to be removed at a
rate which surpasses that expected, the entire area might beiready for de-
velopment in considerably less time. It seems essential that a detailed
site plan be developed and approved by the Grand Haven Township Board of
Supervisors, given the uncertai nties concerning subsequent use and reclama-
tion efforts. This site plan should contain reasonable deadlines and
a systematic step-by-step redevelopment schedule.
25

1. Standard Sand Sand Mine (cont.)

E. APC STATUS:
60 :L
.The Standard Sand mining operation in Grand Haven Township was
considered a possible coastal area of particular concern befoi-e P.A.
222 was passed in 1976. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Develop-
ment Commission chose to recognize this area as an APC to demTnstrate
a need for legislation like P.A. 222. In addition, the WMSRDC assigned
this area High priority further emphasizing the general need for sand
mining controls. Now that P.A. 222 has been adopted., rules promogated,
and enforcement begun, the WMSRDC will reduce the priority assigned
to this area from High to Medium. The area will remain a concern
simPlY because it is so large and the resource is so dramatically
affected by mining activity.

2. SAND MINE (GOLDEN TWP.)

al
01

R-
WE

Photograph 111-2
Aerial Vi-ew of Sand Mine in Golden Twp.
MINERAL RESOURCE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

2. Sand Mine (Golden Twp.)

A. LOCATION: Golden Twp., Oceana County T15N-R18W-Sections 17 & 18.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

rri

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY- C)
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

0
OCEANA ,100@0@
WHITE _J@'OSKEGCN CO.
MONTAGUE 'r
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 4 6 p 10 miLES

Figure 111-4
General Location
@EN W,

Sand Mine (Golden Twp.)

2. Sand Mine (Gol.den Twp.) (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Mining at this site began late in 1974. Prior to this time the area
was heavily wooded with an elevat.ion ranging from 640 feet to 740 feet
above sea level. The land being mined is owned by several individuals
and their corporations. These priva'te land hold ings total approx mafely
800 acres, but the extraction of sand is expected to occur on only 160

acres.

Few details are known concerning this relatively new sand mining
operation. The local land owners had apparently invested in this property
expecting that it would someday be developed. These land owners evidently
leased the property and/or sold the mineral rights to the Sand Products..
Corporation so that the land could be leveled and thus made more amendable
to residential development. Although the estimated life expectancy of this
operation is not known, it is thought to be a relatively short term
effort taking perhaps 20 or 25 years to complete.

Approximately 25 acres of land lay'exposed and subject to active
mining. The site is less than one half mile from the Sahara Sands and
Juniper Beach subdivisions. The site lies adjacent to Silver Lake State
Park. Figure 111-5 describes the general setting and the positon of
adjacent land uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Major concern.s stelm from the site's proximity to nearby residential
areas and the Silver Lake State Park (another WMSRDC recognized APC). In-
creased noise, traffic, road wear, and loss of asthetic values have been
labled as potential problems. The absence of any known reclalmation plan is
considered a major deficiency.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Almost nothing is known about the operator's mining plan or subse-
quent use. It is hoped that the DNR, using P.A. 222, will be able to pin
down Sand Products Corporation intentions as well as long term development
concepts envisioned by the existing land owners.

2. Sand Mine (Golden Twp-)

Pr.p LEGEND
erty Owned by Sand Mining Interests

Area Currently Mined
Silver I Lake State Park /6:-01A)EN BROADCASTI
CROPS (APC)
Agricultural Use
..... .... . ... V,'.
Residential-Use

d
..........
Vacant Woo'ed Land

...... ... ..
. . . ........
. ... .... . .. ........
..........
........ ...
... ........
SCALE
. ...... ....

. . . . . . . . . .@
1 inch 2,640 feet

..... ........
........... ........
....................
........... ........
HOLIDAY
....... ... -:X;X
......... LAKE IAPC

..... ........
.................
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

S I LN. -H 1, A K E
1) U N E S (A PC)
............ ................ ...

...................

...........................................
................................... .. . .
..................
....... .................... . ...
.......................... ....
.............................. I....... s I LVE R
........................
LAKE (APCJ
....................
...................................
...................................
..................................
.................................
................................
...............................
................ ....
...............
............ , ............
........................
............
.................
................
............

Figure 111-5
Site Description
Sand Mine (Golden Twp.)

2. Sand Mi-ne (Golden Twp.) (co.nt.)

E APC STATUS:
The Sand Mine operated by Sand Products Corporation in Golden' Township.
met with considerable opposition from local residents and some members of
the DNR staff. The operation demonstrated just how vulnerable du@e lands
were to mining practices. A mining company need not own the land in order
to mine it. A marginal reserve can be made a practical mining investment
given cooperation like that provided by these local land owners.

The mining site was considered as one of the first Region 14 APC's.
DNR interest in the site, motivated by its proximity to Silver Lake State
Park, has perhaps caused the mining op'erator to make certain consessions
regarding operating hours, trucking routes, etc. Sand Products Corporation
was, for instance, required to submit a $20,bOO bond to the Oceana County
Road Commission for possible damages its trucks might inflict'upon area
roads.

This site was originally recognized as a medium priority APC. This
priority will remain unchanged until P.A. 222 is implemented and Sand
Products Corporation obtains a DNR mining permit.

3. CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES

SAND MINE

Photograph 111-3
Aerial View of Construction Aggregates-
Sand Mine

MINERAL RESOURCE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

3. Construction Aggregates - Sand Mine

A. LOCATION: City of Ferrysburg, Ottawa County T8N-Rl6W-Sec. 17 & 18.

NEWAYGO co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NG SUL LIVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N Co.
SPR r@r
A K Ef-n

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
m HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

PORT
SHE N :z
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGE TO\Avp NLU

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMI,ESTOWN

OTTA,WA Co.
0 2 4 6 p I.0MILES ALLEGAN CO.

Figure 111-6
General Location Construction Aggregates Sand Mine

3. Construction Aggregates Sand Mine (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Construction Aggregates Corporation has mined san'd from ts
Ferrysburg site since 1938. The site totals approximately 386 ac@es. Much
of the area has already been mined. Some of the area will be left rela-
tively intact as a buffer zone. Approximately 90 acres still remain
a.vailable for extraction. The Construction Aggregate Corporation @intends
to mine this 90 acre parcel until its reserves are exhausted. The company
will then excavate below the water table creating an inland lake connected
to the Grand River, and develop the site for residential and commercial
uses following long range plans accepted by the City of FerrysbUrg..

The site is hidden from view along North Shore Road. The site can be
seen from US-31 and from locations directly across the Grand River in the
City of Grand Haven. The existing dunes extend as much as 730 feet above
sea level while much of the adjacent mined out area is slightly below 600
feet. Future mining will apparently follow existing exposed bluffs in a
north, west, and southerly direction. Figure 111-7 describes the general
area and adjacent land uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS
The Constructi on Aggregates -,Sand Mine, in the City of Ferrysburg,
has been active for the last 40 years. WMSRDC concerns are basically
limited to the criteria previously mentioned: 1) does the operator seek
to minimize the loss of natural and environmental values, and 2) are an-
ticipated recl amation efforts consistent with surrounding land uses and the
community's long range goals.
The Construction Aggregates Corporation has taken care@to screen
mining operations. It is likely that the Company will contiinue this prac-
tice as it Will probably enhance property values for subsequlent develop-
ment. In any event, the DNR will probably require that theicompany main-
tain a buffer zone like that already in existence. A detailed site in-
vestigation is needed to determine whether there exists any endangered
species at this location. Similar areas within the same general vicinity
do contain such protected species. Construction Aggregates has spent both

3. Construction Aggregates Sand Mine (cont.)

q@-

U'.

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet N.BEACH RD.

X.
N. Beach
Co. Park . .........

LEGEND . ..... --------
n6 ...... SA

Existing Construction
Aggregates Mining
Operation

Projected Sand Mining
arbor
Reserves Isl
and
(AP
Additional duneland owned
0
by Construction Aggregates v,
.Corporation El
POWER
City of Ferrysburg Pro ert Qp& PLAN
p
(Undeveloped)
Property Owned by the City
FM
Musical Fountain
of Grand Haven (Undeveloped)''

Kitchel Dune and Central
CITY of GRAND
Michigan University Dune Qr
Preserve HAVEN
F-7 Residential Use
-@A A@
Industrial Use
Private.
Marina

Figure 111-7
Site Description
Construction Aggregates Sand Mine

3. Construction Aggregates - Sand Mine (cont.)

time and effort preparing a development plan which is acceptable to the
City of Ferrysburg and has been adopted as part of the City's long range
objectives. WMSRDC staff still remain a little apprehensive con@erning
the implementation of this development scheme without a predetermined
schedule. Construction Aggregates has numerous sand and gravel mining
sites within Region 14, some of which are now abandoned, none of which
have been reclaimed.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The enactment and enforcement of P.A. 222, the Sand Dune Protection
and Management Act of 1976, require that the DNR monitor all sand mining
operations within designated sand dune areas. The dunelands owned by
Construction Aggregates in the City of Ferrysburg have recently been desig-
nated for protection by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission. Con-
struction Aggregates is required to obtain.a DNR sand mining permit. The
Company's anticipated cooperation, together with the DNR's regular surveil-
lance program, should insure comptiance with submitted plans.

E. APC STATUS:
The Construction Aggregates sand mining operation at Ferrysburg was
considered early as an APC. Its.recognition as such by the West Michigan
Shoreline Regional Development Commission served to exemplify two factors:
1) there is a real- need.for sand mining legislation, and 2.) this site
affords tremendous opportunities for the local community once it is, in fact,
reclaimed and developed. The site was originally recognized as a high
priority APC. In that P.A. 222 is now being implemented, a High priority
classification might be unwarranted. This area will, however, con,tinue to
be of enormous concern simply because of the potential its anticipated
development holds for the City of Ferrysburg and the entire Northwest Ottawa
County community. Priority will be reduced from High to MedJum.

4. NUGENT SAND AND CAMPBELL, WYANT, &
CANNON MINERAL RESOURCE AREA

'5hmggp

Photograph 111-4
Aerial View of Nugent Sand and CWC
Sand Mines

MINERAL RESOURCE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area

A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, Muskegon County, T9N-R17W-Section 3.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA Q

WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE
HOLTON
G)
C)

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NORT S U L L I VA N
S E,
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON C--
OTTAWA
S P R I
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-8
RYE NWO

General Location
Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Reso-urce Area

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Nugent Sand Company owns an estimated 440 acres west of bncoln
Road in the City of Norton Shores. The Campbell, Wyant Cannon qoundry
Company owns approximately 85 acres adJacent to and north of the @ugent
Sand site. Both operations have been in existance for many years Al-
though technically owned by separate.entities, mining operations have
apparently merged so as to form one site. Of the total 525 estimated
acres at this location, 220 acres have already been mined. Dunes in the
area range from 730 feet above sea level at their highest point, to below
610 feet in the mined areas. The operators have app arently removed sand
in some areas down to ground water level. They have, in fact, created a
SMdll 15 acre lake on Nugent Sand's portion of the site.

All mining activity is well screened from Lincoln Road and residen-
tial development east of the site. The mining operation is.relatively
well hidden even from the Lake Michigan side except for a 400 ft. section
of beach, midway along the site's length, near where the small lake was
dug.

Detailed information regarding the operator's future plans and the.
site's life exp(zctancy is not yet available. The site has significant
reserves still remaining. It is expected that the operators will continue
to mine this area until these reserves are exhausted. This mining opera-
tion could last another twenty or more years.

Figure 111-9 describes this general area and adjacent land uses.
Photographs 111-5 and 111-6 show the extent of the mined area as seen
from both sides of Winnetaska Road. Photograph 111-7 examin s current
erosion control efforts implemented by the Nugent Sand Compan .
y

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource,Area (cont.)

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet

Muskegon Country Club
Golf Course

--a

SHERMAN
LVD.

. . .......... .

Lincol
yA
Park

Man Made Lake
77

0:'
.... ...... ....

L
L incol n
...... ....
School

Muskegon Heights MINOLE RD.
Water F.1 tration

LEGEND
R@

Duneland owned by the
Sand Company and the Campbell,
ILE-
Wyant, and Cannon Foundry
C
ompany

Existing Nugent Sand and CWC
Mining Site
Surrounding Residential Use

Figure 111-7
:3

Site Description
Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area (cont.)

IX"
V.

77S
Mm, V%R

Photograph 111-5
Nugent Sand Co., North of Winnetaska Road

4o Z.
mk
A@N tl,11,11

V
"Oil
-11
4N

Photograph 111-6
Nugent Sand Co., South of Winnetaska Road

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area (cont.)

Photograph 111-7
Nugent Sand Co., Erosion Control-Efforts
near the western end of

Winnetaska Road

4., Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area (cont.)

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The Nugent Sand Company and Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry@Company
have done well in screening their mining operations. In fact , of the major
mining sites located in Region 14, this particular site is the largest, and
yet the least noticable, in terms of actual mining activity. Nuk t Sand
g@n
operators have, however, just recently begun the mining of sand on what is
known as Tyler Dune,.a heavily wooded dune which separates the Nugent Sand
mining site from residential development in the Idlewild Resort. A local
court decision allows the removal of this sand despite protests from
residents in the Tyler Dune area. It seems, however, that the Company has
chosen to voluntarily comply with a DNR request asking that they delay the
mining ofthe Tyler Dune area until Nugent Sand has submitted their re-
quired Environmental Impact Statement.

Little is known about reclamation plans or@subsequent uses expected
for this site. The City of Norton Shores has entertained many ideas. as to
what might work for this location once mining has stopped. Barrie Greenbie
and Leo Jakobson, from the University of Wisconsin, Department of Urban
and Regional Planning, prepared a comprehensive land use plan for much of
'No.rton Shores dune areas in.September 1969. Their findings appeared-as a
fifth volume in a series of reports done concerning Muskegon County shore-
lands. This particular report was entitled The Urban Dunes Area, Volume V,
Norton Shores Pilot Area Plan. The Greenbie and Jakobson report suggests
that much of the mined areas might eventually be designated as a Dunes
Intensive Development Area. These areas have already undergone extensive
alteration due to mining activity and are thus thoug'ht more suitable for
intensive urban use. The authors define this intensive use as high density
residences, motels, marinas, restaurants, and other compati.ble facilities.
Several years later, in June 1972, G. R. Rankin and Leo Jako !bson prepared
,another planning report directed at a more narrowed area of Norton Shores.
.This document was entitled, Norton Shores, North Dunes Distrilct Plan. This
report expanded upon the previous document providing even greater detail
0 concerning proposed development concepts. The Nugent Sand and CWC sites,
received the focus of attention in this plan. The plan calls for a swim-
0 ming lagoon, conservancy z1one, and an urban parkway to be phased in as

4. Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area (cont.)

sand reserves are eventually exhausted. This area is projected as even-
tually containing 1,360 dwelling units,-and a population of 4,080 people.

The City of Norton Shores has again solicited the s F Mr.
Jakobson who is now working to prepare the City's Master Plan. The Nugent
Sand and CWC site will undoubtedly be included as an important element in
this long term planning effort.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Michigan Natural Resource Commission has recently adopted rules
designating sand dune areas in the City of Norton Shores as part of its
enforcement of P.A. 222, the Sand Dune Protection and Management Act of
1976. TheNugent Sand Company and the Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry
Company must eventually prepare an environmental impact statement, a pro-
gressive cell-unit mining and reclamation plan, and a 15-year mining plan
in order to receive a DNR mining permit. With this information and the
continued cooperation.from these mining operators, the.City of Norton Shores
should have a pretty good handle as to what is going to happen in this
area. DNR monitoring and surveillance should insure compliance with sub-
mitted plans.

E. APC STATUS:
The Nugent Sand and CWC Mineral Resource Area was considered as an
early APC. The area was recognized as an APC by the West Michigan
Shoreline Regional Development Commission to emphasize a need for sand mininc
4
legislation. The Commission also recognized the many opportunities that
migh t eventually develop in this area as a result of past mining activi-
ties.

The site was originally consiIdered a low priority APC because of its
isolated nature and previous planning efforts. Sources indipate, however,
that mining operations have been stepped up as a result, perhaps, of P.A.'
222 and its inevitable enforcement. Priority for this area will increase,
for the immediate future, until DNR can begin its enforcement of P.A. 222
and. the City of Norton Shores has completed its Master Plan. Priority will
shift from Low to Medium.

5. PIGEON HILL

114

m
M Mi
om

Photograph 111-8
Aerial View of "Pigeon Hill"
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

5. Pigeon Hill

A. LOCATION: City of Muskegon, Muskeg on County, TION-R17W-Section 28.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL4

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
0

N 0 R T 9 S U L I I V A N
S ES`-@@
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

Mv KEGON C.
OT TAWA CO.
SPRI
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON W

0 2 6 8 10 &AILES

Figure III-10
G R fEN WO

@S+EG LIIV"
SU

0 RT
SKEG07N

General Location Pigeon Hill

5. Pigeon Hill (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Pigeon Hill area was at one time a dune area similar in character
to that of Muskegon State Park, located just north of the Pigeon Hill site on
the opposite side of the Muskegon-Lake Channel. The Pigeon Hill Area was
mined-out many years ago leaving a sparsely vegetated rolling landscape
which has remained essentially abandoned.

The area consists of approximately 170 acres and is basically divided
into two large parcels. The largest parcel, nearly 100 acres, is owned
by :the City of Muskegon. The smaller parcel lies south of the City property
.and contains almost 70 acres. 'This smaller parcel is still owned by Sand
Products Corporation, the mining compa-ny which extracted sand at this loca-
tion beginning in the early.1940's.

The Pigeon Hill area was mined down to the ground water table and is.
in some spots below 580 ft. above sea level. Ridge areas adjacent to
Bluffton School and residential properties found south of the site are in
some places above 660 ft. in elevation. Most of the area is between 580
ft. and 590, ft. The Pigeon Hill area is mostly surrounded by private
residential development. Although considerable in size, access to this
site is somewhat limited. Fulton Street, running north of the si te along
the Muskegon Lake Channel, provides the only public access to the City's
property (refer to Photograph 111-9). The site does, however, share 2,150
ft. of Muskegon Lake frontage.

.47

5. Pigeon Hill (cont.)

gm&

im
g
, fill. I E
MIN

Photograph 111-9
Access to "Peninsula Park" off Fulton Street

5. Pigeon Hill (cont.)
Figure III-11 will describe the area's general setting and adjacent land uses.

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet

MUSKEGON STATE
PARK

Naval Reserve Station

U.S. Coast
Guard
... MUSKEGON LAKE
Station LJ

Pere Marquette Par
B lu f f ton School

Muskegon Cottage Grove
Water Boat Launch
Works

.............

......... ...
......... ...

LEGEND

Portion of Pigeon Hill Owned VA
by the City of Muskegon
Portion of Pigeon Hill Owned . . . . . .
by Sand Products Corporation

Additional Property owned by
the.City of Muskegon

Residential Use

AD Figure III-11
Site Description
Pigeon Hill

5. Pigeon Hill (cont.)

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The Pigeon Hill area holds tremendous development potential for the
City of Muskegon. The site will play a critical role in the redev I elopment
and revitalization of Muskegon's lakefront. Great care must be gi en to
the design and implementation of proposed development concepts.

Concerns center upon just what kind of development should occur at the
Pigeon Hill site. The area seems particularly suited to recreational uses
and is therefore recognized and categorized as a Recreation Area of Parti-
cular Concern. The community seems fairly supportive regarding this pro-
posed use, yet there remains some debate as to whether recreational activi-
ties should be limited to passive uses, li'ke picnic areas and campgrounds,
or developed for active recreation with marinas, swimming pools, hotel
complex, etc.

The City of Muskegon has entertained many varying ideas concerning
the development of the Pigeon Hill site. The most recent of these concepts
was articulated by Leo Jakobscin and associates in a report entitled,
Muskegon Lake: A Study of Opportunities, published in June 1974. The
following excerpt summarizes the suggested development plan: "The develop-
ment proposals include creation of lagoons and boat-mooring facilities in
the lower areas surrounded by marinas and service facilities such as
restaurants and hotels. A shopping plaza is also proposed, in conjunction
with townhouse apartments, an entertainment complex, an indoor recreation
center, and a convention center."

The development plans summarized in the above quotation have been re-
ceived with'mixed feelings. Much of what has been suggestediholds. con-
siderable promise. Many people feel, however, that a development like that
des,cribed could significantly hamper attempts to redevelop and promote
downtown Muskegon. If done properly, the development of Pi@geon Hill will,
in fact, complement the revitalization of Muskegon's entire lakefront, in-
cluding the City's Central Business District. Limited City resources might,
however, modify the rather grandiose development scheme described above in
favor of a more realistic approach.

5. Pigeon Hill (cont.)

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission proposes
a fresh look at the Pigeon Hill site. The City of Muskegon and the Region
14 Commission will asse ss present plans, suggest appropriate alte natives,
re-evaluate economic and environmental impacts, and supply a detailed site
plan for the Pigeon Hill area to be used in the implementation of Ia
Muskegon Lake total development strategy. The City of Muskegon and the
Region 14 Commission will undertake this planning responsibility during
their upcoming 1978-79 fiscal year.

E. APC STATUS:
The Pigeon Hill site was recognized as an important APC from the very
beginning. The Region 14 Commission assigned the area High Regional Pri-
ority. This priority designation is expected to remain High throughout
the planning and implementation of development strategies for Muskegon's
lakefront.

6. SWETT PROPERTY

-50 R

M
IN
OW,
M

gg'g

Qv -

Photograph III-10

Aerial View of the Swett Property
in the City of Norton Shores

RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

6. Swett Property

A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, Muskegon County, T9N-R17W Section 14.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C_
z
WHITE m
MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE >
HOLTON

HITEHALL]

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
0

_Z_ NORT S U L L I VA N
S
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON C_
SID OT TA INA Co.
L A K'
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 8 10 MILES

AD
Figure 111-12
RYE NWO

LSUL'IV FC H I
ORT L

General Location -'Swett Property

6. Swett Property (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The area of landreferred to as the Swett Property consists of 48 acres
and is located north of Mona Lake Channel with approximately bUU Tt. frontage
on Mona Lake and 1,100 ft. on Lake Michigan. The easternmost portion of this
land has been extensively mined for sand. The remaining area5 approximately
33 acres, is heavily wooded and primarily undisturbed except for the entrance
roads, two outbuildings, and an old residence.

The site currently borders an active sand mining area of approximately
36 acres, which is owned and operated by Textron, Inc. The only other ad-
jacent parcel is owned by the Mona Shores School District and consists of
92 acres w.ith 2,800 feet of Lake Michigan frontage.. Within the same vicinity
is a 10 acre parcel referred to as Whitey's Woods. (The school
district land and Whitey's Woods are each recognized by the WMSRDC as
Recreational Areas of Particular Concern). Just across the Mona Lake
Channel is a large parcel owned by the Maranatha Bible and Missionary Con-
ference.

Photograph III-11 shows much of the disturbed area as seen at the site.
The dune ridge in the background is still actively mined by Campbell, Wyant
and Cannon Foundry Company, a subsidiary of Textron,'Inc. Photograph 111-12-,
shows the relatively undisturbed areas still remaining at this site. Figure
111-13 describes the area's general setting and ownership pattern.

6. Swett Property (cont.)

...........

Photograph III-11
Scene as viewed midway into Swett Property
looking east in the direction toward Lake Harbor Road
showing the extent of past and present sand mining activity.

Photograph 111-12
Scene as viewed looking west showing
extensive natural area and Lake Michigan
in background.

S,,,iett Property (cont.)

Irk
C,

.................

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet
liendric

LEGEND

ED Swett Property
Mona Shores School District Property

Whitey's Woods*

Textron (CWC) Sand Mi ne

Maranatha Bible Conference Grounds

Residential Use

Figure 111-13
Si te Description - Swett Property

50'

6. Swett Property (cont.)

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The City of Norton Shores has worked for many years to purchase the
Swett Property so as to provide recreational access to Lake Michigan, Mona
Lake, and Mona Lake Channel. The City of' Norton Shores has applied@ for
Land and Water Conservation Funds offered by the Michigan Departme t of
Natural Resources. It appears that the DNR will provide funds to purchase
this property on a 50-50,match basis. The property has been valued at
approximately $300,000. The City will apparently offer capital improve-
ment funds as its 50% share of the total purchase.
0

The Swett Property has been recognized as an area of particular con-
cern because it holds tremendous-opportunities for recreational use.
Acquisition of the Swett Property would give the City its only local access
to Lake Michigan, even though Norton Shores borders approximately seven
miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. This site is a key element in the City's
@overall development,strategy. The area's eventual use and subsequent
'management is a major concern which warrants prudent and careful planning.
Other concerns center upon possible conflicts from adjacent land uses and
improved access.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
In addition to the funds needed for acquisition, the City of Norton
Shores. has applied and is expected to receive 1979 CZM Planning Funds as
being,administered by Michigan's Coastal Zone Management Program. These
funds are expected to total $35,000 with $7,000 being supplied as match
by the City. These funds are to be used to plan the development of this
site once it is acquired by Norton Shores.

The City of Norton Shores has no immediate long range plans for the
Swett Property other th .an to provide public access. The use 'of Water and
Conservation funds in acquiring the site places certain restrlictions on
how it might be developed. The City will use its CZM money to prepare a
total site plan which will describe anticipated relationships to adjacent
lands including the Mona Shores School@District property, "Whitey's Woods,"
and Textron@s current mining site. The City's planning efforts will more

57
0

6. Swett Pro.perty (cont.)

than likely concentrate on providing access to the site with particular
attention given the improvement of Lake Harbor Bridge and its practical
alternatives.

E. APC STATUS:
The Swett Property was recognized by the WMSRDC as a Medium Priority
APC in August 1976. Continuous efforts by the City of Norton Shores
directed at purchasing this property has stimulated a great deal of in-
terest among citizens throughout Muskegon County. The development of this
site and adjacent lands could have very significant impacts upon the en-
.tire regional community. Regional priorities have therefore shifted-into
high gear in support of Norton Shores efforts.

7. PIONEER COUNTY PARK

7, 7N
0 -77,77,,@

Photograph 111-13
Pioneer Park Lodge

RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

Pioneer County Park

A. LOCATION: Laket on Township, Muskegon County, TlON-R17W-Sectioln 6.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

C 1@@
OCEANA

rn
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NORT S U L L I VA N
S E,
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON C.
OT TA'7777 0.
SPRI
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 11 6 6 10 MILES

Figure 111-14
G R fEN W 0

7
R T
G @QN
,KE

General Location Pioneer County Park

7. Pioneer County Park (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Muskegon County's Pioneer Park consists of 145 acres and has a'pproxi-
mately 2,200 feet frontage on Lake Michigan. The Park is heavily wooded,
grass covered, with blacktopped access road and parking lots. The park
has been developed for multi-purpose recreation facilities including con-
cession stands, playground, picnic area, 302-trailer and tent campsites
(w ith electricity), tennis courts, baseball diamond, etc. The entire park
is surrounded primarily by vacant land with several homes concentrated
along Lake Michigan and Scenic Drive. Figure 111-15 shows the location of
-various park facilities.

MAJOR CONCERNS:
The Pioneer Park has proven to be.a valuable resource for Mus kegon.
'County. It is an attractive park located in close proximity to Muskegon's
major population centers. The Park is open and used all year round. It
experiences heavy use during the summer months and is at times overcrowded.
Park expansionis a major concern.

A secondary concern associated with the park stems from the shoreline's
general erosion problems. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
has designated most of Laketon Township Lake Michigan shoreline as a
"High Risk Erosion Area." Although recreational use seems appropriate for
such areas, erosion problems do at times concern park users and administra-
tors. Pioneer Park, together with other owned public lands in this same
general vicinity, has been considered as a possible location for testing
-innovative erosion.control structures. Pioneer Park is grouped with these
other public lands as a composite.APC - High Risk Erosion Area, which will
be discussed later in this chapter.

Photograph 111-14 will give you some idea as to the severity of erosion
along Pioneer Park.

1). MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Muskegon County Metropolitan Planning Commission has just recently
prepared a Muskegon County Recreation Plan. This plan identifies Pioneer

7. Pioneer County Park (cont.)

;;t@S --i`

N
-n!

Camp C,
x
ground x

x
Playground x x x x
ennis
0
xxx ourts
x

x
0
Lodge xx
x
x
xx x
x x
x xx x Baseball
@TAI
Diamond
h, ME
q @"'g
t." gi
I :)Urr
71
SCALE Q,

. ........ . .
1 inch 1,000 feet
M

W:'
Y,

LEGEND

Pioneer County Park Boundary

x Picnic Area
En Residential Use
vacant Private Land

Figure 111-15
Site Description
v :1

Pioneer County Park

7. Pioneer County Park (cont.)

Aq,
k,fi,,A

E@V@,

M,
777

Photograph 111-14
Shoreline Erosion at Pioneer County Park

7. Pioneer County Park (cont.)

Park as a Regional Park, a park which serves multi-governmental un'Its. The
plan establishes several short-term objectives to be met by the County within
-the next five years. Thefollowing is just one of the objectives @iisted:

"Acquisition of acreage to further expand county regional par
acreage. Emphasis will be given to acreage having lake or
river frontage, adjacent to existi'ng parks, or containing
unique environmental features such as sand dunes."

Pioneer Park seems a likely candidate for expansion given its heavy use and
its location along Lake Michigan. The Muskegon County Metropolitan Planning
Commission has, in fact, indicated that it will prepare a Master Plan'for
Pioneer Park in 1979.

E. APC STATUS:
The Muskegon County Pioneer Park was recognized as a Recreation Area
of Particular Concern in July 1976. This APC was viewed as an important
resource.' The Regional Commission did, however, assign it low priority
simply because its present management seemed particularly appropriate.
Since 1976, the Muskegon County Metropolitan Planning Commission has pre-
pared the Recreation Plan referred to in the previous section. The Region
14 Commission supports the intentions outlined in the plan. Regional
Priority will jump from Low to Medium in anticipation of the Muskegon
County Metropolitan Planning Commission's Master Plan for Pioneer Park.

8. CEDAR POINT TOWNSHIP PARK

Treacherous Beach Access at Cedar Point Park
Photograph 111-15
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

8. Cedar Point Township Park

A. LOCATION: Golden Township, Oceana County, T15N-R18W-Section 4.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

>
C)
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY
BANKS GRANT OT TO OR ENWOOD

OCEANA
SKEGC N Co.
WHITE
... MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 6 8 10 miLES

Figure 111-16
General Location Cedar Point Park
'@R @EN W,

8. Cedar Point Township Park (cont.

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Cedar Point Township Park is owned and maintained by Oceana County.
The park is approximately fifteen acres in size. The area is wooded with
lood ground cover. There is no specific parking area and faciliti I
3 wrs are
'limited. The park has'a picnic and swimming area, a handpump for Iater,
and pit type toilets. The park is surrounded by privately owned lan-d,
sparsely developed for residential use. Figure,III-17 provide a descrip-
tion of the park site.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The importance of the Cedar Point Township Park is well recognized and
articulated in the Recreation Plan for Oceana County, prepared by the WMSRDC
-in 1977. This park lies between two major recreation attractions: Silver-
Lake State Park, and the Village of Pentwater - Pentwater Lake (Both areas
are also recognized as APC's). As such, the land surrounding Cedar Point
Park is subject to increasing development pressure. Park expansion is con-
sidered a major concern and is envisioned as a County objective.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
We need to more fully explore the possibili@ty of expanding the park.
A detailed comprehensive plan which outlines future park development would
seem appropriate. An acquisition proposal, site plan, improved access, and
improved facilities are each important planning elements.

17. APC STATUS:
The Cedar Point Township Park was originally assigned low Regional
Priority. Interest in this park has continued ever since it was nominated
as APC. Regional Priority has increased from low to medium. 'The West
Michigan'Shoreline Regional Development Commission seeks to provide what-
ever-assistance Oceana County might need regarding the future@development
of its Cedar Point Park.

8. Cedar Point Township Park (cont.)

Restroom

X
X

X
steps to Beach- X
now impassable ..Dilapidated
Bath House

j-Y

C.)
AY

A@4

LEGEND

Approximate Park Boundary

x Picnic Area

SCALEJ
1 inch 5001feet

Figure 111-17
Site Description

Cedar Point Park

9. WHITEY'S WOODS

9,k;

@@p,,,- 0@
"H
oll
\ 31,11 "Ns 4

Chair Swing in Privately Owned and Developed Picnic Area
Photograph 111-16
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

9. Whitey's Woods

A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, Ml!skegon County, T9N-R17W-Section 14.

0 CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

m
HIT MONTAGUE
IVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

C)
VHITEHALI

DALTON CEDAR CREEK
FRUITLAND

LAKETO.N S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

0
0
NORT S U L I I VA N
S ES
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON C
OT TAWA Co.
S P R I
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-18
r: YGRE NWO

General Location - Whitey's Woods

9. Whitey's Woods (cont.)

13. DESCRIPTION:
Whitey's Woods is a privately owned recreation area set asi4by its
owner for his own enjoyment as well as that of local residents. The entire
parcel is'10 acres in size. The site is located in a very heavily wooded
sand dune area with nature trails, picnic area, and two campsites. The
Indian Tepee located on the site is a familiar landmark to local residents.

This APC, referred to as "Whitey's Woods," is entirely surrounded by
undeveloped vacant land. It borders the Mona Shores School District pro-
perty on its west and south side. It is in the same general vicinity as
-the Swett Property and the Textron Sand Mining site previously described.
Figure 111-19 graphically illustrates land ownership patterns and existing
'land use.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Much of the City of Norton Shores is subject to development pressure.
'Vacant dune and sh.oreland-areas are particularly susceptible to this pres-
sure. This specific ten acre parcel is, however, completely surrounded by
large undeveloped land holdings. Whitey's Woods is essentially landlocked
with no formal access other than by established trails over privately
owned property.

The acquisition of the Swett Property by the City of Norton Shores could,
have a direct effect upon much of the area to its north including Whitey's
Woods. Improved access to the Swett Property might lead to improved access
to both the Mona Shores School District land and Whitey's Woods. Much of
this area might then be developed. The kind and extent of thlis development
is, of course, a major concern.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
It is important that the City of Norton Shores take undeir consideration
'what might happen to area's like Whitey's Woods once the Swett Property is
developed. It is for this reason that the City has chosen to look at this
entire vicinity as part of its long range planning efforts. It must be
decided early whether or not areas like Whitey is Woods should be preserved

9. Whitey's Woods (cont.)

... 77.
...................

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet .......
endric

LEGEND

Swett Property
Ell Mona Shores School District Property
'Whitey's Woods

Textron (CWC) Sand Mine

Maranatha Bible Conference Grounds
ED Residential Use

Figure 111-19
Site Description - Whitey's Woods
72

9. Whitey's Woods (cont.)

for recreation use or developed for other more demanding purposes.

Barrie Greenbie and Leo Jakobson.from the University of Wisconsin
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, proposed several devel'pment
concepts for the shoreland area between Muskegon Lake and Mona La:e.
These concepts appeared in a document prepared for the City of Noifton
Shores and Muskegon County entitled, Norton Shores Pilot Area Plan, pub-
lished September, 1969. This plan designates the areas surrounding the
Swett Property as 'Tunes Open Space and Limited Development Area." The.
0 following excerpt describes the intended meaning behind this designation.

"The Open Space and Limited Development Areas in public owner-
ship generally should be kept for park purposes and open space.
Those in private ownership may be developed under strict con"
0 trols designed to preserve the natural plant cover."
Mr. Jakobson is now in the process of preparing a Master Plan for the
City of Norton Shores. He and the City will review past proposals in light
of the current situation. Whether the concepts described in the previou sly
mentioned report remain vali-d has yet to be determined.

E. APC STATUS:
Whitey's Woods was originally assigned low Regional Priority simply
0 because its current use seemed stable and appropriate. This area will be
the subject of increased interest once the City of Norton Shores finally
acquires the Swett Property. Regional Priority will move from Low to
High in support of the City of Norton Shores and its proposed planning
efforts.

0 13

10. CHEYENNE HILLS, FAWN PARK

Eroded Bluff in Cheyenne Hills and Fawn Park Vicinity
Photograph 111-17
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park

A. LOCATION: Benona Township, Oceana County T14N-R19W-Sections 13 & 24.

MA ON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

0
OCEANA lco/@'
SKEGCN CO.
WHITE
.... MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
-Z

H I T E H A L L

F R U I T L A N DDALTON CEDAR CREEK

4 6 S 10 M ILES

Figure 111-20
General Location - Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park
G VRE N W,
AG E

IT LL
,/ AHE UH A

10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Cheyenne Hills and Fawn Park (the latter now is called Deerwood Sub-
division) are two adjacent subdivisions along Lake Michigan, thelfirst
being north of the second. Both areas have been developed for residential

use.

This shoreline area has been subjected to severe wind and wave erosion.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated this area,
along with most of Benona Township, as a High Risk-Erosion Area. The DNR
estimates that the bluff in this vicinity is receding on the average by
as much as 7.7 feet per year (recession rates wore calculated by comparing
1939 and 1974 aerial photographs). Erosion control structures have
proven to have minimal effect upon the natural tendencies inflicted by
pounding waves and blowing sand. The Cheyenne Hills and Fawn Park area is
characterized by its high steep bluff and narrow beach. Figure 111-21
examines the location of existing structures and their proximity to the
eroding bluff.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns center upon the area's erosion problems. Structural controls
need to be coordinated by local property owners in order to maximize their
net effectiveness. Nonstructural management controls, such as building
setbacks and restrictive construction standards, could be developed and
enforced to help eliminate future hardships associated with erosion damage.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
It would appe ar that most property owners in this area are more or
less satisfied with the current conditions. No one likes their beach
eroded away, or their home or cottage threatened. But when1forced to
choose between staying where they are, or moving inland, mo st residents
will remain.

Homes and cottages might be relocated but that will depend upon in-
dividualowners. The township could institute a program which would trans-
fer development rights, in particularly hazardous areas, to locations

10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park (cont.)

Cheyenne Hills

Deerwood Subdivision

LEGEND

in Structures Endangered
by Erosion
4
BIGSBEE
ZR@ LAKE RD.
SCALE GpANT
1 inch 2,000 feet

Figure 111-21
Site Description
Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park
L

10. Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park (cont.)

which are less dangerous, but that is unlikely. The township could
acquire open.space areas and preserve them for recreation, but thai too,
is highly unlikely. The home and cottage owners in this area migh@ 111ur-t!
easily coordinate their own erosion control systems to maximize th

chances for their success.

E. APC STATUS:
The Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park subdivisions were considered as High
Risk Erosion Areas of Particular Concern in hopes that so me assistance
might eventually be given Benona Township and the affected property
owners. 'This area was originally assigned low priority, reflecting the
township's interest reg@rding nonstructural erosion control alternatives.
Since this area was nominated, Lake Michigan levels have lowered, which
has resulted in reduced erosional activity. We can be sure the Lake
Michigan levels will rise again, but just when is uncertain. Property
owners have lost the sense of urgency which at o.ne time motivated consid-
erable concern. Regional Priority will remain low until the community
shows some interest in Region 14's planning assistance.

11. IDLEWOOD BEACH

SIM I

The Idlewood Beach Bluff
Photograph 111-18
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

Idlewood Beach

A, LOCATION: Park Township, Ottawa County T5N-R16W-Section 28.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N GIR--@-Q'@ S U L L I VAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N C 0.
SPRIt@r
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

NIN

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN Lu

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMIESTOWN
A-,
N
OTTA,WA co,
ALLEGAN cc).
0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-22
General Location - Idlewood Beach

Idlewood Beach (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Idlewood Beach is yet another subdivision along Lake Michigan which
is subject to excessive beach and foredune erosion. This particular
stretch of lakefront . propertie.s is heavily developed for resident@al use.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated most of
Park Township's shoreline as a High Risk Erosion Area. The DNR estimates
that the bluff in the Idlewood area is receding on the average by as much
as 4.5 feet per year (recession rates were calculated by comparing 1939
and 1974 aerial photographs). The use of structural erosion controls has
provided temporary relief to those home and cottage owners which can
afford such devices. Figure 111-23 graphically describes the existing
situation.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion problems are, of course, the major concern for the area. The
use of structural erosion controls should be coordinated by local property
owners so that one such owner is not adversely affected by his neighbor's
attempts to combat erosional forces. Nonstructural management controls,
which emphasize appropriate building setbacks and institute workable per-
formance standards for new construction, should be developed and enforced
so as to minimize future problems associated with shoreline erosion.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Lowered Lake Michigan levels have been encouraging to local shore-
line residents. These residents are pretty much satisfied with current
conditions. However, we know from past experience that the,lake will
eventually rise again and thus increase associated erosional problems.

For the time being, it seems appropriate that the local property
owners consider consolidating their erosion control effortslin a unified
and coordinated program. Looking at the long term, Park Township might
investigate the use of innovative nonstructural management controls aimed
at currently undeveloped shoreline areas to eliminate what could become
a future erosion problem.

81.

Fl- t3@
0

(D
ri)
C)
P)

0
0
C)
0
@-h rt
(D
(D
rt
(D

L A K E M I C H I G A N
a Bloom
U)
a
C@- clt -n musumau w a ow
rD @. a a a s
rD (o a 0
::@ cl = u
0 (D -S u w
co 0 (n rD a w
N) 0-

0) clt I

S- 0 w
0 slio
LAKE

168th" AVE.

Idlewood Beach (cont.)

E. APC STATUS:
The Idlewood Beach area was recognized as an APC simply because of its
high shoreline recession rate. The Commission had hoped that su Ich recog-
nition might someday bring assistance to the Idlewood area. The@Region
14 Commission, being a planning agency, is only able to help the@ Town-
ship regarding alternative nonstructural management techniques. ICurrent
residents and prospective property owners are, however, more interested in
physically stopping shoreland erosion processes than in mitigating future
damage by instituting stricter construction standards and building setbacks.
The Region 14 Commission therefore assigned the Idlewood Beach APC Low
Regional Priority.. Regional Priority will probably remain Low unless
stimulated by increased local interest.

12. POSTMA SUBDIVISION

Photograph 111-19

HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

0 84

12. Postma Subdivision

A.. LOCATION: Port Sheldon Township, Ottawa County T6N-R16W-Section 21.

NEWAYGO CO.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N QR:4U'@- S U L L I VA N
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

0 N 0.
MUSKEG
SPRIqr
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PC) R T
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMIESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO.
8 10 miLES ALLEGAN CO.

Figure 111-24
L ENDALE
E
TA LLM AD

Do
L@ 0 TOW
@BLEN N GE RGE N

General Location Postma-Subdivision

12. Postma Subdi vi s i on (cont.

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Postma Subdivision, and areas to its immediate south, are sub-
jected to excessive beach and foredune erosion. Most lakefront Dro-
perties, have already been developed for residential use.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated all of
Port Sheldon Township's shoreline as a High Risk Erosion Area. The DNR
estimates that the bluff in the Idlewood area is receding on.the average
by as much as 4.7 feet per year (recession. rates were calculated by com-
paring 1939 and 1974 aerial photographs). Banks have experienced severe
slumping due to wave attack. Erosion control structures are in constant
need of repair. There are several homes and cottages threatened.
Figure 111-25 describes the area in question.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Beach and dune erosion is the major concern for this APC. Erosion
control structures are at pre sent being'constructed by property owners
with little regard for implications elsewhere up or down the beach. The
use of erosion controls should be coordinated between neigh bors to
increase their effectiveness and minimize adverse consequences. Nonstruc-
tural management techniques should be investigated.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Lakefront residents in Postma Subdivision and along shoreline pro-
perties to the immediate south shou Id perhaps consider a comprehensive
erosion control program. The Township might want to investigate possible
management alternatives like the institution of performance standards,
setbacks, and the transfer of development rights-for thoselareas currently
Vacant.

E. APC STATUS:

The Postma Subdivision and shoreline to its immediate south have
been considered an APC because of their high erosion hazard. The Commission
has assigned the area Low Regional Priority because of limited interest in
nonstructural management techniques. Regional Priority will remain Low
unless stimulated by increased local interest.

En
P-

(D
cn ::s
rt
-C)
0
0
rt,
f-h h
(D
(D
rt rt
(D L A K E M I C H I G A N
a a 0 a a a u on W:m as an

0
U)
C+ Cl+ -n
E3 (D
co

(D -1
00 c v) (D
a- C-)

C+

0 Ln

IDR.

13. GRAY DUNES SUBDIVISION

Photograph 111-20
Shoreline as seen from the beach at Gray Dunes Subdivision

HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

'13. Gray Dunes Subdivision

A. LOCATION: White River Township, Muskegon County T12N-R18W-Section 15.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C-

HIT MONTAGUE
IVE
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL4

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON s EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

-5-

NORT SU L I I VAN
s ?&@S-Z@
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

SKEGON C Lo.
SPR OTTAWA Co.
L
A'
CROCKERY
POLKTbN WRIGHT
A.,

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-26
YRE NWO

General Location - Gray Dunes Subdivision

13. Gray Dunes Subdivision (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Shoreline in the vicinity of Gray Dunes Subdivision is h@avily
developed for residential use. This area is subjected to excessi e beach
and foredune erosion caused by both wind and waves.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated almost
the entire White River Township shoreline as a High Risk Erosion Area. The
DNR has used aerial photographs to estimate bluff recession in the Gray
Dunes area.. The bluff in this area is eroding on the average by as much as
6.0 feet per year. Some erosion-control structures show considerable
deterioration. Erosion problems have forced some property owners to move
houses back from the receding bluff. Dunes in this area are high and
characterized by a steep escarpment. Figure 111-27 provides a general
look at the Gray Dunes area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Beach and dune erosion is the major concern. Existing erosion
control structures h,ave proven ineffective in handling continuous erosion
processes. Some property owners have actually constructed several differ-
ent structures in the last few years only to have each of them fail.
There are a dozen homes and cottages in.this area which are in eminent
danger.

D.. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
A comprehensive erosion control program needs to be developed and
implemented. The Township might investigate nonstructural planning al-
ternatives which could help reduce dangers imposed by improper develop-
ment of shoreland properties.

E. APC STATUS:
Lake Michigan Shoreline, in the vicinity of Gray Dunes !.Subdivision,
is considered an APC because of its excessive.erosion hazard. The Commis-
sion has assigned this area Low Regional Priority. Regional Priority wil I
probably remain at the Low category until interest in nonstructural manage-
V

ment techniques increases.

13. Gray Dunes Subdivision (cont.)

FRUITVALE RD.

Y'gq-
4

@
nnamed
Lake
U

LEGEND

Residential Structures

F7771
Exposed Sand

SCALE EILERS RD.
1 inch ],000 feet

... . ..... .... ..

Figure 111-27
F

Site Description
Gray Dunes Subdivision

14. KIRK PARK

q
IN

gru,

Photograph 111-21

Entrance to Kirk Park

HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR'CONCERN

RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

14. Kirk Park

A. LOCATION: Grand Haven Township, Ottawa County UN-R16W-Section 33.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

S U L L I VA N
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N 0.
7-

SPRIN
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L. L E N D A L E

> 0

P T
SH N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGE TOWN LU

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND IAM'ESTOWN

Co.
OTTAIWA
6 ALLEGAN C;0-
8 10 MILES

Figure 111-28
A V @EN N AECHESTER

TA L L M,
A L. 7LE N D A L SE

General Location Kirk Park

14. Kirk Park (cont..)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Kirk Park is an Ottawa County owned and operated park of approximately
30 acres. The park is very heavily wooded and has a picnic area, p ayground,
cabin, nature trails, an historic monument, and approximately 900 feet of
Lake Michigan frontage. The park is surrounded by private vacant l1nd.
Aside from being a recreational area of significant interest, Kirk Park is
also an area of severe beach and foredune erosion.

The,Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated all of Grand
Haven Township's shoreline as a High Risk Erosion Area. The DNR estimated
that the bluff in this area has receded on the average by as much as 3.1
feet@per year. This erosion has left a very steep, sandy bluff. Figure
111-29 shows the location of various park facilities.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Kirk Park is recognized by the Region 14 Commission as a High Risk
Erosion Area of Particular Concern, and a Recreation Area of Particular Con-
Cern. Each category of concern has its own related issues.

Erosion problems at Kirk Park are the result of both natural and human
associated causes. Wave and wind are, of course, erosional processes which
would exist whether or not the area was developed as a park. There'is, how-
ever, significant problems caused by excessive foot traffic over fragile and
unstable vegetated areas. The Ottawa County Road Commission, which is
responsible for park maintenance, has taken very specific steps to eliminate
unnecessary slope disturbances. Given time, the action evoked by the County
should help to stabilize erosion problems in much of the park's@ upland areas.
As far as shoreline recession is concerned, iVs probably best! that the
County leave well enough alone. If the State of Michigan or t6 U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers were looking to locate an erosion control demonstration
project, Kirk Park might be considered because of its public ow1nership.

Kirk Park is a very viable, heavily used, recreation resourc e. There
are few such areas available to Ottawa County residents. Park expansion is
generally considered a County objective.

14. Kirk Park (cont.)

x x Parking

x
X X
Bath House

@4
LEGEND

Park Boundary

Picnic Area

Exposed sand

SCALE

1 inch 545 feet

Figure 111-29
Site Description
Kirk Park

14. Kirk Park (cont.)

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Continued erosion control is a necessity. The planning of such con-
trols should most likely preceed t,he acquisition of additional park acreage.
I
In fact, the County should probably formulate a comprehensive management
strategy which outlines phased acquisition and relates eventual recreation
development to existing park facilities.

E. APC STATUS:
Ottawa County has shown a great deal of interest in expanding Kirk
Park. It at one time looked hopeful that Kirk Park would be selected for
a, shoreline erosion control demonstration project being conducted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Region 14 Commission therefore assigned
the Kirk Park APC High Regional Priority. Since this original prioriti-
Zation, the Corps has dropped its demonstration.projects suggested for the
West Michigan area and the County Road Commission has done well to stabi-
lize upland erosion problems. The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
have, on the other hand, turned down a recent proposal to purchase addi-
tional adjacent duneland using Land and Water Conservation Funds on a
EIO-50 match basis. Regional Priorities have therefore been reduced.to the
Low category awaiting future developments.

15. TUNNEL PARK

LFW,

Photograph 111-21
The "Tunnel" at Tunnel Park

HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CO-NCERN

15. 'Funnel Park

A. LOCATION: Park Township, Ot tawa County T5N-R16W-Section 21.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAK-ETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N GOZ7@@ SULLIVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEG N
0 0.
SPRIe
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN UJ

PARK
HOL LAND ZEELAND JAMIESTOWN
As
OTTAIWA CO.
0 2 8 10 miLES ALLEGAN CO.

Figure 111-30
@91

General Location Tunnel Park

15. Tunnel'Park (cont.)

13. DESCRIPTION:
Tunnel Park is owned and maintained by Ottawa County. The park totals
approximately 17 acres and contains a picnic area, bathhouse, playground,
I
baseball diamond, 730 feet of beach, and a tunnel running through the dune
I
to the beach. Aside from being an important recreational area, Tunnel Park
is subjected to severe beach and foredune erosion.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated the shore-
line in this vicinity as a High Risk Erosion Area. Although there are no
specific estimates of bluff recession rates for,this particular location,
the shoreline is expected to have receded at least 30 feet in the last 30
years. Upland areas are particularly unstable and dune migration is on-
going. Figure 111-31 shows Tunnel Park's general layout.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Tunnel Park is botha High Risk Erosion Area of Particular Concern,
and a Recreation Area of Particular Concern. Continued erosion and concen-
trated park use each pose specific problems. The Ottawa County Road
Commission has, however, done a great deal to stabilize erosion and main-
tain park facilities. In fact, revegetation efforts at Tunnel Park are
held as an example of just what can be done to control erosion on what
would normally be a migrating dune. The dune face pictured in Photograph
111-21 is protected from foot traffic by a fence which runs parallel to
the beach. The dune itself is made stable by the beach grass planted several
years before by the Ottawa County Road Commission.

11. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Present management of Park facilities appears more than adequate to
i
preserve associate amenities. The.County has developed a Z>YZ@,jLMWLic erosion
control program. Park expansion is not expected and longevity of existing
facilities is anticipated.

E. APC STATUS:
Tunnel Park's importance as a recreation facility in Ottawa County
caused the Regional Development Commission to give it APC status. The

15. Tunnel Park (cont.)

SCALE LEGEND
1 inch 250 feet Park Boundary

x Picnic Area
L@j Exposed Sand

Tunnel

N
Parking
z

B
th
a

x x
x x

x
Baseball
Diamond

4"AIRML.5
2
'M 'j@

@4/

Figure 111-31
Site Description
Tunnel Park

100

15. Tunnel Park (cont.)

1;1@@, <@q- -4

Photograph 111-21
Revegetation at Tunnel Park

101

15. Tunnel Park (cont.)

County's prudent management of this valuable recreation area gave he Region
14 Commission little worry. The Region 14 Commission assigned this@' area
Low Regional Priority. Continued County efforts have caused the Re"gion 14
-Commission to reaffirm its original Low Priority assignment regardi g the
Tunnel Park APC.

102

16. MICHILLINDA BEACH

........ ..

k
y A

Erosion in the Michillinda Area
Photograph 111-23
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

103

16. Michillinda Beach

A. LOCATION: Fruitland Township, Muskegon County T11N-R18W-Sections
11, 13, and 24.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

N A

WHITE
MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON
G)

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
0

-Z- NO RT S U L L I V A N
S @FU/S-Zz--
RAVENNA C HESTE R.
FRUITPORT

Mv KEGON C.
7=71 Co.
SPR
OT

A
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-32
.General Location - Michillinda Beach
VRENWO

@G 'ON
' TKE

104

16. Mich.illinda Beach (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Michillinda Beach subdivision is just one of several ar'as
south of White Lake's channel which is subjected to excessive erosion.
Other areas include Sylvan Beach, Beachmont Woods Plat, John Austin's
Subdivision, and several single owner parcels as well as considerable
property owned by the State of Michigan near Duck Lake.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has designated much of
Fruitland Township's shoreline, including the areas listed above, as a
High Risk Erosion Area. The DNR has compared aerial photographs taken in
1939 with similar photography taken in 1974 and have estimated that the
bluff in some parts of this general vicinity have receded on the average
by almost 6 feet per year. Beach in this area is often narrow and in
some parts of some years non-existent. Banks are high and subjected to
severe slumping. Most erosion control structures have afforded little
Protection. Several homes and cottages are threatened. Figure 111-33
provides a general description of the Michillind a area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion and its control is the primary c Ioncern centered upon the
Michillinda area. It would appear that community members need to cooper-
ate in their efforts in order to effectively combat nature's erosive
forces.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Michillinda management needs are really no different than any of the
High Risk Erosion Areas previously discussed. It might be useful if the
community formulated a comprehensive erosioncontrol program.

Fruitland Township has just recently passed shoreline ioning amend-,
ments. The Township worked closel with the Department of Natural Re-
y I
sources and has incorporated the DNR's suggestions@concerning shoreline
setbacks for undeveloped shoreland areas.

105

16. Michillinda Beach (cont.)

W H I T E L A K E

-c7

c@,@ Ml-

VA
ICHILLINDA RD.

@,ATODD RD.

WABAN INGO RD.

LEGEND

Residential Land Use DUCK LAKE

SCALE

1 inch 2,640 feet

Fi.gure 111-33
Site Description
Michillinda Beach

106

16. Michillinda Beach (cont.)

E. APC.STATUS:
The Michillinda area was considered an APC because of its high bluff
recession rate. Fruitland Township was already working to include shore-
land development provisions in its zoning ordinance. The APC wa� assigned
Low Regional Priority because the Commission coul d do little more for the
property owners than what was already being done. The MichillinL APC
will remain a Low Regional Priority reflecting Fruitland Township's
capable management efforts.

107

17. JUNIPER BEACH & SAHARA SAN.DS

@RA
m
@,p

Erosion in the Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands Vicinity
Photograph 111-24
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

108

17. Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands

A. LOCATION: Golden Township, Oceana County T15N-Rl9W-Sections 7 & 18.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

C)
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

C)
CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO' GR ENWOOD

C)
0C,EA_NA lzlo@
WHITE MONTAGUE SKEGC N C 0.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 .2 d 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-34
/RENW

General Location Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands

109

17. Juniper Beach & Sahara' Sands (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands are two small shoreline subdivi@sons imme-
diately north of Silver Lake State Park in Golden Township. These two
adjacent subdivisons share a shoreline erosion problem worth some consider-
ation. The Michigan Department of Natural.Resources at one time Iestimated
that the bluff in this area had receded on the average by as much as 2 feet
per year. Banks show severe slumping. Erosion control structures show
obvious damage. Many of the cottages in this vicinity are threatened.
Figure 111-35 describes the area's general situation.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion is the major concern. Cooperative erosion control efforts are
0 needed. Setbacks shoul d be imposed regarding currently undeveloped lots.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
This area's management needs mirror those of previously discussed
High Risk Erosion Areas. Planning efforts might more productively focus
upon the formulation of a community-wide erosion control program.

E. APC STATUS:
The Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands subdivisions were recognized as a
Region 14 APC reflecting the community's concern about its erosion problems.
The APC was eventually assigned Low Regional Priority as action rests
mainly with local property owners. The Juniper Beach & Sahara Sands APC
will most likely remain a Low Regional Priority unless something new
develops.

110

1T, Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands (cont.)

Cj
Ay

SCALE

1 inch ],050 feet

go LEGEND

SILVER LAKE subdivision Boundary
STATE PARK I
lial Structures
Resident

Figure 111-35
Site Description
Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands
r

18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park,
Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson Park

Photograph 111-25
"Rip Rap!' protecting Beach Road at Pere Marquette Park

HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

112

18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson Park

A. LOCATION: Laketon Township and the City of Muskegon, Muskegon
County, TlON-R17W-Sections 6, 7, 17, 20, 21, 28,
33. T9N-R17W-Section 3.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA

rn
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL]

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

-Z NORT S U L t I VA N
s E,
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

m KEGON CIO.
T TAWA Co.
SPRI
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTbN WRIGHT

2 6 8 )0 NAILES

Figure 111-36
fGRENWO

General Location - Pioneer Park,
Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park,
and Bronson Park.
113

18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson
Park (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Within Laketon Township and the City of Muskegon are several public
parks, each sharing considerable Lake Michigan shoreline. These park
areas include: Pioneer Park, owned a .nd maintained by Muskegon Ciunty;
Muskegon State Park, owned by the State and operated by the Depa"rtment of
Natural Resources; Pere Marquette Park and Bronson Park, both owned and
maintained by the City of Muskegon. Together these parks make available
almost 6 miles of Lake Michigan Shoreline.

This shoreline is considered a High Risk Erosion Area by Michigan's
Department of Natural Resources. The DNR has estimated that some loca-
tions in this general area have lost on the average, more than 2 feet of
bluff per year. The area has a narrow beach. Banks are slumping severely
in some places.

Figure 111-37 describes existing land uses along this stretch of
Lake Michigan.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion of public shoreline properties is the major concern affect-
ing this particular APC. The location of so many publicly owned shore-
line areas provides a rather unique opportunity regarding the possible
use of innovative erosion control techniques.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The existence of considerable publicly owned Lake Michigan shore-
line was recognized as an opportunity regarding the possible use of
innovative erosion controls. Instead of building structure's to combat
erosive forces, these same processes might be used to build and maintain
natural landforms.
A management package which capitalized'on.the use
of natural erosion controls seems particularly appropriate for this APC.

E. APC STATUS:
The Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and
Bronson Park APC was considered a possible pilot project area for testing

114

18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson Park (cont.)

Fruitland Twp. LEGEND
- - - - - - - - - -
Laketon Twp.
Public Owned'Shoreland
Urban/Residen(ial Use

Pioneer Park

SCALE
VA
1 inch 5,200 feet

MEMORIAL DR.

Muskegon
State Park

MUSKEGON LAKE

Pere
Marquette
Park

0@'

I
'f'M
tylp us egop..,-t.@,

Bronson Park City of Norton Shores

Figure 111-37
L

Site Description
Pioneer Park, Muske gon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson Park

115

18. Pioneer Park, Muskegon State Park, Pere Marquette Park, and Bronson
Park (cont.)

innovative erosion control techniques. The Region 14 Commissionlrecog-
nized this APC in hopes of stimulating some support from the U.Sl@ Army
Corps of Engineers. This support never really materialized, so @he
area was eventually assigned Low Regional Priority. Unless the iocal
community shows some renewed interest, this APC will remain a Low
Regional Priority.

116

19. MONA SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY

Mm,

N101,

The Mona Shores School District Property Located Just
North of the Swett Property and the Textron Sand Mine Pictured
Photograph III-Z6
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
@Iv

117

194 Mona Shores School District Property

A. LOCATI'ON:. City of Norton Shores, Muskegon County, T9N-R16W-Section 14.

@i CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

WHITE MONTAGUE
ZE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON
Q

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR
CREEK

'ZI
LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NORT S U L L I VA N

RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

M2SKEGON C11
SPRI OT TA WA Co.
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-38
RYE NWO

General Location Mona Shores School District Property

118

19. Mona Shores School District Property (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Mona Shores School District Property has approximately @,800
feet of Lake Michigan frontage. This 92 acre parcel is a very heavily
wooded duneland area which remains primarily in a natural state. The
Mona Shores Property lies right in the middle of a very significant
management area for the City of Norton Shores. This property is'located
north of, and adjacent to, the Swett Property, which will soon be @cquired
by the City and developed as a recreation area. The Swett Property is
a previously discussed APC. Whitey's Woods, another APC already men-
tioned, also borders the Mona Shores land.

Besides being recognized as a recreation resource, the Mona Shores
School District Property is a concern because of its high erosion rate.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources designated all of Norton
Shores' shoreline as a High Risk Erosion Area. Futhermore, the DNR has
estimated that the bluff in the Mona Shores area has receded on the
average by more than 4 feet per year.

Figure 111-39 identifies existing land ownership patterns and
corresponding uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns about the Mona Shores School District Property are divided
between its erosion problems and ensuing development pressures which
might result from the acquisition and management of the adjacent Swett
Property by the City of Norton Shores.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Although erosion in this area is severe, its effects a!re at present
relatively inconsequential. Erosi .on will, however, play a@very signifi-
cant role if this area is eventually developed. The development of
this area is therefore more important at this point than are the recog-
nized erosion problems.

119

19. Mona Shores School District Property (cont.)

7@no,
7
Ev
fl
"MM" "O"'IsTINg"',
ME,
Nv

'k.

K
,rA

,rA

0
.2

X-

S
CALE
X
000 feet
1 inch 2
X.
liendiic) -M@

LEGEND

Swett Property

Mona Shores School District Property

Whitey's Woods
Textron (CWC),Sand Mine
E-2-3 Maranatha Bible Conference Grounds
E-1 Residential.Use

Figure 111-39
Site Description Mona Shores School District Property

120

19. Mona Shores School District Property (cont.)

The area north of the Mona Lake Channel, which includes this and
I
other recognized APC's, requires a comprehensive management plan!. The
City of Norton Shores.intends to prepare such a plan during its @1978-
1979 fiscal year.

E. APC STATUS:
The Mona Shores.School District Property was recognized as a Region
14 APC because of its potential as a recreation resource, and its severe
erosion problems. A pilot erosion control project was at one time
suggested for the area but its limited access made such a project im-
practical. Existing passive recreation seemed an appropriate use for
this particular area. Thi.s APC was therefore assigned Low Regional
Priority. Renewed local interest, and plans by the City of Norton Shores
to acquire the Swett.Property, have caused the Region 14 Commission to
assign this APC.High Regional Priority in support of the City's planning
and managemen t efforts.

121

20. STICKNEY RIDGE

a
-,--g an
s

Scene Common in the Stickney Ridge Area
Photograph 111-27
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

122

20. Stickney Ridge

A. LOCATION: Grand Haven Township, Ottawa County TSN-Rl6W-Secti on 32.

NEWAYGO CO.
77

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NG S U L L I VA N
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N 0.

S
N
PRI

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN

... PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO.
It 6 8 10 MILES ALLEGAN CO.

Figure 111- 40
General Location Stickney Ridge
LL ENDA
0 L@E
FBLEND N qGEORGETOWN

123

20. Stickney Ridge (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
So called "Stickne Ridge",consist of about a dozen or so houses
y
which border Lake Michigan on a low, yet steep bluff found in Gr'
and Haven
Township. This small, rather inconspicuous area, is famous for _ ts
erosion problems. These problems have received particular notoriety
because several cottages have in recent years actually fallen into Lake
Michigan and were totally destroyed.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resou-rces has never estimated
a recession rate for the Stickney Ridge area. It has, however, desig-
nated all Lake Michigan Shoreline in Grand Haven Township as a High
Risk Erosion Area. The beach near Stickney Ridge is very narrow to non-
existent. Banks are severely eroded and slumping. Erosion control
structures need constant attention and repair.

Figure 111-41 describes the general Stickney Ridge area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion and the further loss of homes and property in the Stickney
Ridge area is the major concern. A comprehensive erosion control pro-
gram coordinated among all property owners in the area might prove
beneficial.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Those dwellings currently endangered along Stickney Ridge have two
possible alternatives: 1) they might be moved further inland away from
Lake Michigan, 2) property owners can construct and maintai,n more effec-
tive.erosion controls. As for the first alternative, somelcottages
simply can't be moved or they have no place to go. As forithe second
alternative, it isn't really clear whether or not the property owners
can afford more effective erosion controls or whether practical controls
even Iexist. A coordinated neighborhood effort to control erosion might
prove the most advantageous.

E. APC STATUS:
The -Stickney Ridge area was recognized as an APC because of its

124

20. Stickney Ridge (cont.)

ROBBINS RD.

VD -
Y10 ,CO,4@'

MID

LEGEND

Residential Structure
%%0

SCALE
IS
inch 400 feet

Figure 111-41
Site Description
Stickney Ridge

125

20. Sti ckney Ridge (cont.

0
bvious erosion problems. These problems remain up to the localiproperty
owner to solve., The Region 14 Commission will provide what tech ical
assistance it can concerning the problems facing these property owners,
yet.their interest in our involvement has been low. The Region @4
Development Commission assigned this APC Low Regional Priority and it
remains as such until further notice.

126

21. COBMOOSA SHORES

g" ks,,@@-,,
1-M
W

......... . ..

Cobmoosa Shores Shoreline
Photograph 111-28
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

127

21. Cobnloos,a Shores

A. LOCATION: Benona Township, Oceana County 1710-R19W-Section,36.
1710-R18W-Section 31.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

rri

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

C)
CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

C.)
OCEA NA Z01"'
WHITE MONTAGUE GC N Co.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

10 MILB

Figu re 111-42
General Location Cobmoosa Shores
fRE N W

128

21. Cobmoosa Shores (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Cobmoosa Shores is yet another shoreline subdivision-whid, is sub-
jected to excessive wind and wave erosion. Homes and cottages in this
.plat have been built only recent'ly. There are many lots still available
for development. Upland blown out areas are also experiencing sbme
development pressure.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources used aerial photographs
to estimate past recession rates. The bluff in this area has receded on
the average by as much as 4.4 feet per year. The beach is relatively
narrow. Bank slumping varies from slight to severe. Most existing
dwellings have been built 30 to 50 feet beyond the bluff line.

Figure 111-43 describes the Cobmoosa area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
bl Like the preceding High Risk Erosion APC's, erosion and its possi-
e effect upon homes and property is the single major concern when re-
ferring to Cobmoosa Shores. It will be difficult to slow development in
this area. Very little can be done with those homes and cottages which
already exist. The problem is to retain shoreland properties and stabi-
lize upland dunes.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
There is a need for a systematic and comprehensive erosion control
program for the Cobmoosa Shores Area. Property owners should take care
to allow adequate setback when constructing new dwellings.

E. APC STATUS-
Cobmoosa Shores has a serious erosion problem. The so@lutions to
such problems rest entirely with the property owners and Be Inona Town-
ship. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission has
assigned this APC Low Regional Priority. No immediate change in this
priority is envisaged.

129

C-)
0 C+ -n
0- (D
0 C) C 0
0 M -1
M

(D 0 LI)
Ln :3

A
LEGEND

M-Re-s-identlal Structure

Exposed Sand

SCALE

1 inch 3,333 feet

22. CEDAR BLUFF

Cedar Bluff Shoreline
Photograph 111-29
HIGH RISK EROSION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

131

22. Cedar Bluff

A. LOCATION: Pentwater Township, Oceana County T16N-R18W-Section 33.

MASON Co.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT_
WATER
7u:

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

-z CLAY- C)
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

C-)

OCEA NA
WHITE MONTAGUE N CO.
.... _'@SKEGC
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 4 8 10 mILES
:3
Figure 111-44 /RENW
General Location Cedar Bluff

132

22. Cedar Bluff (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Cedar Bluff is a platted, yet primarily undeveloped shoreline area
which has receded on the average by as much as 4.7 feet per year. (Re-
cession rate estimated by DNR using 1939 and 1974 aerial photog Iraphy).
It has a narrow beach and has experienced some severe bank slum Iping.
Figure 111-45 examines the area's land use pattern.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Erosion and its consequences are the concerns. The fact that so
much of this area can still be developed gives rise to many meaningful
management opportunities. The Township should prepare a management
strategy as an aid in developing this location.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
An erosion control program coordinated with an overall development
concept seems the best way to avoid future problems imposed by construc-
tio n in th e Cedar Bluff area.

E . APC STATUS:
The.erosion problems which confront development in the Cedar Bluff
area are to be solved.by Pentwater Township. So far, the West Michigan
Shoreline Regional Development Commission has not been involved. The
Cedar Bluff area was, therefore, assigned Low Regional Priority. There
are no plans to change this priority in the immediate future.

133

22. Cedar Bluff (cont.)

SCALE

1 inch 3,333 feet
Yiz

0",

01'.
LEGEND

Residential Structure

Exposed sand

A_@T

RIDGE AVE.

Figure 111-45
Site Description
F

Cedar Bluff

134

23. GRAND RIVER, SPRING LAKE$
AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS

Holiday Inn, on the Grand River
in Spring Lake Village
Photograph 111-31
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE AND RIVER OF PARTICULAR CONCERN,

135

23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands

A. LOCATION: City of Ferrysburg, City of Grand Haven, Spring Lake Village,
Spring Lake Township, Grand Haven Township, Ottawa County.
T8N-R16W-Secs. 1-3, 10-12, 14-17, 19-23, 25-27, 29, 30, 34-36.
0 T7N-R16W-Secs. 1-3. Fruitport Twp. & Fruitport Village,
Muskegon County. T9N-R16W-Sections 35 and 36.

N WAYGO C

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NG SUL L IVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

i@@ SXEGO N Co.

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON JALLENDALE
0

-z

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN LU

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMESTOWN
A-,
OTTAIWA CO.
0 2 6 8 1.0MILES ALLEGAN uo.

Figure 111-46
General Location Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands

136
0

23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands (cont.)

B DESCRIPTION:
This particular APC is quite large. It includes that portibn of
the Grand River which is within Spring Lake Township. It also includes
Spring Lake, Pottawattomie Bayou, Lloyd's Bayou, Petty's Bayou Smith's
Bayou, etc., all of which are in this same general vicinity. The entire
area i.s very heavily developed with water bodies bordering the C ity of
Ferrysburg, Spring Lake Village, the City of Grand Haven, and Fruitport
Village. It is an area of very high growth and receives increasing de-
velopment.pressures.. It is an area of critical significance regarding
the viability of Region 14's economy. Figure 111-47 describes the
general setting and identifies important landmarks.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns are threefold.- First, all waters included within the
APC are subject to periodic flooding. The Grand River drains more land
area than any other river in Michigan. The Grand River, Spring Lake,
and associated bayous are also influenced by Lake Michigan and its water
level fluctuations. The area's flood hazard is therefore significant.

Our second major concern centers upon the area's ecologic sensiti-
vity. Although heavily developed, much of the wetland areas within
this urban locale remain in an almost undisturbed, natural state. Many
of the bayous have proven to be invaluable waterfowl nesting sites.
These waters are also used as fish spawning areas. In general, much of
this APC has very special wildlife values. These values are, of course,
threatened by encroaching development.

Our third area of major concern deals basically with the inevitable
conflicts which normally arise from the intense use of lim4ed natural
resources. The Grand River and'the water bodies named are Itogether a
valuable recreation resource. The area's economy is, in fact, very
directly related to a viable tourist industry. The mouth of the Grand
River is also a very important commercial harbor. Read-ily available
water supplies have also been viewed as an asset for many industrial

uses.

137

23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands (cont.)

'Fruitport
Villag
City of Norton Shore
Spring Lake Township

Smith's
Bayou

City of
Ferrysbur prin Petty's
Bayou
sag Spring
Harbor
ake Vill.
Island
2

Lloyd's
Bayou

City of

Grand Haven

Pottawattomie
Bayou

LEGEND

F7
..........
. . . . . . . . . .
Wetland Areas
LIE
1. Gasoline Storage Terminal

2. Municipal Power Station
Ui
3. CO Grand
nstruction Aggregates
Haven
Gravel Docks Township
4.. Verplank's Coal and Dock Co.
5., Construction Aggregates Sand SCALE
Docks
I inch 7,812 feet

Figure 111-47
Site Description
Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands
F

138

23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands (cont.)

All these factors have led to numerous existing and potential coniflicts.
Residential areas sometimes resent industrial uses because of air and
water pollution. A commercial harbor can become inefficient whe Ih be-
sieged with hords of sport fishermen. Industrial, commercial, apd resi-
dential uses each present-very specific demands upon the Grand River,
Spring Lake, and their associated wetland environments.

D. 'MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Village of Spring Lake, Spring Lake Township, the City of Ferrys-,
burg, and the City of Grand Haven are each participating in the Federal
Flood Insurance Program being administered by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. HUD has prepared a detailed Flood Insur-
ance Study for each of the above mentioned communities. These studies
identify the 100 year floodplain and divide this floodplain into separ-
ate flood hazard zones.

Before an individual property owner can qualify for subsidized in-
surance offered through this program, the communities involved must take
certain steps to minimize flood damages to all new development. This
has meant that each community must pass appropriate building codes and
zoning ordinances restricting development from high hazard areas and
limiting the type of development in less hazardous but,flood prone sites.
'The Village of Spring Lake, Spring Lake Township, the City of Ferrys-
burg, and the City of Grand Haven have each instituted a floodplain
management program. Grand Haven Township is also participating in the
Flood Insurance Program but has not yet reached the same level of manage-
ment as the other communities. Grand Haven Township is wai ting for its
0 Flood Insurance Study to be prepared by HUD in the near future.

The Flood Insurance Program has been an enormous helplin handling
one of the major concerns associated with this APC. There are, however,
other factors which still require attention. These include the control
of abusive development in ecologically sensitive areas, and the resolu-
tion of existing and Potential use conflicts.

139

23. Grand River, Spring Lake, and Associated Wetlands (cont.)

There have been two studies which set the stage regarding f!uture
development in the northwest.Ottawa County area. The first is entitled,
Grand River Basin - Comprehensive Water Resources Study. [his e@leven
volume study was prepared by the Grand River Basin Coordinating (ommittee
with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Grand
River Basin Coordinating Committee began its work in 1963 and ended with
the publication of its last document in 1972. This study identifies
the large framework needed in managing the entire Grand River Watershed.
Although it provides considerable detail giving the size and.character
of the Grand River Basin, the study never'really touches upon those
specific issues related to this APC.

Another study worth mentioning is entitled the Comprehensive Devel op
ment Planning Study - Northwest Ottawa County. This study was prepared
by the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission in 1973.
It was intended to identify those development issues specific to north-
west Ottawa County. It presented a number of development goals and ob-
jectives for this area. The study was never intended as a detailed
development strategy.

Taking the two studies just described, we have a good idea
as to how this particular APC relates to the Grand River Basin and
Ottawa County. We must now look at the northwest Ottawa County area a
little more closely and pick up where these previous planning efforts
have left off. We need to prepare a detailed development strategy
which ties together the various communities which are a part of this APC.

E. APC STATUS:
The Grand River, Spring Lake, and their associated bay Ious and wet-
lands were recognized as a very important APC. This area Was initially
assigned High Regional Priority. Nothing has happened since the area
was originally considered that would cause this prio,rity to change. This
APC remains a very critical concern.

0 140

24. FLOWER CREEK

MCI,

Scenic Beauty of the Flower Creek Watershed
q Photograph 111-32
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
NATURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

141

24. -Flower Creek

A. LOCATION: White River Township, Muskegon County. T12N-RI8W-Sections
3 and 4. Clay Bank@ Township, Oceana County. T13N-Rl8W-
Sections 26, 27, 34 and 35.

MASON CO.

WEARE
CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

rn
:ZE

C)
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

C-)
OCEA NA lzo/__
SKEGC N CO.
ITE MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

4 6 P 10 MILES
_/ENW

Figure 111-48
General Location Flower Creek

142

24. Flower Creek (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Flower Creek Watershed is shared by Muskegon and Oceanal
Counties. The total watershed is nearly 23 square miles (14,9461acres)
in area. Approximately 950 acres within the watershed would be iclassi-
fied as wetlands. The drainage network itself is over 15.5 mile is of
streams and,channels with Flower Creek draining directly into La@ke
Michigan. Lakes in the area include Jakes Lake (15 acres) and Park
Lake (27 acres).

Land use within the Flower Creek Watershed is predominately agri-
cultural. Residential development is, for the most part, farm oriented.
Seasonal and vacation homes are presentall along the Lake Michigan
shore. There are no discharge permits for the area and no known point
source contributors of pollutants to the surface waters.

The Flower Creek Area is, without a doubt, one of the most scenic
landscapes found within the region. Within the area exists extensive
dune and topographic development. The creek and its associated wetlands
have enormous ecological values. The same attributes which give the area
its rural charm wi.11 inevitably attract more and more residential
development.

Figure 111-49 will describe the Flower Creek vicinity.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Flower.Creek has been categorized as a Flood Hazard Area of Par-
ticular Concern. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban i Development
has prepared preliminary maps which identify flood prone areas in both
Clay Banks and White River Townships. The maps show a rather confined
floodplain widening somewhat toward the mouth of Flower Creek where
it enters Lake Michigan.

Flower Creek is also recognized.as a Natural Area. The Flower
Creek area is very scenic and has important wildlife value. Encroach-
ing residential development can have,truly devastating consequences
for such a small watershed.

143

24. Flower Creek (cont.)

STONY RD.

Jake's
ake

-P
Park Lake

Z-
,rA

WEBSTER RD.

LEGEND

Residential Use

Wooded
71 Primarily Agricultural Use
kD
Lr)

SCALE

1 inch 5,208 feet
00

MEINERT RD.
Meinert
County Park.
0 L
a@p

Figure 111-49
Site Description
F

Flower Creek

144

24. Flower Creek (cont.)

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Although identified as a Flood Hazard Area, Flower Creek flooding
problems are considered relatively minor. Management attentionsishould
not neglect flood concerns, but it may be just as important to consider
the maintenance of wildlife habitats and scenic beauty. The pre Iservation
of existing amenities would appear a worthwhile planning goal.

The Flower Creek APC complements the Flower Creek Dunes APC, which
0 will be discussed later. Proposed planning efforts should consider both
APCs as well as Meinert Park, a Muskegon County owned and operated park
which is located within the same general vicinity.

E. APC STATUS:
The Flower Creek APC was originally assigned Medium Regional Pri-
ority. This APC has been reduced to Low Regional Priority given the
lack of any real planning urgency.

145

25. LITTLE BLACK LAKE

--w- q; g
Y@.

Little Black Lake An Important Wildlife Habitat
Photograph 111-33
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

146

25. Little Black Lake
A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, Muskegon County. T9N-R16W-Sections
31 and 32. Spring Lake Township, Ottawa County. T8N-Rl6W-
Sections 5 and 6.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C -Q'1-/
WHITE MONTAGUE rr)
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALq

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON '0@ EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

G) (L

-Z- N 0 R T S U L I I VA N
S ESl-
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

KEGON C.
OT TAWA Co.
5 P R I
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON, WRIGHT

0 2 8 10 MUES
G R fEN WO

II I I

Figure 111-50
General Location - Little Black Lake

147

25. Little Black Lake (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Little Black Lake Drainage Area is located in the southwest
corner of Muskegon County and the northwest corner of Ottawa Cou Inty.
The total basin is only 13 square miles (8,095 acres). Of this area,
approximately 62 acres is classified as wetlands. The inl et and@out-
let to Little Black Lake are together less than 4 miles long. L@ttle
Black Lake, the only lake in the identified basin, has an area of 223

acres.

The Little Black Lake.Area is primarily undeveloped with the single
most dominant use being low density residential. The.Black Lake Area
lies adjacent to the P.J. Hoffmaster State Park. Little Black Lake and
its surrounding environments represent s ignificant wildlife habitats.

Figure 111-51 shows the Little Black Lake area and existing land

uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The Little Black Lake Area is recognized as an APC because of its
Flood Hazard and its potentially conflicting use. Each of these con-
cerns will be discussed individually beginning with Flood Hazard pro-
blems.

Both the,City of Norton Shores and Spring Lake Township partici-
pate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development has prepared a Flood Insurance Study for
both communities. These studies define Little Black Lake's 100 year
@floodplain and identify associated flood risk zones. Flood prone
areas are relatively extensive and are, more or less, an e pression of
X,
high groundwater conditions. Both communities must limit development
in these identified flood prone areas.

Limited evidence suggests that Little Black Lake currently meets
all "Swimable and Fishable" water quality goals. The majority of land
which at present s,urrounds Little Black Lake consists mainly of large
undeveloped tracts. If any of these areas were to be developed in any

148

25. Little Black Lake.(cont.)

LAKE HARBOR z
RD. E-1

Black
Little W
Creek
PONTALUNA RD.

. ...........

...........

...... . .....

........ ..
...... . . . ..

P. J. Hoffmaster LITTLE BLACK

State Park
LAKE

-c Norton Shores
Ix- City o@

Too
yA Spring Lake Township

LEGEND

Residential Use

SCALE Wetland Areas
1 inch 2,000 feet P.J. Hoffmast r State
Park Boundary
Elk's Golf Course
Vacant, Owned by City of'
Norton Shores

Figure 111-52
Site Description
Little Black Lake

149

25. Little Black Lake (cont.)

significant way, Little Black La,ke might experience serious wate'r quality
problems. Considerable thought should be given to any developme@t which
intends to locate within the Little Black Lake vicinity.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
HUD has provided both the City of Norton Shores and Spring Lake
Township with the technical information necessary for each community to
implement a floodplain management program. Both communities have taken
appropriate steps to develop such programs. Property owners are, there-
fore, eligible for subsidized flood insurance.

The City of Norton Shores will complete its Master Plan within
the next two years. This plan will undoubtedly consider the Little Black
Lake Area. It has already been suggested that the area be tied in with
the nearby P. J. Hoffmaster State Park and thus be preserved as a natural
recreation site. Whether or not preservation schemes win out over
development remains to be seen.. With careful planning, development might
occur within the Little Black Lake Area without unduly iepordizing the
area s unique wildlife and aesthetic character.

E. APC STATUS:
The Little Black Lake APC was originally assigned High Regional Pri-
ority in support of floodplain management efforts. Now that a Floodplain
Management Program is, being administered by both Spring Lake Township and
the City of Norton Shores, flood hazards are less of a concern. The
eventual development of the Little Black Lake area still remains of
critical interest. The Little Black Lake APC is assigned Medium Regional
Priority in support of Norton Shores' Master Plan.

150
0

26. MUSKEGON LAKE, BEAR LAKE,
AND THE MUSKEGON RIVER

AM?

W@OV'
-'n

Muskegon Lake An Important Recreational Resource
Photograph 111-34
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE & RIVER OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
URBAN AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

151

26. Muskegon La.ke, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River
A. LOCATION: City of Muskegon, City of Norton Shores., and Laketon Twp.,
Muskegon County. TION-R17W-Sections 12-14, 21-28, 34-36.
T10N-RHW-Sections 1-3, 5-22.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
LUE LAKE HOLTON

VHITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

L A S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
0

-Z- NORT SULIIVAN
S E-S-@'@
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

t MQ KEGON Cj_
Co.
S PI OTTAWA
L K
CROCKERY POLKTON. WRIGHT
A.,

0 2 A 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-52
,r@@ R VEN W 0

General Location Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River

152

26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Muskegon River is the longest river in Michigan. Only a por-
tion of the Muskegon River Basin lies within Muskegon County. T!iis
portion contains numerous lakes and tributary streams. Only Mus egon
Lake (4,150 acres), Bear Lake (415 acres), and a very small part of the
Muskegon River fall within the Region 14 Coastal Zone.

Land use within this part of the Muskegon River Basin is quite
varied. Urban development is most significant as much of the City of
Muskegon and all of the City of North Muskegon fall within this drain-
age area. Muskegon Lake is surrounded by residential, commercial, and
considerable industrial land use. Bear Lake is almost entirely resi-
dential oriented. Both lakes have several public access sites and recre-
ational facilities.

Figure 111-53 examines existing land use patterns and identifies
significant landmarks.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The City of Muskegon, the City of North Muskegon, and Laketon Town-
ship each participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development has prepared a Flood Insur-
ance Study for each community. These studies identify a 100 year flood-
plain for Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River. Flood
prone areas are not as extensive asyou might have thought. The most
serious flooding problems occur further up the river and in the larger
tributaries.

Although floodplain management is definitely a concern', the kind of
lakefront developm ent and associated lakeshore uses seems a! far more
critical matter. Muskegon Lake's shoreline has historicalTy been in-
dustrially oriented. Industrial uses have, of course, had a very
serious effect upon water quality. Now that the Muskegon County Waste-
water Management System has done so much to improve Muskegon Lake's
quality, the lake is now viewed as a tremendous recreation/tourism
attra'ction. Muskegon Lake is, in fact, a key element in the City's plans

153

LEGEND

Urban Area SC

Wetlands 1 inch

1 S.D. Warren Co.
2, Grand'Trunk Western R.R.
3 Standard Oil Co.
4 Hartshurne Marina
5 The Mart
6 Lakey Property GILES
0 7 Bultema Dock &
Dredge North Branch
8 Giddings Street 14
Muskegon River..
Access
9 Consumers Power
(D Ln Co.

-s c+ -n
(D E-1
P4
RD.
77 rD
(D FENNER, Q'i K,
(D
Qn

SCENIC DR-
CL C+
NORTH
M
SKEGON Four Mile
USKEGON
rD
Creek

uskego
(D State
5
0 Park
4
Pigeon
< Hill
(D
4
z"
Pe
31
Marquette Park

SHERMAN BLVD.
EN C@DR*
usk go
St
P@ate
ark

26. Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and the Muskegon River (cont.)

@-to redevelop and revitalize its downtown area. Existing uses often con-
flict-with proposed plans. We, therefore, need to organize a sy Istematic
development strategy.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The City of Muskegon, the City of North Muskegon, and Laketon Town-
ship must each comply with requirements imposed by the Federal Flood In-
surance Program if their citizens are to receive subsidized Flood Insurance.
The communities have adopted the necessary ordinances and each has estab-
lished.a floodplain management program.

There have been several studies performed and many suggestions
made regarding development concepts for this area. The most recent,
and perhaps the most significant, was entitled, Muskegon Lake, A Study
of Opportunities. This study was prepared by Leo Jakobson, Harold M.
Mayer, John R. Sheaffer, and Jack Witkowsky for the Muskegon County
Metropolitan Planning Commission, the City of Muskegon, the City of North
Muskegon, and Save Our Lakes Committee, Inc. The document was published
in June 1974. It articulates a basic developmental philosophy which
seeks to capitalize on water quality improvements and recreation/tourism
potentials now offered by Muskegon Lake. The City of Muskegon, with
the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, will carry
the concepts envisioned in the above study to their next step. The City
and Regional Commission will prepare a Development Strategy which will
first focus upon three specific elements: 1) the redevelopment of down-
town Muskegon, 2) the reuse of Pigeon Hil 1, and 3) the feasibility and
impacts of a Muskegon/Milwaukee Sea-Bridge for truck-trail rs.

E. APC STATUS:
The Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, and Muskegon River APC Was originally
assigned High Regional Priority.. Flood hazards are less of a concern
now as each community has a floodplain management program. The implemen-
tation of redevelopment concepts in the Muskegon and North Muskegon
areas remainsla paramount interest." This APC retains a High Regional
Priority status.

27. DUCK LAKE AND MUSKRAT LAKE

Duck Lake Site of Future State Park and Existing Recreation Resource
Photograph 111-35
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

156

27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake

A. LOCATION: Fruitland Township, Muskegon County.. T11N-R18W-Sections
24 and 25.
T11N-R17W-Sections 18,. 19, and 30.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

rn
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER Zi
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

VHITEHALL

P FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
0

N
0 L L I VAN
R T Q'ti S U
S I/
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

SKEGON C 0.
OT TA WA CO.
S P R I
LAK
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT
A.,

0 2 6 6 10 MILES

Figure 111.:-54

General Location Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake
R VEN WO
A;,/HITEHAL

157

27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake.(cont.)

B. DESCRIPT.ION:
The Duck Lake drainage basin lies completely within Muskego h County,
and much of it falls inside the Region 14 Coastal Zone. The bas Iin in-
cludes Duck Lake (112 acres), Muskrat Lake (25 acres), Duck.Cree Ik (94
miles) and numerous unnamed creeks of intermittent flow. The total
basin is approximately 30 square miles (18,700 acres). Within this basin
there are approximately 530 acres which would be classified as wetlands.

Land use within this basin is almost entirely low density resi-
dential with most of the land still undeveloped. A new State Park is
planned along the northern shore at Duck Lake, on land which was Pre-
viously developed for use by the-Boy Scouts of America. Agricultural
lands are minimal. Water quality appears good.

Both Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake pose significant recreation oppor-
tunities. Duck Lake can apparently handle more active kinds of recreation
like boating, campi ng, etc., while Muskrat Lake is definitely an area
of ecologic sensitivity. Muskrat Lake is known for its attraction of
migratory waterfowl, Sandhill Crane, and heron. The lake also holds a
sizable population of bass and panfish.

Figure 111-55 shows land use arrangements surrounding both Duck
Lake and Muskrat Lake.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake area is recognized as a, flood prone
area. Fruitland Township is participating in the Federal Flood insurance
Program, but has as yet received only preliminary Flood Halzard Boundry
0 i
Maps from,the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop@ Ient. HUD
will prepare a detailed Flood Insurance Study sometime in the near
future.

Aside from the flood hazards mentioned above, we are also concerned
regarding the development of the Duck Lake State Park and the preserva-
tion of Muskrat Lake.

158

27. Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake (cont.)

MICHILLINDA RD.

White Lake 0
Golf Club

k
. . . . .....
TO

WABANINGO RD.

.............
DUCK LAKE

DU M- LAKER

3J
LEGEND
Muskrat
Lake
LIE] Future'State Park
(Property Currently Owned
by the State of Michigan)
Other Publicly Owned Land
Existing Residential
ED
Development

Privately Owned and
Primarily Undeveloped Land

SCALIE McMI LLAN RD.

1 inch 2,604 feet

Figure 111-55
Site Description
F

Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake

159

27. Du ck Lake and-Muskrat Lake (cont.)

Both areas have enormous recreation value, but each also has its;environ-
mental limitations regarding facility development.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
HUD will sooner or later provide Fruitlan-d Township with its detailed
Flood Insurance Study and, therefore, make available the technical infor-
mation needed to implement a floodplain management program. Fruitland
Township shows every indication that it will establish such a program.

Muskegon County's Shorelands Policies Plan identifies the Duck Lake
Area as one of six development nodes. In 1971, Mr. Leo Jakobsoh again
looked at the Duck Lake/Muskrat Lake area and provided. a more detailed
conceptualization of proposed development in a report entitl.ed, ' Dulake
Dunes - A Plan for Development. Mr. Jakobson proposes that Muskrat Lake
be set aside as a Conservancy Zone. Duck Lake shoreline is to be futher
developed for recreation and residential use. Even though the concept
envisioned seems appropriate, it has never been implemented. We apparent-
ly need to formulate a scheduled development program.

E. APC STATUS
The Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake APC was originally assigned Low
Regional Priority. As time goes by, it seems increasingly evident that
this area will someday be developed. This development is eminent,
given that the northern shore of Duck Lake will become a State Park.
The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission has therefore
assigned this APC Medium Regional Priority.

160

28. WHITE LAKE AND WHITE RIVER

&
INNER

..............

Aerial View of White Lake
Photograph 111-36
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE AND RIVER OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

161

28. White Lake and White River
A. LOCATION: Fruitland Township, White River Twp., Montague Twp., City-of
Whitehall, City of Montauge, Muskegon County.
T11N-R18W-Secs. 2, 11, and 12. T11N-R17W-Secs. 4@-7-
T12N-Rl7W-Secs. 10-16, 20-27, 28-34.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C P"-//-

WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

TEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N 0 R T (@N S U L L I VA N
S ES-Z@
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON C
0 T AWA
SP R I
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT
At,

A 6 6 10 MILES

Figure 111-56
G R fEN WO

R- - - - - - - r
T

K
EGON

General Location White Lake and White River

162

28. White,Lake and White River (cont.)

.B. DESCRIPTION:
The White River Drainage Basin extends from its terminus, a White
Lake, into Oceana and Newaygo Counties. The Muskegon and Oceana por-
tion is approximately 317 square miles (203,014 acres). Of this area,
17.5 square miles (11,196 acres.) is classified as wetlands. The e are
well over 100 miles of streams which transport water throughtheibasin.
The area included several lakes, the largest of which is White Lake
(.2,571 acres).

White Lake's shoreline is very urban in nature as it shares both
the City of Whitehall and the City of Montague. The northern shoreline
of White Lake contains a large industrial complex occupied by Hooker
Chemicals and Plastics Corporation, and E. I. DuPont deNemours, Inc.
There are several public access points and recreation areas along the
,lakeshore. Nutrient loadings to White Lake are significant, but pollu-
tion of waters with complex organic chemicals is probably much more
serious.

Refer to Figure 111-57 for a more detailed description regarding
the White Lake a:rea and its shoreline uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Fruitland Township, White River Township, the City of Whitehall,
and the City of Montague are each participating in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program. HUD has provided these communities with preliminary
Flood Hazard Boundry Maps. HUD has Prepared the more detailed Flood
Insurance Study for the City of Montague. Floodplain management remains
an important concern.

Another concern centers upon White Lake's water quali problems.
We know that this lake has been seriously polluted with some very toxic
and dangerous substances. Whether or not this pollution willl have a
long term effect upon White Lake's quality has not really been deter-
mined. We know that we must pr event further contamination. The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources has in recent years taken very specific
steps to curb pollution sources. We still must determine the consequences'

163

Urban Area

Wetland Area

1 Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp.
2 E.I. duPopt deNemours Inc.
3 Goodrich Park
A 34-N
4 Montague Park
5 Medbery Pa
.rk
6- White Lake
J
Lighthouse (t rt
(D

(D
il 0 ITTY"',
ON I
0 En

W
FJ- COLBY

CITY OF
WHITEHALL
4-1
FT

OLD CHANNEL
S- TRAIL

4--) Whitehal

Fruitlan
WH I TE

5 LAKE

6 JL SCALE
LAKEWOOD RD.
1 inch 5,208 f

28. White Lake and White River (cont.)

of past pollution and then formulate a rehabilitation scheme.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will p@ovide
each community which borders White Lake with a detailed Flood Insurance
Study. This study will contain the technical information necessary for
each Community to implement its own floodplain management program. Such
a program has already been developed by the City of Montague.

White Lake's water quality problems will be investigated in detail
as part of the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission's
continuing '2081 Water Quality Management Program. The WMSRDC staff will
also formulate a rehabilitation strategy within its 1978-1979 fiscal year.

E. APC STATUS:
The White Lake and White River area was considered early as an Area
0f Particular Concern because of its problems with water quality and
conflicts between industrial and recreational uses. This APC was
originally assigned Medium Regional Priority. The Commission intends
to give this area considerable attention as it is a major urban area of
immense regional significance. This APC has been assigned High Regional
Priority.

165

29. SILVER LAKE, UPPER SILVER LAKE, AND HOLIDAY LAKE

0
"M AM,

Aerial View of Silver Lake and Vicinity
Photograph 111-37
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

166

29. Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake, and Holiday Lake
A. LOCATION: Golden Township, Oceana County. T15N-R19W-Secs. 25 & 36.
T15N-Rl8W-Sections 16, 17, 19-21, 29-31.

MASON
Co.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

G LDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

rri

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OTTO GR ENWOOD

0 C EA NA
W H I T EMONTAGUE S C@ N C 0.
RIVER

.... BLUE LAKE HOLTON
-Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

2 4 6 8 10 mi LES

Figure 111-58
fRE N W

General Location Silver Lake, Upper Silve r Lake, and Holiday Lake

.167

29., Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake, and Holiday Lake (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Silver Lake watershed is located entirely within OcealiciICounty.
Its area is approximately 22 square miles (14,323 acres). Wetlands
contribute 230 acres to the total area. Over 7.5 miles of streams and
drainage channels are found within the Silver Lake watershed. @ilver
Lake (690 acres) and Upper Silver Lake/Holiday Lake (a man made'lake of
approximately 60 acres) dominate the watershed and are also within the
Region 14 Coastal Zone.

The Silver Lake watershed is divided between recreation and agri-
cultural use. The State of Michigan owns approximately 2,431 acres in
the Silver Lake Area, most of which is open to the public as Silver
Lake State Park. Land use near and around Silver Lake and Upper Silver
Lake/Holiday Lake is primarily residential. Silver Lake does, of course,
border the State Park and its shorelands are subjected to considerable
commercial land use. Water quality seems adequate yet threatened by
inappropriately placed septic tank and drain field disposal systems.

Figure 111-59 examines.the Silver Lake and Upper Silver Lake/Holiday
Lake area in detail.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Golden Township is participating in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program being administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. HUD has provided Golden Township with a preliminary Flood
Hazard Boundry Map. The map identifies potential flood prone areas
associated with Si lver Lake, but omits Upper Silver Lake/H oliday Lake.
Golden Township needs more detailed and accurate flood map's before it
can begin to implement a floodplain management program. I!ncreased resi-
dential development and conversion of seasonal cottages tol year-round
homes has created a number of problems for the Silver Lake community.
Septic systems which were once used only during the summer months must
now often perform throughout the.year. Many of these systems were in@
adequately designed to begin with. Increased developmental densities
have also had an apparent effect upon,septic system efficiencies. The

168

29. Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake, and Holiday Lake (cont.)

SCALE

3. inch 3,472 feet

LEGEND

Proper ty owned by the
State of Michigan
EE Residential Use

Sand
Mine

DEER RD.

HOLID

-5*11

FO
UPPER
kv SILVE
LAKE
Ih.

5.4 TAYLOR
4@-
"'T
IN.

SILVER LAKE
4

A
'."il; ME,

Figure 111-59
Site Description
Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake, and Holiday Lake

169

29. Silver Lake, Upper Silver Lake.and Holiday Lake (cont.)

net result has been decreasing water quality in both Silver Lake Upper
Silver Lake/Holiday Lake.

Mo re people are livi'ng in the Silver Lake area. Large crow Ids are
attracted to the Silver Lake State Park. All has caused an incr ased
need for local services. Local residents have complained recently
concerning the unruly nature of Park visitors, and the uncontrolled
use of dune buggies and other recreation vehicles.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Golden Township will need-more detailed and accurate flood hazard
information. HUD is scheduled to prepare a Flood Insurance Study for
this area.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources should probably give
more thought to additional park security. The unrestricted motor vehicle.
use of Silver Lake Dunes also presents significant safety hazards which
need to be resolved.

Golden.Township would probably benefit from a comprehensive develop-
ment plan centered upon the Silver Lake and Upper,Silver Lake/Holiday
Lake area. Such a plan should examine seasonal as well as year-round
use. This plan must evaluate service needs and propose a rational
solution to those problems that affect this rapidly growing community.

E. APC STATUS:
The Silver.Lake and Upper Silver Lake/Holiday Lake APC was. originally
assigned Low Regional Priority. As problems get worse, interest in this
area s management increases. The Region 14 Commission hasire-evaluated
its pr*iority and changed it from Low to High.

170

30. PENTWATERLAKE AND RIVER

Aerial View of Pentwater Lake
Photograph 111-38
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

171

30. Pentwater Lake and River

A. LOCATION: Pentwater Township and Pentwater Village, Oceana County.
T16N-R18W-Sections 14, 15, 23-26.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY- C)
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

OCEA NA 100
WHITE MONTAGUE SKEGC N CO.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
-Z

H ITEHA L L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

8 @0 milis
L

Figure 111-60
General Location Pentwater Lake and River
G fRE N W,

172

30. Pentwater Lake and River (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Most-of the Pentwater River watershed lies within Oceana County.
A small portion of this basin does, however, extend north into Mason
County. The Oceana County portion of1this watershed is approximately
149 square miles (95,280 acres) in area. There are extensive wetland
areas within the watershed, totaling over 16 square miles (10,400 acres).
The entire drainage network makes up 77 miles of streams and channels.
Pentwater Lake (436 acres) and a small portion of the Pentwater River
fall within -the Region 14 Coastal Zone Boundry.

A large percentage of Oceana County's total population lies within
the Pentwater River watershed. These people are somewhat concentrated
in the City of Hart and the coastal Village of Pentwater. Pentwater
Village is something of a resort community, and as such is seasonally
oriented. There are many cottages and vacation homes found along Lake
Michigan-and near Pentwater Village. The Village is small but very
attractive, gaining in popularity as a tourist area.

Pentwater Lake water quality is, at present, significantly impacted
by the Pentwater Sewage Treatment Plant and individual on-site septic
tank systems. Pentwater Lake does, in fact, fall slightly below the
"Swimable and Fishable" goals set by Congress in Public Law 92-500,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972.

Figure 111-61 describes the Pentwater Lake area and surrounding
land uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Both Pentwater Township and Village are participating in the Federal
Flood Insurance Progra@m which is administered by the U.S. Department of.
Housing and Urban Development. HUD has provided each commuh,ity with a
detailed Flood Insurance Study which outlines technical information
needed to implement a floodplain management program. Flood hazards and
floodplain management remain a concern regarding the Pentwater Lake
and River APC.

173

30. Pentwater Lake and River (cont.)

61, Ev
N
Charles Mears T RD.
State Park
PFNTWAT9@
I Pentpater.
Sew e
19
T eitment
Plant
Pentwater
Marina

PENTWATER

B.R.

LAKE

...........

..........

4-)
CO
IZ;:

LEGEND
Pere Marquette State
Pentwater Village Forest

Pere Marquette State Forest

Pentwater State Game Area

SCALE

inch 3,472 feet

Figure 111-61
Site Description
F

Pentwater Lake and River

174

30. Pentwater Lake and River (cont.)

The construction of new highway U.S.-31 is very close to boing com-
plete up to the Pentwater area. This high way opens up the Pent ater
community to even more intense development pressures. Resident@ i are con-
cerned that their community may lose its "Village Charm." Residents are
worried what increased development might do to sensitive wetlanj and wild-
life areas.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
As participants in the Federal Flood Insurance Program, both Pent-
water Township a,nd Village are required to implement a floodplain manage-
ment program. HUD is very specific as to how this management program
should be designed.. These communities should have little difficulty
complying with HUD requirements.

The community's concern regarding future development in the Pentwater
area requires our close consideration. Development pressures are likely
to become even more intense once the new U.S.-31 is open to traffic. The
community seeks to preserve wildlife and wetland areas. It also wishes
to insure-adequate water quality. The co.mmunity.recognizes a need for
long range development planning which considers each of the concerns
described.

E. APC STATUS:
The Pentwater area is recognized as an attractive and vital area of
regional concern. Pentwater Lake and River was, therefore, identified as a
coastal APC. This APC was assigned High Regional Priority. This priority
remains unchanged.

175

31. LAKE MACATAWA AND MACATAWA RIVER

MK,@,

RET

Lake Macatawa As Viewed from the
Public Boat Launch at the Macatawa State Park
Photograph 111-39
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE AND RIVER OF PARTICULAR CONCERNI

176

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River
A. LOCATION: City of Holland, City of Zeeland, Park Twp., Holland Twp.,
Ottawa Countv. T5N-R16W-Sections 25-27, 33-36.
T5N-Rl5W-Sec'tions 20-2.4, 26-31.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N 04@-T@,O SUL L. IVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

m SKE
GON Co.

0A
SPRI
'A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

C-)

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

P
)RT
C
S H E LDO@N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN L1j

PARK
H 0 L L A N D ZEELAND JAMESTOWN

OTTA
WA CO.
0 8 10 MILES ALLEGAN CO.
L

Figure 111-62
General Location Lake Macata.wa and Macatawa River

177

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa. River (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:

The Lake Macatawa and the Macatawa River watershed is located in the
southernmos t portion of Ottawa County with part of it extending nto
northwest Allegan County. The Ottawa County portion of this basi'ln is
approximately 116 square miles (74,107 acres) in area. A total of 797
acres is classified as wetlands. Stream and water courses add up to over
55 miles in length. Lake Macatawa is itself 2,218 acres.

There is extensive residential development found throughout the
Lake Macatawa watershed. Commercial and industrial uses are concentrated
in the City of Holland, the City of Zeeland, and along the shore of Lake
Macatawa.

Lake Macatawa has experienced severe water quality degradation.
Municipal and industrial discharges within the system have contributed
to this degradation. Non-point sources of pollution, which include the
runoff from extensive agricultural lands in the watershed, must also
share the blame for water quality problems..

Figure 111-63 shows the general Lake Macatawa vicinity and existing
land uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns regarding the Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River APC are
three fold: 1) flood hazards, 2) preservation of ecologically sensitive
environments, and 3) improved water quality. Each of these concerns will
be discussed separately.

Park Township, Holland Township, and the City of Holland are par-
tici-pating in the Federal Flood Insurance Program which is administered
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD has pro-
vided Holland Township with preliminary Flood Hazard Boundry maps which
delineate flood prone are as. HUD has prepared the more detailed Flood
Insurance Study for Park Township and the City of Holland, and has thus
made available the technical information necessary to implement a flood-
Plain management program. Holland Township still needs this more,

178

LEGEND

Urban Area

Wetlands

1_-_Vei@,pl@ifik_i@onstruction Co.
2 Penn-Dixie Industries
Cement Division
3 Padnos Iron & Metal Co.
4 Holland Municipal Dock and
Power Plant
5 Brewers City Dock, Inc.

SCALE ZE
ST.
4@ 1 inch 6,000 feet JAMES
U)

0
(t
S_

>
tri
Qj
5
OTTAWA BEACH 4
7"",
A9.
ca 00
(a rt, Bi ON
0 P i
2
Bay rt
Cre
Bay

LAKE MACATAWA
fu
B.R.

U
Ottawa Cc
ro

Allegan Co
S. SHORE DR.

CY)

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River (cont.)

detailed information.

There are several areas within the Lake Macatawa and Macataqa River
APC which have recognized ecological importance.. These ecologic lly
sensitive areas include the Macatawa River Marsh and Pine Creek Bay.
Both areas are important because of their ability to help purify polluted
waters. Both areas are prime nesting sites and habitats for waterfowl.
Dredging and filling threaten to destroy important environmental attri-
butes. Residents seek to pres erve these particularly sensitive areas.

Lake Macatawa presents many recre ational opportunities. The lake
is viewed as a valuable recreation resource, and yet this resource has
undoubtedly suffered a great deal because of serious water quality
problems. Lake Macatawa"s shoreline is cluttered with residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. Its watershed is primarily agricultural.
Urban and rural areas have both contributed to Lake Macatawa's water
quality situation.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Federal Flood Insurance Administration intends to provide both
Holland Township and the City of Holland with detailed Flood Insurance
Studies. With the technical information on hand, these communities should
have little difficulty in following established guidelines and developing
a floodplain management program.

Water quality problems, an increased need for public access., and
the community's desire to preserve important and sensitive environments,
eventually led to the Kalamazoo-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw Rivers Basin
Study. This study was conducted by the Soil Conservation S rvice,
Economic Research Service, and the Forest Service, all of which are
agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These agencies were
in addition assisted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
the Kalamazo'o-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw River Basin Citizens Council. The
study began with authorization on September 7, 1972. This cooperative

180

31. Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River (cont.)

investigation led to the publishing of a repo rt entitled, A Wate r and
Land Resource Plan for the Kalamazoo-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw Rivers Basin,
May 1977. This, plan is very comprehensive and its recommendatioIns
appropriate. The Kalamazoo-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw Rivers Basin titizens
Council is providing continued guidance concerning this plan's implemen-
tation.

The Basin Plan referred to above is directed mainly at preserving
sensitive areas, providing public access, and reducing pollutant contri-
butions to the area's surface waters. The West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development Commission intends to prepare a rehabilitation study
for Lake Macatawa as part of the agency's 208 Water Quality Management
Planning Program. This rehabilitation study is not expected until per-
haps the 1979-80 fiscal year.

E. ACP STATUS:
The Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River APC was originally assigned
High Regional Priority in support of the Kalamazoo-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw
Rivers Basin Study. Now that a plan has been prepared, the Region 14
Commission is equally interested in seeing this plan implemented. The
Lake Macatawa and Macatawa River APC retains its High Regional Priority

status.

181

Ole

32. PIGEON LAKE AND PIGEON CREEK

'H,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pigeon Lake with the Consumers Power
J. H. Campbell Plant in Background
Photograph 111-40
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE AND RIVER OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

182

32. Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek

A. LOCATION: Port Sheldon Township, Ottawa County. T6N-R16W-Sections
12-16, 21, and 22.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N OR-T-Ot S U L L I VAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N Co.

SPRIN
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

E
ON GEORGETOWN
OLIVE BLEND

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAM@ESTOWN
A.,
N
OTTAIWA CO.
0 2 8 110MILES ALLEGAN CC).

Figure 111-64
General Location Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek

183

32. Pigeon. Lake and Pigeon Creek (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Pigeon Lake/Pigeon Creek drainage basin lies entirely w@tnin
Ottawa County. The watershed is approximately 60 square miles (38,610
acres) in area. There are approximately 2,310 acres that are cl ssi-
fied as wetlands. Stream and water courses add up to 37 miles i@ total
length. Pigeon Lake is 225 acres.

Little of the Pigeon Lake/Pigeon Creek area is actually developed.
Residential property runs parallel to Lake Michigan and is located up in
the dunes south of Pigeon Lake. Most of the land area north of Pigeon
Land and Pigeon Creek is owned by Consumers Power Company and is the site
of their J. H. Campbell Electric Generating Plant. Consumers Power is
in the process of expanding its Port Sheldon operations with a third
generator to produce an additional 800 megawatts of electric power at
an estimated project cost of $510 million.

Pigeon Lake water quality looks good. The Pigeon Creek watershed
provides habitats for abundant wildlife. The Creek is a recognized

trout stream.

Figure 111-63 examines the Pigeon Lake/Pig eon Creek vicinity and
existing land uses.

C, MAJOR CONCERNS:
Port Sheldon Township participates in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program being administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. HUD has prepared a Flood Insurance Study for,Port Sheldon
Township. This study identifies flood prone areas and exa @ines their
associated flood hazard. This study provides the'Townshipl ith all the
information it needs to implement a floodplain management p Irogram. Flood-
ing problems are, however, still a concern.

The construction of major energy facilities along Lake Michigan's
shore is,, of course, a concern. The expansion of the 1. H. Campbell
plant will undoubtedly cause significant environmental and economic

184

32- Pigeon Lake,and Pigeon Creek (cont.)

LEGEND

Consumers Power Co. Property

.. Nearby Residential Land Use

Chesapeake
& Ohio R.R.
R,

CROSWELL ST.

@iu 41 PIGEON CREEK
0
ko

-2,
V
. .. . ...... ..
7-7-17" @p
7i
IS S 1':,@@,n,-, M
vd, 49@,@v 9;7; - -
Ole
@t, W8
Pbe,

BALDWIN ST.
"V
Y,
7

--, 7,7@
Pige?n,,

CN
Lf)
BIAIR ST. L

0 SCALE
1 inch 3,000 feelt

Figure 111-63
Site Description
Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek

185

32. Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek (cont.)

impacts. Construction at Port Sheldon is, however, being closely moni-
tored by the Township, Ottawa County, the, State, the U.S. EPA, the Army
Corps of Engineers, and others. In fact, the facility is schedu ed to
obtain over 80 permits before the project is complete.

Consumers Power has already begun to evaluate ambient air and water
conditions in preparation for long term monitoring commitments. Con-
sumers Power is working closely with local governments to minimize con-
struction impacts.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The expansion of the J. H. Campbell Plant must be continually moni-
tored, and its associated impacts must be periodically evaluated. There
are numerous local, state, and federal agencies which will dutifully
insure project safety and integrity. The West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development Commission will watch with an interested eye the
progress in the Port Sheldon Pigeon Lake/Pigeon Creek area.

E. APC.STATUS:
The Pigeon Lake and Pigeon Creek APC was originally assigned High
Regional Priority recognizing potential conflicts which might arise due
to expansion of the J. H. Campbell Plant. This APC remains a High
Regional Priority.

186

33. MONA LAKE, BLACK CREEK,
AND LITTLEBLACK CREEK

ag"@

Aerial View of Mona Lake
Looking East from Over Lake Michigan
Photograph 111-41
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

187

33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek

A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, City of Muskegon Heights, Muskegon
County. T9N-R17W-Sections 12-14. T9N-Rl6W-.Sections 7-9.
17, and 18.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C-01-/-

rn
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

7Z- S U L L I VA N

RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

M-OSKEGON C 0.
S P R I OT TAWA Co.
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

Ao,

a 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-66
fGRENWO

General Location Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek

188

33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Mona.Lake drainage area lies entirely within Muskegon County.
The total watershed contains approximately 104 square miles (66, 1633
acres). Of this area, 324 acres would be considered as wetlands Mona
Lake is 695 acres in area and is fed by Black Creek and Little Mack
Creek with a single shallow outlet to Lake Michigan.

Land use within this basin is primarily residential with the highest,
densities found nearest Mona Lake. The Cities of Muskegon Heights and
Norton Shores each have parks on Mona Lake. The City of Norton Shores
plans to develop yet another recreation area once it acquires the 48
acre Swett Property (the Swett Property is also an APC a nd was discussed
previously). Celery flats on the northern shore, and the Muskegon County
Airport on the southern shore of Mona Lake each possess sizable acreage
within the watershed.

Mona Lake has suffered severe water quality problems. These pro-
blems are the result of long and persistant abuse. Muskegon County's
Wastewater Treatment System has produced encouraging improvements but
non-point contributions remain quite significant. Refer to Figure 111-67.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
.The City of Norton Shores and Muskegon Heights are participating
in the-Federal Flood Insurance Program being administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD has provided the City
of Norton Shores with a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The City of
Muskegon Heights has only preliminary Flood Hazard Boundry,Maps. Although
flooding in this area is considerably less significant compared to other
areas in the region, an effective floodplain management pruyvaill remains
a con cern, The City of Norton Shores has implemented such @a program, but
the City of Muskegon Heights awaits more detailed flood information.

Mona Lake water quality, and its eventual improvement, is perhaps
the greatest concern focused upon this APC. Mona Lake lies at the end
of a fairly extensive watershed. Wastes added anywhere in this system

189

33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek (cont.)

LEGEND. SCALE
Agriculture (Primarily Celery) 1 inch 4,000 feet

Public Access Site

Marsh Area

NOTE: MONA LAKE IS SURROUNDED
BY RESIDENTIAL USE.
LITTLE Muskegon Hts.
Park
BLACK CREEL,,/
NORTON AVE.

0 MONA LAKE BLACK
CR'EK
AIRPORT

Norton
S h o r e s
Park

Muskegon Co.
Airport

HENDRI K RD. ELLIS RD.

Figure 111-67
Site Description
Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek

190

33. Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek (cont.)

have a goo.d chance of accumulatina in Mona Lake. The advent ofl,
Muskegon County's Wastewater Treatment System has shown encouragnng re-
sults. We still must deal with significant non-point sources such as
urban storm drains and bottom sediments.

The marsh area found on the eastern end of.Mona Lake is recognized
as an ecologically'sensitive area worthy of preservation. It is an
area having significant wildlife value, and is probably beneficial to
Mona. Lake's water quality.

The City of Norton Shores at one time hoped to purchase property
on Mona Lake which is currently owned by the State of Michigan Highway
Department. This pro-perty is within the same vicinity as the marsh area
just described. This property was to be developed as a park. Emphasis
has since shifted toward the acquisition of the Swett Property.

MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Floodplain management will be handled by the City of Muskegon Heights
and the City of Norton Shores. Both communities must follow HUD guide-
lines concerning their respective management programs.

Mona Lake will be the subject of a rehabilitation study to be per-
formed by the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission
as part of i*ts 208 Water Quality Management Planning Program. Water
quality will be examined in detail as part of a water sampling program
schedule during the agency@s 1978-1979 fiscal year. The rehabilitation
study will evaluate numerous management alternatives based @upon monitor-
ing results.

The City of Norton Shores i,s preparing a Master Plan @hich will in-
clude development concepts for the Mona Lake vicinity. This planning
process has jUst begun so there are as yet no preliminary indication of
what might be done with the marsh areas described.

191

33. Mona Lake, Black C'reek, and Little Black Creek (cont.),

E. APC STATUS:
The Mona Lake, Black Creek, and Little Black Creek,area was' nomi-
nated early as an APC. Its importance to the City of Norton Sh res and
the City of Muskegon Heights goes without question. The West Michigan
Shoreline Regional Development Commission had recognized this a@ea as an
APC knowing that it would receive considerable attention during its 208
Water Quality Management Planning Program. The Commission, therefore,
assigned this area Low Regional Priority awaiting the conclusions offered
by its pl.anning staff regarding water quality. Since that time, the
agency has finished its initial 208 planning efforts and the City of
Norton Shores has made plans to purchase the Swett Property for develop-
ment as a recreation area. Charges in circumstances have caused the
Region 14 Commission to increase priorities from Low to High.

192

34. STONY LAKE WATERSHED

RM
"a

..........

Aerial View of Stony Lake
Photograph 111-42
FLOOD HAZARD AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
COASTAL LAKE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

193

3) 4. Stony Lake Watershed
A. LOCATION: Benona Twp.1 Benona Village, and Claybanks Tvip., Oceana
County. T.10-R18W-Sections 26-29, 31-35. T13N-Rl8W-
Sections 3-6.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-'
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY- C)
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

OCEANA 'Zo/
WHITE SKEGCN Co.
MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 7 4 6 p 10 miLES

Figure 111-68
G fRE N W

General Location - Stony Lake Watershed

194

34. Stony Lake Watershed (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Stony Lake Watershed is located entirely within Oceana I County.
The basin is approximately 62 square miles (39,855 acres). With n this
system are 734 acres of wetlands and 32 miles of connecting stre ms. The
largest lake in.this area is Stony Lake (278 acres).

Land use within the Stony Lake Watershed is predominately agricul-
tural with several hundred acres devoted to fruit orchards. Residential
development is, forthe most part, farm oriented except for the area
near and around the Village of Shelby. Both commercial and industrial
development have concentrated near Shelby. Development around Stony Lake
is resort oriented with many seasonal and vacation homes locating along
the lakeshore.

Figure -111-69 provides a general look at existing land use in the:
Stony Lake vicinity.

C, MAJOR CONCERNS:
Flood hazards and floodplain management are concerns regarding the
Stony Lake APC. Benona Township has just recently chosen to participate
in the Federal Flood Insurance Program which is administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Claybanks Township has
chosen not to participate even though HUD has indicated that it has flood
prone areas. .HUD has provided each Township with preliminary Flood
Hazard Boundry Maps.

Many residents-in the Benona area are concerned aboutiincreasing
development pressures which might result from improved acce,",ss due to
the new Highway U.S.-31. The Stony Lake watershed is at present in a
semi-wild state. It is wooded, swampy, and used by nestinglbirds.and
as a spawning ground for fish. Many people would like to see the marsh
areas preserved because of their ecologic significance . Others are
warned that increased development might seriously degrade water quality
throughout the watershed.

195

34- Stony Lake Watershed (cont.)

LEGEND

Wetland Area
E, n-
Agricultural Use

Residential Use

SCALE

1 inch 5,208 feet

Co 0
N
GRANT RD.
-------------------
----- .... ...
................
............
X: @ ....... ....

obmoosa

4 Shores
yA Subdivi
@,,sion
...... .....
...... ........ ......
10 (AP C)'@, ....... ...... . ......
.............. ...
RD.
......... .
............... PIKE
VA ...
.7;n
---- ......
VILLAGE %......... ....
AR-
X G
OF BENONA E
ST . ........ FIELD
X
X RD.,
Benona
U
. ..... ........
P X"
ublic Access
....... .............
Site ....

A
... ... .......
ARTHUR RD.
Claybanks Twp.
Municipal Park 4J 4J
00

Figure 111-69
Site Description
FE

Stony Lake Watershed

196

34. Stony Lake Watershed (cont.)

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Both Benona Township and Claybanks Township apparently nee,d to
implement a floodplain management program. Benona Township has decided
that it will prepa.re such a program. Clay Banks Township has ye'@ to
be convinced that it has a flood problem, or atleast a serious Fnough
problem to warrant land use restrictions based.upon Federal guidelines.

The Stony Lake area is an attractive resort/vacation area. Uncon-
trolled development poses a serious threat.to the character of Benona
Village and the integrity of the area's natural environment. Marsh areas
within the Stony Lake Watershed seem worthy of preservation. The commu-
nity should probably begin to formulate and implement a detailed com-
prehensive development strategy so as to protect valuable amenities.

E, APC STATUS:
The Stony Lake APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority.
The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission has increased
this priority to Medium.

0 197

35. BENONA ORCHARDS

@@,,,vq MORE---' E-
m

Aerial View of Benona Township Agriculture
Photograph 111- 43
AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

198

35. Benona Orchards
A. LOCATION: Benona Township, Oceana County, T14N-R19W-Sections 1, 12, and 13.

MASON CO.

W
R E
EA CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENTJ
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

r- x/17N

0
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

OCEANA lzlo@
WHITE SKEGGN CO.
MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
-Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 8 10 MILES
FiguIre 111-70 C fRE N W
Ge*neral Location - Benona Orchards

199

35. Benona Orchards (coht.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
This shoreline area of Benona Township has approximately 520 acres
1. These
in agricul'tural use. Most of this area is developed as orchards
orchards are successful due to the on-shore breezes from Lake Michigan
which moderate temperatures. The area is bordered on the west @Iy heavily
wooded undeveloped land. Parts of Silver Lake State Park are fLnd to
the immediate north. The Orwig Property, also recognized as an APC, is
located south of this agricultural area. Immediately to the east, across
Scenic Drive, is more agricultural land.

Figure 111-71 describes the general setting and existing land use.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns center upon retaining these areas in their existing agri-
cultural use. Development pressures are likely to increase and agricul-
tural uses are likely to suffer the consequences.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
.Properly'enforced zoning is probably all that is at present necessary
to preserve this valued agricultu ral area. Benona Township has no e xist-
ing zoning ordinance. Oceana County has prepared its own countywide zoning
ordinance, but it has not as yet been adopted.

E. APC STATUS:
The Benona Orchard APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority.
It will remain a Low Regional Priority given existing local interest.

200

35,. Benona Orchards (cont.)

LEGEND
41
co
.... Agricultural Use

Residential Use
BUCHA*N RD.
Vacant Wooded Land

SCALE
1 inch 2,640 feet -P

WOODROW RD.

.. ........

......................

SHELBY RD.
...........

Figure 111-71
Site Description
Benona Orchards

201

36. WHITE RIVER ROW CROPS

Agricultural Land Use in White River Township
Photograp h 111-44
AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN,

202

36. White River Row Crops

A. LOCATION: White River Township, Muskegon County. T12N-R18W-Sections
22, 23, and 26.

CLAYBANKS'
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

rT1
WHITE MONTAGUE
R I V'E R
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAI-L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETO s EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

-7- NORT j SU L I I VAN
S F@/
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

ON C
M SKE -0.
OTTAWA Co.
S P R I
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT
A,,

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-72
General Location - White River Row Crops
RYE NWO

203

36., White River Row Crops (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
This area has approxfmately 1,050 acres in agricultural.use. Most
of the area is planted in @ow and broadcast crops such as corn and hay.
The area borders residential development and the Old Channel Trail Golf
Course located to the west along Lake Michigan. Land to the i m@, ediate
south is primarily undeveloped. Areas to the north and east are split
between being undeveloped and agricultural.

Figure 111-73 describes the general White River area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Therels a significant portion of White River Township which is
recognized by the Muskegon County Soil Conservation Service.as Prime
Agricultural Lands. This APC is really just a small part of a much
larger land area which is viewed as being a significant agricultural
resource. This entire area is of regional concern, but only this
portion falls within the Region 14's current Coastal Zone Boundary.
The preservation of this agricultural area is a major interest.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Zoning procedures would appear all that is immediately necessary
to insure agricultu'ral use. The Township does have a zoning ordinance
and it does appear to be serving its inte Inded function.

E. APC STATUS:
The White River Row Crops APC was originally assigned Low Regional
Priority. Priority will remain Low given current management.

204

36,, White River Row Crops (cont.)

FRUITVALE RD.

Sand
Blowouts

........ .
HUN RD

........ ........

..... EILERS RD.
SCALE

. ........... ....
. ............ ... ...........
..........
1 inch 2,640 feet

.. ....... ...

.. ........ ........
POST RD.
X.: ............. ........ .
LEGEND ..... . ..................
7'1 Agricultural Land use X.: X

Residential Use X.:

Old Channel Trail Golf Ix-
X HANCOCK RD.
Course
.............
. ...... ....
E7 Vacant Wooded Land ........
X

ANDERSON RD.

IAI

Figure 111-73
Site Description
White River Row Crops

205

37. CLAYBANKS ORCHARDS AND ROW CROPS

go,

- - - - - - - - - - - -

........ ...

Agriculture in the Cl'aybanks Vicinity
Photograph 111-45
AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

206

37. Claybanks Orchards & Row Crops
A. LOCATION: Claybanks Township, Oceana County
T13N-R18W-Sections 8, 9, 16, 21, 27, 28, 33, and 34.

MASON CO.

WEARE
CRYSTAL CO L F A X

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

BENONA SHELBY F E R.RY NEWFIELD

LAY-
NKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

OCEA NA
G) ::WHITE MONTAGUE 'r_y0S11EGCN CO.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

6 8 10 MILES
VGRENW

Figure 111-74
General Location Claybanks Orchards & Row Crops

207

37. Claybanks Orchards & Row Crops

B. DESCRIPTION:
This area has approximately 2,050 acres in agricultural use. Most
of the area is planted in broadcast crops, but orchards and rowicrops
are scattered throughout. The area borders Lake Michigan and n6rrow
residential lakeshore development to the west. This area is surrounded
by land of similar character.

This agricultural area is complemented by three additional APC's
in this same vicinity: 1) Flower Creek, 2) Flower Creek Dunes, and
3) Claybanks Dunes. This area is truly one of the most scenic locations
in the Region.

Figure 111-'75 shows the general Claybanks vicinity.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The preservation of this very valuable agricultural area is a major
concern. This APC is actually only part of a larger agricultural area
having regional significance. Only the describ ed portion falls within
Region 14's current Coastal Zone Boundary.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Claybanks Township has an operative zoning ordinance. This ordinance
appears to be serving its intended function. There are some who feel
this ordinance should take a stronger stand regarding shoreland development.

E. APC STATUS:
The Claybanks Orchards and Row Crops APC was originally assigned Low
Regional Priority. Priority will remain Low given current1ocal management
efforts.

208

37. Claybanks Orchards and Row Crops (cont.)

Long'
JI)
Lake

.... ..... .
PARK RD.
...................
. ...................... .......
. .........

.... .........
.............
Clay Banks .....
Twp. Park

WINSTON RD.

...... ......
LEGEND

tll;w
LEI Agricultural Land Use ................
WEBSTER RD.
Residential Land Use

Qlaybanks Twp. Park
. ........ .

.......... .....
vacant Wooded Land ....... ....
F ROOSEVELT RD.
. ...................... ..

..............
.............
... ..............
.. .............

SCALE Flower
........... ...
.......... - .
.. ....... ...
Creek
1 inch 4,000 feet
. .. .......

Figure 111-75
Site Description
Clay,banks Orchards and Row Crops

209

38. GOLDEN BROADCAST CROPS

W@a k,',

Golden Township Agriculture
Photograph 111-46
AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

210.

38. Golden Broadcast Crops

A. LOCATION: Golden Township, Oc.eana County, T15N-R18W-Sections 8 and 17.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

IINT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

rr)

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

C)
OCEA NA 0a.@
WHITE MONTAGUE SKEGGN CO.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
-Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 A 6 8 10 miLES
@I(E N W'

Figure 111-76
General Location Golden Broadcast Crops

211

38. Golden Broadcast Crops

B. DESCRIPTION:
This area has over 400 acres in agricultural-use. The area@is planted
primarily in,broadcast crops, but there are some row crops and s@all
orchards scattered about. The area borders Lake Michigan and sh reline
residents on the west. To the south is an active sand mining a 7 a and
Silver Lake State Park, both of whlich are recognized APCs. To the north
and east are more agricultural lands and large undeveloped properties.

Figure 111-77 described the area's general land use pattern.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
This area is particularly vulnerable to development pressures.
The preseration of valuable agricultural land is a major concern. This
APC is only a small part of a much larger agricultural area of regional
significance.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
A well structured and stHctly enforced zoning ordinance would pro-
bably prove helpful in preserving this important agricultural area.
Golden Township does not, however, have a zoning ordinance, nor do
community members apparently want any such ordinance..

E. APC STATUS:
The Golden Broadcast Crops APC was originally assigned Low Regional
Priority. Priority will remain Low awaiting future reaction to proposed
management tools.

212

38. Golden Broadcast Crops (cont.

LEGEND

Property Owned by.Sand Mining Interests

Area Currently Mined
Silver Lake State Park /'@OLD@N. 13ROADCAST
CROPS fAPC)
Agricultural Use

Residential Use
tW.
Vacant Wooded Land
F

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
...........
-W
. .............. ...... ...
SCALE �

2,640 feet
1 inch

..... . ........

. . . . . . . . . . ...
i�

'..' x1-
. . . . . . . . . . .
........... ....... . . . . . . . . . .
...........
...... .. ....
...... .........
...........
HOLIDAY
.............
...............
LAKE (APC1

........ ........
...... ... .......
................

........................ ...... ....... .
................... .......
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ........... . . . . . . . . . . .
R

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

. ... . . . . . . . . ..... ... . . . ....
SILVER L A K E
DUNES jAPC)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 'jL'

. ....... UPPER

.................
SILVER
.... ........ .
E
...................
LAK

..................
(APC

....... ............
...........
........................................ .........
..............
.. ...............
............................ SILVER
.................... ..............
................ ........... LAKE (APC) ---------

.............

Figure 111-77
Site Descri ptio n - Golden Broadcast Crops

213

39. CITY OF GRAND HAVEN ISLAND PROPERTY

... .. . .... ..
...... . . . . .. .@

MM
A

An Aerial View of Harbor Island
Photograph 111-47
ISLAND AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

214
0

39. City of Grand Haven Island Property

A. LOCATION: City of Grand Haven, Ottawa County. TM-R16W-Sections
16, 17, 20, and 21.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NQLR-4Z@@ Z=bl SUL L IVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N cn-

SPR
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SHE N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN UJ

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMESTOWN
A,,
N
OTTAItWA CO.
0 7. 6 8 .0miLES ALLEGAN C()-

F,igure 111-78
General Location City of Grand Haven Island Property
LL ENDALE

ON
B L E @ND IGEORGETOWN

215

39. City of Grand Haven Island Property (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Harbor Islan.d is within the City of Grand Haven and is loca,@ed be-
tween the City of Ferrysburg and the Village of Spring Lake. Th b island
comes close to being a peninsula formed by the meandering Grand River.
The island area is, however, separated from the rest of Grand Ha en by
the "South Channel."

Much of the island is marsh and as such is attractive to a variety
of waterfowl. The island was at one time used as a major municipal dump.
It now contains petroleum storage facilities, an electric generati ng
plant owned by the City and operated by the Grand Haven Board of Light
and Power, an Army Corps of Engineers polluted dred ge disposal site,
the Cityls Rix Robinson Park (another APC), and a Municipal Boat Launching
ramp. The entire Harbor Island area is approximately 300 acres, over
half of which is currently flooded.

Figure 111-79 shows.the islands current land uses.

C MAJOR CONCERNS:
Although small parcels of Harbor Island are privately owned, most
of the land bel.ongs tothe City of Grand Haven. The City has made ten-
tative arrangements.with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning filling the property
and its future use for public purposes. There is a good chance that the
area will be further developed for recreational use. The Grand Haven
Board of Light and Power might also someday expand its present plant in
response to increasing energy needs. Whatever happens to. Harbor Island
will, of course, be a concern.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The devel opment of a comprehensive long range management strategy
for 'Harbor Island seems appropriate given its importance to the City of
Grand Haven. Island development could conceivably affect reclamation
efforts by Construction Aggregates at their sand mining site located
just across the river. Island development might also have an effect

216

39. City of Grand Haven Island Property (cont.)

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet

nj
C)
04

CITY OF

FERRYSBURG

Construction SAG

Aggregates

SPRING
Boat
Ramp LAKE
VILLAGE
Robin@@bn-Parlz
city of

1. .................
Grand
CMU OE] cz-N
Haven Power
Pla

Petroleu
..........
Storage
KITCHEL PUNIE CITY OF GRAND HAVEN

Figure 111-79
Site Description
City of Grand Haven Island Property

217

39. City of Grand Haven Island Property (cont.)

upon the North Shore Dune Area also within the same general viciInity.
These areas must be considered when formulating a Harbor Island develop-
ment strategy.

E. APC*STATUS:
The Harbor Island - City of Grand Haven Island Property, was origi-
nally assigned Low Regional Priority. There have been plans to deepen
the Grand Haven Channel so as to accommodate larger commercial vessels.
If the harbor is in fact deepened, Harbor Island might receive greater
attention. This APC will, however, remain a Low Regional Priority
awaiting future developments.

218

40. MOUTH CEMETERY

MOIR

-Entrance,to Mouth Cemetery
Photograph 111-48
HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

219

40. Mouth Cemetery

A. LOCATION: White River Township, Muskegon County. T12N-R18W7SectJons
22, 23, and 26.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA Q-91/-

M
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON
G)
0

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

NORT SULLIVAN
S E/
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

M SKEGON r. an
SPRI OT TAWA Co.
LA
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-80
G R fEN W 0

4VENNA
0
n I K TnM W R I 7C,H T

General Location - Mouth Cemetery

220

40. Mouth Cemetery (cont.)

B DESCRIPTION:
The Little Mouth Settlement was one of the first communitie Is in
Western Michigan, dating back to the 1830's. While the town fol@ed in
1870, the cemetery is still there. It is located on a bluff which over-
looks the Sadony Bayou and the old White Lake Channel (this Bayo and
White Lake's old Channel is currently recognized as an APC) . It is a
small cemetery, "a resting place for indians, early settlers, children
of Revolutionary War soldiers, and shipwrecked sailors."

Figure 111-81 shows the cemetery's general relationship to adjacent
land uses.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns center simply upon the preservation and continued mainte-
nance of this historic APC.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
White River Township has an operational zoning ordinance. The Mouth
Cemetery is recognized as a valued local historic site. There should
be no problem in insuring its preservation, although there have been pro-
blems with its maintenance and upkeep. The cemetery is somewhat iso-
l'ated and is infrequently visited. There isn't any regular caretaker.
White River Township formed a Bicentennial Committee in 1976 and about
100 residents took part in clean up efforts at the site. Such occurances

are rare.

E. APC STATUS:
The Mouth Cemetery APC was originally assigned Low Reg onal Priority.
Nothing has happened to change this original prioritizationi,

221

40. Mouth Cemetery (cont.)

WILKES RD. IL

-Pierson
Z- VD! Drain

0
Sadon@

BAYOU RD.
0

r
t
Mouth
Cemetery
old White Lake
Channel

SCALE

1 inch 1,300 feet
INDIAN BAY

Medbery
Park INDIAN POINT

White Lake
W H I T E L A K E
Lighthouse

LEGEND

Residential Structure

Wabaningo

Figure 111-81
Site Description
@hou se

tur
e@

Mouth Cemetery

222

41. PORT SHELDON

Photograph 111-49
Site of Port Sheldon Settlement

HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

223

41., Port Sheldon

A. LOCATION: Port Sheldon Township, Ottawa County. T6N-Rl6W-Se,ction
15 and 16.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N SUL L IVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

mus EGO N CO.

SPRII`\@

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SH N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN U-1

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAM!ESTOWN

OTTAAWA Co.
ALLEGAN CO.
0 2 6 R 10 MILES

'Figure 111-82
General Location - Port Sheldon
S @KE 7FEGI
GON
' SULL @R A V :EN N A]
POR Tt
I U S X E G70 '0.

EA R K

224

41. Port Sheldon (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Port Sheldon area south of Pigeon Lake was settled as early as
1836. Little is known about this early settlement other than it1was a
pilot city built in what was once wilderness. It has since been1developed
as a residential subdivision for primarily seasonal and cottage @se. The
area north of Pigeon Lake is now the site of the Consumers Power!- J. H.
Campbell electric generating plant.

Figure IH-83 describes the area's general land use pattern.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns center upon the preservation and reclamation of historic
values. Much more information is needed regarding this area's past.
Depending upon the situation, some areas might be set aside because of
their historic significance. Residents might want to reconstruct some
of the more noteworthy landmarks associated with this now relic commu-..
nity.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
We must first investigate further into the significance of this
historic site. We need more information regarding how this area origi-
nally looked. We need to determine whether or not specific management
techniques are necessary or wanted.

41 E. APC STATUS:
The Port Sheldon APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority.
Nothing has happened to change this original prioritization.

225

41. Port Sheldon (cont.)

POLK ST.

z
lz@c ownshi
Park

Power
Station T7

Waste Disposal
Ponds

IGEON PIGEON
CREEK
an

Port
Sheldon
Settlement @4

BLAIR ST.-
7

110

LEGEND

Residential Structure

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet

Figure 111-83
Site Description
Port Sheldon

226

42. Indian Mounds

.. ..... .

Aerial View of Indian Mound Vicinity
Exact Location Was Not Revealed
Photograph 111-50
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

227

42. Indian Mounds

A. LOCATION: Benona Township, Oceana County., TBN-Rl8W-Section,5.

MASON C 0.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AVI T T

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD
to

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OTTO GR ENWOOD

OCEANA C01'
SKEGCN CO.
WHITE
... MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-84
G fRE N W

'J/

General Location - Indian Mounds

228

42. Indian Mounds (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
This APC is only generally described because the exact location of
this Indian burial site has not been revealed. Approximately 480 acres
of Benona Township's section 5 is in agricultural use. The rema ning
160 acres is heavily wooded and vacant. Warren Road and 28th Av nue
provide the only access to this,area.

Figure III-85.shows the area's general land use.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
We are, of course, primarily concerned with the preservation of the
historic and archaeologic site. We need more study and investigation con-
cerning this area and its significance.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Benona Township does not at present have a zoning ordinance or any
long range planning strategy. Such an o rdinance and its accompanying
development strategy would be instrumental in any preservation attempts.
We need to know more about the site before we could institute any detailed
management techniques.

E. APC STATUS:
The Benona Township Indian Mounds were originally assigned Low
Regional Priority. Since this area was first recognized as an APC, the
Region 14 Coastal Zone has been narrowed somewhat in an attempt to con-
centrate planning efforts to a more specfic coastal related vicinity.
The Benona Township Indian Mound currently falls outside the Region 14
Coastal Zone Boundary. The boundary might be modified to accommodate this
area if local interests warrant such consideration.

229

42. Indian Mounds (cont.)

00
CN
WARREN RD. Fe

C14

BUCHANAN RD.
@-T

LEGEND

Agricultural Land Use

Wooded Vacant Land
SCALE

Residential Structure 1 inch 1,320 feet

Figure 111-85
Site Description
Indian Mounds

230

43. WHITE LAKE LIGHTHOUSE

Photograph 111-51
White Lake Light Station Marine Museum

HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

231

43. White Lake Lighthouse

A. LOCATION: Fruitland Township, Muskegon County. T11N-R18W-Section 2.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C 01/- Z
WHITE MONTAGUE rn
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALI

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

-7- NORT SU L L I VAN
S @11k@
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

Mv KEGON C I
S P R I OT TA WA Co.
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIG'HT

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-86
fGRENWO -ITIR
SULLIV'A

'
T
1K @EGON

General Location - White Lake Lighthouse

232

43. White Lake Lighthouse '(cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The White Lake Lighthouse sits on the southern side of Whitle Lake
Channel between White Lake and Lake Michigan. It is owned and maintained
as a marine museum by Fruitland Town,ship. The Township has for many
years allowed a caretaker to reside at the lighthouse rent free n return
for maintenance and museum operation.

The lighthouse and life boat station are representatives of masonary
construction common during the 1800's. Nautical artifacts are continually
being collected as part of the marine museum. Tours are operated through-
out the summer months with donations accepted.

Residential development lies adjacent*to and south of the lighthouse.
The light station is, in fact, part of the old Waba:ningo settlement, still
a viable resort community. Figure 111-86 describes the general area
which surrounds the lighthouse. Photograph 111-47 shows the structure
as it exists today, nestled within its wooded setting.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The continued preservation of the lighthouse and its use as a marine
museum are the major concerns directed toward this APC. The Fruitland
Township Park Commission has a limited budget and is often unable to
purchase desired artifacts.

D, MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Existing management is both appropriate and adequate. Fruitland
Township would, of course, like to acquire additional maritime antiques

E. APC STATUS:
The White Lake Lighthouse APC was originally assignedMedium
Regional Priority in support of Fruitland Township's persiftent manage-
ment efforts. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission
continues to support Fruitland Township and recognizes that the Township
'is doing virtually everything that should be done to preserve this his-
toric site. The Commission has therefore lowered its priority from
Medium toLow.

0 233

.43. White Lake Lighthouse (cont.)

WILKES RD. i IL

-Pierson
Drain

0
yA Sadony Ba5__
z

BAYOU RD.
0
:t Mouth
-Cemetery
old White Lake
Channel
IL

0 0 0
SCALE VI.F
1. inch 1,300 feet : 60, .
INDIAN BAY

Medbery
Park loot&: INDIAN POINT

White Lake W H I T E L A K E
Lighthouse

LEGEND

Residential Structure

Wabaningo

Figure 111-87
Site Description - White Lake Lighthouse

234

43. White Lake Lighthouse (cont.)

"ilk

"WHII, Vm 1,60,

C X-74

Photograph 111-52
White Lake Lighthouse Setting

235

44. RIX ROBINSON TRADING POST

Photograph 111-53
Sign Commemorating the Rix Robinson Trading Post,

HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

236

44. Rix Robinson Trading Post

A. LOCATION: City of Grand Haven, Ottawa County. T8N-R16W-Section 30.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON'
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N SULLIVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N

SPRIN

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

I-Xi

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

PORT
SHE N z
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN LU

PARK I
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAM'ESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO.
0 2 6 8 1:::0MILES ALLEGAN

Figure 111-88
General Location - Rix Robinson Trading Post.
rS@KEGONEGE

237

44. Rix Robinson Trading Post (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Rix Robinson Trading Post was built sometime in the eafily
1820's. The a ctual structure no longer exists, but its site is I still
recognized as an important local hi'storic area. The area is located
just east of U.S. 31 on Harbor Island. It has been developed as a
5.5 acre park by the City of Grand Haven. It is a picnic area equiped
with a boat launch. It serves as an ice rink during the winter months.

Figure 111-89 shows the Rix Robinson Park and its general-vicinity.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The preservation and maintenance of this historic area is a major
concern. With this in mind, the City of Grand Haven has shown an inter-
est in furth er developing the site for recreation use. The only pro-
blem which currently limits such use is occasional flooding.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The City of.Grand Haven has indicated that they will request finan-
cial assistance from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under
its (306) Coastal Zone Management Program. The City hopes to use these
funds to develop a recreation plan @or the Rix Robinson Park area.

E. APC STATUS:
The Rix Robinson Trading Post APC was originally assigned Low Re-
gional Priority. However, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Develop-
ment Commission wishes to support the City of Grand Haven in its rece nt
efforts toward the development of the current Rix Robinson ;Park. The
Commission, therefore, increases its assigned priority froml Low to
Medium.

238

........... ......

. . . . . . . . . . .
C) 0
:i: C)
a P- 1
LQ (t

.............
(D
LQ
0

(D 0

C-F

c FCJ 0
-5 , 0 Pi
X (D rt H

tlj

0
co cn ftj
Ln @-o 0
0

Lo
-a Chesapeake & Ohi
0

G)
OZ

45. GRAND HAVEN LIGHTHOUSE AND PIER

Roll #3 13-13A

Photograph 111-54
Grand Haven Lightho.use and Pier

HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

240

45. Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier

A. LOCATION: City of Grand Haven, Ottawa Co unty. T8N-R16W-Section 30.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

SUL L. IVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

M SKEGO N
0.

SPRIN
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

PORT
SHE N z
BLENDON GEORGETOWN Lu
OLIVE

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMIESTOWN

X.
A
N
OTTAAWA CO.
0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES ALLEGAN CO.
L

Figure 111-90
[dH

General Location - Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier

241

45. Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Gr and Haven Lighthouse and Pier are located on the southern
side of the Grand River Channel at its mouth. These structures qere
built in 1838 and are recognized as important historical and recreational
landmarks. The Lighthouse is still operated for navigation purposes.
The pier is heavily used by fishermen and tourists.

Figure 111-91 describes the general vicinity which surround this
APC.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Again, the preservation and maintenance of this historic landmark
is a major concern. These structures still serve a useful and valued

purpose.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Existing management would seem appropriate. The use of the pier
during heavy storms has caused some safety problems which might easily
be handled if warranted.

E. APC STATUS:
The Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier was originally assigned Low
Regional Priority given existing management and continuous maintenance.
Regional Priority will remain Low for the immediate future.

242

45. Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier (cont.)

Construction
Aggregates Sand
mine

SA9

spring Lake Twp.
Grand Haven Twp.

NORTH SHORE

SAND DUNE

AREA

CITY OF'

U.S. Coast GRAND HAVEN
Guard Station

Li(
jht-
Lighthouse
@ull
.,,-,-!@UlligaS
lHollo
Grand Haven
Par
State Park

Duncan

woocls

SCALE

1 inch 2,000 feet

Figure 111-91
Site Description
Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier

243

46. Silver Lake Dunes

P 0,

Photograph 111-55
Silver Lake Dunes

$AND DUNE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

244

46. Silver Lake Dunes

A. LOCATION: Golden Township, Oceana County. T15N-Rl9W-Sectio ns 24 & 25.
T15N-R18W-Sections 17-20, and 30.

MASON Co.

WEARE
CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

0
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

C)
CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OTTO GR ENWOOD

OCEA NA
WHITE MONTAGUE (JSKEGCN CO.
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON
Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES

Figure 111-92
General Location - Silver Lake Dunes
G fRE N W,

245

46. Silver Lake Dunes (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Silver Lake Dunes make up the principal shire of Silver Lake'State
Park. These dunes range in elevation from 560 to 700+ feet above sea
level. These dunes are scantly vegetated and constantly being I M@oved
inland by off-shore winds. The area is heavily used by off-roa vehicles.

Figure 111-93 shows the Silver Lake area and its dunes.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Concerns center upon off-road vehicle use and resulting noise,
.user conflicts, and the destruction of fragile environments.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:

The relatively uncontrolled use of off-road motorized vehicles
poses considerable consequences regarding fragile dune environments.
In order to protect these environments, off-road vehicle use must be
more effectively regulated. This might mean fewer Vehicles and their
being limited to specifically designated trails. A comprehensive long
range plan must be prepared so as to facilitate rational decisions on a
day-to-day basis.

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority given the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources jurisdiction. This APC re-
tains its Low Regional Priority status.

246

46., Silver Lake Dunes (cont.)

SCALE

1 inch 5,208 feet
P@

LEGEND A-1
HOLIDAY

LAKE
Wooded Duneland

-600- Elevation in Feet
24:
Above Sea Level
n
UPPER
SILVER

LAKE

SILVER

LAKE

4@
7U

Figure 111-93
Site Description -.Silver Lake Dunes

247

47.. Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out

FEE-
GRIM
W7-

Photograph 111-56
Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out

SAND DUNE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

248

47. Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out

A. LOCATION: City of Ferrysburg, Ottawa County. TM-RHW-Sec,tion 18.

NEWAYGO

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N D-RZm SULLIVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGO N 0.

SPRI

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
0 HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E

PORT
SHE N z
OLIVE BLENDON IGEORGETOWN U1

PARK
HOL L A N D ZEELAND JAMESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO.
0 2 A 6 8 10 MILES ALLEGAN Co.
L

,Figure 111-94
"@rS K E GO @NE G I

General Location - Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out

249

47. Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Within the City of Ferrysburg along.North Shore Estates Road,
and across from Ottawa County's North Beach Park is a blown-out dune
area having particular local significance. The entire blow outlis.no
more than five acres in size. It is part of a larger parcel previously
owned by North Shores Dunes, Inc. and now apparently owned by Construc-
tion Aggregates Corporation. This dune ranges in elevation from 620
feet to 750 feet above sea level. Except for this badly er oded wind
torn slope, the rest of this dune is heavily vegetated and characterized
by a beech/ maple forest.

Figure 111-95 shows the blown-out area, surrounding land uses,
and existing owne rship patterns.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
It was thought that this entire sand dune area might someday be
developed. Construction Aggregates Corporation now ow ns this dune area
together with more than 200 acres in the same vicinity. Company
spokesmen have indicated that Construction Aggregates would like to de-
velop this land in coordination with proposed reclamation and reuse
efforts directed at their existing sand mining site.

What will actually happen in this area remains to be seen. As
things stand now, this blown-out sand dune experiences some recreation
spill over from Ottawa Countyls North Beach Park. Recreation would
appear an appropriate use for this land.

D., MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The preservation of current recreational uses for thiS dune area
might require that this land be purchased for public owner'ship. The
aquisition of this dune area is not a new idea, yet none of the commu-
nities involved have apparently pursued the matter. Some thought should
be given to the formulation of a development strategy for the entire
11 North Shorel' area including this duneland vicinity.

250

47. Dune Blow Out (cont.)

EN.
Mmm

51" '1
M IZ"

NORTH SHORE RD.

VA.

Ferrysburg
Blow out

M@? d

SCALE 0

1 inch 1,000 feet

"UP

LEGEND

R
E-1 Wooded Duneland

-600- Elevation in Feet
Above Sea Level

Figure 111-95
Site Description
Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out

251

47- Ferrysburg Dune Blow Out (cont.)

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority, g@ven its
private ownership. This dune area has recently shifted ownership.
This change does not affect the original prioritization.

252

48. NORTH SHORE SAND DUNES

Aerial View of the North Shore Sand Dunes Area
Photograph 111-57
SAND DUNE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

253

48. North Shore Sand Dunes

A. LOCATION: City of Grand Haven, Ottawa County. T8N-R16W-Se ctions
19 and 20.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N S U L L I VA N
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRU(TPORT

MUSKEGO N rn

SPRI
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON ALLENDALE

-Z

PO T
SH N
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN LU

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAM@ESTOWN

OTTAIWA CO. I
0 2 A 6 F I.0MILES ALLEGAN CU.

'Figure 111-96
General Location - North Shore Sand Dunes

254

48. North Shore Sand Dunes (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The North Shore Sand Dunes area is located on the north side of
the Grand River Channel immediately adjacent to and south of Co@struc-
tion Aggregates Corporation's sand mining site in the City of F6rrysburg.
The entire area i@ s primarily undeveloped except for the string f houses
bordering Lake Michigan along North Shore Drive, and the Coast Guard
Station and private marina which are located next to the channel.

The entire North Shore Sand Dunes area totals approximately 271
acres. Of this area, the City of Grand Haven owns nearly 133 acres,
deeded to it by the State of Michigan for "public use." Central Michigan
University owns another 60 acres which it has preserved in its natural
state for educational and scientific use. The Nature Conservancy
currently owns an additional 52 acres which is adjacent to and east of
the CMU property. The Nature Conservancy is expected to deed or lease
this 52 acre parcel over to an institution like CMU or Grand Valley
State Colleges with the stipulation that it remain in its present natural
state. A smaller 26 acre parcel is at present owned by Construction
Aggregates Corporation.

The North Shores Dunes area is prized as an exhibit of sand dune
processes and ecologic progresssion. It is an area blessed with enor-
mous diversity regarding vegetative communities and microclimatic zones.
The North Shores Dunes area has been described as an important educa-
tional resource.

Figure 111-97 shows the North Shore Dunes area and its present
ownership.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The North Shore Dunes area has been the subject of se@ious develop-
mental speculation. Now, almost half of this duneland area, those par-
cels owned by Central Michigan Universit y and the Nature Conservancy,
looks as though it will remain in its natural state. However, the
Nature Conservancy must eventually be reimbursed for its purchase of

255

48. North Shore Sand Dunes (cont.)

600 b5o

0
Amg% Mt
"A
-,g

U',

LD
7.M
5U
AMM.,i

10
gF,

SCALE
z V Mg
1 inch 1,000 feet
0 b@

F.,
LEGEND

Wooded Duneland

600- Elevation in Feet
Above Sea Level

NOTE: OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
DESCRIBED ON PAGE 35.

Figure 111-97
Site Description
North Shore Sand Dunes

256

48. North Shore Sand Dunes (cont.

what is called the Kitchel Dune,. If the Nature Conservancy is not re-
paid the $160,000 it cost to buy this dune area, it may be forc Ibd to
offer the property for resale on the open market.

Construction Aggregates Corporation has indicated that it 'will
leave its portion of the North Shore Dunes area as a buffer zone for
its current sand mining operation. What the City of Grand Haven intends
to do with its 133 acre@parcel has yet to be determined. There has
been some talk that the City might use its duneland as a site for a
new water filtration plant. Although a water filtration system would
Most definitely qualify as a valuable "public use," there are many
residents who are concerned about what such development might do to
the area's environmental character.

Another concern regarding the North Shore Dune s area is related
to the City's plans to extend.municipal sewerage under the Grand River,
north into the City of Ferrysburg. Sewers would serve those residents
along North Shore Drive. This sewer is designed, however, at a capacity
beyond what is necessary. Many people are concerned that this addi-
tional capacity will stimulate increased development in the North Shore.
area. The construction of sewers can, in itself, pose significant environ-
mental consequences.

D. MANAGEMENT NE EDS:
. The Nature Conservancy must eventually resolve its problem regard-
ing the reimbursement at $160,000 spent to purchase the Ki,tchel'Dune.
The Conservancy must also find an acceptable organization1which will
properly manage this duneland area.

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development comn)ission has
recently published a document entitled, "The Next Ten Years" 1978-1988
Development Plan for Grand Haven, Michigan (September 1978). This
report recommends that the City of Grand Haven prepare a detailed plan
for the entire North Shore vicinity. This plan must identify "areas

257

48. North Shore Sand Dunes (cont.)

of active and passive recreation, areas to be preserved in th.eir natural
state, access points, roads, utility corridors, potential residential
locations and other pertinent information necessary to the task This
report has.been adopted by the Grand Haven Planning Commission.

The U.S. EPA may prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in re-
sponse to the City's plans to extend sewerage into the North Shore area.
The preparation and review of this EIS could delay sewer construction
by as much as one year.

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority. The Nature
Conservancy had at that time just purchased the Kitchel Dune area and
things looked relatively stable regarding development pressures. Since
this original prioritization the Nature Conservancy has run into some
difficulty in getting reimbursed for money it spent in purchasing the
Kitchel Dune area. In addition, the City of Grand Haven has indicated
that it would like to extend sewers'into North Shore properties. There
has also been increased speculation regarding how the City might
develop its portion of this duneland area. All these factors have
caused the Region 14 Commission to assign this APQ High Regional Priority.

258

49. FLOWER CREEK DUNES

"IP

Flower Creek Dunelands
Photograph 111-58
SAND DUNE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

259

49.. Flower Creek Dunes

A. LOCATION: Clay Banks Township, Oceana County. THN-R18W-Sections 33 & 34.
White River Township, Muskegon County. T12N-Rl8W-Secs. 3 and 4.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT--
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE L E AV I T T

> G)
C)
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

C)
CLAY- (D
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

0 C _E A N A
SKEGCN CO.
WHITE MONTAGUE
RIVER

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

2 A 6 8 10 MILES
G fRE N W,
r., U E

Figure 111-98
General Location - Flower Creek Dunes

260

49. Flower Creek Dunes.(cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Flower Creek Dunes are located along Lake Michigan nearl the
Muskegon County - Oceana County boundary line. It is an area of approxi-
mately 270 acres and is primarily undeveloped except for residential
structures along the lake shore and the nearby Muskegon County M I@inert
Park. This duneland area ranges in elevation from 600 feet to 720+ feet
above sea level. The shoreline is characterized by a very steep and very
high bluff. The entire dune complex is heavily wooded and is complemented
by wet] ands associated with the Flower Creek watershed (also recognized
as an APC).

Figure 111-99 describes the Flower Creek vicinity including the dune

areas.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
Uncontrolled development in this fragi.le shoreland area is without
a.doubt the major concern. This duneland area has extraordinary aesthe-
tic value and important e,nvironmental attributes. Development in this
sensitive dune environment can ha ve catastrophic impacts.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Both, Claybanks Township and White River Township have zoning ordi-
nances, as a control upon development within their jurisdictions. These
ordinances aren't, however, all that restrictive when considering the
duneland environment. Both communities might give some thought regard-
ing the preparation of a development strategy for the Flower Creek area.

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Medium Regional Priority. This
priority will be reduced to Low awaiting changes in the cu rent situation.

261

49. Flower Creek Dunes (cont.)

640

T"a
0
AM .1M

SCALE X
A.

k
1 inch 1,736 feet
0",

'p
qg

LEGEND

Wooded Duneland
@4
-600 -Elevation in Feet
Above Sea Level

M-.@,
i@, "31-n".,

600

Figure 111-99
Site Description
Flower Creek Dunes

262

50. CLAYBANKS DUNES

Aerial View of Clay Bluffs in Claybanks Township
Photograph 111-59
SAND DUNE AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

263

50. Claybanks Dunes

A. LOCATION: Claybanks Township, Oceana County. T13N-RI9W-Se:cs. 6, 8,
17, 21, 28, and 33.

MASON CO.

WEARE
CRYSTAL COLFAX

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

0
BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
ANKS
GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

OCEA NA
WHITE C 0.
RIVER MO N TA GU E_',,@SKEGC N

BLUE LAKE HOLTON

H I T E H A L L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 6 8 10 MILES

Figure III-100
VRE N W,

'--1-v

General Location - Claybanks Dunes

264

50. Claybanks Dunes (cont.

B. DESCRIPTION:
The Claybanks Township shoreline represents one of the more unique
geologic features of the Pleistocene found in Region .14.' The a irea's
dunes are apparently perched upon a thick clay layer. When exposed by
wave action, a very steep bluff may result. In fact, some places along
Lake Michigan within Claybanks Township range from the water's 'edge at
about 600 feet to the top of the dunes which are over 840 feet above
sea level.

Much of Claybanks' shoreline is developed for residential use.
There are, however, large tracts of land which still remain in its
natural state. Claybanks Township owns over 80 acres with over 2,000
feet of Lake Michigan frontage. This land has been developed as a local
park for Township residents and includes picnic area, restrooms, and
campsites.

Figure III-101 describes the Claybanks shoreline.
Ole
C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The preservation of unique geologic remnants is a major concern.
There is also a need for more public,access.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
Claybanks Township has an operative zoning ordinance. This ordi-
nance doesWt give any special consideration to shoreland areas. The
Township might want to i-nvestigate the inclusion of performance standards
as part of its zoning procedures.

E. APC.STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority@- This pri-
ority remains unchanged.

265

50. Claybanks Dunes (cont.)

"Ma
a

I,X

VA
K

SCALE

1 inch 5,208 feet

LEGEND

Wooded Duneland

800- Elevation in Feet
Above Sea Level

Main Roads

Figure 111-'101'
Site Description
Claybanks Dunes

266

51. P. J. HOFFMASTE,R STATE PARK

Parabolic Blow Outs of P. J. Hoffmaster State Park
Photograph 111-60
NATURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

267

51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park
A. LOCATION: City of Norton Shores, Muskegon County. T9N-Rl7W-Secs.
25 and 36. T9N-R16W-Section 31. Spring Lake Township,
Ottawa County. T8N-R17W-Section 1. T8N-Rl6W-Sec.. 6.

NEWAYGO Co.

LAKETON
SKEGON E G E L STON MOORLAND CASNOVIA

N& SUL LIVAN
SHORES RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUI T PORT

MUSKEGO N r n
S P R I r@r
A

CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

TALLMADGE
GRAND
HAVEN ROBINSON A L L E N D A L E
G)

-z ...

PORT
SHE N z
OLIVE BLENDON GEORGETOWN LU

PARK
HOLLAND ZEELAND JAMESTOWN

OTTAIWA Co.
0 2 4 6 8 10MILES ALLEGAN UU,
L LEN DALE
@SKEGONFEG

@BL E N D0 N@GEORGETOWN

Figure 111-102
General Location - P. J. Hoffmaster State Park

268

51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park (cont.)
B. DESCRIPTION:
The P. J. Hoffmaster State Park is developed as a nature pr !eserve
and outdoor classroom. It is located along Lake Michigan in the@southern
half of the City of Norton Shores and the northernmost portion 0f Spring
Lake Township. The park has approximately 2-1, miles of IaKe Trontage and
totals an estimated 1,030 acres in area. Facilities include a picnic
area, 33 campsites, bathhouse, playgrounds, trails, nature inter retation
center, beach, lifeguard, snowmobile trail, and concession stands. The
area is for the most part very heavily wooded and yet is known for its
large parabolic shaped blow outs.

Figure 111-103 describes the P. J. Hoffmaster State Park and its
immediate vicinity. Note the relationship of this APC to the Black Lake
area also designated as an Area of Particular Concern.

C. MAJOR C014CERNS:
Concerns center upon user conflicts. The park is open to snowmobiles
throughout the winter months. This use often conflicts with those.people
interested in cross-country skiing and hiking. Heavy park use during
other seasons has at ti'mes lead to the trampling of valued vegetation.
These areas*are difficult to stabilize once they have been disturbed.

op D, MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has done an excellent
job in managing this state park. The DNR is working to eliminate user
conflicts by restricting certain uses to specific locations. Trails are
provided so as to minimize impacts in sensitive areas.

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority as a reflec-
tion of the DNWs capable management. This priority remain's unchanged.

269
4P

51. P. J. Hoffmaster State Park (cont.)

p"m"
P
R
4,

@X,

'i'M

LITTLE
0
BLACK
LAKE

Muskegon CO.
K
. . . . . . . . . .
Ottawa Co.

SCALE
5

1 inch 2,000 feet

LEGEND

-P.J. Hoffmaster State Park
Boundary
DorN
Wooded Duneland

.-800- Elevation in Feet Above
Sea Level

Figure 111-103
Site Description
P. J. Hoffmaster State Park

270

52. BIGSBEE LAKE (ORWIG PROPERTY)

t-@t' 7.7,

ME
IV

Photograph 111-61
View of Bigsbee Lake and the Orwig Property

NATURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

271

52. Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property)

A. LOCATION: Benona Township, Oceana County. T14N-R19W-Section,24-
T14N-R18W-Section 19.

MASON CO.

WEARE CRYSTAL CO L,F A X

PENT-
WATER

GOLDEN HART ELBRIDGE LEAVITT

BENONA SHELBY FERRY NEWFIELD

CLAY-
BANKS GRANT OT TO GR ENWOOD

C-)

nCEA NA
WHITE MONTAGUE SKEGCN CO.
RIVER
> x
BLUE LAKE HOLTON
Z

HITEHAL L

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

0 2 6 8 10 miLES

F.igure 111-104
G fRE N W

'J/

General Location Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property)

272

52. Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) (cont.)

DESCRI PT ION:
The Orwig Property consists of approximately 332 acres and ',is lo-
cated about midway along Benona Township's Lake Michigan Shorel7'e. The
property has over a half mile of Lake Michigan frontage and contains
Bigsbee Lake which is almost 20 ac'res in size. The area is primarily un-
developed except for the numerous cottages lining the Lake Michigan shore.
The Orwig Property all but.'surrounds an additional undeveloped 40 acre s
parcel owned by the St. Joseph's Catholic Church.

The Orwig Property is a heavily wooded duneland area of significant
scenic value.' It is particularly valuable as a wildlife habitat. Ob-
servers have noted the presence of the golden eagle, great blue heron,
grey heron, pipers, gulls, ducks, warblers, osprey, wood peckers, etc.
Vegetation includes arbutus, slippers, indian pipes,,pulpits, trillium,
etc. The area-has been described as an important educational resource.

Figure 111-105 describes this general area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The preservation of this unique and sensitive shoreland area is@a
major concern. Its scenic value cannot be overstressed. Its importance
as a wildlife habitat is enormous.

D. MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The area might be purchased and preserved as public property. At
the very least it should be maintained as a natural area for possible
l.ight recreation use. Benona Township has no zoning ordinance so develop-
ment may locate almost anywhere. Oceana County might bring relief to
this situation if it adopts a county wide zoning ordinance.@

E AP.C STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Low Regional Priority because it
is private.property and its management currently left up to its owner.
This priority will remain unchanged unless stimulated by local government.

273

52. Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) (cont.)

]m
ra 01

,rA
z"
X
10 . .....
M
,'Is
,eA X ...
. ... .. .....
AM
n,@
a
RO

BIGSBEE
LAKE

M, GRANT RD.
t ....

Vq
y
''Wp
X
SCALE
7

1 inch 2,640 f FISH RD.
eet

.................

LEGEND

Wooded

Agriculture

open vacant Land
zLN

Figure 111-105
Site Description

Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property)

274

53. OLD WHITE LAKE CHANNEL & BAYOU

IND

1151
Mill

@.t,

Sign Commemorating the "Old Channel Area"
as an Historic Site
Photograph 111-62
NATURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
HISTORIC SITE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

275

53. Old White Lake Channel & Bayou

A. LOCATION: White River Township, Muskegon County. T11N-R18W -Section 2.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

rTi
HIT MONTAGUE
RIVE
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

-Z
LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
C)

NOR
-7- S U L L I VA N
S E,
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

MUSKEGON Cl-
OT TAINA Co.
S P R I Wr
L A K
CROCKERY POLKTON WRIGHT

0 2 6 8 10 MILES
L
GR fEN W 0

Figure 111-106
General Location Old White Lake Channel & Bayou

276

53. Old White Lake Channel & Bayou (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
White Lake originally drained through a meandered channel north of
its present mouth. This old channel was the site of one of thisiarea s
first settlements. Aside from its historic significance, the ol I channel
and its associated bayou (Sodony Bayou) serve as a valued wildlife habi

tat.

Pierson Drain flows south into the Sodony Bayou. The Bayou empties
into White Lake through the old channel. Together, the bayou and channel
are a little more than one mile in length.

The old channel and bayou area are not heavily de 'veloped although
there are several-homes scattered throughout. Most of the area is wooded
with limited access.

Figure 111-107 describes the old channel and bayou area. Photographs
111-58 and 111-59 show.Sodony Bayou northeast of the Old Channel Trail
Bridge, and the old channel as seen southwest of the bridge.

C, MAJOR CONCERNS:
This area's preservation is a major concern. It is both an historic
site and an important natural area. Increased development and degraded
water quality can have serious repercussions regarding environmental
attributes.

D, MANAGEMENT NEEDS:

Current land uses do not seem all that troublesome to,the area's his-
toric relevance or wildlife values. Future development shd iuld probably
be limited and certain restrictions imposed regarding construction tech-
ni.que. The area's preservation requires the formulation of ia conscien-
tious developmental strategy.

E. APC STATUS:
This APC was originally assigned Medium Regional Priority. The lack
of any real interest in planning efforts has caused the Region 14 Commis-
silon to reduce the priority to Low.

277

53. Old White Lake Channel & Bayou (cont.)

WILKES RD.
IL

-Pierson
Drain

yA >4

0
YA 00.. Sadony Bay--
z

BAYOU RD.

Mouth
Cemetery
Old White Lake
Channel

SCALE

I inch 1,300
feet

INDIAN BAY

Medbery
Park INDIAN POINT

White Lake W H I T E L A K E
Lighthouse Go
0

LEGEND

Residential Structure

Waban ngo
Fh se
ou

tu
re

Figure 111-107
Site Description Old White Lake Channel & Bayou

278

53. Old White Lake Channel & Bayou (cont.)

Photograph 111-63
Sodony Bayou as seen looking northeast
on Old Channel Trail Bridge

c
IN I ME
'KIM

Photograph 111-64
The Old White Lake Channel as
seen from the same bridge looking southwest

279

54. LOST LAKE

m
o ?K,
o;

Ra
'-l' ft-v

Photograph 111-65
Lost Lake

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF PARTICULAR.CONCERN

280

54. Lost Lake

A. LOCATION: Laketon Township, Muskegon County. T1ON-R17W-Sec:tion 6.

CLAYBANKS
GRANT OTTO GRE NWOOD

OCEANA C

rn
HITE MONTAGUE
RIVER
BLUE LAKE HOLTON

HITEHALL

0
0

FRUITLAND DALTON CEDAR CREEK

LAKETON S EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
C-)

NORT S U L L I VA N
S
RAVENNA CHESTER
FRUITPORT

--91)SKEGON
OT TA NA Co.
SPRI@(
LAK
CROCKERY POLKTbN WRIGHT

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES
1N20FA:ZZ=

Figure 111-108
@TO GRE 'NWO

k@S7@fE G

7
RT

K
E G @ON

General Location Lost Lake

281

54. Lost Lake (cont.)

B. DESCRIPTION:
Lost Lake is a bog type lake located just east of Muskegon State
Park betw.een Scenic Drive and Peterson Road. The lake is approxilmately
10 acres in size. It is surrounded by Vacant, mostly wooded, land. It
is accessible by trail only. A small portion of the Lost Lake a Irea falls
within the Muskegon State Park boundary. The rest is.split between two
private owners.

Lost Lake is known for its unusual. vegetation and as a wildlife
habitat. The lake is used regularly as an educational area, for it is an
excellent example of bog ecology.,

Figure 111-109 describes the Lost Lake area.

C. MAJOR CONCERNS:
The preservation of this particularly sensitive ecologic area is-,
of course, the major concern, Development of this area would, without.a
doubt, destroy it. The area's heavy use might seriously jeopardize its
ecological vitality.

D, MANAGEMENT NEEDS:
The entire Lost Lake area might be acquired as part of the already.
extensive Muskegon State Park. Access to this area is at present limited.
Access could be improved with the bog environment still protected.

E, APC STATUS:
The Lost Lake APC was originally assigned Medium Regional Priority.
I
Nothing has happened regarding this area since it was recoq Inized as an
0 APC, Its p iority has been reduced to the Low category.

282

54. Lost Lake (cont.)

PENNER, RD.

-Losv
4

'77"
-0-
NP-5: .......

. . . . . . . . ...
N!,
VA

RM %M
DIMAN DR
RUD
a

MUSKEGON
4@

SCALE LAKE

inch 2,640 feet
X.Ikl
N

LEGEND

Wooded

Exposed Sand
Open Land mixed with Residential Use

Figure 111-109
Site'Description
Lost Lake

283

CHAPTER IV

APC PRIORITIZATION

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission seeks' as part
of its policy, the orderly development of shoreland resources, the prel IS'er.vation,
of-areas having special interest, and the enhancement of shoreline rec eation
potential. The Commission realizes that it must encourage public involvement
in its Shoreland Management Program if it wishes to successfully accomplish
its stated objectives, and implement its derived policy. It is for these
reasons that the Commission was so willing to recognize the many Areas of Par-
ticular Concern nominated by the regional community.

The recognition given to those areas listed in th e previous Chapter is
not intended to suggest that the Commission desires responsibility for their
subsequent management. In fact, many of the areas mentioned are being used
and managed in a responsible, reasonable, and practical way. The Commission
wants foremost to identify the Shoreland resources important to the region's
citizens. The Commissio-n also seeks to understand the problems and concerns
which might affect these resources. Finally, the Regional Commission wishes
to aid local and state governments in formulating effective management options
with intent to enhance use potentials and mitigate associated problems.

Many of the problems and concerns referred to in Chapter III fall out-
side the Commission's given authority. Some municipalities would rather
handle specific shoreland issues themselves. The Commission is, in many ways,
limited in what it can.do by the money it receives and the staff it is able to
assign. All these factors require that the Regional Commission decide on
certain priorities regarding its involvement with the recognizedOC's.
i
In August 1976, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Develo6ent'Commis-
p
sion selected 26 of the 54 recognized APC's as being "Areas of Immediate Con-
cern." These were areas where the Commission felt it might provide planning
assistance to local governmental units, should these municipalities desire
such assistance. These were areas that the planning staff thought deserved
close attention.

284

The remaining 28 APC's (referred to as "Areas of Long Term Concern) would not
be forgotten, but simply set asside, pending further developments.

The 26 APC's selected by the Regional Commission were summarized 'ina
brochure published by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in A@pril
1977, entitled West Michigan Shoreline, A Proposed Program for Michi 1, s Coast.
These same areas are listed below in Table IV-1. The following tabl lso in-
dicates whether an APC was assigned either a High, Medium, or Low action pri-
.ority,'by the Regional Commission. This simple ranking was used to help
articulate planning emphasis and was intended to give the DNR some indication
as.to what areas the Regional.Commission thought were most important.

285

TABLE IV-1

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(August 1976

OCEANA COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(2) Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) Medium

(8) Cedar Point Twp. Park Low

(10) Ch.eyenne Hills, Fawn Park Low

(30) Pentwater Lake & River High

286

TABLE IV-1 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(August 1976)

MUSKEGON COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(4) Nugent Sand and Campbell, Low
Wyant, & Cannon Mineral
0 Resource Area
(5) Pigeon Hill High

(6) Swett Property Medium

(7) Pioneer County Park Low

(9) Whitey's Woods Low

(19) Mona Shores School District Low

(24) Flower Creek Medium

(25) Little Black Lake High

(26) Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, High
and Muskegon River

287

TABLE IV-1 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(August 1976)

MUSKEGON COUNTY (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(28) White Lake, White River Medium

(33) Mona Lake, Black Creek, Medium
Little Black Creek

(43) White Lake Lighthouse Medium

(49) Flower Creek Dunes Medium

(53) Old White Lake Channel Medium
& Bayou
Ole (54) Lost Lake Medium

288

TABLE IV-1 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(August 1976@

OTTAWA COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional.Priority

(1) Standard Sand - Sand Mine High

(3) Construction Aggregates - High.
Sand Mine

(14) Kirk Park High

(23) 'Grand River High

(31) Lake Macatawa, Macatawa High
River

(32).Pigeon Lake, Pigeon River High

(45) Grand Haven Light House Low
and Pier

289

In the time since August 1976, many changes have taken place concerning
several of the recognized Region 14 APC's (many of these changes are referred
to 'in the previous chapter as part of each APC!s status report). The se
changes have caused the WMSRDC to look again at its APC priorities. The
Commission has again divided the Region's APC's into two groups; those being
an -immediate concern, and those which are a long term concern. Those APC's
determined as being an immediate concern were assigned a priority rating
just as before. Table IV-2 lists those APC's now considered an immed iiate

concern.

290

TABLE IV-2

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(September 1978)

OCEANA COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(2) Sand Mine (Golden Twp.) Medium

(8) Cedar Point Twp. Park Medium
(29) Silver Lake, U@per Silver Lake, High
and Holiday La e
(30) Pentwater Lake, Pentwater River High

(34) Stony Lake and Watershed High

291

TABLE IV-2 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(September 1978)

MUSKEGON COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional!.Priority

Nugent Sand and Campbell High
Wyant & Cannon Mineral
Resource Area

(5) Pigeon Hill High

(6) Swett Property High

(7) Pioneer County Park Medium

(9) Whitey's Woods High

(19) Mona Shores School District High
Property

(23) Grand River, Spring Lake, and High
Associated Wetlands

(25) Little Bl,ack Lake Medium

(26) Muskenon Lake, Bear Lake, High
and Muskegon River
(27) Duck Lake, Muskrat Lake Medium

(28) White Lake, White River High

292

TABLE IV-2 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(September-1978@-

MUSKEGON COUNTY (continued)

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(33) Mona Lake, Black Creek, High
Little Black Creek

(43) White Lake Lighthouse Low

293

TABLE IV-2 (continued)

COASTAL AREAS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
(September 1978)

OTTAWA COUNTY

Area Name (Index No.) Regional Priority

(1) Standard Sand Sand Mine Medium

(3) ConstructionAggregates - Medium
Sand Mine

(23) Grand River,'Spring Lake, High
and associated wetlands

(25) Little Black Lake Medium

(31) Lake Macatawa, Macatawa High
River

(32) Pigeon Lake, Pigeon Creek High

(39) City of Grand Haven Low
Island Property

(48) North Shore Sand Dunes High

294

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission has begun to
focus its attentions upon the formulation of a regionwide Comprehensive Develop-
ment Strategy. In so doing, Oceana, Ottawa, and Muskegon Counties have been
divided into two general development zones: the "Urbanizing Corridor,'.' and
the "Rural Corridor." Our planning goal is to strengthen growth in existing
urban areas through a systematic development process. At the same time we will
seek to preserve very valuable rural areas.

All of Region 14's Coastal Zone lies within the "Urbanizing Corridor"
and will unquestionably experience considerable development pressure. Our
objective is to minimize the impacts associated with this development through
the prudent and rational use of shoreland resources.

The previous chapters provide the reader with a brief review of Region
14's Coastal Areas of Particular Concern. Each APC has been described in de-
40 tail, its problems and potential problems have been discussed, and its Regional
priority has been explained.

Figures V-1 thro,ugh V-6 lists current Region 14 APC's and indicates
whether or not each is considered an immediate or long-term concern.

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission will continue
to update its APC list and will re-evaluate its priorities acco r, ding to its
needs and the desire of those citizens it serves. The Commission has already
taken certain steps to assure a continuous link between itself and the regional
community. The Commission has formed two advisory groups speci@ically inter-
ested in Coastal Management efforts. The first group, referred to as the
Region 14 Shoreland Advisory Council, is made up of elected and appointed
government officials representing each of the local units sharing the Lake
Michigan Shoreline. The second group, called,the Region 14 Coastal Management

295

Task Force, has as-its members citizen volunteers. The first advisory group
is contacted by Commission staff regarding coastal management efforts and
0 possible financial assistance. The second group reviews APC nominati ons and.
.0 helps in assigning regional priorities.

This document outlines the information used by the Regional planning
staff whenconsidering the identification and management of "special horeland
areas," As such, this document is a progress report concerning just one facet
of the Region 14 Coastal Management Program. It is interesting to note,
however, that the management of these coastal areas is inseparably related to
the welfare of the entire region. The systematic appraisal of coastal resources
will go a long way in the implementation of the Comprehensive Development Stra-
tegy referred to above.

296

F.IGURE V-1

PENT WATER
OCEANA COUNTY COASTAL AREAS OF MEDIATE CONCERN
(September 1978)
WEARE CRYSTAL COL FAX
30
PENT-'
Sand Mine (Golden Township) 8 WATER
Cedar Point Township Park -Z,
HART WALK ERV I LLE
2
Silver Lake.and Upper Silver Lake LDEN ELBRIDGE LEAVITT
HART
29
Pentwater Lake and Pentwater River
OCEANA CO.

SHELBY
Stony Lake and Watershed

NEWFIELD
BENONA FERRY
SHELBY HESPERIA
NEW ERA
34

GRANT
CLAY OTTO GREENWOOD
BANKS

ROTHBURY

County Boundary

Township Boundary

0 2 d 6 8 10 MILES
Incorporated City or Village Boundary 0 4 6 8 10 20 KIIOMETERS
;!HART

FIGURE V-2

OCEANA COUNTY COASTAL AREAS OF LONG-TERM CONCERN
in7o\

Cheyenne Hills, Fawn Park

Juniper Beach and Sahara Sands PENrWAIER

Cobmoosa Shores WEARE CRYSTAL COLFAX
PENT-4
Cedar Bluff 22 WATER

Flower Creek 38
17 HART WALKERVI,LLEI
Benona Orchards OLDEN E L B R I D G E LEAVITT
46 HART
Clay Banks Orchards and Row Crops
OCEANA C 0.
Golden Broadcast Crops SHELBY
35 r
ko Indian Mounds
co 10 BENONA SHELBY F E RRY NEWFIELD
HESPERIA
Silver Lake Dunes 52 NEW ERA

Flower Creek Dunes 21
Clay Banks Dunes CILAY GRANT
BANKS OTTO GREENWOOD
Bigsbee Lake (Orwig Property) 50
ROTHBURY
37

49
Co-astal-26ne-Area 24

County Boundary

Township Boundary

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES
Incorporated City or Village Boundary
0 2 4 6 8 10@@ 20 KIIOME7ERS
i-;@!HART

FIGURE V-3

MUSKEGON COUNTY COASTAL AREAS
T1,1114VnTAM E C 00 N C ER N
(September 1978)

IT E MONTAGUE
Nugent Sand and CWC
I V E R
Mineral Resource Area
MON TAG E
ON
BLUF LAKE
HOLT
Pigeon Hill
HITE.
'
ALL
c_
Swett Property
2 %
Pioneer County Park
Whitey's Woods 43 ''wil I. E HA LL LAKEWOOD CLUB I
DALTON CEDAR CREEK i
Mona Shores School
27
District Property
FRUITLAND
MUSKEGON C 0.
Grand River, Spring Lake,
and Associated Wetlands
USKEQj
z
7
Little Black Lake
0
EGELS1
-ON mOORLAND CASNOVIA
Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake, 26
T`13 and Muskegon River
(.0 5 MOKEGO CASNOVIA1
207 Duck Lake and Muskrat Lake
R AVE NN@_'_
SULLIVAN
4
28' White Lake and White River
G
ROOS 11",
Mona Lake, Black Creek, and PARK
33
Little Black Creek 19 RAVENNA
RUITPORT
F
6 9 RT N
@) White Lake Lighthouse T
5 (273
Cais_C_al_Z_one__A rea

County Boundary

Township Boundary

2 A 6 8 10 MILES
Incorporated City or Village Boundary
00 2 4 6 8 10 20 KILOMETERS

H IT E MONTAGUE
13 k1IVER
FTGURE V-4 moN TAG E
HOLTON
BLUF LAKE
36
MUSKEGON COUNTY COASTAL AREAS HITE
HALL
OF LONG-TERM CONCERN
40
(September 1978)
53 +
"IFF ALL LAKEWOOD CLUB
16 DALTON CEDAR CREEK i
Gray Dunes Subdivision
:@Tr FRUITLAND
Michillinda Beach
MUSKEGON C 0.
Pioneer Park, Muskegon State
'USKEG
Park, Pere Marquette Park,
L'.AKETON"1":_
and Bronson Park
.NORTH,
USKEG101 EGELSTON MOORLAND CASNOVIA
Flower Creek 54
C:)
CD 18
White River Row Crops CASNOVIA'
M S. EGOI

Mouth Cemetery R AV E t I N@
SULLIVAN
Flower Creek Dunes ROOS Ell
PARK
M
P. J. Hoffmaster State Park ff HTS_
F R ITPORT RAVENNA
U
R'T
Old White Lake Channel and Bayou S
U T

Lost Lake
51

Coas-t-al--Zone- Area

County Boundary

Townsli Lp Boundary
0 2 6 MILES
...... or Village Boundary E!9w - 30 KILOMETERS
incorporated City 0 2 4 6 8 10 2

FIGURE V-5

OTTAWA COUNTY COASTAL AREAS OF MEDIATE CONCERN CHESTER
(September .1978) 25 39

IN
Standard Sand Sand Mine 3 L, K E
POLKTON
FERRYSBURG 4w WRIGHT
Construction Aggregates Sand Mine 48 CROCKERY
323@
GRAND HAVEN
Grand River, Spring Lake, and
" @ @ " 7 @.' " @@ @ -,: @, @,- @ @ @@ @ COOPERSVILLE
44
Associated Wetlands
--A

Little Black Lake
E ROBINSON A L LEN DA L E TALLMADGEj
Lake Macatawa, Macatawa River

.. . . .....
OTTAWA CO.
Pigeon Lake, Pigeon Creek

City of Grand Haven Island Property
.PORT
OLI VE BLENDON GEORGETO
32
Rix Robinson Trading Post
:@SHE ,L1) ON HUDSONV )ILLE
'41
North Shore Sand Dunes

HOLLAND ZEELAND
K
Coast-a-l 7-one----Bnundary r ZEELAND JAMESTOWN

County Boundary
40
Township Boundiry

4 6 8 10 MILES
...... Incorporated City or Village Boundary 0 2 4 6 8 10 20 KILOMETERS

W W

FIGURE V-6

CHESTER
OTTAWA COUNTY COASTAL AREAS OF LONG-TERM CONCERN
(September 1978)
51 PRING-.,..;,
LAKE
POLKTON
Idiewood Beach FERRYSBURG
PRINC WRIGHT
A7
CROCKERY
45
Postma Subdivision
@ GRANO HAVEN
. ..... .. ...
COOPE RSvI LLE
20
@ Kirk Park

Tunnel Park
HAVEN ROBINSON AL LENDALE TALLMADGEj
Stickney Ridge
rQ Port Sheldon (Village) OTTAWA CO.
14

Grand Haven Lighthouse and Pier
PORT,@@-
OLI VE BLENDON GEORGETOWN
rg Dune Blow-Out
Ferrysbu
11111-14.1111.-@" HUDSONVILLE
E L N
P.J. Hoffmaster State Park

HOLLAND ZEELAND
411
Coas-ta-1
15 ZEELAND JAMESTOWN
.... .. .. ...

County Boundary
@j

Township BOUndary
- ------ 0 2 A 6 8 10 MILES
Incorporated City or Village Boundary 0 2 4 6 8 10 20 KitomETERS
DO

I N@]
1@1@ Ilf
1@11[
ll@E Vf@j
@
@@ @f
llli@ J@@[
il@
1 3 6668 14102 5520