Michigan Department of Natural Resarrces

Remedial Action Plan

for

Hichigm Department of Natural Resources Surface Water Quality Division

Great Lakes, and Environmental AssossnUmt Section P.0. Box 30028

Lansing, Wichigqn 48909

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The initial draft of the Muskegon Lake Remedial Action Plan was completed through the technical assistance of Science Application International Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-04-5041, Work Assignment GL86-06, SAIC Project No. 2-813-03-202-06. Assistance in reviewing, selecting, extracting, organizing available information and shaping it into a readable initial draft is acknowledged and appreciated. Special recogni- tion goes to Ms. Mary Waldron and Ms. Cindy Hughes.

Thanks is also given to those individuals that have provided technical assistance and information during the preparation of this remedial action plan. Special thanks to Irnie Jousma and Roger Przybysz, Grand Rapids District staff. We are grateful for those who took the time to become involved in this pro j ec t . Special thanks goes to Connie Pennell, Supervisor, MDNR Word Processing, and her staff for their patience, understanding and conscientious efforts in the preparation of this RAP.

John Wuycheck RAP Coordinator

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1 .o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

2 .3 INTENDED USE

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 LOCATION

3.2 NATURAL FEATURES

3.2.1 Drainage Basin 3.2.2 Topography 3.2.3 Hydrology 3.2.4 Soil Types, Runoff, Erosion 3.2.5 Limnology 3.2.6 Air Quality

3.3 LAM) COVER AND USES

3.3.1 Land Cover 3.3.2 Land Use 3.3.3 Sewer Service Systems

3.4 WATER USES (MUSKEGON RIVEX BASIN)

3.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 3.4.2 Water Supply 3.4.3 Sport and Commercial Fishing 3.4.4 Contact Recreation 3.4.5 Navigation 3.4.6 Noncontact Recreation 3.4.7 Waste Disposal

3.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 3.5.2 Water Supply 3.5.3 Sport and Commercial Fishing 3.5.4 Contact Recreation 3.5.5 Navigation 3.5.6 Noncontact Recreation 3.5.7 Waste Disposal

Page

3.6 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, OBJECTIVES, 2 8 AND APPLICABLE BENEFICIAL USES

4.0 IMPAIRED USE ASSESSMENT 3 1

IMPAIRED USES, USE ATTAINABILITY, AND SPECIFIC CONCERNS

AOC COMPONENT EVALUATIONS

4.2.1. Water Quality 4.2.2 Sediment Quality 4.2.3 Biota

4.2.3.1 Macroinvertebrate Comrmunity 4.2.3.2 Fieh Contamination

SUMMARY

5.0 SOURCES OF POLLUTION

5.1 PRIMARY SOURCES OF MAJOR POLLUTANTS

5.1.1 Municipal and Industrial Point Sources 5.1.2 Storm Sewer Drains/Cmbined Sewer Overflows

5.2 SECONDARY SOURCES OF MAJOR POLLUTANTS

5.2.1 Groundwater Contamlnation 5.2.1.1 Groundwater Contamlnation by

Lmdf ills 5.2.1.2 Groundwater Contamlnation by Industrial

Groundwater Discharges 5.2.1.3 Groundwater Contamlnation by Septic

Sys teme 5.2.1.4 Groundwater Contamlnation By Abandoned

Oil Wells 5.2.2 Rural Land Runoff 5.2.3 Atmo8pheric Deposition 5.2.4 Contaminated Sedfments

6.0 POLLUTANT TRANSPORT MECHANISMS AND LOADINGS 7 1

6.1 CONTINUOUS POINT SOURCES 7 1

6.1.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Discharge 6.1.2 Industrial Diechargee

6.2 INTERMITTENT POINT SOURCES

6.3 NONPOINT SOURCES 72

6.3.1 Agricultural RunoffIUrban Runoff 6.3.2 Polluted Groundwater Discharges

Page

7 4 6.4 IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS (CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS)

6.5 SUMMARY

HISTORICAL RECORD OF REMEDLAL ACTIONS

7.1 COMPLETED ACTIONS

7.1.1 Wastewater Management System (WMS) 7.1.2 Superfund Sites 7.1.3 Non-Superfund Sites 7.1.4 Nonpoint Sources

7.2 ACTIONS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS

7.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 7.2.2 Point Sources 7.2.3 Nonpoint Sources

DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MILESTONES FOR RESTORATION OF IIPAIRED USES

8.1 USES TO BE RESTORED, MAINTAINED, OR DISCONTINUED

8.2 GOALS FOR BIOTA AND HABITAT RESTORATION

8.3 WATER USE AND QUALITY OBJECTIVES

8.4 SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES

9.0 PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPANTS

9.1 REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

9.1.1 Status of Water Quality Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives

9.1.2 Point Source Controls 9.1.3 Superfund and State Hazardous Site Cleanup 9.1.4 Nonpoint Source Control Efforts 9.1.5 Hazardous Waste Management 9.1.6 Urban Stormwater Pollution Control Efforts 9.1.7 COE ProjectsIOther Agency Actions

9.2 PUBLIC INVOLVPLENT

9.3 IHTERAGECY AGREEMENTS 9.3.1 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978

10.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

1 1 .0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

12.0 APPENDICES

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MUSKEGON HARBOR SEDIMENT AND BENTHIC ANALYSIS DATA, APRIL 1982

MDNR RESPONSE TO CITIZEN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS PUBLIC MEETINGS 2 AUGUST 1986

MUSKEGON LAKE AND TRIBUTARY WATER SAWLING DATA

MICEIGAN'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE 57(2) GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA FROM SAMPLES COLLECTED JUNE 1972, 1975 AND 1980 AND AUGUST AND DECEMBER 1986 AND MAY 1987

MUSKEGON LAKE AND TRIBUTARIES SEDIMENT DATA - WMSRDC, 1982

MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA ' - -0, 1981

MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN FISH SAMPLING DATA - WMSRDC, 1982 MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING DATA - MDNR, 1986 MICHIGAN'S NPDES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURE

PRIORITY LISTS FOR EVALUATION AND INTERIM RESPONSE AT SITES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION PROPOSED

SURVEY FORM FOR MDNR NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

LISTING OF AGENCY AND CITIZEN CONTACTS

Page

115

125

135

147

153

165

203

217

225

236

244

254

258

LIST OF TABLES .

Table

MUSKEGON LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN CBARACTERISTICS

ESTIMATES OF LAND COVER PER WATERSHED

ESTIMATES OF LAND USE IN THE IMMEDIATE MUSKEGON LAKE WATERSHED

RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES USED IN MUSKEGON COUNTY IN 1986

URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORKS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA NPDES PERMITTED DISCBARGES TO MUSKEGON LAKE AND LAKE MICHIGAN

ESTIMATED ANNUAL ANGLER DAYS ON MUSKEGON LAKE

HISTORICAL IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE

IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE'S TRIBUTARIES

WATER QUALITP CHA~ACTERISTICS OF MUSKEGON LAKE

TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER SAMPLES EXCEEDING MICHIGAN'S RULE 57(2) GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN MUSKEGON RIVER WATER SAMPLES (BRIDGETON, MI)

NONAFFECT SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

C O W .?ISON OF SELECTED SEDIMEHT SURVEY DATA, KUSKEGON LAKE

PCB AND MERCURY, SEDZMENT DATA SUMMARY, MUSKEGON AND BEAR LAKE

FDA AND PIDPH ACTION LEVELS AND IJC OBJECTIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH

4-10 DIOXIN LEVELS IN MUSKEGON LAKE FISH

4-1 1 DIOXIN LEVELS IN BEAR LAKE FISH

5-1 URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORK

5-2 KNOWN LANDFILLS IN MUSKEGON LAKE AREA

5-3 HISTORICAL INDUSTRIAL/MIMICIPAL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGERS

5-4 PROPOSED OIL WELLS FOR PLUGGING

Page

10

14

15

17

18

2 3

2 6

32

33

34

3 5

36

38

42

4 5

4 7

50

5 1

5 5

59

6 1

64

T a b l e Page

6-1 WHS WATER QUALITY DATA 73

7-1 PUMPING STATIONS SUMMARY 7 9

10-1 PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA OF CONCERN 104

10-2 PROPOSED -1AL ACTIONS - MIJSKEWN LAKE TRIBUTARIES 105 SOURCE AREA OF CONCERN

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

3-1 LOCATION OF MUSKEGON LAKE IN MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

3-2 MUSKEGON RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

3-3 MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN MUSKEGON COUNTY

3-4 URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORK

3-5 LOCATION OF NPDES PERMITTED DISCURGERS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA 4-1 LOCATION OF SELECTED SEDIMENT SAMPLING SITES

5-1 AREAS OF DOCUMENTED GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION WITHIN THE MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN

5-2 OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION WELLS

7-1 LOCATION OF WMS

7-2 DIAGRAM OF UMS SYSTEM

7-3 LOCATION OF CORDOVA (OTTISTORY) CHEMICAL COMPANY

7-4 CORDOVA (OTT/STORY) CBPLICAL COMPANY SITE LAYOUT

9-1 MDNR ORGANIZATIONAL CEART

9-2 WMSRDC ORGANIZATION CHART

Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Status Report is an update of progress made by the State of Michigan to address the problems in the Muskegon Lake Area of Concern (AOC) identified by the International Joint Commission as one of Michigan's fourteen Areas of Concern. Areas of Concern are defined as areas where there are severe environmental quality problems that result in the inability to use the resource for one or more designated uses.

The Muskegon Lake AOC consists of Muskegon Lake, a 1,679 hectare (4,150 acre) lake located in Muskegon County along the east shoreline of Lake Michigan just north of the City of Muskegon.

Muskegon Lake was identified as an AOC because prior to 1973, Muskegon Lake received direct discharges of industrial process wastewater, munici- pal wastewater treatment plant effluent, combined stormsewer overflows and urban runoff. These discharges degraded water and habitat quality of Muskegon Lake and tributaries. The resulting nutrient enrichment, solids and toxicant loadings resulted in nuisance algal blooms, reduced oxygen concentrations in the water column, tainted fish and contaminated sedi- ments. Development of petroleum, chemical and heavy industries in the area resulted, in some locations in the vicinity of the AOC, with contam- inated groundwater. These conditions raised concerns about possible impacts on Lake Michigan and were used to designate Muskegon Lake as an IJC Area of Concern.

Since 1973 local, state and federal sponsored remedial actions have improved water quality in Muskegon Lake and tributaries. A major action was the diversion of the industrial and municipal discharges away from the lake and tributaries to the Muskegon County Waste Management System No. 1 (WMS). This facility, located east of the City of Muskegon, is comprised of a 4,856 hectare (12,000 acre) site with two 344 hectare (850 acre) reservoirs used to store and treat the wastewater prior to land application. Underdrainage from the land application sites accumulates in surrounding drainage ditches and discharges to Mosquito Creek (Muskegon Lake watershed) and Black Creek (Mona Lake watershed). An approved industrial pretreatment program has further reduced the amount of waste treated at this facility.

Mosquito Creek, a designated coldwater stream tributary to the Muskegon River, receives 0.88 to 3.1 mS/s (20 to 70 mgd) of treated wastewater from the WMS. The excess hydraulic loadings has increased Mosquito Creek water levels and has altered water quality and floodplain characteristics by transforming the area from a wooded swamp to a shallow marsh immedi- ately downstream of the outfall. Contaminant loadings are presently acceptable because of the absence of any adverse impacts on community health of biota of the receiving stream. Michigan Water Quality standard violations for dissolved oxygen were documented downstream of the dis- charge and corrected in 1987. Plans to divert the discharge directly to the Muskegon River are being developed.

The diversion of wastewater away from Muskegon Lake and tributaries has greatly improved water and habitat quality in Muskegon Lake by reducing

1

the loadings of nutrients, oils, solids and toxicants. Nuisance algal L

blooms have been eliminated indicating an effective reduction in nutrient loading8 to the lake. The lake supports an excellent walleye, largemouth bass, amallmouth bass, perch and northern pike fishery. Existing water quality also support8 other popular recreational uses including swimming and boating.

The 1985 WQB report indicated the absence of any documented Impaired uses of Muskegon Lake or nearshore Lake Michigan. Although the overall water quality of Murke'gon Lake AOC is good and there are no documented impacts on Lake Michigan resulting from Muskegon Lake, there are some localized problems.

Sediment and fiah contamlnant monitoring surveys in 1986 and 1987 were made to determine trends in contamlnant levels in both Muakegon Lake and Bear Lake. Obrervationr during the sedimcnt contaminant surrrey of Muskegon Lake indicated that littoral zone (nearahore) sadbents are comprised primarily of sand. Normally, such sediments contain low contaminant levels and were, therefore, not sampled and analyzed. Elevated levels of heavy metals (copper, chromfum, nickel, lead and zinc) continue to be associated with the fine particulate deposits found in the deeper basins of the lake. However, a comparison with 1980 data indi- cates a definite decline in concentrations. The 1986 redlment survey results alro indicated mercury concentrations averaged lers than 0.5 ppm with a maxiPnrm concentration of 1.3 ppm, the latter in the vicinity of the Division Street stormsewer outfall and defunct Michigan Foundry Supply site. Analysis of Bear Lake redlment samples collected in May 1987 has not been completed.

L

Fish contamirunt monitoring results from the 1986 aurrrey of Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake indicated that carp from Bear Lake and walleye from Muskegon Lake average concentratione exceeded the Michigan Department of Public Eealth action levels of 2.0 ppm PCBs and 0.5 ppm mercury, respec- tively. Generally, those carp greater than 69 cm (27 inches) in length contained more than 2.0 ppm PCBs and walleye greater than 55 cm (22 inches) in length contained more than 0.5 ppm mercury. Although largemouth base from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake contained an average mercury concentration of 0.32 ppm, mercury concentrations in largemouth bass equal to or greater than 40 cm (16 inches) and greater than 1,100 gm (2.2 pounds) exceeded the 0.5 ppm mercury action level.

PCB concentrations in the two carp collected from Muskegon Lake during the 1986 survey were equal to or lers than 2.0 ppm. However, since the Bear Lake carp exceeded the criteri., the State will asaume that most large carp in Muskegon Lake contain PCB cmcentratioru that exceed the MlPH action level until additional Muakegon Lake carp are collected for analysis.

The observed elevated mercury and PCBs are associated with large fish and is most likely attributable to the age of the fish, trophic preference, movement ranges (Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan) and a long-term expo- sure to low level water concentratiow rerulting from atmospheric inputs

to Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake watershed. Sediments may also be a possible source of PCBs and mercury in Muskegon Lake.

A public meeting was held August 1986 to provide the general public, local units of government, company representatives and environmental groups an overview of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) development process, findings to-date and an opportunity to provide comments and recornendations concerning the Muskegon Lake AOC. Such input was essential to the development and implementation of the RAP. Since that meeting, sediment and fish samples from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake were collected to assess levels of environmental contaminants. Water samples were also collected from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake to evaluate nutrient levels. A second public meeting was held July 1987, following the completion of a second draft RAP, to afford an opportunity for comments and suggestions.

Based on available site specific data and public concerns the following conclusions and recommendations are proposed:

The Muskegon Lake AOC has no apparent adverse impact on Lake Michigan.

Impaired uses in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake are restricted to elevated PCB in large carp and mercury in large walleye and large largemouth bass. This may be a result of atmospheric inputs versus in-place contaminant levels. Total chlordane concentrations in large carp from Bear Lake exceeded the FDA, MDPH action level of 0.3 ppm. Additional fish collections are recommended to define what size walleye and largemouth bass contain greater than 0.5 ppm mercury. These data will be used to update the 1988 fish consump- t ion advisory.

The 11th Street stormsewer (Division Street Stormsewer) Ryerson Creek, Ruddlman Creek and Four Mile Creek, tributaries of Muskegon . Lake, need to be assessed to determine localized sediment contami- nant levels and habitat quality conditions. Ryerson Creek anc; Ruddiman Creek receive urban stowwater runoff and Four Mile Creek may be influenced by organic contaminated groundwater from an induatrial site even though purgewells are being used to capture and treat the contaminated plume.

Bear Lake sediments should be checked for PCBs since concentrations in 4 of 7 carp collected from Bear Lake exceeded MDPH action level of 2.0 ppm wet weight. There is no known or suspected source of PCBs upstream of Bear Lake. Previous sediment survey data indicated less than 0.02 ppm.

Lake Michigan carp end walleye should be collected for fish contami- nant analysis to determine if concentrations of PCB and mercury are similar to those in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake fish. The purpose

is to assist in determining if PCB and.mercury, fish contaminants, are from an internal andlor external sources.

Remedial actions will be developed and prioritized based on the outcome of 'these imrestigations and further public review.

2.1 BACKGROUND

The International Joint Commission (IJC), the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), and the State of Michigan have designated Muskegon Lake as an Area of Concern (AOC). The AOC is located on the east shore of Lake Michigan and is connected to the lake by a channel. This Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed to identify water quality, sediment quality and associated impaired use concerns in the Muskegon Lake AOC and Lake Michigan. Protected uses represent those designated uses established by Michigan's Water Quality Standards Part 4 Rules. An impaired use exists when the designated use is unattainable.

Major problems that have historically characterized this AOC include aesthetic impacts, contaminated bottom sediments, low levels of dissolved oxygen, high total dissolved solids concentrations, and degraded fish and benthic communities. Causes that contributed to lovered water quality conditions in the AOC include point source dischargers and urban runoff, contaminated groundwater and sediment loadings and nearshore land devel- opment. Presently, urban runoff to tributaries are causing localized impacts .

Water quality in Muskegon Lake has improved during the past 15 years. Prior to 1972, several cases of fish flesh tainting were reported and the benthic community was dominated by pollutant-tolerant species.

Although the water quality conditions have improved, low dissolved oxygen levels occur during stratification, bottom sediments are contami- nated and the benthic community is slightly degraded. In addition, various environmental contominants have been observed in Bear Lake, Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary, Ruddiman Creek and Ryerson Creek which feed into Muskegon Lake. Major water quality improvements in the AOC have been attributed to the implementation of the Muskegon Wastewater Management System (Muskegon Metro) in 1973 (WMSRDC, 1978a). Municipal and industrial wastewaters were diverted away from Muskegon Lake and tributaries to the Muskegon Metro system for treatment. This removed the major direct point source loadings of nutrients, contaminants and chemicals causing fish tainting and degraded water quality in Muskegon Lake.

Great Lakes Water Quality Management

The Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB) is responsible for reporting water quality research activities and the environmental quality of the Great Lakes to the IJC. The GLWQB has adopted a system of catego- ries to track and measure the progress of the 42 identified Areas of Concern in terms of environmental health. These categories represent a logical sequence for problem solving and resolution. The categories identify the status of the information base, programs which are underway to fill the information gaps, and the status of remedial efforts. According to the GLWQB (1985), resolution occurs when evidence can be

5

presented verifying that the full complement of uses has been restored. The site can then be removed from the Area of Concern list. The follow- ing categories form the described sequence:

Category Explanation

Causative factors are unknown and there is no investi- gative program to identify causes.

Causative factors are unknown and an investigative program is underway to identify causes.

Causative factors knowns but RAP not developed and remedial measurer not fully implemented.

Causative factors known and RAP developed, but remedial measures not fully implemented.

Causative factors knoWU, RAP developed, and all remedial measurer identified in the Plan have been implemented.

Confirmation that uses have been restored and deletion as an AOC.

Historically, the Piuskegon Lake Area of Concern has been place in Category 6.

2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the RAP process is to provide a coordinated approach to envirormrantal management that wlll ultimately lead to the successful rehabilitation of the Great Lakes and, in this instance, the Muskegon Lake AOC. This approach requires an integration of available data on the enviroamental condition^^ socioeconomlc influences, and political/institutional frameworkm. The plan's purpoee is to focus tne data gathering and data synthesir towards the resolution of the immediate problems which impair the AOC's designated uses. Rec~endations towards restoring existing impaired uses will be based on the currently available data and current agency programs and priorities.

2.3 INTENDED USE

This RAP is intended as a technical management document that pro- vider a review of available data, defines impaired \ueS, data needs, prioritizes necessary investigations and necessary remedial options that provider a platform for future analyser and decirion-making. It repre- sents a review of available data and/or i n f o ~ t i o n on the AOC. Every attempt has been m ~ d e to identify the major documents pertaining to the critical environmental issues affecting this AOC. Remedial action planning is an iterative process, however, and suggestions and additions are welcomed in as much as they contribute to RAP issues and final goals.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 LOCATION

The Muskegon Lake AOC is located in Muskegon County on the eastern shoreline of Lake Michigan (Figure 3-11. The AOC is part of the Muskegon River Drainage Basin (Figure 3-2). Beadwaters for the entire drainage system originate in Roscommon County and flow westward, eventually draining into Lake Michigan.

IJC/State Area of Concern

The Area of Concern for this Remedial Action Plan has been designat- ed as Muskegon Lake. The deep water zones of Muskegon Lake and nearshore areas near the mouths of Ryerson and Ruddlman Creek have the highest levels of contaminants.

Source Area of Concern .

The Source Area of Concern for this RAP has been designated as Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary, Bear Lake, Ryerson Creek, Ruddlman Creek, Green Creek and Muskegon River and its tributaries vhich feed into Muskegon Lake. Ryerson Creek, Ruddiman Creek and Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary are severely degraded. Bear Lake also appears to be in a state of degradation.

Impact Area of Concern

The Impact Area of Concern has been designated as Muskegon Lake and the nearshore areas of Lake Michigan. Because there are no known, suspected or documented Michigan, the remainder

3.2 NATURAL FEATURES

3.2.1 Drainage Basin

The Muskegon River Michigan. Its drainage (2,634 mi2) (Table 1).

use lmpai-nts of the nearshore areas of the RAP deals with Muskegon Lake.

of Lake

Basin is the second largest river basin in area encompasses approximately 6,822 km2 The Muskegon River represents 97.5% of drainage

area of Muskegon Lake and 97% of the-basin discharges to the- lake. The portion of the Muskegon River basin located in Muskegon County covers 378 km2 (146 mi2). Bear Lake, a 168 hectare (415 acre) lake tributary to Muskegon Lake, is located just north of Muskegon Lake and has a 38.2 Ian2 (14.8 mi2) drainage area. Bear Lake has an average and maximum depth of 1.8 m (6 ft.) and 3.85 m (12.5 ft.). Other tributaries in the Muskegon Lake basin also include Green Creek, Ruddlman Creek, Ryerson Creek, Bear Lake, and Four Mile Creek. Their combined drainage area is equal to 142 Ian2 (54.7 mi2) (U.S . EPA 1975).

Figure 3-1 Location of Muskegon Lake in Muskegon County, Michigan. GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP

MUSKEGON COUNTY YICW1O.W

11411 11AWl?011A110W COYYISI IOW

MUGKEBON R I V E R 0 1 S l N

f Direct Drainage Area Boundary

@ I d l r e c t Drainage Arf Boundary t Kn. 0 , . . . . ;H i .

~ i g u r . 3 - 2 - Humkegon R i v e r B a s i n . Hichlgrn.

: /

TABLE 3-1. MUSKEGON LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

Area Percentage Discharge Percentage Description km2 (miz) o f T o t a l m s / s (cfs) of Total

Muskegon River 6645.7 (2566) Green Creek 30.3 (11.7) Bear LakeKreek 74.0 (28.6) Four Mile Creek 8.8 (3.4) Ryerson Creek 19.7 (7.6) Ruddlman Creek 8.8 (3.4) Minor Tributaries

6 Imrmediate Drainage 15.0 (5.8)

Muskegon Lake 16.8 (6.5)

Total 6822 (2634) 100 60.68 (2142) 100 (Modified from USEPA, 1975).

3.2.2 Topography

Level to gently sloping topography covers the majority of Muskegon County. Large sand dunes stretch along the Lake Michigan shoreline. The dunes become smaller towards the east and gradually f l a t t e n into a wide plain. Stream channels and lake basins are located throughout the plain. The eastern-rost portion of Muskegon County is dominated by h i l l s . Eleva- L tiono i n the county range from 178 m (580 f t ) a t Lake Michigan to 246 m (800 f t ) a t the lakeshore dunes (Metcalf 61 Eddy, 1982).

3.2.3 Hydrology

Approxinutely 10.4 km (6.5 mi) upstream of Muskegon Lake the Muskegon River s p l i t s into the North Branch and Middle Branch. The Middle Branch divides again forming the South Branch about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) further down- stream. Average annual flow ra tes for the Muskegon River just upstream of the North and Middle Branches are 3.2 m 9 / s (1 14.3 cfs) and 26.5 mvs (935.4 cfs) (Source: Jerry Fulcher - MDNR Hydrologist). Bear Lake Channel, the channel which drainr Bear Lake into Muskegon Lake, has an average f l w ra te of 0.84 m S / s (29.6 cfs) (U.S. EPA, 1975). Mean flow ra tes of Green Creek, Ruddinun Creek and Ryerson Creek are 0.33 m 9 / s (11.8 cfs) , 0.09 ms/e (3.1 cfs) and 0.2 m 9 / s (7.1 c f s ) , rerpectively (U.S. EPA, 1975).

Lake Michigan lake elevation annual averages for the period 1974 to 1986 range from 178 t o 178.7 m (576.45 t o 581.06 f t ) . The 1986 annual average elevation is 0.8 m (2.6 f t ) greater than the lowest annual average for the subject period recorded in 1977 (NOAA data). Lake Michigan water levels have dropped over the past year by about 0.46 m (1.5 f t ) , but remains about 0.3 m (1.0 f t ) above the average lake level (GLR, 1987). Fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels influence Muskegon Lake levels and surrounding groundwater tables.

3.2.4 Soil Types, .~unof f , ~rosion

A variety of major soil types covers the Muskegon County area (Metcalf 6 Eddy, August 1982). They range from well drained sandy soils to poorly drained mucks. Eight major soil associations are found in Muskegon County (Figure 3-3) (Metcalf & Eddy, August 1982). Four of these are relevant to the Area of Concern:

O Rubicon-Croswell-Deer Park . " Rubicon-Au Gres-Rosco~on O Au Gres-Roscommon-Granby O Carlisle-Tawas

The Rubicon-Croswell-Deer Park association contains almost level to steep, well to moderately drained sandy soils on outwash plains, beach ridges, and dunes. The Rubicon-Au Gres-Roscommon association consists of well to poorly drained sandy soils located on outwash plains and uplands. The Au Gres-Roscommon-Granby association consists of poorly drained sandy soils almost level to depressional on outwash plains, uplands, and lake plains. The Carlisle-Tawas association consists of mucks and peats which are poorly drained and almost level to depressional.

Soils along the river are highly erosive as evidenced by the steep, eroded banks and gullies created near the river and its tributaries. Surface runoff from the.watershed contributes to sediment loads because of erosive soils in the watershed (Mund, 1987).

Specific data concerning runoff and erosion potential for soils are available (Muskegon County, 1974). Generally, the sand dominated soils in the Muskegon County and Muskegon Lake area are characterized as highly permeable, resist runoff and erosion except along the Muskegon River and during severe storm events. Additional information on runoff and erosion potential is presented under Section 3.3 Land Cover and Land Uses.

Muskegon Lake has a surface area of 1680 hectares (4,150 acres) with mean and maximum depths of 7.2 m (23,5 ft) and 21.5 m (70 it), respectively. The lake has a volume of (12.03 x 10 m (97,525 acre/ft) and a mean hydraulic retention time of 23 days (USEPA, 1975).

Muskegon Lake is classified as eutrophic, but prior to 1973 diversions of industrial and municipal discharges, was hypereutrophic. Nuisance algal bloome and exteneive macrophyte growth characterized the lake prior to diversion of discharges (WMSRDC, 1978a). Lake phosphorus, once elevated, decreased during the period between 1972 to 1980 (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982). MDNR 1986 and 1987 data indicate a continuing decline or stable conditions. Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) depletions occur occasionally during summer strati- fication. D.O. depletion below 17 m (55 ft) was not evident during the August 1986 (MDNR 1986 survey data).

LEGEND

3.2.6 Air Quality

Prevailing westerly winds from Lake Michigan affect the climate in Muskegon County. Winters are generally mild and summers cool. Average daily maxiwrm and minimum temperatures are 14°C (56.9"F) and 4OC (39.S°F), respectively. Average annual precipitation is 79.7 cm (31.4 inches) (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982).

Monitor+ng for air pollutants in Muskegon County is conducted by the Muskegon County Health Department's Air Quality Section and by local industries. No violations of the primary or secondary particulate levels were recorded for years 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. One violation of the secondary standard was recorded in 1982 and 1984. No violations of the sulfur dioxide standard or lead standard have been recorded in over 8 years. No violations of the carbon monoxide standards have been recorded since 1978 with the exception of one exceedance of the standard in 1978.

Muskegon County has recorded violations of the standards for ozone in the past eight years. However, the pollutants which lead to the formation of ozone are believed to be generated from outside of Muskegon County (MDNR 1985, Annual Air Quality Report) .

There is currently not enough data available to determine if the periodic elevated levels have an impact on the area of concern. However, based on the low number of excursions recorded for the above Air Quality Standards, it is assumed the impact is negligible, if at all.

3.3 LAM) COVER AND USES

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC) completed an extensive investigation on land cover and land uses in Muskegon County. Information presented in this section has been obtained from "Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning Part I11 Estimates of Land Cover and Use" (WMSRDC, 1977b).

3.3.1 Land Cover

The extent of runoff and erosion occurring in an area is generally dependent upon the type of land cover present. Land cover classes include :

O Water O Bare earth O Grassy vegetation Woody vegetation

" Impermeable surfaces (paved

The percentage and acreage of each Muskegon River Basin (Table 3-2). the area was estimated through the seasonal changes, values presented

areas

land cover is provided for the The extent and type of land cover in use of aerial photography, but due to are only general estimates.

Difficulty in the identification of water bodies or bare earth where some L

vegetation was present may have caused underrepresentation of these two categories.

Generally, wooded areas are the most predominant followed by grassy areas. Impermeable surfaces cover the third largest percentage of land in both Muskegon Lake and Bear Creek drainage basins. Bare soil covers the least percentage of land in Muskegon Lake and Muskegon River drainage basin. Water covers the least amount of land in Bear Creek basin and Impermeable surfaces cover the least amount of land in Cedar Creek basin.

Perhaps the one single soil characteristic governing the water regime and drainage patterns in Markegon County, more than anything else except for precipitation, is the high soil infiltration rate due to sandy soils. The high infiltration rate of the Muskegon County soils, for the most part, exceeds the rainfall intensities for all but the severest storm events (Muskegon County, 1974).

TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF LAND COVER PER WATERSHED

LAND COVER UNITS Water Bare Grassy Wooded Impermeable

Muskegon Lake X Acres

Muskegon River X Acres

Bear Creek X Acres

Cedar Creek X Acrer

Modified from WMSRDC, 1977b.

3.3.2 Land Use

Typer of land ure provide infornution for evaluating the potential for contamination. The Weet Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission divided land ure into nine categories ranging from areas vith land uses which porsess the greatest potential for pollutant production to those vith the least:

Waste dispoual Industrial

O Residentlal

' Agricultural ' Transportation ' Extractive ' Institutional ' Open space and recreation ' Comercial

Table 3-3 lists the extent of land use types per category within the Muskegon Lake drainage basin. Percentages and actual acreages of land use

TABLE 3-3. ESTIMATES OF LAND USE IN THE IMMEDIATE MUSKEGON LAKE WATERSHED

LAM) USE

WATERSHED

Muskegon Muskegon Bear Cedar UNITS Lake River Creek Creek

Waste Dispoeal

Industrial

Residential

Agricultural

Transportation

Extractive

Institutional

Open Space/ Recreational

Commercial

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

X Acres

Modified from WMSRDC, 1977.

types were determined using aerial photographs. Due to the subjective nature of the method utilized for classification of land areas into the nine categories, the amount of land presented per category by both number values and figures are only general estimates of land uses in the Muskegon River Drainage Basin. In areas where questions arose concerning the identifica- tion of the land use type, the areas were classified as the land use catego- ry containing the greater potential for pollutant production. Specific types of land use are described in the following paragraphs.

Waste dispoeal land ures refer to areas containing dumps, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, incineration facilities, sludge or industrial disposal sites and waste injection well sites. A number of solid waste dispoeal systems are located in the area. Three dispoeal sites are on the Muskegon River floodplain--the Muskegon Causeway Landfill, the Consumers Power B.C. Cobb Power Plant and the Thompson Brothers Landfill. A variety of wastes were disposed at these sites including industrial wastes, general refuse, fly ash, and demolition debris (WMSRDC, 1978a). The Muskegon County Landfill Authority Landfill (now closed and used as a transfer station) and the Anchor Excavation and Wrecking Company Disposal Site are both located adjacent to the floodplain. Types of wastes disposed at these sites include refuse, garbage, and demolition materials (WMSRDC, 1978a). The dump for the City of North Muskegon is located on the northeast shore of Muskegon Lake. General refuse is the only known waste disposed of at the site (WMSRDC, 1978a).

Industrial land uses refer to areas containing factories, manufacturi i d plants, power generating plants or any operations which process raw materi-

als into purchase products.

Residential uses include areas containing not only private homes but also hotels, motels, apartments, prisons or any other type of housing unit. The major potential pollutant which can result from this category of land use is sanitary waete. This source of waste In the AOC is practically eliminated by the existing collection system that diecharges to the Muskegon County WMS. No. 1 system.

Agricultural uses relate to arear used for livestock and crop produc- tion. Cropland, orchards, barn yards and equipment storage yards are exam- ples of areas included in this category. There are about 3,440 hectares (8,500 acres) of Murkegon County cropland that drain into the Muskegon River system (Mund, 1987). The main crops are corn, wheat, oats and alfalfa. Contamhation resulting from agricultural use would be in the form of fertilizers, pasticider, herbicides, animal wastes and solids from sediment erorrion.

Estlmater of restricted use pesticides used in Muskegon County in 1986 are listed on Table 3.4.

TABLE 3.4. Restricted Use Pesticides used in Muskegon County in 1986 (Creagh, 1987).

Amount Used Pesticides Azinphos methyl Carbamate Parathion Chlorinated hydrocarbons Met homyl ParaquatIDiquat Pyrethroids Organo-Phosphate Chlorinated Benzene Compounds

lbs 1.164.5

Transportation uses refer to any areas used for movement from one place to another. These areas include roads, sidewalks, railroads, telephone lines, parking lots and pipelines. Areas used for transportation of vehi- cles cover the majority of this category. Contamination resulting from transportation uses primarily includes fuel, heavy metals, grease, road salt and other debris commonly resulting from vehicle use.

Extractive uses refer to mining, commercial hunting or fishing, petro- leum, and any commercial processes which involve permanent removal of natural resources. Trash, sediment production or oil well leakage are examples of contaminants which may result from extractive uses.

Institutional uses refer to areas maintaining operations such as educational institutione, churches or government offices. Contamination resulting from this use category may be residential (i.e., sewage) or commercial in nature.

Open space and recreation uses refer to outdoor activities only. Open space and recreation uses inc'lude all bodies of water, forest land, camps, parks, golf courses, and any other areas designed for outdoor use in addi- tion to "unused" land. Three state parks exist in Muskegon County, one located directly adjacent to the Area of Concern (Muskegon State Park). A 3,408 hectare (8,422 acres) Muskegon State Game Area is located in a floodplain just east of the Muskegon Lake and supports waterfowl, deer, grouse, rabbits and squirrels. A large variety of bird life gives the amateur ornithologist opportunities for bird watching. Adjacent to the state gome area is one of the most popular birding spots in western Michigan is the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1 (MDNR, 1987). The sandy plains around the facility have been cleared and planted with crops. These fields are irrigated with the recycled wastewater held in two, diked, 344 hectare (850-acre) lagoons.

In spring and fall the farm fields and enormous ponds are frequented by migratory waterfowl. In spring and s-er, Eastern Bluebirds, Bobolinks, Grasshopper Sparrows, Upland Sandpipers and other field species are often seen in the grassy borders. Hawks and Turkey Vultures regularly soar overhead. Migrating warblers and thrushes can be found in the small woodlot behind the headquarter8 building, Many rare birds have been seen at the facility in recent years. Western and Eared Grebes have been sighted in spring and fall. During the summer, Yellow-headed Blackbirds have nested in

17

the cattail marsh east of the lagoons. Gyrfalcons and Peregrine Falcons are rare. Many shorebirds including the Ruff, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Willet, American Avocet and Red Phalarope, have been recorded during fall migration. During late fall, early winter and early spring flocks of gulls are found at the onsite landfill and along the center dike. Sightinge include Glaucous, Ic~land, Thayer's and Little Gulls.

Contadnation from these areas consist of:

' Litter ' Effluent and erosional sediments * Natural sediments and nutrients

C-ercial uses refer to areas where products or services are bought or rold. Contaminants resulting from this use category are generally point-source in nature.

Open space and recreation areas cwer the largest percentage of land use in the Muskegon River Drainage Basin. Agricultural land uses encompass the second highest percentage except in the ipmnedlate Muskegon Lake area where residential uses are recond. Muskegon Lake and Bear Creek areas have the higheat percentages of industrial and coamercial uses.

3.3.3 Sewer Service Systems

Since 1973, sewer systems were installed in the Cities of Muskegon, Muskegon Beights, North Muskegon, Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores and the i m

townships of E~elston, Laketon and Muskegon (Fisher, 1986). The land application system utilized by askegon County discharges into Mosquito Creek and Black Creek.

The storm sewer rystem in the same area covers 2849 hectare (7,040 acres) and contains 59 sewer outfalls (WMSRDC, June 1978). Table 3-5 illustra*es drainage areas add number of sewer outfalls per individual sewer network -i the Muskegon Lake area. Figure 3-4 illustrates the urban storm sewer network. A smaller storm sewer system exlsts near Bear Lake draining 457 acrer and containing six atom sewer outfalls (WSRDC, 1978.1.

TABLE 3-5. URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORKS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA

Receiving Waters Drainage Area Number of Stonn Hectare (Acres Sewer Outf alls

Muskegon Lake R u d d W Drain Ryerson Creek Muskegon River Four Mile Creek

TOTAL 2,849 (7,040) 5 9

Modified from WSRDC, 1978a. 18

Flgura 3-+'. Urban Storm Sever Network (WI(SR~C, 1978 a ) .

3.4 WATER USES (MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN)

3.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat

The Muskegon River is proposed for study as a natural river as provided by the Natural Rivers Act (P.A. 231 of 1970). Conditions within the Muskegon River Basin and Muskegon Lake provide a wide variety of habitat that supports a high diversity of fish* both warmwater and coldwater. All streams and lakes in the Muskegon River Basin are protected for coldwater or warwater fish (WMSRDC, 1978) .

Cedar Creek, tributary of Muskegon River just upstream of Muskegon Lake, rupports a well established population of brook trout, a coldwater, pollution-intolerant species. Mosquito Creek supports brook trout in the vicinity of the discharge point of the Muskegon County WMS end wanwater species further downstream. Green Creek is a designated warmwater fish stream.

Ruddimon Creek has sustained severe degradation due to urban runoff and historical loadings of sanitary wastes. Combined stormsewer overflows have been substantially reduced if not eliminated. Solids loadings are a major factor impacting stream quality.

Severe degradation is evident in Ryerson Creek tributary to the Muskegon Lake based on the benthic com~lunity that consists of approximately 75 percent oligochaetes, pollution-tolerant organisms. Stormwater runoff i suspected to be the primary cause of degraded conditions. L

Severe habitat degradation is evident in Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary. Contaminated groundwater from the Cordova (OttlStory) Chemical Company site vents to an unnamed tributary to Little Bear Creek and Little Bear Creek proper. The ca~anrnity of aquatic organisms found in the u-ed tributary consirts of some midge larvae, many of which were found dead (MDNR, 1985~). No fish exist in the unnamed tributary except in areas ipnnediately downstream of freshwater seeps. Severe degradation continues in Little Bear Creek downstream approximately 215 m (700 ft) from the confluence with the unnamed tributary. Aruterobic sedfmcnt and bacterial slimes are present in Little Bear Creek where contaminated water vents to the stream. Fewer numbers of macroinvertebrate individuals and species are found downstream of the confluence. Brook trout were reported to be present in Little Bear Creek (Evans, 1978). Brook trout are absent in Little Bear Creek downstream of the cont.minated tributary confluence.

Green Creek is a designated warmwater stream located on the northwest side of Muskegon Lake. Based on 1986 MDNR staff ob~e-ations, the stream is suitable to support warmwater fish populations.

Although fish and wlldlife condi tions have improved in Muskegon Lake, the benthic camunity in Bear Lake is degraded most likely due to eutrophic and shallow conditione. Low species diversity is evident and there are pollution-tolerant species, such as oligochaetes and midges, are present (Evanr, ca. 1981). Seasonal algal blooms m d nuisance amounts of weeds are present in Bear Lake. Sediments in this 2.5-3.1 m (8-10 ft) lake are comprised primarily of fine silts and detritus (about 75 and 25%) based o n L

20

visual inspection by MDNR staff of 6 May 1987. The lake still supports a diverse fishery which includes northern pike, largemouth bass, sunfish, bullheads, carp and suckers based on MDNR staff observations during an electrofishing survey of the lake on 29 October 86.

3.4.2 Water Supply

Surface waters from tributaries to Area of Concern are not knowingly utilized by private industries for water supply purposes.

3.4.3 Sports and Commercial Fishing

Sports fishing in the tributaries of Muskegon Lake is primarily re- stricted to the Muskegon River and Bear Lake. Both tributaries support a diverse and desireable fishery that includes northern pike, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, sunfish, walleye, salmon and/or trout.

Cedar Creek supports a desireable brook trout fishery.

Commercial fishing is restricted to Lake Michigan within the basin (please see Section 3.5.3) . 3.4.4 Contact Recreation (SwFmming, Boating)

The rivers and lakes within the Muskegon Lake basin are protected for boating and total body contact uses.

3.4.5 Navigation

Tributaries to Muskegon Lake are protected for navigation as per Michigan's Water Quality Standards.

3.4.6 Noncontact Recreation (Walking , Jogging, Bicycling)

Approximately 65 percent of the land in the Muskegon River Basin is used for recreational purposes (WMSRDC, 1978a). Recreational activities

- common in the area include camping, hunting, and snowmobiling. The Muskegon River flows through the Muskegon State Game Area. In addition to the park, many Indian encampments and burial sites and historical properties are located along the rivers and streams (Metcalf C Eddy, 1982).

3.4.7 Waste Disposal

The majority of the industrial wastes in the area have been diverted to the Muskegon County WMS which discharges into Mosquito Creek. There are several permitted industries in the area which actively discharge to Muskegon Lake and its tributaries (Figure 3-51. Table 3-6 lists these industries, their NPDES permit numbers, discharge type, the body of water into which they discharge.

Figure 3- 5 NPDES permitted dischargers in the vicinity of Muskegon Lake. Muskegon County, MI.

MUSKEGON, MI.

ml l a

nu#ceow r tsrou

f- f

Date Facility

TABLE 3-6. NPDES PERMITTED DISCHARGES TO WSKEGON LAKE AND LAKE MICHIGAN (Source: Michigan NPDES Facility Inventory 10 June 87)

Permit Diecharge Number Type

Permit Ieeuance Expiration Comment

Huekegon Lake

Coneume rs Power

B.C. Cobb Plant

S.D. Warren Co.

N Shaw Walker Co.

W

Teledyne Continental Motore (Terrace St .)

West Michigan Dock and Market Corp.

Wee t ran Corp . (Weet Michigan Steel Foundry)

Lake Michigan

Huekegon WTP

Muekegon Heighte WTP

Bear Creek

Nor-Am Chem Co.

MI0001520 noncontact cooling water

flyash transport wat.er boiler blow down filter backwash

MI0001210 noncontact cooling

MI0042897 noncontact cooling stormwater runoff

HI0002879 noncontact cooling

MI0004880 noncontact cooling

MI0025038 noncontact cooling

MI0005371 filter backwash

MI0005096 filter backwash

MI0041645 noncontact water

Date Facility

TABLE 3-6. (Continued)

Permit Diecharge Number Type

Permit Iesuance ~x~iration Comment

Ruddimn Creek

CWC Text ron (Henry St . ) Kaydon Corp . IKaydon Bearing Division

Muekegon Pieton Ring

Scaled Power (Muekegon )

Hoequito Creek

hekegon Co. W Mgt. Sye. No. 1

Muekegon River

Marathon Pipe Line Co.

Teledyne Continental Hotore (Getty St.)

Zephyr (Naph-Sol Refinery)

MI0002666 noncontact cooling

MI0004499 contontact cooling stormwater runoff

MI0002658 noncontact cooling

MI0004057 noncontact cooling stormwater runoff

treated induetrial1 MI0027391 municipal wastewater

HI0045225 treated groundwater

MI0029416 noncontact cooling

01 128182 12/31/86 new permit preeently being developed

12120174 11/30/79 company propoeee to treat purged contaminated groundwater

HI0005045 treated groundwater 12/18/80 07/31/85

f

3.5 WATER USES (MUSKEGON LAKE)

Conditions greatly improved in Muskegon Lake since the diversion at industrial and municipal wastes to the Muskegon County WMS in 1973

, (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982). In 1972, the benthic community in Muskegon Lake was estimated at 66 percent oligochaetes and 20 percent chironomids (Evans, 1972). By 1975, an increase in other species and numbers of chironomids was evident and by 1980, the oligochaetes comprised about 58 percent of the benthic community (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982).

Tainting conditions (eg. excessive oils in the lake water and sediments) produced undesirable fish flesh odors and tastes prior to point source diversion to the Muskegon County WMS No.1 facility in 1973. By 1981, studies indicated that fishing was good with no reported cases of fish flesh tainting (Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982).

Important gamefish populations include perch, largemouth bass, sunfish, northern pike, crappie, bullheads, suckers, steelhead, lake trout, brown trout, coho and chinook salmon.

Kolar (1986) reports that Muskegon Lake provides important breeding, migratory and wintering habitats for waterfowl. Species breeding in the Muskegon Lake area are mallards black ducks and wood ducks. Overwintering species include mallards, black ducks and ring-necked ducks. In addition, the lake also provide migratory habitat to pintails, redheads,canvasbacks, Canada geese, tundra swans and snow geese. Water- f w l data for Muskegon Lake has been su~mrarized by Grettenberger (1985).

Water Supplr

Lake Michigan in used as a domestic and industrial water supply in some areas of the Muskegon River Basin. The City of Muskegon pumps water from the lake to its municipal water plant at a rate of approximately 26 mgd (Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982). Additional data specific to percentages of water used for domestic or industrial purposes and water sources was not available. The B.C. Cobb Pwer Plant is uses Muskegon Lake water primar- ily for cooling.

Sports and Conmercial Fishing

Jawen (1986 personal camrmunication) reported that estimated annual angler days for Muskegon Lake increased from 57,000 to 148,000 days between 1972 and 1982 (Table 3.7). The increased use is due, in part, to improved water quality that supports a greater diversity and increased numbers of fish species in response to MDrlR fisheries management efforts.

Table 3.7 - Estimated annual angler days for all fishing by licensed anglers on Muskegon Lake. Muskegon County, Michigan (Jamsen, 1986 MDNR report .

Year Angler Days 1

57,000 72,000 Unavailable 88,000 80,000 117,000 79,000 121,000 112,000 129,000 148,000

1 Estimates based on mail survey sampling of 103% of licensed anglers in Mfchigan. (Margin of error unknown).

In 1986, three licenses were authorized by the MDNR to fish from the Port of Muskegon. By law, these licensees may only fish the waters of Lake Michigan within a 80.4 km ( 5 0 4 ) radius of their docks in Murkegon Lake. In fact, these licensees fish in close proximity to Muskegon Lake and do not use the full 80.4 km (5O-mi) radiur granted by their license.

'Itro of these enterprises are mlti-species operations. Specifical- ly, they harvert whitefish with largemesh trap nets in waters 27.7 m (90- ft) or less; and they harvest chubs with mall mesh gill nets in waters deeper than 73.8 m (240 f t) . A third commercial f ishing company is exclusively a chub fishery.

These fisheries are highly regulated by the State to reduce both conflicts vith sport anglers and non-target fish mortality. There is no reason to indicate that cglpp.rci.l fishing use i r specifically impacted.

3.5.4 Contact Recreation

Nearshore areas of Lake Michigan are used extensively for contact recreation purposes (1.e.. -ing and boating).

hakegon Lake ham only t w siter where the general public can access the lake for w a g . One ir located at the Muskegon State Park and the other jrut south of the navigation channel to Lake Michigan.

MDNR (Recreatlonrrl Facilities Division) information indicates that Murkegon County has over 12,000 registered watercraft, both pleasure and comercial, as of December 31, 1986. Sixty percent are represented by those craft 3.7 to 4.9 m (12 to 16 ft) in length, 22% by those 4.9 to 6.2 m (16 to 20 ft) in length and 13% by thore craft greater than 6.2 m (20 ft) in length. Muskegon Lake also has two county operated boataccess facilities. Additional access and boat storage are provided by 14 marinas on the lake that have capacity for about 3000 watercraft includ- L ing thore ranging from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 it) in length. Bear Lake has

26

two public access sites as well. This information indicates that boat access is very important for pleasure, fishing and other recreational uses of Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan.

3.5.5 Navigation

In recent years, dredging of Muskegon Lake Harbor and navigation channel has been performed approximately every other year. The mainte- nance dredging of this project is vital to deep draft vessels whose annual cargo for the habor is in excess of 1.36 million metric tons (1.5 million tons) (Vermillion, 1980). The Federal project consists of a navigation channel that begins at the shore of Lake Michigan and extends to the west shore of Muskegon Lake for a total length of 2,000 m (6,500 ft.). Sediments in the navigation channel consist primarily of sand. The total quantity of dredged/disposed sediments for the period 1971 through 1984 is 463,933 m3 (606,825 yds) and averaged about 29,052 m' (38,000 yd3) per year (Grazioli, 1987). Prior to 1984, the dredged spoils were in open water areas of Lake Michigan. Dredged sediments from the navigation channel connecting Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan are ap- proved and used in the Federal beach nourishment program for Lake Michi- gan (Appendix 3.0). Contaminant monitoring as part of the program indicates dredged sediments from this area are acceptable for beach nourishment purposes.

Beach erosion mitigation activities at Muskegon Lake Harbor are authorized by Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968. Section 111 provides for the mitigation of shore damage attributed to Federal navigation structures. A detailed project report was prepared in Novem- ber 1975 for Muskegon Harbor to determine the effect of the Federal navigation structures on shore erosion. It was determined in these studies that some shoreline erosion at the harbor is resulting from the presence of the Federal navigation structures. Accordingly, shore erosion mitigation plans were formulated annually to provide approximate- ly 53,516 m" (70,000 yds) of Huskegon Lake sand (if required) at affected shoreline locati~ns. Clean material dredged from the Federal navigation channel or approved borrow areas is placed in designated beach nourish- ment locations along Lake Michigan near the mouth of Muskegon River.

Dive investigations by Atmy Corps of Engineers were performed at these nourishment locations in 1979. Sediments were found to be sandy and suitable to received clean dredged material.

The most recent (1982) sediment testing and benthic data for the Muskegon Lake harbor and previous U.S. EPA analytical results (1974 and 1981) indicated that the sediments are suitable for open water disposal andlor beach nourishment. The sediment sampling frequency for Huskegon Harbor is every 5 years.

3.5.6 Boncontact Recreation

As previously described in Section 3.4.6, a large amount of land is available in the Muskegon River Basin for recreational purposes. The Muskegon State Park borders the northwest corner of Muskegon Lake and a portion of the east shore of Lake Michigan. The Muskegon State Game Area is located immediately to the northeast of Muskegon Lake.

2 7

Waste Disposal

Several industries in the Muskegon River Basin actively discharge to Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan. The industries (Figure 3-5). their permit numbers and discharge type are listed in Table 3-6. Six facili- ties have NPDES permits to discharge noncontact cooling water to Muskegon Lake. The B.C. Cobb Power Plant ie also permitted to discharge treated flyash transport water, boiler blowdawn and intake filter backwash. Two water treatment plants discharge intake filter backwash to Lake Michigan.

3.6 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, OBJECTIVES AND APPLICABLE DESIGNATED USES

The State of Michigan designed the Intra-State Water Quality Stan- dards for the State of Michigan in 1972 (WMSRDC, 1977). The standards, mostly recently revised in 1986, provide water quality guidelines for the Great Lakes and a11 surface waters in Michigan. The State of Michigan established six different uses for surface waters. The following desig- nated uses establieh the degree of water quality standards required:

Total body contact recreation Fish, other aquatic life, wildlife Agricultural water use Industrial water supply Public water supply Navigation

In case8 where the same body of water has more than one use, the more stringent water quality standards apply.

Once the State of Michigan has designated the specific use of a surface water body, eleven criteria are used to eramine the water quality:

Surpended solids Dissolved solids Acidity /alkalinity (pH) Taste and odor producing substances Toxic substances R.dioactive substances Plant nutrients Fecal coliform Dissolved oxygen Temperature Residues

In 1977, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Cammission used the eleven criteria listed above to determine whether each subwatershed of the Muskegon River Basin would meet 1983 Fishable and SwimPI.ble goals and continue to meet them for the following 20 years (WMSRDC, 1977). Of the five subwatersheds in the Murkegon Rlver Drainage Basin, Muskegon River met a11 of the 1983 goals in 1977, a d was expected to continue meeting them for the next 20 years. Cedar Creek and Bear Creek met the 1983 goals in 1977, but questions existed about the poten- L tial effect on their water quality by the Eolton ~andfill/Dump, the Duel1

28

6 Gardner and Northside Landfills, and the Cordova (Ott /Story) Chemical Company. Ruddiman Creek and Ryerson Creek did not meet the goals. Ruddiman Creek contained elevated levels of solids, phosphorus* nitrogen, dissolved oxygen and oil and grease (WMSRDC, 1977). Phosphorus and nitrogen limits were exceeded in Ryerson Creek (WMSRDC, 1977). Bear Lake was not expected to achieve the 1983 goals due to high phosphorus and nitrogen levels. Excessive algal blooms were also noticeable (WMSRDC, 1977).

Muskegon Lake did achieve the 1983 goals (WMSRDC, 1977).

Currently, water quality of Michigan's surface waters is evaluated using updated (1986) Michigan Water Quality Standards that includes Rule 57 vhich is used to establish protective limits for toxic substances discharged to waters of the State (Appendix 4.2). Some of the parameters and their respective guidelines used to evaluate water quality conditions in the AOC are listed as follows:

Toxic Substance

Rule 57(2) Guideline

Concentration Levels Water Body (PP~) (PP~) Basis

Trichloroethylene Ruddiman Creek 2 30 (frichloroethene)

9 4 ACV

1,2-Dichloroethane Little Bear Creek 840 to 9800 560 CRV

Vinyl chloride Little Bear Creek 90 to 2800 20.8 CRV

Mercury (as Division Street 2.2 methyl mercury) Stormsewer Outfall

to Muskegon Lake

0.0006 HLSC

ACV = Aquatic Chronic Value HtSC = Human Life-Cycle Safe Concentration CRV =, Cancer Risk Value

Sediment quality is another important component to evaluate because contaminants in the aquatic environment often accumulate to higher concentrations in the sediments than in the overlying water column. The major concern is that contaminated sediments may, in turn, act as a source of contaminants affecting biota associated with the sediments and the overlying water. Numerical sedimcnt criteria, based on the relation- sh?p of contaminant concentratione to biological effects, have not been developed because of inadequate scientific understanding and proof of the complex ways the many possible combinations of inorganic and organic constituents in sedimcnt interact to influence the biogeochemical behav- ior, and thus effects, of sediment contominants (U.S.EPA, 1987).

In the absence of effects-based sediment criteria, a variety of approaches have been developed to evaluate potential environmental effects of contaminated sediments that include physical characteristics, biological oxygen demand and other sanitary engineering measurements and

29

elutriate test result comparison with water quality standards. Bioassays L and bioaccumulation tests are being developed and have only recently been used to directly evaluate the potential ewironmental effects of contami- nated sediments. However, acceptable testing methods and procedures have yet to be developed. The development of effect-based criteria continues (Ehorn, July 1987). Some effect conclusions are discussed as part of the Benthic Community Section 4.2.3.1 based on organism associations with contaminated sediments.

It has been the collective experience of MDNR staff that, with the exception of mercury, common heavy metals do not bioaccumulate in fish at levels much greater than Statewide background concentrations.

Table 4-6 provides four sediment evaluation lists: the dredge spoils criteria (used to determine if sediments are suitable for open water disposal), Lake Michigan background concentrations of selected contaminants, Michigan lakes and stream background values reported by Besse and Evans (1972) and criteria used by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Sample results were campared with these values to determine relative level of contamination and & not represent effect-based crite- ria, as discussed above.

The Michigan Department of Public Bealth (MDPH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Joint Commission (IJC) guidelines, as follow., are used for evaluating levels of certain toxic substances in edible portions of fish and the need for fish consumption advisories:

Parameter FDA MDPB IJC L

Aldrin/Dieldrin DDT and Metabolites Lindane Endrin Heptachloroepoxide Chlordane Kepone Mercury Mirex PCB Toxaphene PBB Dioxin Unspecif led organic

compounds

FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration MDPE - Michigan Department of Public Health IJC = International Joint Coaanisrion

0.5 less than detection 0.1

less than detection

Health consamption advisories are annually updated and published in the Michigan Fishing Guide prwided with the purchase of a Michigan fishing license.

4.0 IMPAIRED USE ASSESSMENT

The intent of this section is to define impaired uses of the Muskegon Lake AOC and tributaries based on existing environmental moni- toring data. Data that was available for review included water quality (nutrient, heavy metal and organic compounds), benthic cammunity assess- ments and environmental contaminant monitoring data for sediments and fish. Keep in mind that the presence of some contaminants, although elevated in sediments, may not be environmentally significant since they do not appear to be bioaccumulated in fish at levels that would either affect their growth and reproduction or lead to any need for further fish consumption advisories.

4.1 IMPAIRED USES, USE ATTAINABILITY, AND SPECIFIC CONCERNS

In the 1950s through the early 1970's Muskegon Lake was a highly eutrophic lake due to municipal and industrial discharges. Most desig- nated beneficial uses were impaired in localized area throughout the lake. Table 4-1 smmarizes the causes and sources of the impaired uses. Numerous reports documented the occurrence of tainted fish, algal blooms, odors, dissolved oxygen depletion, excessive nutrient enrichment and a degraded benthic community. Lake shoreline filling occurred, primarily along the south side of the lake due to private, municipal and industrial development. Development along the shoreline eliminated wetlands and shallow water areas that served as prime fish and wildlife habitat. The resulting municipal and industrial point source discharges as well as combined stonwater runofflsanitary wastes caused severe degradation of lake quality. Oil slicks were commonly observed along the surface of the lake's south shore due in part to industrial discharges including metal finishing companies and oil production industries that flourished in the area. At one time, oil booms were installed to contain the oil from the (Teledyne) Continental Motors Company plant in the vicinity of Ryerson Creek.

In 1973, the major pollutant point sources were diverted to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System (WMS) No. 1 , a sprayfland application system. Since that time, lake water quality has dramatically improved.

The recent Muskegon County Water Toxics Study (WMSRDC, 1982). IJC's Water Quality Board report (1985) and the Michigan 305(b) Report (MDNR, 1986) reported the absence of any impaired uses in the Muskegon Lake and nearshore Lake Michigan area. However, the (WMSRDC Surface Water Toxics Study (1982) concluded that Muskegon Lake still remains eutrophic.

Impaired Uses Causes Sources

Navigation restricted

Elhiinat ion of fish habitat

Ellmlnation of benthic subatrate

Tainted fish

Benthic popula- tions degraded

Recreational activities restricted

debris excessive weed growth

filling of shoreline

substrate cwered with lime and fibers

phenols, gasoline , oils

logging indue try point and nonpoint discharges containing phosphorus

industrial filling activity Westran Corp. fill

S .D . Warren discharge

point source discharges such as Naph Sol Refining, Continental Motors, S.D. Warren, N. Muskegon STPI Aurora Refining

dissolved oxygen depletion point and nonpoint high levels of P and N sources of P and N

oxygen demanding sediments "b excessive weed growth point and nonpoint algal blooms sources of P and N undesirable water tastes point source discharges and odors of phenols such as Naph Sol Refinery

Recommendations by the WMSRDC (1982) and issues raised by citizens at the August 1986 public meeting concerned the following:

O Fish contmirunt levela in local fish species in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake

Degraded water and habitat quality of Ruddimrrn Creek

' Degraded water and habitat quality of Ryerson Creek

Localized Impacts by landfill runoff and contaminated groundwater

Although the major point source discharges of contaminants to Piuskegon Lake have been eliminated, other lesser sources remain such as storm sewers, landfill runoff, contaminated groundwater and contaminated inplace sedi- ments. Limited data indicates that some of these sources are directly Impacting Muskegon Lake tributaries. Impaired uses of these tributaries have been documented and are sumarized in Table 4-2.

Impaired Uses Causes Sources

Bear Lake

Benthos community contaminated sediments Possibly stormwater runoff degraded (P, N, OiG, As, Cd, Cr,

Ni, Pb, Zn)

Recreational algal blooms Shallow lake (max depth 3.5 m) activities and extensive weed grovths organic sediments, stormwater aesthetics odors runoff degraded

Little Bear Creek

Elimination of brook trout fishery

Tainted fish

Aesthetics obnoxious odor degraded bacterial slimes

Big Bear Creek

Tainted fish

Ruddiman Creek

Aesthetics visible oil film degraded

Benthic comrmunity degraded

contaminated groundwater from Cordova (Ott/Story)

contaminated groundwater from Cordova (Ott/Story)

contaminated groundwater from Cordova (0ttIStory)

contaminated groundwater from Cordova (Ott /Story)

urban stormwater

urban stormwater

Ryersan Creek

Recreational violation of WQS for urban stormwater activities and odor, floating debris, aesthetics turbidity, vieible impaired oil film

Benthic community degraded

urban stormvater

4.2 AOC COMPONENT EVALUATIONS

4.2.1 Water Quality

Comparison of historical water quality data with recent data document improved water quality trends for significant parameters such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen, phosphorus to nitrogen ratios, chlorophyll a and Secchi Disc transparency. A sumnary of available data collected before and after municipal and induetrial wastewater discharge diversions (1973) is presented on Table 4-3. Available data wee obtained from WHSRDC (19821, MDNR monitoring programs and Llmno-Tech (1981) data. Data from WMSRDC (1982) and MDNR August 1986 and May 1987 are listed in Appendix 4.1.

Table 4-3 - Water quality characterietics of Muskegon Lake. Muskegon C o ~ t y , MI.

Total Total Chlorophyll Secchi Disc Phosphorus Nitrogen a Transparency

Date - (PP~) . (PP~) (PP~) -- (m) (ft)

4110167 (A) 1972 (B) 1973 (B) 1974 (B) 1975 (B)

4/17/78 (A) 10179 (C) 1980 (B)

8/12/86 (A) 5/06/87 (A)

A = MDNR data B - Linmo-Tech, 1981. (6-er sampling data) C - WMSRDC, 1982 * - Depth averaged values.

Chlorophyll a declined from a recorded high of 25 ppb in 1972 to an average of 13 ppb (1974 through 1987). Secchi disk readings in 1967 and 1972 ranged between 1.4 to 1.5 m (4.8 ft) but have increased to 2.0 (6.5 ft) and 2.6 m (8.4 ft) in 1986 and 1987. A major indication of the removal of nutrient rich dircharges after 1973-1974 is the significant decline in total phosphorur. Total phosphorus concentrations averaged 67 ppb from 1967 to 1974 and have continued to decline. The latest simmer (August 1986) and spring turnover (May 1987) total phosphorus concentrations averaged 34 and 26 ppb, respectively. Prior to the "diversion" Muskegon Lake was reportedly nitrogen limited but since diversion has become phosphorur limited (Limno-Tech., 1981). Recent data inplies a seasonal difference as to which nutient is limiting. The fall rampling data for October 1979 by WMSRDC (1982) indicated nitrogen limited conditionr based on a total nitrogen to phorphorus ratio of 3.7. MDNR data for 1978, 1986 and 1987 spring and/or sumer periods indicated the lake is phosphorus limited (N:P ratios of 37, 27 and 26). Based on these latter data it ie important to reduce controlla- ble loadings of phosphoruta from point and nonpoint sources to further optimize hprovement in lake water quality, since it remains eutrophic. L

Mikula (1987), MDNR staff, recommended's maximum NPDES permitted loading of 13,000 lbs/yr total phosphorus by the Muskegon County WMS No.1 system in order to maintain current in-lake spring and fall turnover phos- phorus concentrations. The desired MDNR goal is to maintain turnover phosphorus concentrations to less than 30 ppb in order to maintain good lake quality conditions (reduced nuisance algal blooms, reduced zone and duration of dissolved oxygen depletion in the deep basins).

WMSRDC (1982) also analysed water samples for toxic contaminants (Appendix 4.1). In order data to identify potential toxic pollutants of concern, these data were compared with Michigan's Rule 57(2) Guideline levels listed in Appendix 4.2. These guideline levels are an annually updated summary of the water quality data from the surface water toxics study as required by Rule 57. Any pollutants exceeding the criteria are at levels of concern. The toxic pollutants of concern are listed in Table 4-4 along with the water body tested. Four contaminants exceeded Rule 57(2) Guideline Levels: trichloroethylene (230 ppb) in Ruddiman Creek; 1,2 dichloroethane (840 to 9800 ppb) and vinyl chloride (90 to 2800 ppb) in Little Bear Creek and mercury (2.2 ppb) from Division Street stormsewer. Available data (McMahon, 1987) indicates contaminated groundwater used by Sealed Power Company is contaminated with about 5000 ppb trichloroethylene prior to use and the final discharge of noncontact cooling water contains 150 to 3200 ppb. Effluent limits of 20 ppb, (technology based effluent limits) were recomended as of June 1987 upon review and preparation of an upgraded NPDES permit.

Table 4-4. Toxic substance concentrations in water samples (collected as part of the WMSRDC, 1979-1982 study) that exceeded Michigan's Water Quality standards Rule 57(2) Guideline ~evels for toxic substances.

Toxic Substance

Rule 57(2) Guideline

Concentration Levels Water Body (PP~)

Trichloroethylene Ruddiman Creek 230 (trichloroethene)

1,2-Dichloroethane Little Bear Creek 840 to 9800

Vinyl chloride Little Bear Creek 90 to 2800

Mercury (as Division Street 2.2 methyl mercury) Stormsewer Outfall

to Muskegon Lake

ACV = Aquatic Chronic Value HLSC = Human Life-Cycle Safe Concentration CRV = Cancer Risk Value

Bas is - ACV

CRV

CRV

HLSC

The above contaminants monitored by WMSRDC (1982) in Little Bear Creek are from the contaminated groundwater venting to the creek from the Cordova (Ott/Story) Chemical Company site. These volatile contaminants do not exceed Rule 57(2) Guideline Levels further downstream in Bear Creek, Bear

'I, Lake nor in Muskegon Lake and therefore are.not considered pollutants of concern to Muskegon Lake or the nearshore waters of Lake Michigan. State and U.S. EPA funded projects are now being developed and assessed to reduce and posribly el$minate the lose of contaminated groundwater to Little Bear Creek from the Cordova (Ott/Story) site.

The source of mercury from the Division Street stormsewer has yet to be determined. Fisher (1987) reported that the Division Street stormsewer . (11th Street stomewer) was recently modified to eliminate knovn industrial and sanitary cross coarrections.

Existing monitoring data including U.S.G.S river monitoring data (U.S.O.S. Water Resources Data - Michigan reports for 1980 to 1985) indicate total recoverable and dissolved mercury concentrationr in Muskegon River at Bridgeton, MI. (located 10 km or 16 m i uprtream from Pluskegon Lake) averaged about 0.15 ppb and 0.10 ppb , respectively (Table 4 3) . WMSRDC (1982) survey alro reported water mercury concentrations of 0.4 ppb in a backwater area of the Muskegon River adjacent to the "Causeway Landfill"; 2.8 ppb in the Muskegon River Imediately dovnotream of Zephyr (Naph-Sol Refinery property) and 0.7 ppb in a backwater area of the Muskegon River adjacent to "Quarterline Landfill". MDNR, May 1987 survey data indicated total mercury concentrationr of leas than a detection level of 0.5 ppb in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake water samples. The above rource sitar are located just upstream of Muekegon Lake.

Table 4.5 - mercury concentrations in Muskegon River water samples collecte in the vicinity of Bridgeton, Michigan. s,

Total Recoverable Dissolved Water ( P P ~ 1 ( P P ~ Year - Average Range Average Range

K - values less than the detection level indicated. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data - Michigan) Average values based on four samples.

4.2.2 Sediment Quality

Sediment quality is an important component to evaluate because contami- nantr in the aquatic environment often accumulate to higher concentrations in the sediments than in the overlying water column. The major concern is that contaminated sedfmcnts may, in turn, act as a source of contaminants affecting biota arsociated with the sediments and the overlying water. Numerical sediment criteria, bared on the relationrhip of contaminant concentrations to biological effects, have not been developed because of inadequate scientific understanding and proof of the complex ways the many L i d

possible combinations of inorganic and organic constituents in sediment interact to influence the biogeochemical behavior, and thus effects, of sediment contaminants (U.S.EPA, 1987).

In the absence of effects-based sediment criteria, a variety of ap- proaches have been developed to evaluate potential environmental effects of contaminated sediments that include physical characteristics, biological oxygen demand and other sanitary engineering measurements and elutriate test result comparison with water quality standards. Bioassays and bioaccumulation tests are being developed and have only recently been used to directly evaluate the potential environmental effects of contaminated sediments. However, acceptable testing methods and procedures have yet to be developed. The development of effect-based criteria continues (Ehorn, July 1987). Some effect conclusions are discussed as part of the Benthic Community Section 4.2.3.1 based on organism associations with contaminated sediments.

Table 4-6 provides four sediment evaluation lists: the dredge spoils criteria (used to determine if sediments are suitable for open water dispos- al), Lake Michigan background concentrations of selected contaminants, Michigan lakes and streams background values reported by Hesse and Evans (1972) and criteria used by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Sample results were compared with these values to determine relative level of contamination and do not represent effect-based criteria, as discussed above.

Sediment sampling surveys were conducted in Muskegon Lake andlor tributaries: PiDNR June 1972, 1975, 1980, 1986 and 1987; WMSRDC (1982) surveys during the period 1979 to 1982; U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Programs Office (GLNPO) in June 1981 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Federal Muskegon Harbor maintenance sampling data for 1982.

The MDNR 1972 survey inyolved collecting sediment samples from 13 locations in Muskegon Lake and two locations in Bear Lake. The samples were analyzed for oil and grease, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and eight metals.

Using the Great Lakes National Program Office's guidelines for the pollution classification of Great Lakes harbor sediments (Table 4 - 6 ) , all the sediment samples collected are classified as "heavily polluted" based primarily on elevated heavy metals and oillgrease concentrations. Discus- sion of the applicability and limitations of the Dredge Spoils Criteria is in the report of the Dredging Subcommittee's "Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects", 1981. Similar U.S.EPA guide- lines are in the report, "Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments".

The WMSRDC, 1979 to 1982 (1982) study involved the collection and analysis of sediment samples from 27 sampling locations in Muskegon Lake as well as nine sampling locations in Muskegon River, four in Bear Lake, one on Mosquito Creek, five on Little Bear Creek, one on Bear Creek, three on Ruddiman Creek, one on Ruddiman Pond, and one on Ryerson Creek (Appendix 4.3).

Table 4.6 Nonaffect sediment classification criteria. (Concentrations as ppm)

--Polluted--- Eesse Lake Michigan Evans

Parameter U.S.EPA M.O.E. Present Past (1972)

Arsenic 8 Barium 60 Cadmium 6 Chromium 7 5 Copper 50 Cyanide 0.25

Iron 25,000 Lead 60 Manganese 500 Mercury 1 Nickel 5 0 Selenium Zinc 200

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 10

Phosphorus 650

Volatile Solids 80,000 Chemical Oxygen Demand 80,000

Kjeldhal Nitroem 2,000

Oil and Grease 2,000

1 = precolonial or natural average concentrations.

Sources: Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1982. Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects. Report of the Dredging Subcommittee. Windoor, Ontario. 365 pp.

U.S.EPA Dredge Spoils Criteria.

Eleven of the 27 sediment sampling sites in Muskegon Lake were classi- fied as heavily polluted according to the U.S.EPA guidelines for dredged material disposal. Fifteen of 27 sediment samples (Stations I, 1-1, J and IIJ-Grid) were collected fram a bay adjacent to the Michigan Foundry and Supply CompanyIDivision Street storm sewer outfall. Of the 15 samples, six were classified as heavily poll~ted, three moderately polluted and six nonpolluted. Their polluted statue was based primarily on elevated heavy metals and oillgrease. In general, those sediments with the highest metal

L

concentrations were found near shore. The Division Street stonusewer and Michigan Foundry Supply are suspect sources.

Two of six samples collected at sites located at the mouth of Ryerson Creek and in the vicinity of the (Teledyne) Continental Motor Company - Terrace Street Plant (K, K-1 and K-Grid) would be classified as "heavily polluted" based on the U.S.EPA dredge spo2ls criteria for heavy metals and oil/grease. The data indicated that the most polluted sediments were nearest the mouth of Ryerson Creek.

Although none of the WMSRDC sediments samples contained more than 10 ppm PCBs (U.S.EPA Dredge Spoils "heavy polluted" Criteria), Michigan MDNR staff are concerned about elevated sediment concentrations greater than 1.0 ppm detected in the vicinity of the Division Street Stormsewer/Michigan Foundry Supply sites (3.21 ppm), Ryerson Creek in the vicinity of (Teledyne) Continental Motors Company's defunct discharge (9.8 ppm) and (Teledyne) Continental Motors Company (Getty Street facility) on the South Branch Muskegon River (1.8 ppm). PCBs in sediments can be a source of PCBs to aquatic organisms.

The GLNPO 1981 survey included sediment sampling from 15 stations in Muskegon Lake of which sediments from six sites were analyzed (Appendix 4.4 for data and figure showing sampling stations). Samples were analyzed for COD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, cyanide, selected

C inorganics, metals, and/or selected toxic organics. The two samples col- lected at Stations 1 and 15 in 39 and 36 ft deep basins were classified as "heavily polluted" based primarily on elevated heavy metals and total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN) concentrations.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sediment analysis data (Appendix 3.0) for samples collected during the 1982 maintenance dredging of the 2000 m (6500 ft) navigational channel connecting Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan indicated that it was suitable to be used in beach nourishment of the Lake Michigan shoreline in the vicinity of Muskegon Harbor. Previous results from 1974 indicated that contaminant concentrations were less than U.S.EPA open water disposal criteria (Dredge Spoils Criteria) referred to above (Vermil- lion, 1980) .

Two recent MDNR sediment contaminant surveys involved 13 sampling sites in Muekegon Lake: Ryerson Creek in the vicinity of Teledyne Continental Motors Company on 12 August 86 and 12 sites in Muskegon Lake on 8 December 86). These samples were analyzed for COD, total Kjeldhal nitrogen, total phosphorus, arsenic, 11 heavy metals, oil/grease and 25 organic compounds, primarily PCBs, pesticides and pesticide derivatives. These data indicated sediments from Stations 7, 8, 12, 15, 19 and 23 would be classified as "heavily polluted" befause of elevated concentrations of heavy metals, COD and TKN (Appendbc 4-31. One sample from Station 7 contained 1.3 ppm of mercury exceeding the 1.0 ppm Dredge Spoils Criteria. This sample was in the vicinity of the Division Street stormsewer which has exhibited elevated mercury concentrations in the discharge (see above 4.2.1 Water Quality.)

Bear Lake sediments were sampled on 6 May 87 from three locations: the inlet of an unnamed stream on the northwest side of the lake (Station I), the north end of the lake near the inlet (Station 2) and upstream of the

outlet (Station 3). The data (Appendix 4.3) indicated that all thirty-two L

organic compounds analyzed were less than levels of detection (190 to 12,000 ppb). These saaw samples were resubmitted for analysis for PCBs and a request for an analytical detection level of less than 1000 ppb. The analyses have yet to be completed by the MDNR laboratory.

Mercury concentrations were lean than detection levels of 0.5 ppm.

Several sampling sites in the MDNR 1972 survey; WKSRDC 1979-1982 survey; GLNPO 1981 survey and MDNR 1986 sunwy were in relatively the same areas (Figure 4-1). A comparison of these limited datum (Table 4.7) indi- cates concentrations of metals, TKN, phosphorus and oil/grease have declined since 1972. Nevertheless, "heavily polluted" classified sediments remain.

Elevated sedimcnt concentrations of PCBs and mercury in sediments are of major environmental concern because they have been demonstrated to be biomagnified in the food chain ultfmntely concentrating in human consumable organime, such ao fish (see 4.2.3.2 below), at levels of concern ( 2.0 ppm and 0.5 ppm wet weight, respectively). A review of results from the above sediment surveys indicated that PCBs and mercury sediment concentrations range from 0.02 to 9.8 ppm and 0.1 to 3.64 ppm, respectively, in Muskegon Lake (Table 4.8). Sediment concentrations of PCBs exceeded 1.0 ppm at three sedimant rampling sites: 1) Vicinity of Division Street Stormsewer/Michigan Foundry Supply Company, 2) Ryerson Creek mouth in the vicinity of Teledyne Continental Motors Company and 3) South Channel of Muskegon River in the vicinity of the Teledyne Continen- tal Motors Company - Getty Street.

Figure 4.1- Relat ive locations of selected Muskegon L a k e and \ Bear Lake sediment sampling,stations common to , MDNR, WMBRDC AND GLNPO surveys.

TABLE 4-7. COMPARISON OF 1972, 1981, 1982 AND/OR 1986 MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA (ppm dry weight baeis)

Total X Group (Stat ion) TKN Phoe. O6G HB Ae Cu N i C r Cd Zn Pb Solide Comment

Muekegon Lake

MDNR, 1972 E - S

A WHSRDC,l982 Sta. 2

' f i WNR, 1986 Sta . 22

GLNPO, 1981 Sta. 3

i B WHSRDC, 1982 Sta. G

WNR, 1986 Sta. 23

MDNR 1972 Sta. 14

C GLNPO, 1981 Sta . 1

TABLE 4.7 (Continued)

Total X Group (Station) TKN Phoe. ObG Ha Ae Cu Ni Cr Cd Zn Pb Solide Comment

GLNPO, 1981 5,400 1,400 -- 0.50 -- 63 24 150 7.8 240 120 23.1 Sta. 15

WWSRDC, 1982 380 Sta. 3

MDNR, 1986 11,000 Sta. 12

MDNR, 1972 2,917 B-10-S

GLNPO, 1981 840 Sta. 14

M)NR, 12 Auguet 86 14,000

and 8 December 86 670 Sta. 3

June, 1972 6,667 A-20-1

CIMSRDC, 1982 1 ,700 Sta L

HDNR, 1986 12s000 Sta. 21

TABLE 4.7 (continued)

~btal X Group (Station) TKW Phoe. 06G Hg Ae Cu Ni Cr Cd Zn Pb Solids Coarent

Bear Lake

G WWSRDC, 1982 -- 110 210 1.1 1.8 30 9.3 24 1.2 180 62 Sta. 5

e WWSRDC, 1982 6,600 120 1,300 -- 5.9 9.1 5.6 13 3.3 100 18 o. Sta. F

Table 4.8 - PCB and mercury concentration mean and range in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake sediments based on survey results from MDNR, 1972, 1975 and 1986; WMSRDC, 1982 and GLNPO, 1981 survey data.

Parameter

PCB

Mercury

Source - Muskegon Lake MDNR, 1975 WMSRDC, 1982 GLNPO, 1981 MDNR, 1986*

Bear Lake WMSRCDC, 1982 MDNR, 1987

Muskegon Lake MDNR. 1972 MDNR; 1980 WMSRDC, 1982 GLNPO, 1981 MDNR, 1986

Bear Lake MDNR, 19872 W R D C , 1982 MDNR, 1987

Number of Samples

3 4 4 12 (4)

2 3

13 1 15 6 13

2 1 3

Mean Range 0 0

K 0.02 K 0.02 (samples being reanalyzed)

* - MDNR, 1986 sediments were analyzed for PCBs using tvo methods: wet 8ample extraction and dried sample extraction methods, the latter to obtain lower detection limits. A sediment sample collected from the vicinity of Michigan Foundry Supply/Division Street Stormsewer site was the only sedi- ment sample in which PCBs were detected, using both analytical methods (2.8 and 0.51 ppm, respectively).

4.2.3 Biota

4.2.3.1 Macroinvertebrate Community

Benthic ~croinvcrtebrates are conrmonly used to measure changes in aquatic ecosystems because of their wide distribution, sedentary nature, relatively long life cycles. relatively large size, and sensitivity and adaptation to environmental conditions at the sediment-water interface. In particular, the ubiquitous oligochaetes and chironomids are used as indica- tor organisms of lake quality over extended time. In general, as lake conditions deteriorate, oligochaetes increase because of a greater toler- ance to degraded conditions due to organically enriched conditions. Associ- ated with their increase is a decrease in diversity of the benthic community.

A number of biological surveys of Muskegon Lake have been conducted. A L,

severely degraded benthic conmunity in the vicinity of the Central Paper Company (S .D. Warren Paper Company) was reported in 1954 and 1964 (Evans, ca. 1981 unpublished draft report). There have been several lake-wide benthic macroinvertebrate surveys conducted from 1954 to 1980 (Evans, ca. 1981 unpublished draft report). Improvement in the lake quality between 1954 and 1972 war noted by a marked decline in the number of oligochaetes. The data suggests further but only slight improvement between 1972 and 1980. Evans recommended additional benthic surveyr to evaluate changes since 1972. Areas reported to exhibit degraded benthic communities included:

O South Branch of Muskegon River Ryerson Creek

O Ruddiman Creek O Bear Lake - north O Southeastern area near the S.D. Warren discharge

Eleventh Street storm sewer O Muskegon River in vicinity of Teledyae Continental Motors Company - Catty Street. A biological survey of Little Bear Creek and an unnamed tributary in

August 1985 (Wuycheck, 1985) concluded that no improvement in the biological c o m i t i e s has occurred since a 1978 (Evans, 1978) survey. The presence of bacterial slime growths (Sphaerotilus) , pollutant-tolerant species (oligochaetes and chironomidae) predominant in the macroinvertebrate connnu- nity, and low species diversity indicated an organically enriched environ- ment. A report by consultants to Cordova Chemical Company (Versar, 1986) suggest no acute toxicity but con fin^ MDNR's reports on the presence of pollutant-tolerant species, low species diversity and bacterial slime.

Since the Murkegon County WMS No. 1 facility began operations in 1973, the MDNR has conducted two macroinvertebrate surveys of Mosquito Creek to determine the impacts of the discharge. One survey was conducted in 1978 (MDNR, 1978) and another in August 1983 (MDNR staff report, 1983). Both the 1978 and 1983 surveys indicated no adverse impacts on the macroinvertebrate canmnrnities in Mosquito Creek due to the discharge.

4.2.3.2 Fish Contamination

The MDNR reported the occurrence of fish tainting at various locations along the east andlor south shore of Muskegon Lake in 1962, 1967, 1968 and 1969. Various industrial dischargers of phenol were implicated (Naph Sol h f i n i ~ ~ S.D. Warren, Continental Motors Company). Lundgren (1976) reported that by 1976 Muskegon Lake fish were free of taints.

Tainted fish were reported by Newton (2966 and 1966b) in Big and Little Bear Creeks during a four day exposure of caged fish study to evaluate the Ott Chemical Company contaminated groundwater discharge. Tainted fish rerulted at a contaminated groundwater to stream water ratio of 1:440.

The following provides a review of fish contaminant monitoring data based on a comparison with established MDPH, FDA action levels and IJC objectives for the Great Lakes fishery (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 - FDA and MDPH action levels and IJC objectives for environmental contaminants in fish. Concentrations as ppm wet weight unless otherwise indicated.

Parme ter

AldrinIDieldrin DDT and Metabolites Lindane Endrin Heptachloroepoxide Chlordane Kepone Mercury Mirex PCB Toxaphene P BB Dioxin Unspecified organic '

compounds

FDA - MDPH - IJC -

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 0.1 2 5 0.3

25-50 ppt

0.5 less than detection 0.1

less than detection

FDA - U.S. Food and Drug Administration MDPH = Michigan Department of Public Health IJC = International Joint Commission

The Surface Water Toxics Study (WMSRDCs 1982) survey during 1979 to 1982 included the analysis of environmental contaminants in whole fish composites and/or single whole fish collected from Muskegon Lake, Bear Lake and Little Bear Creek. Fish were collected and analyzed from three stations in Muskegon Lake (vicinity of S .D. Warren, the vicinity of Ruddlman Creek and vicinity of the Division Street stormsewer/ Michigan Foundry Supply Company), two atations in Beer Lake (both at the north end) and two sta- tions in Little Bear Creek downstrean of Cordova (OttIStory) site (Appendix 4.6).

Whole fish composites of bluegill, bullhead, and white suckers were collected from Muskegon Lake. The bluegill and bullhead were analyzed for 11 metals, eight purgeable organics, two baseheutral organics, and four pesticides. A single white sucker collected, off Ruddimaa Creek, and a composite sample of white fish, collected off the Division Street stormsewer/Mlchigan Foundry Supply site were analyzed for 5 and 3 metals, respectively; 18 baselneutral organics and five pesticides. No base/neutral organics were detected in the white suckers, but both the bluegill and bullhead contained elevated concentrations of bie(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (300 and 465 ppm, respectively), and dl-n-butyl phthalate (16 and 42 ppm, respectively). There are no established fish consumption advisory criteria for phthalates.

Heavy metals were detected in the bluegill, bullhead, and white suckers vith seemingly elevated levels of zinc (20-78 ppm) in all species and chromium was found in the bullhead as high as 24 ppm. It is unknown as to whether stomach content was included in the whole fish analysis which, if included, may account for the elevated levels observed. Currently, there are no establirhed fish consumption advisory criteria for heavy metals other than mercury. Several of the metals are essential micronutrients in fish. Mercury was detected in the whole white sucker at 1.0 ppm which exceeded MPHD's action level advisory criteria of 0.5 ppm mercury (in edible por- tions) but not the FDA's 1.0 ppm action level.

Bluegill, bullhead, northern pike, largemouth bass and red horse sucker were collected in Bear Lake. Sculpin minnows were collected in Little Bear Creek. The bluegill and bullhead were analyzed for 11 metals, nine purgeable organics, two base/neutral organics, and four pesticides. The northern pike, largemouth bass, red horse sucker and sculpin minnows were analyzed for 18 base/neutral organics and five pesticides.

Base/neutral organi cs [bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (81.6 ppm) and dl-n-butyl phthalate (3.74 ppm)] were detected in the bullhead. One pesti- cide (4,4'-DDE) was detected in the bluegill but less than 5 ppm FDA and MDPH action level or IJC objective of 1 ppm; three compounds were found in the pike (4,4'-DDE, PCB 1242, PCB 1260); two compounds in the bass (4,4'-DDE and PCB 1254); and two compounds in the red sucker (4.4'-DDE, PCB 1254). A concentration of 10.6 ppm PCB was detected in the northern pike and exceeded MDPH's and FDA's action level of 2.0 pp. No pesticides were detected in the sculpin minnows or the bullhead.

MDNR analyzed 50 fish from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake in October 1986 for contaminants as requested at the RAP public meeting of August 1986. Thirty fish (10 walleye, 10 largemouth bass, 8 northern pike and 2 carp) were collected from Muskegon Lake and twenty fish (10 largemouth bass, 3 northern pike and 7 carp) were collected from Bear Lake uaing electrofishing techniques. Skin-on f illetr* were collected from each walleye and largemouth bass and skln-off fillets from the northern pike and carp for analysis according to sample MDPH (1985 draft) sampling procedures.

All 50 sampler were analyzed for percent fat, 7 to 8 metals and 19 organic contaminants (Appendix 4.7) . Seven of ten walleye ranging from 53 cm (21 inches) to 63.7 cm (25 inchen) exceeded the 0.5 ppm action (trigger) level for mercury and averaged 0.54 ppm. Based on these data, the MDPH indicate8 that the 1988 fish consumption advisory e l l be amended to include walleye in the "Rertricted Coruumption" category (no more than 1 meal per week and the qualifier that women m d children should not eat Muskegon Lake walleye) ar per Erase, 1987.

One of the ten walleye 8180 contained 2.0 ppm PCB but the average PCB concentrationr were less than the action level of 2.0 ppm. NO advisory is warrmted bued on PCBs in walleye or largemouth bass. One of two Muskegon Lake carp contained 2.0 ppm PCBs and is sufficient to recomend placing carp in the "Rertricted Conrumption" category until additional data are collected.

L

The fish contaminant monitoring results for Muskegon Lake largemouth bass indicated the presence of mercury in two large bass 42.9 and 44 cm in length. These two bass contained mercury concentrations of 0.78 and 0.67 ppmr respectively. These data indicate that additional largemouth bass greater than 38 cm (15 inches) should be collected and analyzed to determine if a consumption advisory is warranted.

Ten fish of both smaller walleye and largemouth bass [38 cm (15 inches) to 51 cm (20 inches) in length] were collected July and October 1987 from Muskegon Lake and are being analyzed by the Michigan Department of Public Health. Results are expected by this winter and will be uned to update the 1988 fish consumption advisory. Ten larger walleye were also collected and are being analyzed to verify if average mercury concentrations do exceed 0.5 ppm. These results will allow more delineation of the size ranges which should be included in the 1988 fish consumption advisory.

Mercury in Bear Lake largemouth bass ranged from 0.12 to 0.67 ppm with an average of 0.259 ppm. Only the largest bass (47.5 cm or 19 inches in length) exceeded (0.67 ppm) the 0.5 ppm action level. Carp collected from Bear Lake (size range of 56.5 to 72.5 cm or 22 to 29 inches in length) contained an average PCB concentration of 2.9 ppm (range 0.41 to 8.5 ppm). Four of the seven carp exceeded the 2.0 ppm FDA and MDPH action level in four and range 0.41 to 8.5 ppm). Bear Lake carp will be added to the "restricted consumption" category in the 1988 fish consumption advisory.

Total chlordane concentrations (expressed as a sum of oxychlordane, gm-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, alpha-chlordane, cis-nonachlor) exceeded MDPH and FDA action levels of 0.3 ppm in two of the largest Bear Lake carp (0.55 to 0.89 ppm).

Contaminant concentrations in three Bear Lake northern pike (length range of 56.6 to 70 cm or 22 to 27 inches) were less than established MDPH or FDA action levels.

Of the fifty fish analyzed from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake in 1986, 40 fish exceeded the IJC's objective of 0.1 ppm PCBs.

In 1983, the MDNR and USEPA Region V conducted sampling and analysis of fish in Muskegon Lake for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) as part of a USEPA Region V Dioxin Study (DeVault, 1984). Dioxin was detected in a composite of eight carp fillets and another composite of two whole northern pike at 5.2 and 3.9 ppt, respectively (Letter from Gary Amendola USEPA to MDNR. October 1, 1984). The FDA also analyzed the same composite of eight carp fillets and detected 11-14 ppt dioxin (Schneider, 1986 personal conmanication).

Additional carp and walleye were collccted from Muskegon Lake for further dioxin analysis in August 1986 and sent to U.S.EPA for analysis as part of an ongoing study of bleached kraft pulp paper mills as a possible source of dioxin. Analytical results from U.S.EPA are expected by late 1988.

L However, twelve specific fish composite samples, collected during the

October 1986 MDNR fish survey of both Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake, vere analyzed for 2*3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) by FDA. Preliminary results indicate that Muskegon Lake walleye, largemouth bass, northern pike and carp and Bear Lake largemouth baas, northern pike and carp have less than 10 ppt dioxin, FDA's detection level and MDPH'r action level (Tables 4-10 and 4-11). One composite sample of larger northern pike is being reanalyzed to confirm the possible presence of dioxin at concnetrations greater than 10 ppt.

Table 4.10 - Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) analytical results for Muskegon Lake fish tissue composite samples collected 29 October 1986, Muskegon County, Michi- gan. (Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Laboratory)

Species

Walleye

Walleye

Largemouth Bass

Largemouth Bass

Northern Pike

Northern Pike

Lab Number

65207 65209 65210

65208 65211 65212 65213 65214 65215 65216

65217 65218 65219 65220

65221 65222 65223 65224 65225 65226

65227 65228

65229 65230 6523 1 65232 65233 65234

65235 65236

Length

60 61.5 63.7

5 6 57.3 56.5 5 6 5 3 55.2 55.2

42.9 44 37.8 38.2

36.6 35.4 34.6 35 34 36.5

9 1 87.5

6 9 5 8 64.5 58 56 60

61.5 60.5

Weight 0 2,430 3,000 2,680

1,940 1,900 1,940 2,200 1,760 l,SgO 1,840

1,700 1,500 1,070 1 , 000

840 780 800 7 10 710 820

5,590 4, SO0

2,070 1,530 1,530 1 , 300 1,250 1,320

5 , 000 2,850

Dioxin (ppt) Sex - 2,3,7,8-TCDD

K - value leas than the level of detection indicated. ** = FDA is reanalyzing this composite sample. Source: MDNR

50

Table 4.11 - Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) analytical results for Bear Lake fish tissue composite samples collected 29 October 1986, Muskegon County, Michi- gan. (Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Laboratory)

species

Largemouth Bass

Largemouth Bass

Northern Pike

C a w

Length Lab Number (cm)

Weight 0 2,120 1,200 980

760 740 580 460 390 680 460

1,800 1,250 1 , 120

2,350 5,500 6,670 4,050

5,900 3,970 7,480

Dioxin (ppt) Sex - 2,3,7,8-TCDD

K = value less than the level of detection indicated.

Source: MDNR

Muskegon Lake vas selected, in 1987, as one of nineteen sites for a fish contaminaat trend analysis and monitoring program. The purpose of the program is to monitor contaminant level trends in channel catfish placed in Muskegon Lake for a period of at least 28 days. Forty channel catfish (15 to 25.5 cm in length / 6 to 10 inches) were placed in fish cages and placed near the lake outlet in August-September 1987. This is the initial step in the fish contaminant trend monitoring program for Muskegon Lake. Exposure and analysis of caged fish is expected to be repeated every three to five year years. The fish will be analyzed for pesticides, PCBs and mercury.

Mosquito Creek'r fish community, in the vicinity of the Muskegon County WMS No 1 facility Outfall 001, was assesoed, in 1986, by using electrofishing equipment. Results of the study indicated that within a 125 m (400 ft) reach downstream of Outfall 001, there existed a "healthy" brook trout population (Smith, 1986). Fish contaminant monitoring samples of brook trout were collected from Mosquito Creek in 1987 to determine if low level contaminants, associated with this facility '8 discharge, are being bioaccumulated. Laboratory and parameter selection are presently in progress.

5 1

Following diversion of municipal and industrial discharges to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1 in 1973, the water quality of Muskegon Lake has improved dr.matically. Muskegon Lake once hypereutrophic is now eutrophic and showing further declines in nutirnt levels. Its benthic community, once pollution-tolerant species, appears to be improving based on a decline of oligochaetes since 1972.

The water quality of Muskegon Lake and nearshore Lake Michigan waters meet Michigan Water Quality Standards. Although the concentration of toxic metals, TKN, aaunonia and phosphorus in the Muskegon Lake sediments have declined since 1972, some sediments, in localized areas, are degraded due primarily to the presence of elevated heavy metals, TKN, COD and oil/grease.

Muskegon Lake does exhibit an impairment of the walleye fishery because of elevated mercury concentrations that exceed the MDPH mercury action level of 0.5 ppm. Additional sampling of smaller walleye and largemouth bass from Muskegon Lake was completed in October 1987. The 1986 and 1987 analytical data will be used to determine which size walleye and largemouth bass will be place on the 1988 fish consumption advisory. Carp from Bear Lake and most likely Muskegon Lake will be included in the 1988 fish consumption advisory because PCB concentrations exceed the 2.0 ppm action levels. Also Muskegon Lake has been selected as a site for fish contaminant monitoring trend analysis. Caged fish were placed near the Muskegon Lake outlet and exposed for at leut 28 days, then removed. These fish are presently being L analyzed for contaminants.

Sites that contain elevated contaminant concentrations in water in- clude: Ryerson Creek, the Division Street storm sewer, Ruddiman Creek, Ruddhan Creek Pond and the south branch of the Muskegon River in the vicinity of City of hurkegon "Causeway Dump", Quarterline Landfill and Teledyne Continental Motor'r Getty Street Plant discharge.

The extent of pollution in these areas appears to be limited to these systems or in close proximity to their discharge with no significant adverse effect on the water quality of the Murkegon River or Muskegon Lake.

Tributaries to Murkegon Lake (Little Bear Creek, Ruddiman Creek and Ryerson Creek) are experiencing impairaaent of designated uses. These tribu- taries, as sources of pollutants to Murkegon Lake, do not appear to have a significant impact on Muskegon Lake or the nearshore Lake Michigan waters becaure of their small hydraulic contribution.

Pollution of Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary continues from the venting of contaminated groundwater. The extent of contamination is limited to Little Bear Creek and tributary, as there is no accumulation of toxic organics in stream rediments. Volatile organic compounds detected in in Little Bear Creek were aboent in the waters, fish and sediments of Bear Creek and Bear Lake (WMSRDC, 1982).

5.0 SOURCES OF POLLUTION

The sources of pollutants to Muskegon Lake have in some cases been clearly documented and in other cases only potential sources have been tentatively identified. A discussion of the major sources are grouped into seven basic categories, which Include: municipal and industrial point sources, urban storwater discharges, combined sewer overflows, rural land runoff, atmospheric deposition, contaminated groundwater and release from contaminated sediments.

5.1 PRIMARY SOURCES OF MATOR POLLUTANTS

5.1.1 Municipal and ~ndustrial Point Sources

The prlmary pollutant sources contributing to the Impaired uses of Muskegon Lake in the past were the industrial and municipal wastewater discharges directly to the lake. The major point sources were eliminated in 1973-74, by diversion to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1 facility. Those facilities that continue to discharge to the surface waters in the AOC have NPDES permits with effluent limits designed to protect the biota and uses of the receiving waters.

There are currently 16 NPDES permitted discharges in Muskegon County that discharge to Muskegon Lake and its tributaries (Table 3.8). The dischargers consist primarily of noncontact cooling water, stormwater, treated groundwater and/or treated process water. Six of the facilities discharge directly to Muskegon Lake, tvo to the Muskegon River, four to Ruddhan Creek, one to Bear Creek, just upstream of Bear Lake and another, the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1, that discharges inpart to Mosquito Creek, tributary of the Muskegon River. Two drinking water treatment plants (Muskegon and Muskegon Heights) discharge effluents directly into the Lake M i c h i p nearshore area that consist of filter backwash water containing suspended solids. Three of the dischargers have current permits while the others are operating under permit limits set forth in expired permits.

Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene) has been detected in a private water well used by Sealed Power Company for NCCW. Concentrations in their effluent discharged to Ruddimorr Creek range from 0.51 to 3.2 ppm. Correc- tive actions are being taken to limit TCE discharges as part of the NPDES permit process. This discharge could account for the 0.23 ppm TCE detected in Ruddlman Creek as part of the WMSRDC, 1982 study.

Expired permlts are scheduled for upgraded and reissued in 1988 as schehled in MDNR Management Strategy and Water Pollution Control Program Plan Fiscal Year 1987. A main goal of this program plan is to see that NPDES permits are reviewed and upgraded on a 5 year issuance schedule (MDNR, 1987b).

Industrial dbcharges in the Muskegon Lake area are not believed to be contributing any oubstantial amounts of pollutants of concern. The presence of PAEs in the sediments of the south branch of the Muskegon River may be the result of the Teledyne Continental Motors Getty Street Plant discharge,

L contaminated groundwater at Teledyne, or the result of historical discharges or leachate from the "Causeway Landfill and/or Quarterline Landfill.

Phosphorus loadings to Muskegon Lake need to be controlled from both point and nonpoint sources in order to further optimize and maintain the improvements in lake quality. The major point source for phosphorus load- ings to the Murkegon Lake AOC is the Muskegon County WMS No.1. Mikula (1987) reported that the facility discharges about 5436 to 5902 kg (12,000 to 13,000 lb) of phoephorur annually (excluding the emergency discharge loadings that may occur in January and ~kbruary). Utilizing Reckhow's Quasi-General Model (Reckhaw, 1979), an inlake phosphorus concentration of 24 ppb is estimated without the loadings of the WMS. and 26 ppb with the WMS loadings. Mikula further etated "Although the long term goal should be to remove the point source discharge from Muskegon Lake, the change in water quality resulting from the current discharge is mlnor and should have minimal perceivable impact." An inlake goal of leas than 30 ppb is support- ed by MDNR staff because inlake concentrations greater than 30 ppb phospho- rus can produce reduced water quality.

An annual phosphorus loading limit of 13,000 lblyr, to maintain status quo loadings, was recomended by Mikula (1987) for the reissuance of the WMS permit.

5.1.2 Storm Sewer Drains/Combined Sewer Overflows

There are reportedly no combined rtormwater overflows because of separations that have occurred since the construction of the WMS facility.

Storm rewer drains are potential sources for both conventional pollu- tants (P, N, BOD, SS) and toxic pollutants including metals and petroleum products. The major concerns were pollutant loadings such as lead, oils, BOD and solids and Impacts from extreme hydraulic loadings.

It is ertlmated that the urban rtol.rmwater runoff to Muskegon Lake and its trlbutarier amounts to 8.7 million m (2,300 million gallons) per year (UMSRDC 1978) based on county esthter (Muskegon County, 1974). The urban storm sewer drainage rystem within the Murkegon Lake drairurge area of Muskegon County consists of 59 outfalls and affects five water bodies: Murkegon Lake, Ruddiman Creek, Ryerson Creek, Muskegon Rlver and Four Mile Creek (Table 5-1). The storm dralnage report (Muskegon County, 1974) concluded that storm water runoff can adversely affect water quality of the receiving waters and is a primary source of pollutants in Ruddimrrn Creek and Ryerron Creek.

According to the Areawide Water Quality Muugement Plan (WMSRDC 1978) , there were an estimated 100 connections to the Ruddiman Creek urban stomewer netvork that included indurtrlal, carnPLerci.1 and municipal facilities. Since 1978 the nunbar of industrial discharges has been reduced to four indurtrlal connections, permitted under the NPDES program and limited to non-contact coollng water and stozmwater runoff. Storm sewers found to be causing impacts to rurface waters can be iaaued NPDES permits or removed from the system. Issuing permite, to these storm sewers would fall within the MDNR. present procedure for permitting storm water discharges.

The permit would be issued to whoever owns the storm sewer and a program similar to the industrial pretreatment program could be developed for discharges into the storm sewer.

TABLE 5-1. URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORK

Receiving Waters Drainage Area Hectare Acres

Number of Outfalls

Muskegon Lake 828 2,047 Ruddiman Creek 1,100 2,719 Ryerson Creek 806 1,993 Muskegon River 34 84 Four Mile ' Creek TOTAL

(Source: 1978 Water Quality Management Plan)

Bear Lake receives storm water discharges from e i x outfalls. This urban stormwater network services 185 hectare (457 acres) within the City of North Muskegon.

5.2' SECONDARY SOURCES OF MAJOR POLLUTANTS

5.2.1 Groundwater Contamination

Contaminated groundwater may be a secondary source of pollutants to Muskegon Lake, but there are not documented cases of discharges or seepage of contamlnated groundwater directly into Muskcgon Lake causing impacts to designated user. Groundwater can became contaminated in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the following:

Land surface disposal of sludge, manure, and industrial wastes

Stockpiles - coal, salt Land application of wastewater and sludges

Agricultural and urban fertilizer and pesticide applications

Accidental spills of hazardous material to land surface

Tile fields, septic systems

Holding ponds and lagoons

Artificial recharge to groundwater from industrial and municipal seepage cells

Landfills

55

' Underground storage tanks

' Underground pipelines

' Abandoned or improperly constructed wells

' Was te disposal wells

' Brine.disposa1 pits

The Murkegon Lake Basin, tdthin Muskegon County, has numerous known, probable and potential sources of groundwater pollution. Muskegon County ranks number one of all counties in Michigan in the number of documented contaminated groundwater sites. Specific areas of documented groundwater contomination in close proximity to surface waters that discharge to Murkegon Lake AOC are show in Figure 5-1. All known or 'potential groundwa- ter contamination sites are listed in Appendix 5.1 These sites have been listed under the Federal Superfund or National Priority List (NPL) of the CERCLA program or under the Michigan 307 program. Brief descriptions of the Superfund sites follow:

Cordova (Ott/Story) Chemical Company Site - (Affects Little Bear Creek) The Cordova (Ott/Story) site is located in Dalton Township, Muskegon

County, Michigan. In 1965, MDNR reported contaminated groundwater resulting from the Ott Chemical facility's seepage lagoons. The company, in on effort to purge the groundwater, pumped from a series of wells into a single I, discharge point on Little Bear Creak (Sec. 6, R. 16 W., T. 10 N.). The facility was sold to Story Chemical in 1972, vhich went bankrupt in 1977 and w u then acquired by Cordova Chemical. The site was listed on the Superfund National .Priority List in July 1982. To date, contaminated groundwater continues to migrate into Liftle Bear Creek.

The contaminated plume ir ertimated to be approximately 1.5 billion gallons containing approxlmtely 5 million pounds of volatile organic compounds. The impact on Little Bear Creek and an unnamed tributary is quite substantial in the hediate area due to the presence of the volatile organic compounds and total organfc carbon (TOC) concentrations. In the aediate area of venting to an unnurrd tributary to Little Bear Creek, sediments are anaerobic because of high COD and bacterial slimes also characterize the unnamed tributary and about 215 m (700 ft) of Little Bear Creek in response to the elevated TOC. Reduced macroinvertebrate numbers and diversity and persistent chemical odors characterize Little Bear Creek for approximately 1.6 to 2.4 km (1 to 1.5 mi) downstream from the unnamed tributary.

Under Michigan's Act 307 acoring procedure, this site received the highest ranking (1058 points) among 19 rites in Michigan that are classified as ready for fin.1 remedial actionr.

-b

FIGURE 5-1.

AREAS OF DOCUMENTED GROUNlWlATER CONTANINATION W l T l l l N Tlit; MUSKEGON R I V E R B A S I N

Contaminated groundwater

~~32 Visible surface water degradation s* due t o contaminated groundwater

Story c

,

NOTE: This map shows the general geographic locat ion o f docun~en Led groundwater con tarnina- t ion . but UOES NOT represent tke extent of . , the contamination.

L Duell and Gardner Landfill

The Duell and Gardner Landfill is located in Dalton Township, Muskegon County. The landfill, approximately 12 hectares (30 acres) in size, operated from about 1969 to 1975. Initial investigations revealed that the site is poorly covered and contains leaking, unaealed containers. PCBs, ethylenediamine and other chemicals were detected in the soil. Contamina- tion of the groundwater is suspected. The site was listed on the Superfund NPL in December 1982.

Under Michigan's Act 307 scoring procedure, this site was ranked lerh among 39 sites located in Muskegon County that are still under investigation andlor remedial alternatives are being developed.

5:2.1.1 Groundwater Contamination by Landfills

There are no landfills within Muskegon County presently liceneed to accept industrial wastes. However, induotrial wastes were accepted by some laadfills in the past. Table 5-2 lists the known landfills within the Muskegon Lake area. Some of these facilities are closed. All may be considered potential groundwater pollution sources.

Water and sediment sampling in the vicinity of the Muskegon Causeway Landfill and the old Quarterline Landfill found toxic metals and organics (WHSRDC, 1982). According to R. Pryzbyz (Grand Rapids District), there is concern that the Quarterline Landfill has only a dirt versus a clay cover1 the site that may allow surface water to percolate through the landfill "c material. Landfill leachate may be 8 rource of pollutants depending on the type of waste disposed at the rite. Generally, leachate from landfills that have accepted only municipal solid waste can contain elevated copper, lead, zinc, phosphate and nitrogen concentrationr.

5.2.1.2 Groundwater Contamination by Industrial Groundwater Discharges

Seepage cells are earthen lagoons designed to allow percolation of liquid to the groundwater. Groundwater contamination can occur from this discharge if there cells are improperly sited or poorly designed. Groundwa- ter contamination in the Muskegon Lake area hao occurred from two industrial seepage cell systemo.

As previouely mentioned, the Cordova (Ott/Story) Chrmical Company groundwater contamination site resulted primarily from the disposal of indurtrial wastes discharged to reepage cells. Groundwater contamination in the mediate vicinity of the AOC has resulted from the now defunct seepage lagoons at Teledyne Continental Motors (Getty Street) facility near Four Mile Creek and Weiner Property (Michigan Foundry Supply Co.) Remedial action plans are being developed for both sites and should be available by late 1987. The former site is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds and the latter is site is contaminated with PCBs.

TABLE 5-2. KNOWN LANDFILLS IN MUSKEGON LAKE AREA

Site Locat ion ~ommcnts

City of North NE shore of Muskegon Lake Muskegon Dump Sec. 13 of Laketon T w p .

Muskegon Causeway Sec. 17 of Muskegon Twp. Landfill

Consumers Power Sec. 7 & 17 B.C. Cobb Plant Muskegon Twp. Fly Ash Disposal

Thompson Brothers Sac. 7 Muskegon Twp. Landfill

Muskegon County Sec. 15 Muskegon Twp. Landfill Authority Landfill

Anchor Excavation Sec. 15 Muskegon Twp . Wrecking Company Disposal Site

Moorland kimship Sac. 6 Muskegon Twp . Dump

Dalton Township Sec. 16 Dalton Twp. Drrmp

North Side Sac. 35 Dalton Twp. Landfill

hell and Gardner Sec. 27 Dalton Twp. Landfill

Cedar Creek Sac. 3 Cedar Creek Twp. Township Dump

Eolton Township Sec. 34 Holton Twp. Landfill

Violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater, no industrial waste believed present

Muskegon River floodplain, industrial wastes

Muskegon River floodplain, fly ash

Muskegon River floodplain, demolition debris, inert materials

Adjacent to Muskegon River floodplain, violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater, general refuse and garbage

Adjacent to Muskegon River floodplain, violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater

Violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater, general refuse

Chemical wastes, general refuse

Saturated vith groundwater, general refuse

Violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater, general refuse

General refuse

Violates 20-ft. isolation distance from groundwater, chemical wastes, general refuse

Table 5-3 lists the documented industrial discharges to groundwater by L

seepage cells some of which no longer exist, as indicated. Note that three of these industrial dischargers have NPDES permits to discharge to surface waters.

Harris Oil Company operates a brine disposal well in the Laketon Oil Field northwest of Green Creek. The permit to drill was issued in 1966 (Permit 12638) to Consumers Pwcr and Calvert Eastern Drilling Company. It was closed as a dry well and transferred to Earris Oil Company in 1966. 'The we11 18 located in Dundee formation at a depth of 648 m (2,105 ft.). The well was converted to brine disposal well in 1967 for brines produced in the Laketon Oil Field and consists of a 14 cm (5j inch) casing to a depth of 552 m (1795 ft.) with a 5.1 cm (2 inch) disposal tubing inside the casing.

Chloride contaminated groundwater was reported by the county health department in private drinking water wells in the Greenwood Subdivision located downgradient of the Harris Oil Company injection well. The well was pressure tested by U.S.EPA in November 1986. The well casing was found to be cracked at a depth of 28 m (90 ft) and along with surface spillage accounted for the brine contimfnated private wells. After repairs were made, the well was approved by U.S.EPA in December 1986.

5.2.1.3 Groundwater Contamination by Septic Systems

Cities of Norton Shores, Muskegon Heights, North Muskegon and Laketon Tonuhip experienced groundwater contamination of nitrates and detergents from septic systems prior to 1972. They are now connected to the Muskegon County WMS No. 1 although installations in Laketon Township area have not been completed due to financial limitations at the local level. This includes the same areas located near Bear Lake that are serviced by septic systeme. The north side of Bear Lake has documented groundwater contamina- tion of nitrates and detergents from septic systems. Septic systame in the Muskegon Lake area will continue to be a potential source of nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants.

5.2.1.4 Groundwater Contamination by Abandoned Oil Wells

Improperly constructed oil and gas wells, brine evaporation pits and abandoned oil wells have contributed to the migration of oil brine solutions into fresh water aquifers, contaminating these aquifers with chlorides, sodium, calcium, magnesium, bromide, and sulfate. High chloride concentra- tions have been found in the aquifer under the City of North Muskegon, which are attributed to the numerous oil wells in the area. Intense oil explora- tion activities In Muskegon County area occurred since in the 1920's primar- ily north and northeart of the Muskegon Lake-Bear Lake area (Figure 5.2). Some of the earlier wells were poorly constructed and many abandoned un- capped. Table 5.4 lists recommended wells for plugging (Cote, 1983).

The County Health Department reports that 7 wells of the 41 residential wells in the Green Ridge Subdivision, located west of Green Creek, contain chloride concentrations greater than the drinking water standard of 250 ppm. These wells are located in the aquifer contaminated by spillage and leakage from Earris Oil Company deep injection well ured for oil well brine disposal. MDNR and EPA staff are working with the capany to make L corrections.

60

TABLE 5-3. HISTORICAL INDUSTRIAL/MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGERS

Name of Firm Disposal Method Status Diecharge Type

Teledyne Continental Motors Seepage Lagoon (Getty Street)

Cordova (Ott/Story) Chemical Corp.

Seepage Lagoon

Michigan Foundry Supply Seepage Lagoon (Weiner Property now owned by Muskegon County)

Cannon Muskegon Corp. Seepage Lagoon

Nugent Sand Seepage Lagoon

Standard .utomotive Parts

Geerpress Wringer Dry well

Unico, Inc. Seepage Lagoon

Campbell-Wyant-Cannon (CWC) Lined Lagoone (Henry Street)

Consumers Power (B.C. Cobb Plant)

Lagoons

Defunctlremoved

Defunctlremoved

Defunct Iremoved

Removed 1985

Permitted

Defunct (stormeewer)

Proposed purge well system being developed

Process wastes and cooling water

Cloeed loop cooling eyetem process to Metro.

Solidsleedimentation

Unknown

Roof runoff only

Defunct/removed

NPDES permitted 1983 Cupla to Ruddiman Creek

NPDES permitted discharge Fly ash, boiler blowdown

TABLE 5.3 (Continued)

- -

Name of F' M Diepoeal Method Statue Diecharge Type

Huekegon cdunty rJHs I1

Seepage to Permit Application Groundwater from Pending on North Storage Lagoon/ Application Area Spray Irrigation

Lagoon Treated Effluent

Naph Sol Refining (Zephyr) Unknown . Purge well/oil/recovery/ Treated purge well treatment eyetem NPDES water to Cedar Creek permitted diecharge

Weetran Corp. Unknown NCCW

Sourcee: The Huekegon County Surface Water Toxics Study Control Heaeure Optione October 1982. Areawide WQM Plan 1978. Part VI, Appendix C, Aeseement of Groundwater Quality

Figure 5.2 - Oil and gas exploration wells in the vlcinlty of Huskegon Lake and Bear Lake. usk keg on County, MI. (Source: HDNR / Geological Survey Division)

. .

TABLE 5.4. PROPOSED WELLS FOR PLUGGING (Recamendation by M. Cote, 1983, Dis t r ic t 12 Geologist)

Permit Number Name Description/Conunents

Muskegon River N. Channel Area

P# 30 W. J. Slmon-G. Reeth # I NW SW NW, Sec. 9, TlON, R16W. 330' from north quarter section line. Plugged gas well (10-25-50) .

PX 31 W. Mich. Consumers-F. Figge # SW NW, Sec. 9, TION, R16W. Plugged o i l well (1 1-24-33) . O i l i s seeping under a large t ree with a rather large spring. O i l rainbow can be seen quite heavy a t many times of the year. A l l casing was removed from well bore and plugging w i l l be very d i f f i cu l t . The o i l must be coming from th i s well as it is the only well i n the m d i a t e area.

PI 61 Reed O i l Co.-Heinz # I

PW 92 Continental Motors Co.- Continental #l

NE SW, Sec. 8, TlON, R16W. About 170' SW from center Sec. 8; 120' from north & 150' from east property line. Plugged o i l well (1-2-39). This well i r believed to be t h source of heavy residual o i l (biodegraded L crude) flowing Into eas t end of ditch i n Zephyr O i l Co.'s groundwater recovery system. I have bored near the well bore and found high explosion meter readings and o i l saturated sands. Well is defi- n i t e ly leaking, but plugging may remain u n t i l l a te r .

SW NE, Sec. 16, TlON, Rl6W - 410 from south l ine of quarter section and 920' west l ine of quarter section. Plugged o i l well (4-3-48). Well i r located i n the median of Business 31, North Muskegon. Well bore possibly leaks o i l and brine in to small swampy are jus t north of s i t e . Leakage of o i l must be very small a s the s w r sun cooks the hydrocarbons i n to a very heavy sludge that rea l ly doesn't go a n w e r e . There w a s one inspection tha t I saw v i s ib le gas bubbling. This i r the one well where I believe brine is coming up as well bore. I sampled the s l igh t discharge of f lu id and the t e s t r e ru l t s showed 55,000 ppm C1, much too great to be residual brine. Well s i t e has large v i s ib le area contrmiarted with o i l sludge

L

TABLE 5.4 (Continued)

Permit Number Name DescriptionIComments

Pd 119 C. A. W i t t (Johnson O i l Ref. SW SW NE, Sec. 9, TlON, R16W - 2390' Co.)-L. Heinz # I south of NE corner of Sec. 9. Plugged oil

wel l (9-25-39). Although I have never been t o t h i s s i t e , a s it is inaccessible year round and infested with r a t t l e r s , several people to ld me about f a l l i n g i n t o the la rge o i l p i t . One person, Paul Hadley - former pumper f o r Muskegon Dev. Co., who has been on the scene s ince day one, said he was a t the well severa l year! while duck hunting. The well bore was bubbling gas and had o i l flowing i n t o the r iver . Plugging would be very expensive but necessary.

P# 262 Blue Arrow Petroleum Co. - Jon Torrent Est. # I

PI 986 Murkegon O i l Corp. - J. Torrent Est. 12

Bear Creek Area

PI 199 Concord O i l 6 Gas-Giles # l

NW SE SW, Sec. 8 , TlON, R16W - 1000' from north quarter sec t ion l i n e and 1440' from eas t l i n e of quar te r sec t ion . Plugged dry hole (10-15-30). Well is located i n middle of north branch of Muskegon River. Casing is exposed 6-8' above water surface. Well leaks o i l i n t o and down r iver . Coast Guard very con- cerned about t h i s well .

SE NE SW, Sec. 8 , TlON, R16W - 910' from north quarter and 520' from e a s t quar te r l i ne . This wel l was j u s t revent ly exhume by Consumers Power Co. on t h e i r property. No well bore can be iden t i f i ed a s they excavated a la rge 20 x 20' a r ea i n the water table . The abundance of f r e s h o i l and gas bubbling from within a por t ion of the excavation shows an ac t ive ly leaking well . Well must be plugged.

NE NW, Sec. 7, TlON, R16W - 225' from south quarter sec t ion and 435' from west quarter sec t ion l i ne . Plugged o i l wel l (1-10-35). O i l leaks i n t o small drainage d i t ch adjacent t o bowling a l l ey . I had completed a small study i n t h i s a r ea w i t h surface bore holes. The old we l l bore appears t o be beneath a f a i r l y l a rge cherry t r ee . Exploeion meter t e s t i n g f n the various bore holes and o i l s a tu ra t ed sands point d i r e c t l y i n t ha t a rea . Plugging may be cos t ly a s most casing was pulled.

65

TABLE 5.4 (Continued 1

Permit Number Name Description/Comments

P# 207 C. A. Witt-Van Allsburg # l NE SE, Sec. 5 , TlON, R16W - 1125' west and 1690' north of SE corner of Sec. 5. Unknown i f t h i s gas wel l was ever plugged. We have a plugging record dated 10-13-57 and a Notice of In t en t ion t o Deepen well dated 1-22-31. Well used t o be located next t o West Side Muskegon Roofing 6 Siding Co. Several years ago (1978-79) , I inquired about t h i s wel l a t the company. The owner sa id i t w a s plugged severa l years ago, but a worker a t the place sa id he played horseshoes next t o i t not but a couple of months ago. I be l ieve the well was i n existence up t o 1957 and wr i t t en off at t h a t time with t h e plugging record. Since then and now, t h e we l l w a s cu t o f f , capped and probably not plugged below .

ground level . The w e l l doesn't present problems a t t h i s t i m e .

PI 367 Wolverine Mineral Dev. Co. - W i SE SW AU, Sec. 7, TION, R16W. W e l l r Gus Bein 12 not have been d r i l l e d a s the only recorr

is our old, old leftax which s t a t e s "loca- t ion ' . There w a s , however, abundant o i l and gas bubbling i n t he iuanediate area. I noticed t h i s when the a rea was being dcmucked f o r the cons t ruc t ion of a new bank i n 1978. The cont rac tor f o r the muck removal, M r . Jack Thompson, w a s kind enough t o loan a l a r g e excavating shovel in order t o pinpoint we l l bore f o r an afternoon. We never found the wel l bore u the a r ea has a very high water t a b l e and the sands kept slumping i n the hole. Elowever, as we dug, more o i l and gas appeared. My experience has been t h a t gas bubbling i s only present a t the a r ea d i r e c t l y above the we l l bore.

Gus Hein # I

-

P# 368 Wolverine Mineral Dm?. Co. - W i SW SE NW, Sec. 7, TlON, Rl6W - 330' from e a s t property l i n e s . 1156' from e a s t and 2316' from south of NW corner - Sec. 7. Plugged dry hole - plugging 2-1-32? 4-21-30. We have two plugging records f o r t h i s well. The e a r l i e r one shbwc casing l e f t i n hold which corresponds t o apparent present condition of wel l . The second plugging record ind ica t e s t he we l l was p a r t i a l l y abandoned during the f i r s t plugging (bottom of hole) and then s h ~ ~ a

L t h a t the r e s t of hole was plugged p r i o r t o

66

TABLE 5.4 (Continued)

Permit Number Name Description/Camments

2-1-32. Nevertheless, well leaks oil and gas into swamp area south of drive-in theatre. Plugging may not be expensive, but there may be a lot of junk in hole.

P# 627 Mitchell 5 Mesiroff- P. Norris #3

NE SW NW (?), Sec. 7, TION, R16W - 1300' east and 1818" south of NU comer of Sec. 7. Plugged oil well 2-9-32 (10-21-31 from lefax). This well is the suspected source for the oil that seeps into the Medical Center on Whitham Rd.. when the spring thaw water table is high enough to drain into the basement. Plugging records are complicated with a note from C. A. Riggs that he didn't know whether well was really plugged from 1223 to base of drift. Well could present explosion hazard to Medical Center. Plug immediately.

P# 675 Concord Oil & Gas-Giles 12 W4 NE NW, Sec. 7, TlON, R16W - 400' from south line of quarter and 200' from west quarter line - property line -1191' east and 920' south of NW corner Sec. 7. Plugging record. Plugged oil well (10-13-34). Well may leak some gas bubbles to surface. This may be one of the easier wells to plug but doesn't present much problem.

Bear Lake Area

PI 653 Damm, D. M.-Dam 14

5.2.2 Rural Land Runoff

SE SW SW, Sec. 12, TlON, R17W - 403' from the north quarter section line and 1174' from east quarter section line. Plugged oil well (12-23-31). Well is located in our near Fenner Creek. Oil and gas seeped into channel and out into Bear Lake. Coast Guard has noticed oil slicks into lake and is concerned. Plugging prognosis - very difficult job and extremely expen- sive as no casing is exposed. Plugging record states that 10' drive was pulled.

In 1982, the Soil Conservation Service staff visited 330 statistically selected sites in Muskegon County to collecte data for the National Resourc- es Inventory. 'They found that a large part of the "true, wealth" of Muskegon County is its soil and water. Muskegon County's soil and water resources are finite and vulnerable (U.S.D.A., pamphlet).

67

Muskegon County is 136,478 hectare (337,100 acres) in size. The U.S.D.A. listed the land use and area, as follows:

Muskegon County - 1982 (337,100 acres)

Land Use Eectare (Acres)

Crop land Pasture/Idle Grassland Rural Transportation Forest Land (non-f ederal) Other Rural Land Water Areas Urban Land Federal Land

.Wind and water erosion are occurring on all cropland in Muskegon County. Twenty-two thousand seven hundred acres of this land are eroding faster than the land can tolerate and remain productive. Soil is being eroded from this cropland at an average rate of 272,335 metric tons (300,200 tons) each year. Over half of the soil eroded in the county is caused by yind. Sheet and rill erosion, caused by water runoff, are severe throughout Murkegon County, especially on sloping land used to grow rowcrops.

Conservation practices are needed on 12,227 hectare (30,200 acres) of L the county's cropland to reduce soil erosion. Conservation practices are also needed on 19,393 hectare (47,900 acres) of forest land and 1,134 hectare (2,800 acres) of pastureand idle grassland.

5.2.3 Atmospheric Deposition

The Muskegon River Basin has numerous diversified industries with permitted air discharger within its boundaries. Adjacent to the Muskegon Lake shoreline are two p-r plants (Consumers Power, B. C. Cobb Plant with cod-fired boilers rated at 5,100 lnillion BTU and the S.D. Warren papermill wlth coal fired boilers rated at 5,100 million BTU). Other types of indus- tries in the area include foundaries, synthetic organic chemical manufactur- ers, bulk gasoline terminals, and various metal parts manufacturing procesrea. There is no data available to determine the Impact of the emissions from the power plants or other industries on the Muskegon River Basin. Long-range aerial transport from outside the AOC is another possible source of contmlnants (especially PCB8 and mercury) that needs to be further Weetigated by implementing proper air monitoring program.

The MDNR has been involved in an atmospheric deposition monitoring program with U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Progrw Office, with the intent of measuring the impact of airborne pollutants on the Great Lakes and connecting waters. A sampling rite for this program was located in Muskegon County from 1981 to 1985. At thia time more data needs to be collected to aarerr developing trends and impact8 of atmospheric loadings to the water system (HDNR 1985 Annual Air Quality Report). i d

5.2.4 Contaminated Sediments

Polluted sediments of Muskegon Lake have been reported to contain elevated concentrations of heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus and in some areas oil and grease based on samples collected in 1980 (Evans, ca. 1981). Benthic communities living in these sediments continue to be dominated by pollutant-tolerant species, especially, in areas containing elevated levels of nutrients (phosphonw, nitrogen). Conditions continue to improve.

The most contaminated sediments appear to be at former industrial point source discharge sites, stormsewer outfalls or in the deep lake basins. Specific areas of contaminated sediments include:

Muskegon Lake in the vicinity of Division Street storm sewer - due to sanitary and stormwater discharges. Mercury.

Muskegon Lake in vicinity of former Michigan Foundry and Supply Company - due to oils and PCB contaminated soils. Muskegon Lake at mouth of Ryerson Creek - due to stormwater runoff . Ruddiman Pond and Ruddiman Creek - due to industrial and stormwater discharges.

Bear Lake at mouth of Bear Creek - unknown reason for elevated metals unless related to stormwater runoff.

Muskegon River in vicinity of City of Muskegon "Causeway Dumpn'-due to porsible leachate discharge.

South Branch of Muskegon River in vicinity of Teledyne-Continental Motors (Getty Street) Plant discharge - because of heavy metals discharges.

PCB contaminated upland roils (maximum PCB concentration of 51 ppm) are present at the defunct Michigan Foundry Supply site. A composite lake sediment sample collected December, 1986, just west of the site reportedly contained 2.8 ppm and 0.5 ppm PCBs depending on method of analysis used (wet sample versus dry sample).

Contaminated sediments at these sites may adversely affect the water quality of the lake by the release of pollutants into the overlying water column. Although sedlment contaminants have not been demonstrated to be causing any Impacts to designated uses, these sediments are a suspected source of elevated concentrations of PCBs in carp and mercury in walleye and largemouth baas.

5.3 SUMMARY

Since most of the current surface water industrial dischargers are limited to noncontact cooling water, these industrial dischargers are not considered major sources of any of the pollutants of concern. Some facili- ties are operating under limits set forth in expired NPDES permits scheduled

to be updated in 1988. Water quality and benthic data indicate that the Muskegon County WKS No. 1 has no adverse impact on the Muskegon River. Phosphorus loadings do, however, need to be controlled from this point source to maintain and enhance existing water quality improvements in Muskegon Lake.

Current sources of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) appear to be from urban stormwater runoff and contaminated in-place bottom sediments. Failed septic systems around Bear Lake may also be contributing to nutrient enrichment of that lake.

The Muskegon Lake basin area also has numerous contaminated groundwater sites, each a potential source of toxic organic or inorganic pollutants. Many of these sites are small and localized. The Impacts of even the largest of these sites on Muskegon Lake have not been documented. Therefore, the adverse impact of contaminated groundwater on Muskegon Lake can only be speculated at this tlme.

Muskegon Lake area soils are not suitable for shallow subsurface disposal of toxic materials. Existing landfills and RCRA permitted TSDS sites should camply with existing stringent controls to prevent groundwater contamination.

Rural land runoff may be a source of nutrient loadings and requires further investigation. Michigan's Clean Water Incentives Program is a possible source of funding of investigative and remedial projects. L

Atmospheric deposition may be pollutant source to the Muskegon Lake AOC. PCB and mercury are elevated in carp and walleye/large mouth bass, respectively, in the vicinity of the AOC. Atmospheric loadings of PCBs to Lake Michigan is well documented as the primary source and may account for the obsenmd levels in the carp of the AOC and Bear Lake. Lake Michigan carp, walleye and bass populations in the vicinity of the AOC should be collected as part of the Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program to determine concentrations of PCBs and mercury. This may help in determining whether atmospheric loadings are the most significant source of PCB8 and mercury in fish populations of Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake.

Atmospheric loadings of mercury is not well documented. Mercury is a rec-ended parameter as part of the ongoing GLNPOIMichigan atmospheric testing in the AOC.

Muskegon River water mercury concentrations are about 100 ppt and may be sufficient to be bionugnified throughout the food chain of piscivorous fish such as walleye and largemouth bus. This is a documented phenomenon that can occur in the absence of industrial inpvc.s and may be attributed to available mercury in vatershed soils andlor atmospheric loadings to the watershed. Bioconcentration of mercury by uptake over the gills is another means for fish to bioaccumulate mercury.

6.0 POLLUTANT TRANSPORT

The mechanisms whereby pollutants

MECHANISMS AND LOADINGS

are released from the pollutant include the air - through volatiliza- sources to the surrounding environment

tion of the pollutants and subsequent particulate deposition to surface waters through rainfall and wind; the surface water - through direct dis- charge of pollutants or by surface runoff; the groundwater - through the movement of groundwater towards Muskegon Lake; and sediment transport - through the movement of contaminated sediments with surface water, sediment resuspension and desorption from particulates.

6.1 CONTINUOUS POINT SOURCES

6.1.1 'Municipal Wastewater Treatment Discharges

As previously ideptified, the only municipal wastevater treatment discharge to Muskegon Lake is the Muskegon County WMS No. 1. The facility, placed in operation in 1973, treats both municipal and industrial wastes. The system consists of three aeration lagoons for initial treatment, two storage lagoons, and 55 spray irrigation rigs over 5,500 acres of cropland. Underdrainage from spray irrigation sites and lagoon seepage are discharged to Mosquito Creek (Outfall 001), a tributary to Muskegon River, and Black Creek (Outfall 002), a tributary to Mona Lake, the latter, located outside the Muskegon Lake AOC. The NPDES permit for this facility requires monitor- ing of both effluent discharges and groundwater at the treatment site.

The influent design flow for the WMS is 1.84 m3 1s (42 mgd) . About 42 million m3/y (11,100 mgy) are annually applied to the spray irrigation sites during a 235 day, ice free, period at a rate of 2.1 m'ls (48 mgd) . MDNR district staff indicate the average regional groundwater contributions to the collection ditch system that discharges to Outfall 001 is about 0.44 m9/s (10 mgd). Seasonal (April-November and December-March) discharges from the underdrainage system averages 1.5 m3/s (35 mgd) and ranges from 0.88 to 3.5 m3/s (20-80 mgd) to Mosquito Creek. [Discharges to Black Creek average 0.15 m3/s (3.5 mgd) and range from 0.13 to 0.44 msls (3-10 mgd) I .

Intense precipitation events [31-38 cmlday (12-15 incheslday)] in the sertrice area of the WMS in September of 1985 and 1986 caused the holding capacity of the facility to be exceeded. This condition required emergency discharges to Mosquito Creek during the winter, of partially trea ed 9 !I wastewater. About 1.89 x 10 m3 (0.5 billion gallons) and 7.6 x 10 m3 (2.0 billion gallons) were discharged in 1985 and 1986, respectively, over a 4 5 4 y period to restore holding capacity to the facility. The County was required to pretrsat with ferric chloride to reduce phosphorus concentra- tions in the effluent. They were also required to monitor their effluent to Mosquito Creek and Muskegon River for nutrients, organic and inorganic contaminants during the period of discharge. A summary report by the County is due in winter 1987. Preliminary data indicates total phosphorus loadings during the 1985 and 1986 emergency release periods were 4,728 kg (10,425 lb) and 11,347 kg (25,020 lb), respectively.

The WMS average discharge 1.5 mS/s (55.1 cfs) to Mosquito Creek repre- sents approximately 2.6 percent of the Muskegon River average flow 59 m'/s (2079.8 cfs) to Muskegon Lake and approximately 7 percent (6,951 kg or 15,325 lb) of the annual total phosphorus loading (92,652 kg (204,259 lb))

to the lake (Limno-Tech, 1981). Mikula (1987) estimated 13,000 lb/yr (see 5.1.1.).

Both water quality data and benthic data indicate that the WMS toxic pollutant loadings, currently, have no documented detrimental impacts on Mosquito Creek, Muskegon River and/or ultimately Muskegon Lake. Sampling data In 1979, 1980, and 1981 detected di-n-octyl phthalate (4.0 ppb), pmtachlorophenol (1.3 ppb) , bi s (2-ethylh.xy1) phthalate (2.0 - 6.7 ppb) , dia-butyl phthalate (1.2 ppb), and 1,2 dichloroethane (2.0 ppb). WMS water quality data is provided in Table 6-1. All concentrations were less than Rule 57(2) guidelines. An aquatic toxicity assesment by the MDNR (Masterson, 1986) indicated final effluent discharged in May 1986 was not acutely toxic to the invertebrate Daphnia m a m during static toxicity tests. Smith (1986) concluded that recent discharge conditions were not interferring with brook trout survival in Mosquito Creek hediately down- stream of the outfall.

Mosquito Creek normal flows are substantially increased by the hydrau- lic loadings from the WMS discharge. This har drastically shifted the downstream area from a wooded river- swamp to a shallow marsh (Steinbach at al., 1986). The county has proposed to divert the flow to the Muskegon River to reduce the hydraulic loading impacts.to Mosqujto Creek. The proposal is being revieved by MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and a decision is anticipated by October 1987.

6.1.2 Industrial Discharges 1*, Host are noncontact cooling water, stormwater runoff, treated flyash

transport water, treated groundvater andlor filter backvash. Sealed Power Company discharges 0.51 to 3.2 ppm of trichloroethylene in their NCCW dischargod to Ruddirarn Creok.

6.2 INTERMITTENT POINT SOURCES

[No inf ormtion]

6.3 RONPOINT SOURCES

6.3.1 Agricultural Runoff/Urban Runoff

Muskegon Lake sediments and fish contamiruPt monitoring samples in were analyzed for 18 to 24 pesticides and/or pesticide derivatives, respectively (Appendices 4.3 through 4.7). The redlment data for twelve stations indi- cated that tho organic cmpounds, including pesticides, were less than their respective detection levels that ranged from 73 to 3,500 ppb. The fish contamiou~t monitoring data indicated that none of the thirty fish (walleye, largemouth bass and carp) contained pesticide residues that exceed estab- lished FDA or MDPB's fish consqtion advisory action levels on IJC's objectives. This implies that agricultural source8 are not a major source of pesticides to the AOC.

Chlordane was found to greater than the U.S.FDA and MDPH action leve of 0.3 ppm Bear Lake carp indicating a source within the lake's ratershedt

TABLE 6-1. WMS WATER QUALITY DATA (Values ae ppm unless otherwise indicated)

&kegon R. Mosquito Creek Parameter 1975 1975 11/21/78 12/14/78 12/27/78 1130179 6/02/79 11/03/60 9/01,/81 9/03/81

pH (SU) SS TDS BOD Total Phoephorue NitratejNitrite Ammonia Organic Nitrogen Phenol Aromatic Amines Aliphatic Aminee DCB DEHP PCBs Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Zinc Arsenic Mercury Selenium

Source: (Muskegon County WMS No. 1)

6.3.2 Polluted Groundwater Discharges

Once pollutants enter the groundwater, the groundwater can transport the pollutants to surface waters. Pollutants migrate through the soil to the water table. When the contaminants reach the water table, they enter the groundwater flow system which is both horizontal and vertical depending on hydraulic gradientr. In general, regional groundwater movement is towards rivers, etreams, and laker. Therefore, a pollutant introduced to the ground- water anywhere in the Muskegon Lake area could potentially migrate to nearby surface water bodies. Bowver, the many factors influencing groundwater and contamlaant movements and concentrations maker the tark of predicting contaminant movement extremely complex and difficult.

The specific volume of contaminated groundwater in the Muskegon Lake area ir unknown. Extensive hydrologic investigations of each of the 45 sitar lirted under the Michigan 307 Act (Appendix 5.1) have not been com- pleted. Chemical leaks from storage areu, accidental spills, u m ~ i t a b l e ~ Improperly designed and poorly maintained disposal rites on industrial property and brine evaporation pits have caused sites of indurtry-related groundwater contamination. Intense oil exploration north of Muskegon Lake in the 1930's rerulted in chloride and crude oil contaminated aquifers from seepage from brine evaporation pits and abandoned wells. Drinking water is provided by the municipality for most of the area surrounding Muskegon Lake because of chloride and other chemical contaminated groundwater.

6.4 IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS (CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS) i Sediments can be either a rink for pollutants or a rource of pollu-

tants. Under reducing conditions (low pH, low dissolved oxygen) pollutants can resolubilize and enter the water at the waterlsediment interface. Evidence (Evens, ca. 1981, unpublished report draft) suggests that thane in-place contaminants or organic enrichment have and are continuing to affect the benthic c o m i t y in the deeper basins of the lake. The extent to which the in-place contaminants are contributing tothe contaminant levels in the fish appears to be negligible based on 1986 sediment and fish contam- inant survey rerults.

The in-place sedlment contaminants are due, primarily, to past point and nonpolnt source discharges. No existing municipal or industrial sources have been identified that are presently contributing to the rediment pollu- tant load. Urban runoff via stormwater outfalls to Ryerson Creek, Ruddipun Creek outfalls and Divirion Street stormsewer are probable eources. Data ruggests that contaminant concentrations (solidr, nutrients and oils/greases and heavy metals) in the redlments are declining possibly due to elimination of point sourcar of pollutants and the accumulation of newer, cleaner sedimentr over the more heavily polluted sedimc.nts.

A total mars loading of the pollutantr of concern to Muskegon Lake from the point rource discharger8 of enviromnental contaminants with the excep- tion of the Muskegon Metro discharge is unnecessary. [To be included in final draft.] This is because induntrial process wastes are discharged to the Phukegon Metro System and present surface water discharges to the lake L

and tributaries are treated purgewell water, treated flyash discharges or noncontact cooling water with limits established under the NPDES permit system. There are no known unpermitted industrial discharges to the AOC. The Muskegon County Metro WMS No. 1 contributes 7 percent of the total phosphorus load to Muskegon Lake. Control of other phosphorus sources such as urban stormwater may be necessary to significantly reduce the phosphorus load. The Muskegon County Metro WMS No. 1 is a source of phosphorus and low levels of organic campounds that are at concentrations less than Michigan's Water Quality Standards Rule 57(2) water quality based effluent limit requirements. Monitoring requirements in NPDES permits require regular monitoring of effluent and groundwater at the Muskegon County Metro WMS No. 1 to determine treatment trends.

7.0 HISTORICAL RECORD OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Great improvements have been made in the water quality of Muskegon Lake in the past 10 years. The establishment of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the diversion of the majority of point sources dischargers to the Muskegon County Metro WMS are primarily responsi- ble for the improvement.

The installation of brine deep well injection systema, separation of combined storm overflows of sewer systems, state and local attempts to control deicing and dust control procedures have also been instituted to improve groundwater conditions in the area. Cleanup operations have also been completed at several industrial sites (same being National Priority List (NPL) sites). In addition, remedial actions have been completed at specific spill sites.

The various remedial measures taken in the vicinity of the Area of Concern and the Source Area of Concern are summarized in the following sections.

7.1 COMPLETED ACTIONS

Although a number of remedial measures have been instituted for im- provcment of water quality in the study area, the most significant was the diversion of major point sources to the Muskegon County Wastewater Manage- ment System (WMSRDC, 1978a). The treatment system is described in Section 7.1.1. Following sections present specific cleanup procedures that have been completed at individual industrial sites resulting from waste storage methods or spills.

7.1.1 Wastewater Management System (WMS)

Prior to the installation of the Muskegon County Metro WMS, severe pollution problem were evident as a result of individual disposal methods utilized by industries and municipalities in the area (Metcalf 6 Eddy, August 1982). Dieporal methods included the direct discharge of untreated sanitary and industrial process wastewater into Muskegon Lake and tributaries.

The WMS began operation in 1973. Figure 7-1 illustrates the location of the system in relation to the Area of Concern. The land application system, located 9 miles east of Muskegon Lake and just east of the Muskegon State Game Area, was developed in cooperation with the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and State of Michigan as a research and development pro j ec t .

The Muskegon County Department of Public Works applied to USEPA for additional funding through the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for the preparation of a facilities plan. The document contained an evaluation of the current operation of the WMS, determination of future requirements and alternative actione, and determination of the best alterna- tive based on cost and environmental requirements (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982).

SCALE MILES

Figure 7-1. Lout ioa of Pluskegon County Wastmter h n a g e r n t System (modified from Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982).

Design of the WMS provides for treatment of up to 1.84 m3/s (42 mgd) of influent wastewater. Approrimately 2,225 hectare (5,500 acres) of cropland are available to handle this volume of irrigated wastewater (Metcalf Q Eddy, 1982). Actual wastewater flow determined for the Facilities Plan Update prior to 1982 was 1.45 m3/s (33.2 mgd) of the total flow; industries account for 0.94 m3/s (21.5 mgd); domestic, conunercial and institutional sources account for 0.33 mS/s (7.6 mgd); and infiltration/inflow accounts for 0.18 m3/s (4.1 mgd) (Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982). Average flow rate betveen February 1982 and May 1982 was determined at 1.52 m3/s (34.8 mgd) (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982). Monthly average discharges for Outfalls 001 and 002 (Black Creek), during 1986, ranged from 0.87-1.97 m3/s (20-45 mgd) and 0.13-0.17 mf/s (3-4 mgd), respectively.

Wastewater is treated at the WMS by aeration, sedimentation and land application methods. Wastewater is pretreated and applied to irrigated agricultural land where it is allowed to percolate through the soil. Percolation and collection of underdrainage is discharged to nearby streams. Recent proposals are to increase the average facility design capacity to 2.54 m3/s (58 mgd) and discharge about 0.7-3.77 m v s (17-86 mgd) from Outfall 001 and 0.13-0.17 m3/s (3-4 mgd) from Outfall 002.

During December-January 1985 and January-February 1986, the facility was permitted to discharge 500 million and 2 billion gallons of partially treated wastewater to Mosquito Creek to increase holding capacity exceeded due to heavy September rains (10-15 inches in a 24 hour period). The 1986 discharge was treated with ferric chloride to reduce phosphorus loadings. Monitoring of Mosquito Creek, Muskegon River and Muskegon Lake was required as part of permission to discharge and a report is due fall 1987.

The collection system includes 12 pumping stations. Table 7-1 summa- rizes capabilities of each ptrmping station. Seven of the pumping stations maintain two pumps each, three stations maintain three pumps each, one station maintains four pumps, and one station maintains five pumps. Average flows per station range from 0.002-1.27 m3/s (0.05-29.1 mgd) . Pumping capacities, as installed, range from 0.03-3.1 m3/s (0.7-71.0 mgd) (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982) . Pumping capacities are suf f icient for current needs in 11 stationo. Station D ures all pumps to meet peak flow rates, therefore eliminating reserve capabilities.

The treatment system is comprised of three aerated lagoons, two storage lagoono, an irrigation system and a renovated wastewater collection system (Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982). Figure 7-2 provides a diagram of the existing system.

The installation of the WMS and the resulting control of major point source dischargers have been cited as the primary reason for water quality improvements in Muskegon Lam. Generally, the WMS reflects high treatment performance but some problems have been determined (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982). Limitations of the system and recomendations for improvement are discussed in Section 7.2.1.

Table 7-1. Pumping Statione Summary (Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1982)

Capacity, mgd Avg. Ratio of No. of Standby Alarm b flor, firm capacity Deeig~

Station pulps power telemetry lnatalleda Firm mgd to avg. flow ratio Remarke

No

No e Yes ~ e e 8

Yee

e Yes No No No

No No

Yes Yea - - Yes

No 9- Yee No No No

No No

-- S.D. Warren indicate6 they diecharge at a constant rate. Therefore, actu~l peaking factor ie 1.6. --

-- Thie etation has limited capacity. --

a. Capacity baaed on head-discharge curvee in O6M Manual with C-100 or pump nameplate information. b. Largest pumpout of operation. c. Eetimated flow ueing time-clock readings. d. Recoaended firm pump capacity for eize of etation. e. Two eeparate power fees with automatic ewitchover. f. Eetimated exieting flow at waetewater treatment plant minus contributing pumping station. g. Generator eet.

AERATED L A O O O N I

STORAGE LAOOONS

n NORTH IRRIQATIOM AREA WlTH UNDERMIAINS

NORTH IRR IBATI,.. P U M P ZITATIOM

SETTLlNO LAGOON

OUTLET LAQOOM

1 - 1 SOUTH IRRlQATlON L --- J PuM aTATIoN 8OUTH IRRIQATION

AREA WlTH UNDERDRAINS

Figure 7-2. Schematic Diagram of Waetewater Hanagement Syatem (modif ied from H e t c a l f 6 Eddy, 1982).

7.1.2 Superfund Sites

Two sites in the vicinity of the Muskegon Area of Concern watershed are on the National Priority List (NPL) as Superfund sites. The sites include:

O Cordova (Ott /Story) Chemical Company, Dalton Township hell & Gardner Landfill, Dalton Township

The folloving paragraphs describe problw existing at the sites and any remedial actions taken.

Cordova (Ott/Story) Chemical Company, Dalton Township

The Mlchigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have initiated efforts to identi- fy the uature and extent of environmental contamination at the Cordova (Ott/Story) Superfund site, and to contain the migration of contaminated groundwater to Little Bear Creek. The MDNR will periodically issue progress reports to keep local residents and interested parties informed of progress made, oite findings, and future plans.

The Cordova (Ott/Story) site is in Dalton Township, Muskegon County, Michigan, about two miles north of the City of Muskegon. It can be found on the Montague and Twin Lakes USGS quadrangle map in Township 10 North, Range 16 West, Section 32. The plant is approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) east of Whitehall Road and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of Rlver Road, and is at the northwest corner of the intersection of Agard Road and the Chesapeake and I, Ohio Railroad that runs between the cities of Muskegon and Whitehall (Fig- ure 7-3).

Features at the Cordooa (Ott/Story) site have included railroads spurs from the rail line adjacent to the east side of the site; vertical and horizontal above ground tanks for storage of fuel oil, product, by-products, and water; above ground pipelines and buried sewer lines; lagoons for disposal of wastewater and cooling water; a wastewater neutralization pit and equalization basin; and incinerator; various buildings for manufacturing and storage of product, for maintenance and for administration and employee servicee (Figure 7.4) .

The Ott Chamlcal Company was founded in the summer of 1956 by Dr. Arnold C. Ott and in the spring of 1958 the campany began manufacturing synthetic organic chemicals. Ott Chemical became a division of Corn Prod- ucts Co~pany (CPC) in 1965 and was purchased by the Story Chemical Company in 1972. Story filed for bankruptcy in 1976 and was purchased by the Cordova Chemical Company in 1977. At this time, Cordova agreed to pay the State $600,000 to clean up the sources of contaslination left behind at the plant site by Story, if the State would agree not to hold them liable for past actions at the site.

Throughout its history, the plant WM used to manufacture various synthetic organic intermediates, including pharmaceutical and agricultural products. Solvents, such as benzene, toluene* methanol, dimethylaniline, tetrahydrofuran, and carbon tetrachloride were used In manufacturing processes. L

FIGURE 7-3 LOCATlON MAP

From 1957 to 1968, waste by-products from the chemical manufacturing processes were disposed in on site lagoons. Wastes were also stored in 208.2 liter (55-gallon) drums which were stockpiled on site.

The plant's industrial water supply well was contaminated by 1959, and in 1964 it was confirmed that the facility grounds and groundwaters had become contaminated as a result of chemical waste disposal, storage and handling practices.

In the latter part of 1965, a system of purge wells were installed at the site to recover contaminated groundwater. Various purge wells were operated between 1965 and 1972. The water was initially discharged to Little Bear Creek, but this was stopped in 1967 when odors and adverse effects on aquatic life in the creek were noted. The discharge was rerouted to the Middle Branch of the Muskegon River in 1967 and was continued until 1974.

In 1974, purged groundwater was directed to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System. This purge well water discharge was discon- tinued in 1974 (CPC, 1981). Several of the previous studies speculated that vertical downward hydraulic gradients resulting from the operation of the purge wells may have drawn the contaminants into the lower portion of the aquifer .

Several actions were undertaken by Ott Chemical in 1968 to relieve the loading of contaminants to the disposal lagoons, including the conStruction of recharge lagoons, a neutralization pit to pretreat wastes, and an incin- erator to dispose of accumulated drummed wastes. Also, strong organic wastes were segregated from the waste stream and removed from the site by a liquid industrial waste hauler.

* Charge lagoons were constructed in the west portion of the site for the disposal of cooling water. According to previous studies, the mounding of groundwater levels beneath the recharge lagoons assisted the purge wells by obstructing the movement of contaminated groundwater to the southeast.

* A neutralization pit was installed to pretreat the waste stream. This pit is located adjacent to the equalization basin in the east portion of the site.

* An inciherator was constructed to dispose of drummed wastes which had been accumulating at the site since 1966. There were operational problems with the unit and its use was discontinued.

By 1974, process water was also being directed to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System along with the groundwater from the purge wells. In 1978, the MDNR, with monies from the legislature and thecordova settlement, removed ten thousand 208.1 liter (55-gallon) d- of waste rrmterial and 8,000 cubic yards of buried sludges and contaminated soil from the site. In addition, detoxification of phosgene gas left behind by Story and removal of the chemical tank cars was accomplished by Cordova.

By mid-1975, it became apparent that a'plume of contaminated groundwa- ter was moving southeast from the site, discharging to Little Bear Creek and the unnamed tributary. This discharge adversely affected water quality and biota in the streams. The movement of the plume to the southeast was due to the shutdown of the purge wells by Story, which allowed groundwater to move down the natural gradient toward Little Bear Creek. In November 1982 an alternate permanent Water supply was installed for homes near the groundwa- ter plume. This was paid for by monies from MDNR, Farmers Bow, CPC and Cordova.

A study was undertaken in 1980-1981 by A-1 Disposal Corporation to investigate the nature and extent of any remaining on-site contamination and suspected off-site areas. The study report included maps showing the layout of the site, site features, and locations of former waste disposal lagoons, drum storage areas and on site rpills.

Ae part of the A-1 study, excavations were undertaken on the east side of the railroad tracks near the southeast corner of the site to locate suspected buried drums. The excavations uncovered ten rurted and empty barrels, and approximately 2,000 glass laboratory sample jars. Based on this study, there is no additional data supporting existence of buried drums on site.

The plant site is presently being dismantled. Buildings are being demolished and salvaged empty t.nka are being stored in the northwest corner of the site. Some liquids remain in the equalization basin. L

An MDNR biological site assesanent (Wuycheck, 1985) and air sampling program (Teohs 1987) confirm that contamination in and around the creek continues. Surface water sampling results indicate no one should come in contact with the creek or unnamed tributary waters due to elevated organic compound concentrationr. With this in mind, the Muskegon County Health Department has posted sign8 tndicating potential public health danger in the sraa extending from the unnamed tributary to the railroad tracks that cross Little Bear Creek. Impactr to Little Bear Creek biological colr~munities were reported to extend 1.6-2.4 km downrtream from the venting (Wuycheck, 1985).

Under the federal Superfund program, the U.S. EPA is initiating a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIIFS). The RIIFS is a campre- hensive site study to Identify the extent of any remaining site contamina- tion problenrcl. to estimate their potential impact or threat to human health andlor the e n v i r ~ n t . and to evaluate various options for cleaning up or controlling contamination from the site.

While the U.S. EPA conducts the rite investigations, the MDNR is directing the design of a system to stop the dim-harge of contaminated groundwater to Little Bear Creek and the unnamed tributary. This effort will tie in to a total groundwater management approach that will be developed through EPA's RI/FS process. While the exact design of this system is still under development, it is likely to be some form of groundvater purge and treatment system. An example of the type of system that may be used to treat the water is an air rtripping tower with carbon filtering of the air. Eliminating the continuous discharge of contaminants to the creek is an L

important step in eliminating direct contact hazards that the creek now poses, and to allow for the eventual recovery of the creek environment.

The MDNR's design effort will include construction of a pilot system to test the recommended treatment option. Ongoing studies and are being done to determine, prior to designing and implementing this pilot system, certain site hydrogeologic factors and the treatability of the groundwater. Approxi- mately $2 million was funded to provide remedial measures at the Cordova. (OttIStory) site and an alternative water supply for residents in the area (Guyer , October 20 , 1986) .

DuellIGardner Landfill

The Duell/Gardner Landfill is a closed municipal landfill located in Dalton Township, Muskegon County. The landfill operated from the 1940's to 1975. It is alleged that local chemical companies dumped waste at the landfill at times, ending in the 1960's. Materials on site included approx- imately 500 drums in various stages of deterioration scattered in the woods adjacent to the site, as well as hundreds of lab bottles, areas of refuse and debris, and piles of unidentified sludge-like material. The landfill ceased operating in 1975 and is no longer used. There is no fence, but warning signs have been placed on the periphery of the site.

Four monitoring wells were installed in 1982. One well showed elevated zinc when sampled in 1984. There are no wells downgradient from the wooded area where drums are located - this area was discovered after the wells were established. Groundwater contamination is suspected, but contamination of surface waters is not expected due to its isolation.

A Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) has been approved but awaits the U.S. EPA approval of the quality assurance project plan. The purpose of the plan is to define the extent of groundwater contamination.

Limited drum and soil sampling conducted in February 1984 showed elevated metals suggesting plating waste had been disposed on site. Organic chemical sampling was inconclusive: compounds could not be quantified or confirmed .

Sampling conducted in September 1984 showed the presence of several compounds in soil, vaste piles or barrels: aluminum, arsenic, other metals, cyanide, methylene chloride, toluene, chlorobenzene, and other organic compounds.

Soil samples from 10 areas collected in October 1985 showed high levels of benzoic acid in 3 areas, and slightly elevated arsenic, nickel, zinc, chromium, lead and cyanide in another area. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, acenaphthalene and toluene were also detected. Other organic compounds may be present on the site: high detection limits may have masked their actual concentrations.

An Imnediate Removal was initiated September 27, 1985, and was complet- ed in March 1986. Drums and some soils were excavated and disposed off

site. During the removal, several areas of'purple stained soil were found. L

They were cwered with plastic to mitigate leaching.

Sampling and analysis of the stained soilr groundwater and residential wells was completed in September 1986. The material believed to be crystal violate, is a auapect carcinogen. Groundwater and soils on site, contained 100 ppm crystal violet whereas concentrations in residential wells were less than levels of detection.

7.1.3 Non-Superfund Sites

In addition to the construction of the WMS and remediation at the two NPL sites in the AOC area, small-scale remedial measures have been conducted at specific sites. This section describes site locations, existing prob- lems, and the specific remedial actions taken.

In November 1971, approximately 50,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from a Mobil Oil Company underground transmission line. Cleanup procedures were initiated in October 1972. resulting in a recovery of 14.000 gallons (WMSRDC , December 1978a) .

In 1972, an oil leak from Marathon Oil was determined as the cause of groundwater contadnation in the vicinity of Celery Lane, North Muskegon. A containmant chamber and.interceptor trench were installed to prevent the spread of contaminated groundwater. The majority of collectable hydrocar- bons had been recwered by August 1977 (WMSRDC, December 19780).

Teledyne Continental Motors, Getty Street Plant, contaminated groundwa- I

ter from seepage lagoons and sludge. EPA conducted an investigation in 1976 that determined contrrninants were moving to the southwest towards Four Mile Creek. Since 1976, Teledyne Continental Motors has been connected to a sewer line ellmluating their discharge to groundwater. The MDNR is review- ing company proposed plans to reduce contaminated groundwater at the site by installing 7 purge well and treatment system capable of removing volatile organic cou+,ad contrminmtr.

7.1.4 Nonpoint Sources

Septic contamination of groundwater has been documented in several areas tributary to the Area of Concern. Severe septic contamiuation prob- lems have been documented on the north side of Bear Lake by the county health department, This area was expected to be swered by 1983 but is delayed because of financial limitations (Fisher, 1987).

7.2 ACTIONS m Y IN PROGRESS

7.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

A8 previously described in Section 7.1.1. the inst~llation of the Muskegon County WMS No.1 has improved water quality cwditions in bskegon Lake. Limitations of the system do exist and are presented in a series of reports by Metcalf & Eddy. As summarized in the Wastewater Management System Facilities Plan Update Srrmmary Report, major concerns are listed as f ollovs : L

" Limits of hydraulic and treatmentsapacity - Emergency discharges occurred in winter of 1985 and 1986 due to intense fall rainfall.

" Systems ability for optimum performance

" Systems ability to coqly with environmental requirements (Metcalf 6 Eddy 1982).

The report discussed these concerns and determined specific problems within the facility. Specific problems include the following:

* There are limited drainage facilities.

O Limitations in'soil capability to remove phosphorous provide questions concerning the ability of the seepage lagoon discharge to meet NPDES standards in the future.

O The groundwater f l w direction is undetermined west of the site but appears to flow towards the headwaters of Spring Creek.

" The total capacity of the system has been estimated at 1.48 m3/s (33.8 mgd) and current inflow is 1.45 m3/s (33.2 mgd) (Metcalf 6 Eddy 1982). The current design flow is 1.84 msls (42.0 mgd) .

The report summarized the Muskegon County WMS limitations in conjunc- tion with limitations of the Whitehall Treatment System (located to the north in the vicinity of Montague and Whitehall Townships) and provided three reconmendations for improvement of the systems. The recommendations include :

- 0 Irrigationlrapid infiltration of combined wastewater flows

" Application for USEPA construction grant funds to aid installation of improvements

" Implement plan according to a specific schedule with three phases:

- , Report phase--completed in 1983

- Preparation of plans and specifications phase-completed in 1984

- Construction phase-completed in 1985 (Metcalf h Eddy 1982)

The estimated cost for the improvcmante was $41,878,000. During the first year after implementation, operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be $4,347,000.

7.2.2 Point Sources

In October 1982, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Develoment Commission (WMSRDC) completed a report entitled the Muekegon County Surface Water Toxics Study Control Mearure Options in which they identified poten- tial pollution sources to the Area of Concern. The WMSRDC recommended more

1, stringent monitoring of NPDES permit holders in the area. The Michigan Part 4 Water Quality Standards were upgraded in 1985 establishing standards for toxic substances. Guidelines set forth procedures pursuant to Rule 57(2) that State Environmental Protection Bureau staff use for recommending allowable levels of toxic rubstances in waters of the state from point source discharges designed to protect aquatic organims. The Rule 57(2) Guidelines rtate that the most recent calculations of water quality-based levels of toxic substances developed pursuant to the Guidelines shall be compiled annually and made available for distribution by 1 February each year. The WMSRDC also recamended further investigation of the groundwater system in areas containing former landfills and lagoon systems.

7.2.3 Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint sources of pollution identified in the Area of Concern include urban storm runoff aad excereive storm sewer loadings (WMSRDC 1982). The WMSRDC recommended a program to monitor storm sewer contaminant contribu- tione. Dredging of Huekegon Lake bottom sedimsnts in nearshore areas near and at the mouth8 of Division Street stormrewer, Ryerson Creek, Ruddiman Creek, and Ruddiman Pond was also recammended (WMSRDC, 1982).

8.0 DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MILESTONES FOR RESTORATION OF IMPAIRED USES

8.1 USES TO BE RESTORED, MAINTAINED OR DISCONTINUED

The Michigan Water Resources Coamaission has designated water uses to be protected and restored in the Area of Concern, based on Part 4 of the General Rules of the Water Resources Commission, which covers water quality standards. (These rules were most recently updated in November 1986). All Michigan State waters, including the Area of Concern, are to be protected for the following uses:

Agriculture Navigation Industrial water supply Public water supply at the point of water intake Wanuwater fish Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife .

Partial body contact all year Total body contact recreation from May 1 to October 31

As discussed in previous chapters of this plan, the waters in the source Area of Concern have occasionally failed to support all of these uses, based on the minimum standards set forth in Part 4 of the Michigan Water Resources Commission General Rules. Based on current Michigan regula- tions, all of these uses should continue to be supported by any remedial actions undertaken pursuant to this RAP. The Area of Concern exhibits impaired use of carp and walleye and largemouth bass populations because of PCB and mercury contamination, respectively.

8.2 COALS FOR BIOTA AND HABITAT RESTORATION

Baaed on Michigan water quality standards, localized areas tributary to the Area of Concern should be restored to the point where it can support a healthy, diverse benthic population. Benthic populations of Muskegon Lake appear to be improving and no remedial actions are recommended. Fish contaminant levels are should be reduced to less than MDPB and FDA fish consumption advisory levels.

8 .3 WATER USE AND QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The ultimate goal of this Remedial Action Plan, as envisioned by the International Joint Conmission Water Quality Board, is to provide direction to remedial activities aimed at protecting water quality and designated beneficial uses of Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan. This is to be accom- plished by minimizing negative effects on the lake due to the influence of pollutants from the Muskegan Lake Basin. Water use and quality objectives for the Area of Concern may be very generally stated as the elimination or substantial reduction of dettimantal effects on Muskegon Lake from runoff, point source discharges, atmospheric inputs and sediment contributions from the Muskegon Lake Basin.

8.4 SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Rertore quality of benthic habitat i n tributaries and deep lake basins to that w i l l which w i l l rrupport naturally occurring community of aquatic orgaaiw~s .

9.0 PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPANTS

This section describes regulatory and administrative program relevant to pollution problem in the Area of Concern. Procedures for dissemination of information to the public and public participation in environmenal issues will also be diecussed. Political implementability of the relevant programs will be presented.

9.1 REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

Recammcndations provided by this Remedial Action Plan will be made under existing programs for water quality management in the State of Michigan.

9.1.1 Status of Water Quality Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives

Water quality standards for all surface waters of the State of Michigan have been adopted pursuant t0.a mandate from the Michigan Water Resources C d s s i o n and the Federal Clean Water Act. Michigan's Water Resources Commission General Rules state that the purpose of Michigan's water quality standards is "...to protect the public health and welfare, enhance and maintain the quality of water, protect the State's natural resources, and serve the purposes of P.L. 92-500 (the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Water Acts) as amended, Act No. 245 of the Public Acts of 1929 (the Michigan Water Resourceo Commission Act), as amended, being 323.1 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and the Great Lakes water quality agreement enacted November 22, 1978." (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Commission General Rules, July 7, 1986, Part 4).

The Water Resources Commission was created under Michigan Act 245 of 1929. Its powers and responsibilities were expanded in 1972 (based on Michigan Acts 3, 129, and 293) to bring it into compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. .The administrative functions of the Conmission are carried out through the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Figure 9.1). The Cammission is charged with protecting and conserving water resources of the State of Michigan, controlling pollution of any waters of the State and the Great Lakes and controlling alteration of watercourses and flood plains of all rivers and streams in the State. It was also empowered to make rules, require registration of manufacturing products, materials, and waste products where certain wastes are discharged to State waters to cover investigation, monitoring, and surveillance necessary to prevent and abate water pollution.

Current standards for the Muskegon River basin are listed in Chapter 3 of this plqn. Michigan's water quality standards Part 4 Rules were most recently updated in November 1986 to include more stringent minimum stan- dards relative to plant nutrients, designated uses and microorganisms, dissolved oxygen, and anti degradation. The new rules also designate certain waters as "protected waters" under State authority, to implement strong antidegradation goals. Protected waters now include all Michigan waters of the Great Lakes and trout streams in the southern portion of the Lower Peninsula.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I . I Organlzatlon - Chart

Technical work for the proposal of water use designations and water quality standards is carried out by MDNR's Surface Water Quality Division.

Areawide Water Quality Management Plan

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC) was selected as the 208 planning agency to prepare an areawide management plan for Muskegon County and two additional surrounding counties (Figure 9-21

In July 1975, the WMSRDC initiated the Areawide Water Quality Planning Program funded by the USEPA., The W R D C completed the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (WMSRDC, June 1978). The report focuses on us keg on, Oceana, and Ottawa counties and describes the planning area, population and housing, land cover and use, water quality, and pollution sources.

The areawide management plan was designed to identify the following:

O Treatment required to sustain water quality for a period of 20 years

O Means for coordination of water quality plans, actions Management structure responsible for implementation of the plan

O Ways to handle nonpoint pollutant sources O Any additional information required for implementation of the plan

Disposal methods for treated wastewater and residues (WMSRDC, July 1977)

9.1.2 Point Source Controls

The Water Resources Codssion was also empowered to require permits regulating the discharge or storage of any substance that could affect water quality and also to impose restrictions that would assure compliance with State standards, applicable Federal lawsr and regulations. The Commission is authorized as the State agency to cooperate and negotiate with other goveruments and agencies in matters concerning State water resources. The MDNR has the responsibility to provide penalties for violations of the Water Resources Ccnmission Act.

Michigan's Water Resources Codssion obtained Federal approval to administer the NPDES program for Michigan dischargers in October 1973. The permit program for municipal and industrial dischargers is operated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' Surface Water Quality Division. Appendix 5.0 provides the State's current NPDES permit development proce- dure. For further information, please refer to MDNR (1987a) available from Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Reosurces, Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Because NPDES permits in Michigan are issued under the authority of the Water Resources Comdssion Act in addition to the Federal Clean Water Act, permit violations are considered violations of the State Act and may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. Dischargers are notified of alleged violations by written notices of determination setting forth specific permit provisions that the MDNR, asserts have been violated.

LOCAL POL I T I CAL UN I T S s WEST MICHIGAN SHORELINE

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

I 19 POSITIONS I

A R W I D E TECHN I CAL PLANN ING ADVISORY C O M I T T E E

I-----. i COORDINATION AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE

TASK FORCE T ITLES

POINT SOURCE MANAGERENT

ALTERNAT I V E APPROACHES NONPOINT SOURCE

WATER QUALITY GROUNDWATER

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Figure 9-2 Org~nizacional Chart of 208 Planning Agency bdified from WMSRDC, no dace (b)).

NPDES permittees are obliged to comply with the terms and conditions of their discharge permits, which are issued for a period of time no more than normally reissued at 5-year intervals. Permits specify final effluent limits for applicable parameters (and interim limits, where applicable), monitoring requirements, test procedures, reporting, and records retention requirements and compliance schedules for completing system upgrading or studies necessary to ensure that diichargers are able to meet effluent limits and avoid causing violations of water quality criteria and standards. Permits may also specify indications of the need to modify permits, spill containment facility requirements, operator certification requirements and noncompliance notification procedures. Procedures for spill notification and bypass notification are also included in current permits. Permits also contain industrial pretreatment program requirements where applicable. NPDES permit holders in the Area of Concern generally meet their permit limitations (WMSRDC 1978).

Table 3.8 indicates dischargers holding current NPDES permits allowing them to discharge wastewater or storm water into the Area of Concern and significant tributaries. Current compliance status (as of 1986) with NPDES permittees of Importance to the AOC is as follows:

Muskegon County WMS No. 1 was found on numerous occassions to be in noncompliance for dissolved oxygen in 1986. The construction of hydroelec- tric structure at Outfall 001 reduced the reaeration of their effluent resulting in permit limit violations (Baldwin, 1987). In 1987 some of the outfall discharge was diverted around the turbine and the facility is now in compliance for dissolved oxygen.

Sealed Pwer NCCW has elevated TCE concentrations due to use of contam- inated groundwater. A draft Consent Agreement to confirm a groundwater remedy was prepared during this past summer. The company's NPDES permit is also being upgraded'to limit effluent concentrations of TCE.

9.1.3 Superfund and State Hazardous Site Cleanup

Michigan's Environmental Response Act (MERA, Public Act 307) and Federal Superfund authority, based on the Cumprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), provide for identifying, assessing risks and evaluating priorities for cleaning up environmental contamination at specific sites. MERA and CERCLA both provide means for publicly financing remedial actions at sites where hazardous substances have polluted the environment and prioritize sites to determine which are most in need of limited public funds. Bowever, MERA provides nichigan with the ability to take action at sites not eligible for remedies through the Superfund program or at sites that do not rank high enough to receive Federal Superfund money. Michigan's priority ranking system tanka sites according to present conditionr, while the Federal system ranks sites according to the time they were at their worst (Michigan DNR, Michigan Site of Environmental Contamination Priority Lists, Act 307, February 1986 for Fiscal Year 1987). The program6 are administered through MDNR Enviramental Protection'r Waste Management Division.

Currently, two sites in the Area of Concern watershed are on the National Priorities List (NPL):

' Cordova (OttIStory) Chemical Company O Duel1 6 Gardner Landfill

Contamination problems at the sites and any remedial actions completed or planned are described In detail in Section 7.1.2.

9.1.4 Nonpoint Source Control Efforts

Michigan's Rural Nonpoint Source Pollution Subcommittee of the Gover- nor's Cabinet Council on Environmental Protection, recently recammended a Strategy for the Reduction of Rural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Michigan (Rural Nonpoint Source Pollution Subc-ittee, A Strategy for the Reduction of Rural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Michigan: A Report to the Governor's Cabinet Council on Environmental Protection, 1985).

In addition, the Surface Water Quality Division of the Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources (MDNB) developed a strategy for determination of nonpoint source contamination in the State. The strategy was intended to identify the following:

' Location, type, and degree of use impairment

Identification of the nonpoint contaminant sources (HDNR, August 1985)

In order to complete a nonpoint asressment, the Surface Water Quality Division issued a survey form (see Appendi. 9.1). The survey form was submitted to the MDNR divisions of Fisheries, Land Resource Programs and

L Surface Water Quality for completion by their field perronnel. The resluts are to be included in a future nonpoint source assestment and pollution control strategy.

9.1.5 Eazardous Warte Management

Eazardour waste control regulations in Michigan are designed to protect surface waters, #roundwater, and 80ils from toxic contamination. Hazardous waste control progrw are admbirtered by Michigan's Department of Natural Resources, bared on State mandate8 from the Water Resources Commission Act and the Eazardous Warte bnagement Act (Michigan Public Act 64 of 1979) as well as the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Hazardous and Solid Wute Amendments of 1984. Michigan also has groundwater ruler that prohibit discharges of rubstances to groundwater that may cause degradation to groundwater quality or to groundwater in usable aquifers (1.e.. aquifers yielding rufficient quantities and qualities to be usable for water rupply purpomer) (SEMCOG, River Basin Mnagement Strategy Frame- work for the Clinton River Basirr, 1981) .

The State of Michigan, through DNR, licenses and rupervises hazardous waste muragement in the Muskegon Lake area. All counties in Michigan have also been required to develop solid warte plan8 for State approval.

The MDNR h u produced an extensive series of rules, under the Hazardouv Waste Management Act concerning the management of hazardous waste. The i d

Hazardous Waste Management Rules, revised in 1985, are divided into 11 sections:

Part 1 - Definitions Part 2 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Part 3 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste Part 4 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste Part 5 - Construction Permits and Operating Licensee Part 6 - (Standards for) Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste, Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

Part 7 - Financial Capability Part 8 - (Standards for the) Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

Part 9 - Hazardous Waste Serpice Fund Part 10 - Availability of Referenced Materials Part 11 - Certified Local Health Departments (MDNR, September 1985)

A number of hazardous waste management facilities exist in the Muskegon River Basin potentially affecting the Area of Concern. These facilities include landfills, dumps, storage lagoons, and seepage ponds. Appendix 5.1 includeo a detailed list of these facilities and their locations.

9.1.6 Urban Stormwater Pollution Control Efforts

The State of Michigan has no comprehensive mandate to directly regulate storwater runoff and pollutants carried by runoff unless it can be defined as a point source discharge. However, several State programs have overlap- ping mandates to address various aspects of pollution carried to surface waters by urban stormwater. These include program to manage flood hazards, water quality, soil erosion and sedimentation, and wetlands.

Urban stormwater runoff has created pollution problems for the Area of Concern. The WRDC (1982) recammended a program to monitor storm sewer cont.minmt contributionr. Site assesmwnts of these sites are recommended by MDNR.

9.1.7 COE ProjectslOther Agency Actions

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains Federal navigational channel in Muskegon Harbor. The annual maintenance dredging is vital to deep draft vessels whose average annual cargo for the harbor is in excess of 1.5 million tons.

9.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT L

The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission was desig- nated the 208 planning agency in April 1975 for Muskegon County (also Oceana and Ottawa counties). The designation necessitated the Implementation of a public information program. The main goal of the planning program vas to create an exchange of information between the 208 planning agency and the citizens by providing the means for both active and passive public involve- ment. Plans for passive public involvement involved the distribution of Informational materialr. Active public involvement involved the creation of seven task forces relating to different topics of concern:

' Alternative approaches * Groundwater

Management ' Nonpoint sources O Point sources O Public participation

Water quality

Members of the public were actively recruited to join specific task forces. Functions of each task force included providing information on its topic of concern and becoming active in the 208 planning program. The task forces in conjunction vith the Coordination and Evaluation Committee, using input from the West Eiichigan Shoreline Regional Development Ccmmission and the Areawide Technical Planning Advisory C d t t e e , prepare any proposals, reconunendations, or solutions that are presented to the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commissioners.

L

A public meeting was held August 2. 1986 at the Muskegon City Hall to inform attendees of the Muskegon Lake Remedial Action Plan (RAP) development process. This firrt meeting war intended to provide attendees an overview of findings, at that the, and stress the opportunity and Importance of citizen involvement in the RAP develdpment process. Citizen concerns, questions and recommendations were solicited at the meeting and MDNR re- sponses are provided in Appendix 9.2. A list of agency contacts and citi- zenr (that attended the firrt public meeting) that have been involved in the development of the RhP, to-date, are provided in Appendix 9.3.

A recond public meeting was held July 22, 1987 in order to provide an opportunity for citizen8 to provided comments for the final uskegon Lake RAP report. Comments and recommendations from the meeting and those provided during a 30-day public conment period vere taken into consideration during the development of the finrl RAP. This final draft is rubmitted to the International Joint Cammlssion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Muskegon and Muskegon County to further inform and provide guidance in Improving and maintaining environmental quality in the Muskegon Lake AOC.

9.3 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS

9.3.1 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978

This agreement established water quality planning and regulatory standards for the Great Lakes to be followed by the United States and Canada, the two agreement signatories. The International Joint Commission and its Water Quality Board are the principle organizations charged with carrying out the provisions of the agreement through Federalagencies in the united States and Canada, and authority of the State and Provincial regula- tions. Designation of Areas of Concern and drafting of Remedial Action Plans are results of this treaty.

10.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Impairments to the designated uses of Muskegon Lake have been restored due to Federal, State and local government control programs and remedial actions. Major municipal and industrial point sources of pollutants have been 'diverted to the Muskegon County WMS No. 1 (WMS). The NPDES system has established effluent limits on the WMS and other surface water discharges (primarily noncontact cooling water) to protect water quality and aquatic life in Muskegon Lake and tributaries. The CERCLA (Superfund) and MERA (State Act 307) programs are investigating and cleaning up hazardous waste disposal sites that have caused contaminated groundwater and surface water tributary to the AOC.

The three potential major pollutants sources to Muskegon Lake which could cause impairment of the designated uses or inhibit further recovery1 improvement of the water quality of the lake are urban storwater runoff, contaminated groundwater and contaminated sediments.

Urban Stormwater Runoff

With the elimination of industrial and municipal wastewater discharge, the storwater outfalls may be the next major source of toxic pollutants and nutrients. Division Street stonnsewer, historically, has been a major pollutant source to Muskegon Lake based on sediment and water analysis data. However, the quantity and quality of urban stormwater runoff is unknown. Ryerson Creek and Ruddlman Creek receive storwater runoff and/or industrial discharges.

Recommendat ions

* County, municipal and MDNR staff should conduct a study on the impacts of stomwater runoff and industrial NCCW heat loadings on Ruddiman Creek, Ryerson Creek and Muskegon Lake, the latter in the vicinity of the Division Street stormeewer. The Division Street stonnsewer is also a suspect source of mercury contamination based on WMSRDC, 1982 survey results.

* Instream placement of sedfmentation basins could reduce solids loadings to Muskegon Lake. This systems could be maintained as needed by the County Drain Commission.

Groundwater Contamination

The Impact of contaminated groundwater on Murkegon Lake is unknown but not readily apparent based on current biological, water quality and sediment data. Muskegon County has the highest number of contaminated groundwater sites in Michigan. Those located adjacent to Muskegon Lake should be investigated to determine level of contamination. Some industries discharge contaminated groundwater used for NCCW to Ruddlman Creek.

* Regulatory actions under Superfund and UERA, to clean up contaminated groundwater eites, should continue.

Contaminated Sediments

. The metals and oil/greare contamhated sedimants in Muskegon Lake have historically degraded the benthic community. The diversion of the industri- al and municipal discharges to Muskegon County WMS No. 1 in the mid-1970's has and e l l continue to enhance improvement in the benthic cornunity of the lake. Sediments may serve as a source of elevated mercury in Muskegon Lake walleye and largemouth bass and PCBs in Bear Lake (see below).

Recommendat ion

* The MDNR should conduct long-term sediment and benthic col~mnrnity monitoring to determine if new, cleaner sediment is being deposited over heavily polluted sediments. To prevent future contamination, the NPDES, RCRA and MDNR groundwater programs should require site assess- ments, sound permits, permit compliance and cooperation by dischargers.

Contaminated Fish

Mercury concentrations exceed 0.5 ppm MDPH action level in Wskegon Lake walleye (greater than 20 inches) and largemouth bass (greater than 16 inches). Bear Lake carp contain PCB concentrations that exceed the 2.0 ppm L MDPH action level. Chlordane concentrations exceed 0.3 ppm in large carp from Bear Lake.

Recammendation

* Fish contaminant monitoring of Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake fish, by the MDNR, should continue on a 3 to 5 year frequency to determine toxic contaminant trends and update the MDPH's fish consumption advisory for Wskegon Lake.

* Walleye and carp from Lake Michigan should be collected to determine PCB and mercury concentratiom. These data would help determine if the PCB and mercury contaminated fish are Muskegon Lakt or regional phenomenon.

* Fish contamdnmt monitoring of Ryerron Creek and Ruddinurn Pond should be performed by the MDNR to determine contrminont levels.

* Air toxics monitoring for PCBs, chlordane and mercury are recomnended for the Hurlregon County region to determine atmospheric loadings nod assess aerial inputs ar a source of toxicr to the AOC and region.

Additional Recmendations

a) Eliminate existing and prohibit future subsurface disposal and groundwater recharge of industrial waste vithout proper treatment.

- Industries generating process wastewater should tie in to Muskegon County WMS No. 1.

-- Industries generating hazardous waste should transport such wastes under the RCRA program to permitted RCRA sites.

-- Hazardous waste sites for final disposal should be restricted or not permitted in the Muakegon Lake area because of the porous sandy soil conditions.

b) Alternatively, if subsurface disposal and groundwater recharge of industrial waste is allowed, stringent controls on this disposal or discharge should be established.

-- Permits for groundwater recharge of treated industrial wastewater should contain stringent limits on the discharge to groundwater of toxic metals and organics when these pollutants are present in the raw wastewater.

-- RCRA-permitted TSDS facilities should contain stringent controls to prevent hazardous waste contamination of surface or groundwater.

Proposed remedial actions for Muskegon Lake and Muskegon Lake tributaries are summarized in Tables 10-1 and 10-2.

TABLE 10-1. PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA OF CONCERN

Potential Use Impairment Causes Sourcee Remedial Actions

Degraded benthic community Low DO due to elevated Hietorical point eourcee Evaluation of etonwater pollutant-tolerant levels of nitrogen/ and etormwater pollutant loadings epecies dominant phoephorue. contaminated In-place pollutante Control/treatment of

eediments in lake's 70' etorwater basin.

Toxic pollutants in fieh Con taainated sediments? In-place pollutant8 Air toxics , sediment (Mercury) Atmoepheric loadings? Atmoepherlc loadings and source monitoring

Fish epeciee, age or X fat Watershed loadings

TABLE 10-2. PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS MUSKEGON LAKE TRIBUTARIES - SOURCE AREA OF CONCERN

Impaired Uses Causes Sources Remedial Actions

Bear Lake

benthos community degraded

recreational activities and aesthetics degraded

Little Bear Creek

eliminati n of brook trout fishery

tainted fish

Aesthetics degraded

Ruddiman Creek

aesthetics degraded

benthic community degraded

contaminated sediments (P, N, ObC, As. Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn)

algal blooms excessive weed growths odors, shallow depth nutrient enrichment.

toxic organic chemicals, oxygen demand

organic compounds

obnoxious odor bacterial slimes septic conditions

visible oil film

urban runoff euspec ted

potentially failed septic Define problem area and systems, in-place eliminate septic systems pollutante and nutrients diecharges to Bear Lake in sediments.

contaminated groundwater Treatment of contaminated from Cordova (OttIStory) groundwater prior to

discharge to surface watere

contaminated groundwater from Cordova (OttIStory)

contaminated groundwater Cleanup site under Superfund from Cordova (OttIStory)

urban stormwater Evaluation of stormwater pollutant loadings and NCCW heat loadings

unstable flow. suspended urban stomwater solids and silts

Control/treatment of stotmwater

TABLE 10-2 (Continued)

Impaired User Caueee Sourcee Remedial Actions

Ryerson Creek

recreational activities and aeethetice impaired

violation of WQS for urban etorenrater Control/treatment of odor, floating debrie, etormwater turbidity, viefble oil film

11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amendola, Gary. October 1984. Re: Michigan Dioxin Studies Fish and Avian Sampling Program. Letter to Mr. Linn Duling, Toxic Chemical Evaluation Section MDNR.

Baldwin, F. June 4, 1987 letter to Arnold Leder, U.S. EPA. Noncompli- ance Report for Muakegon County WW. Mgt. System No. 1.

Biological Investigation of Lake Muskegon Vicinity of the Westran Corporation Lake Fill, Muskegon, MI. February 17, 1970.

Bottom Fauna Survey, Muskegon River, Big Rapids, Mecosta County, MI. August 4-5, 1959.

Creagh, K., Michigan Department of Agriculture, March 1987. Memorandum to John Wuycheck. Restricted Pesticide Use in Muskegon County.

Demirjian, Y. 14 May 1987 letter to F. Eyer, Grand Rapids District Supervisor. Plan of Action to Minimize Future NPDES Violations.

DeVault, D. 1984. Polychlorinated Dioxins and Polychlorinated Furans in Fish from the Great Lakes and Midwest. U.S. EPA Report 905/3-84-006. Chicago, Ill. .

Environmental Research Group. 1982. Toxics Survey Technical Report. Ann Arbor, MI.

Environmental Research Group. 1982a. Sample Analysis Report - Revised Draft-First Problem Definition Survey, Ann Arbor, MI.

Environmental Research Group. 1982b. Sample Collection and Analysis Report - Final-Third Source Identification Survey Phase V. Ann Arbor, MI.

Environmental Research Group. May 31, 1980. Sample Collection and Analysis Report - Draft - First Source Identification Survey. Ann Arbor, MI.

Evans, Elwin D. (Ca. 1981 unpublished draft). Mona, White, and Muskegon Lakes in Muskegon County, MI (The 1950s to 1980s). MDNR Draft Report.

Evans, E. 1978. The effects of contaminated groundwater on Little Bear Creek, Muskegon, Michigan (September 20, 1977-September 26, 1978) MDNR staff report.

Evans, E. 1972 survey report (benthos) (a)

Evans, E. 1972 survey report sediment contaminants (b).

Exploratory Fish Taint Testing, Muskegon Lake, Late Summer 1967.

Fetterolf, Jr., Carlos M. January 1962.. Investigation of Fish-Oil L

Flavor, Muskegon Lake. MWRC.

Final Report of Michigan Bureau of Water Management's Investigation of the Sediments and Benthic Communities of Mona, White, and Muskegon Lake, Muskegon County, Michigan, 1972.

Fisher, D. 10 January 87 letter to John Wuycheck on Remedial Action Plan by the Muskegon County.

Firh Taint Tests, Big and Little Bear Creeks, Muskegon County, December 1965.

Follow-up Fish Taint Tests, Little Bear Creek, Muskegon County, April 1966.

GLR (Great hkes Reporter) June/July/August 1987. The Center for the Great Lakes. Vol. 4, No. 3.

Gta~ioli~ Me, Chief - Construction/Operations Division - Army Corps of Engineers. 10 March 87 letter to John Wuycheck concerning Remedial Action Plan.

Grettenberger, J. 1985. Summary of Michigan Waterfowl Data (1976-1985). U.S. FSW Ecological Services Report, E. Lansing, MI.

Gruben, Denise. May 1986. Muskegon Lake Area, Michigan Sites of Environmental Contrmination Priorities Lists Act 307, Groundwater

L Division/MDNR.

Guyer, Gordon, E. October 20, 1986. Letter to Stewart Freeman, Assis- tant Attorney General Environmental Protection. Re: Story/Ott/Cordova Site, Muskegon County.

Hesae, J. Michigan Department of Public Health. 26 May 1987 memorandum to Linn Duling. Request for Additional Firh Ananlyses from Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake.

Hesse, J. and E. Evans. 1972. Heavy metals in surface waters, sediments and fish in Michigan, MDNR Report. Lansing, Michigan. 58 pp.

Hesse, J. 1987. Memorandum to Linn Duling, MDNR. Request for addition- a1 fish analyses.

Journu, I - Grand Rapids District Staff - personal c ~ i c a t i o n . Kolar, M. August 8s 1986 communication to John Wuycheck.

Lahvis, Garet P., David S. DeVa~lt, and J. Milton Clark. Contaminants in Lake Michigan Nearshore Firh. USEPA Draft Report.

Limno-Tech, 1981. (Preliminary Draft). The Effect of Wastewater Land Treatment on Eutrophication in Muskegon Lakes. Ann Arbor, MI. 97 p. L

Lundgren, R. 1976. Fish Taint Studies - Mona Lake, Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Pere Marquette Lake, Manistee Lake and Betsie Lake. MDNR staff report.

Masterson, M. 1986. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment of Effluent from Muskegon County Metro WWTP, Muskegon, Michigan. May 21-23, 1986. MI 0027391.

MDPH, 1985 draft. Michigan Sport-Fish Consumption Advisories. Philoso- phy and Procedures.

McMahon, M. 1987. Recommended effluent limits for Sealed Power Company, Sanford Street facility's discharge to Ruddiman Creek.

MDNR. 1987a. Michigan Guidebook for Surface Water Dischargers - The NPDES Permit Program. MDNR, Lansing, MI. 18 p.

MDNR. 1987b. Surface Water Quality Division. Management Strategy and Water Pollution Control Program Plan. Fiscal Year 1987. MDNR Lansing, MI.

MDNR. Interoffice COPrnDunication Re - Strategy for Developing Remedial Action Plan's for Areas of Concern in Michigan's Great Lakes Waters. September 6, 1986.

MDNR. Part 4 Rules--Michigan Water Quality Standards. October 14, '1986.

MDNR. 1985. Hazardous Waste Management Rules (Rev.) MDNR Hazardous Waste Division.

MDNR. 19850. Nonpoint Assessment for Small Watersheds. Staff Report. Surface Water Quality Division - Water Quality Surveillance Section.

MDNR. 1985b. Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination Priority List.

MDNR. 1985. Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Commission General Ruler. January 18, 1985.

MDNR. 1983. A Biological Assessment and Chloride Sampling of Mosquito Creek and Spring Creek in the Vicinity of the Muskegon County Water Treatment Facility, Muskegon County, August 16, 18, and 30, 1983 - Staff Report.

MDNR. 1980. Report of a Municipal Wastewater Survey Conducted at Muskegon Metropolitan System. November 3-4, 1980.

MDNR. 1979. Hazardous Waste Management Act. State of Michigan.

MDNR. 1979. Hazardous Waste Management Act. Act 64 of 1979, as amended.

MDNR. 1979. Report of a Municipal Wastewater Survey Conducted at Muskegon Metropolitan System. July 2-3, 1979.

MDNR. 1979a. Macroinvertebrate Survey of Mosquito Creek, Muskegon County, MI. July 28-September 79 1978.

MDNR. 1979. Report of Sampling Murkegon County Wastewater System. November and December 1978, January 1979.

MDNR Interoffice Conminication. 1976. From Elwin Evans. Re: Muskegon and Mona Lake Tributary Sediments and Water Quality. December 13s 1976.

MDNR Interoffice Connnunication. 1973. From Elwin Evans. Re: Heavy Metals, Oils, and Nutrients in Sediments of MOM, White, and Muskegon Lakes, Muskegon County. Augwt 10, 1973.

MDIUR. Report of On-Site Toxicity Evaluation at Muekegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1985. Wastewater Management System Amendment to Facilities Plan Update.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1983. Report to the County of Muskegon Michigan on 1982 Field Studies at Wastewater Management System.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1982. Waeterater Management System Facilities I Plan Update. Draft Final Report.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1982.. Wastewater Management System Facilities Plan Update - Surmnary Report. Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination Priorities Lists Act 307, Muskegon Lake Area. May 1986.

Mikula, D. 7 October 87 MDNR memorandum. Phosphorus Effluent Limits for the Muskegon County Xetro WWTP (MI 0017391).

Mund, G. - dirtrict U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 10 February 87 letter to John Wuycheck.

hrkegon County. 1974. Storm Drainage Management Investigation. Wright-khughlin Engineers. Denver, Colorado.

Murkegon Lake August 21, 1986 Public Meeting Preeentation.

MWRC, BWH, mNR. March 1976. Fish Taint Studies Mona Lake, Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Pere Marquette Lake, Maniskee Lake, and Betsie Lake - Staff Report,

PMRC, BUM, MDNR. Augurt 1971. A Static Bioassay of an Effluent from Naph-Sol Refinery Company, M~~kegon, Michigan.

MURC. May 1968. Fish Taint Test, Muskegon Lake, Muskegon County.

MWRC. (No date). Observations of Fiber Deposition in the Vicinity of S.D. Warren Paper Company, Muskegon Lake, Muskegon, Michigan with Notes on Status of Associated Micro-Invertebrate Populations, Biological Investigations of June 15-17 and July 4, 1964.

Newton, M. 1966a. Fish Taint Tests, Big and Little Bear Creeks. Muskegon County MDNR survey report.

Newton, M. 1966b. Follow-up Fish Taint Tests, Little Bear Creek. Muskegon County MDNR survey report.

NPDES Permits - Muskegon Lake Area. NPDES PCS Computer Printout.

NPDES Permit - Enterprise Brass Works. OttIStorylCordova Site, Muskegon County. October 1986.

Passero, Richard N., Straw, Thomas W., and SMC Martin Inc. March 1985. Hydrology for Underground Injection Control in Michigan and Hydrogeologic Atlas of Michigan. A Training Session for the USEPA.

Public Water Supply Intakes in Michigan.

Reckhov, K. 1979. Quantitative Techniques for the Assessment of Lake Quality. U.S.EPA 44015-79-015.

Risk Science Internation. October 24, 1986. Assessment of Air Emis- sions from Little Bear Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary, Muskegon, Michigan.

The above document was listed in the bibliography. However, we failed to find any discussion on air emissions from Little Bear Creek nor any seciton in the Remedial Action Plan where this document vas cited. Our Division, in cooperation with Groundwater Quality Division, is current- ly conducting sampling and studying the emissions from Little Bear Creek '(as is discussed in the Risk Science Documant). Would you please ask authors (SAIC) of the Remedial Actioa Plan to indicate where the information from the Risk Science Document is presented? We request the right to comment on this information prior to final draft approval of the Remedial Action Plan.

Risk Science International. October 24, 1986. Assessment of Air Emiseions from Little Bear Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary, Muskegon, MI.

Status of NPL Sites near Area of Concern: SCA Independent Landfill, OH/Story/Cordova Chemical Co., Duel1 6 Gardner Landfill, Thermo-Chem, Inc .

Schneider, F. FDA analytical results for Muskegon Lake dioxin analysis sent to John Wuycheck, MDNR. 1986.

Smith, D. 1986. Memo: July 2, 1986 Fisheries Analysis of Muskegon County Wastewater Discharge to Mosquito Creek. MDNR Fisheries Division Report.

Steinbach, R., R. Humphriee and G. Martz. 1986. MDNR Habitat Develop- ment Plan - Muskegon State Game Area, Eggelston Township, Muskegon Co. Compartment 5. Lansing, HI. 29 pp.

S-ry of Tvo Continuous Flow Bioassay8 Conducted, on the Ott Chemical Campany Effluent Worth, Muskegon, Michigan. October 26-30, 1970, November 17-20, 1970.

Teoh, J. January 28, 1987. MDNR memo to Rick Taereak. Air sampling at Little Bear Creek and Vicinity - October 17, 1986. The Michigan Water Resources Commisrion Act.

USEPA. 1975. National Eutrophication Survcy Muskegon Lake, Muskegon County, Michigan Working Paper No. 203. Pacific Northwest Environmen- tal Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 38 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data - Michigan Reports Water Years 1980 through 1985. Lansing, MI.

Vennillion, R. 1980. Army Corps of Engineers. Public Notice. Mainte- nance Dredging and Beach Nourishment - Muskegon Harbor, MI. L Versar, Inc. October 24, 1986. Environmental Impacts of Contaminated Groundwater Discharger to Little Bear Creek, Michigan, Final Results of 1986 Monitoring Study.

UMSRDC. 1982, ~evised 1983. The Muskegon County Surface Water Toxics Study Executive Swaary.

WMSRDC. 1982. The Ehukegon County Surface Water Toxics Study Control Mearure Opt lone.

WMSRDC. 1982a. The Murkegon County Surface Water Toxics Study Toxic Survey General Summrry.

WRDC. 1981. Work Order 54 for the Muskegon County Surface Water Toxics Study. Program Phase IV. (Revised March 17, 1981).

WMSRDC. 1979. Inventory of Industrial Dischargers to Storm Drains- Preliminary Staff Report.

WMSRDC. 1978. The Water Pollution Potential of On-Land Industrial Waste Disposal Systems.

WMSRDC. 1978a. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan - Region 14 - Part One - River Basin Studies.

WMSRDC. 1978b. Areawide 208 Water Quality Management Plan - Region - Part Two - Recommended Control Measures. t

WMSRDC. 1977. Future Lake and Stream Quality 1977 to 1998.

WMSRDC . 1977a. Technical Supplement to "Future Lake Stream Quality" 1977 to 1998.

WMSRDC. (No date). Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part 1 Areas, Places & Boundaries Region 14.

WMSRDC. (No datela. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part I1 Estimates of Population & Housing.

WMSRDC. (No date)b. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part I11 Estimates of Laad Cover and Use.

WMSRDC. (No date)c. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part IV. Estimates of Wasteloads & Flow.

WMSRDC. (No date)d. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part v Summary of Public Participation.

WMSRDC. (No datele. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part VI Appendix A Sewerless Methods of Household Waste Disposal.

WMSRDC. (No date) f . Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part VI Appendix B Point Source Inventory.

WMSRDC. (No datelg. Sourcebook for Water Quality Planning, Part VI Appendix C Assessment of Groundwater Quality.

Wuycheck, J. 1985. A Biological Survey of Little Bear Creek and .Unnamed Tributary in the Vicinity of Organic Chemical Contaminated Groundwater Seepage from the Cordova (Ot t/Story) Chemical Company Property, Muskegon County, MI. August 28, 1985, MDNR Report.

Zabik, Mary E. and Theodore F. Irmiter. February-March 1962. The Flavor of Fish from Muskegon Lake. Department of Foods and Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

12.0 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 3.0

U . S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MUSKEGON HARBOR

SEDIMENT AND BENTHIC ANALYSIS DATA APRIL 1982

MJSKEGON

1982

SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

On X p r i l 2 8 , 1992, Environmenta l Research Group ' s ( E R G ) field crew c o l l e c t e d sed iment and ben thos samples from Muskegon Chennel. ?!uskegon Chaznel runs from nort!%east t o s o u t h w e s t and c o n n e c t s Muskegon Lake t o Lake Michigan.

See a t t a c h e < map f o r s t a t i o n i e e n t i f i c a t i o n and l o c a t i o n .

SAiiPLf XG HETHODOLOGY

Sediment C o l l e c t i o n

Sediments e n c o u n t e r e e a t a l l three s t a t i o n s i n Muskegon -- Channel c o n s i s t e d o f brown c l e a n beach san2. T h e r e was no v i s i b l e s i g n of any s i l t bu i ld -up t h r o u g h o u t t!!e chqnnel-: 3 u t t o t h e s u b s t r a t e e n c 3 u n t e r e d , a 6 " x 6" p e t i t e ponar . Zezoqe was u t i l i z e d t o c o l l e c t bot tom s e d i a e n t .

GE=b= L sed iment samples we=* t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o a s t a i n l e s s s t e e l bowl, thorough ly mixed , and p l a c e d i n t o wide-mout!! g l a s s q u a r t s . Refer t o T a b l e I f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of s e d i m e n t t y p e s encoun te red a t each s t a t i o n .

M a c r o i n v e r t e b r a t e C o l l e c t i o n

Benthos samples were c o l l e c t e d u s i n g a 6" x 6 " p e t i t e ponar . Grabs were p l a c e d i n a 5-gal lon b u c k e t and r i n s e d with l a k e w a t e r t o h e l p suspend t k e organisms. The s c u r r y was t h e n worked th rouqh a V . S . s t a n d a r e 30 mesh s i e v e . The r e s u l t a n t sample w a s ack-washed i n t o 500 m l wide-mouth p l a s t i c c o n t a i n e r s e s e r v e d wit!! 70% e t 5 a n o l .

For macroi b r a t e r e s u l t s , r e f e r t o T a b l e XI.

-(;l.ilI)!? f o r Seclilnell ts, l iqlr t brown ,311als i ~ r l o r ~ e i x e t l . G r i t t y t e x t u r e

- t ; ~ a O s f o r D e n t h o s , m o s t l y E racjmented I I P 1 Is, SOI v i t y o b s e r v e d .

-t;rill,s f u r S c d i ~ n e r r l s , l i c~ l r l : hrowrr ; I I I , I w i t.11 EOIW l i y h t b l a c k - g r a y t I i I . (;r i t t y t e x t u r e

- f ; r a l ) s f o r Den t l ros , numerous c r u s h e d I I P 1 1 s t 1 i g h t a c t i v i t y o b s e r v e d

-r;ral)s f o r Secl is~err ts, v e r y h a r d packec a t ~ t l , d i f f i c u l t lo ( jet yood sa lnp le . Icatt b e a c l ~ sand, g r i t t y t e x t u r e

-c;r;ll)s f o r Re~~llros, n o a c t i v i t y l)sc?l-vcfl

1 i g h t brown

l i g h t brown

l i g h t

.' ,I

'1 I .

-----

Color -- Odor --

ear t h y '

e a r t h y

ear t h y

I --

O i l ---

NO

NO

NO

Genera 1 Rewa rks --- -- - -

Depth S T l l - 34 .0 '

Wea the r @ 13:30: Winds l i q h t o u t qf.,.por t l rnor thwc 5 mph, s k y clear b sulrny

6'J&

Depth ST42 - 36 .20 '

Dep th ST13 - 25.30 '

Wea the r @ 1 5 : 4 5 i n I r a r l ~ o ~ Winds n o r t h n o r thwes t qus l to 1 5 mph. S k i e s a p p r o x . o v e r c a s t . Waves i n I ~ a r l m ~ less t h a n 1 . 0 '

ERG Sample J : C l i e n t ID :

01 igochaeta L imnodr i lus h o f f m e i s t e r i

TABLE 11

U . S . Army COE

Muskegon Channel

Macro i nvcr tebra t e Resul t s

73957 73958 S t a t i o n 1 S t a t i o n 2

Di p t e r a Chi ronomidae

Chironomus chironomus 8 Cul i c i d a e

Chaobotus so. 1

Amphi poda Gamnarus c f . fasciatus

Pel ecypodr P i sidium-dubium

73953 S t a t i o n 3

E N V I R O N H E I J T A L R : A R C H G R i J I J P , I N C ANALYTICAL REPllRT - RESULTS BY SI\tlPL.E

1 1 7 N F I R S T CLIEIJT: CL IENT P. 0. : DACH33-81-0-0014 APPROVED. U. 8. ARIlY ENGINEER DETROI T

L AfW AHIfWt. HlCHICAI4 4 8 1 0 4 REPORT: 8616 (313) 6 6 2 - 3 1 0 1 6AWI.ES RECVD: 0 3 - 19-82 40.

a P . 0 BOX 1 0 2 7 REFER TECIHICAL OUEST IONS RESIDUAL SMlPLES W I L L

ERC FROJECT: 0397 OETROIT. nl 4 8 2 3 1 TO: a n d wl~sa r BE HELO FOH TUO UEEM R E P M I DATE: 1 0 - h a - 8 2 A T l E N T l O N : FRANU 6 N I T Z .a* e

C L I E N I - I D ERG SAHPLE U O E R HATR I X

C l E H l C A L OXYCEN DEHANU O I L AN!) GnEASE 1 OTAL Pt1OSPtrnUS I~IIAL WELUAIIL NITROGEN fdWWN I A N l TROOEN I'AR1ICI.E S l Z l I 4 O >2 f * A l l I 1CI.E S l Z IN0 >0 4 3 I m N t l l C L E S I Z I N O :SO. 23 ISAHTICI.E 9 1 Z I W O :SO. 0 7 3 I 'A I t I I C L E 91 Z l N O C0. 0 7 3 I N PLACE M N 5 l T V

ERC SAW1.E NUHOER 4 I l A l i f I I

IC(V~KEQON a2 I~USUEO~N I I~ 1 0 5 / 0 7 3 9 5 8 1 0 3 / 0 7 3 9 3 9 ISEDIHENT IBEDIHENT

U L T S UNITS IRESULTS U N I T S IRESUCTS U N I T 8

I'ARAKE TER

L a 4 LI L

.4 la.

lob. tL

la& In.

18.

NORTH

LOCATION MAP WICHIGAN ~ULL w FLIT

0 .... ma00 *an

MOTES \\\ ProiocI drplhs, roclwlbqa and rlrwNiam ara n i a m d to

hk?~(lonol CIWI L o h Dahm 11955) lor L a b Michipon. rlwotion 57&8 it. abava Mecn wetar L m I (M.W.L) a1 Ceth @ Indicates Slora Routor. @ Inlicrt!s Coation Signs

b

MUSEEGOR HARBOR. XICHIGAX

In 3 Sheali Shra? No.! 1 Scolr ai Foal

'US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT C

APPENDIX 4.0

MDNR RESPONSE TO CITIZEN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE FIRST MUSKEGON LAKE

REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN PUBLIC MEETING 2 AUGUST 1986

Citizen Concerne .at the Muskegon Lake AOC Public Meeting

Muskegon City Hall 2 August 1986

Two years ago our dog swam in Ruddiman Creek. Its black coat has turned grey except for an area of its coat on the back that did not get wet. Also, we recently put our 12 foot aluminum boat into Ruddiman Creek just downstream from Ruddiman Pond and went into Muskegon Lake located about 100 feet downstream. After fishing in the lake, we returned home via Ruddiman Creek and put the boat onshore. We noticed the bottom of our 12 foot aluminum boat eventually burned black. What is causing these problems in Ruddiman Creek?

As to the specific conditions causing what was observed, there is no obvious explanation. One of the purposes of the RAP will be to identi- fy problems and possible causes of degraded conditions in Ruddiman Creek. In response to your request, an assessment survey of Ruddiman Creek has been recommended for 1987.

Last year Ruddiman Creek was milky white for one and a half days. There are some industries located there. What was the source of the problem on Ruddiman Creek and the lake?

A review of the District Pollution Emergency Alert System log for 1985-86 indicated no complaint was received involving a milky white discharge in Ruddiman Creek and Muskegon Lake. Such incidents should be immediately reported to the MDNR by calling a toll free number 1-800-292-4706. The cause may be related to conditions described in the next question.

What was the impact of last year's gasoline spill in the Ruddiman Creek area?

Existing records indicate a loss of gasoline from a broken pipeline reported to the MDNR on February 22, 1986. The discharge from the pipeline went into a tributary of Ruddiman Creek. The owner company put in a containment dam to reduce the loss of gasoline downstream to Ruddiman Creek and Muskegon Lake. They also repaired the pipeline. Recovery of the gasoline continued until August of 1986. Impacts of the gasoline loss occurred in the receiving tributary but none were observed in Ruddiman Pond nor Muskegon Lake according to District staff.

What about the tank farm and the old gasoline problems there? Wells west of there were found to be polluted. Are the tanks monitored?

Several tank farms in this area are lirted as sites of environmental contamination as per Act 307 (Michigan Environmental Response Act of 1982). Some of these sites will receive additional monitoring to determine the extent of the problem and define remedial actions. District staff can be contacted for current information (616-456-5071),

We were at Mosquito Creek two weeks ago and found it full of algae and L

were unable to catch any fish. There were extensive growths of cattails clear down to the river and beyond that interferred vith our f ishing . Mosquito Creek, a designated coldwater stream (supports trout), has undergone a definite biological and physical change primarily due to the dircharge of 20-50 million gallons per day of treated wastewater from the Muskegon Metro System. Erosion and sedimentation of sand from different portions of the waterrhed have also reduced the depth of the stream channel. The Muskegon County Wastewater Treatment syrtem began discharging to the creek in 1972. Since then about 800 acres of second growth bottomland hardwood tlmber located along Mosquito Creek has changed to a mixed brushy marsh, characterized by extensive growths of cattail, burreed, martweed, intersperred with pockets of open water , choked with submergent pond weeds. The presence of the vegetation provides protective cover for the fish, but at the same time, makes it difficult to catch fish.

A 1986 MDNR fish survey indicated a good brook trout population just downstream of the facility'e discharge. Trout may not be supported a mile downstream because of the shallow marsh characteristics the stream has taken on since 1973. Plans to divert the Muskegon Metro discharge from Mosquito Creek to the Muskegon River are being developed. Addi- tional stream and wetland surveys in the area are reemended to better define what habitat is available and what type of fish populations are present and best suited for existing conditions. "t With the increased number of hourer in the area of Green Creek, there are rtill no sewers in the area. Why?

n\;rkegon County Health Department officials indicate that existing saptic tank rystems are adequate for the Greek Creek Road and Green Ridge Subdivision located near Green Creek. There have been no demon- strated problems that justify the expense of sewering the area.

What arear of the waterrhed are not sewered? How can we get these syrtema on rawer ryrteme?

Please refer to Figure - to ree those areas that have sewers. Not all area8 require rewering since there are no demonstrated needs to jurtify sewering. Coat is another deterrent.

There are problew in the South and Mlddle Branches of the Muskegon River. Ten to fifteen years ago elevated quantities of sediments were releared when the Newaygo Dam was removed. Flyash from Consumers Cobb Plant was also discharged into the lake. The only reason we now have access to this area 'is becuase the high water levels have caused a three inch rivulet across a marsh but we don't thinkthe walleye can get through to Muskegon Lake. We would like the MDNR Fisheries Division to review this problem area.

MDNR Fisherier Division, Grand Rapidr District staff, have indicated that severe sedimentation of the south and middle channels has occurreL

but that there has been no documented .impact on walleye or other fish populations. Dredging the area 'would be expensive.

Q. We are concerned about Bear Lake. The lakp is so polluted now that there are no fish and no fishermen. We used to catch trophy fish, especially black bass, and no one is doing anything to improve the situation. This pollution is going right into Muskegon Lake. We used to get the limit of bluegills caught within a half hour and for perch too. On Lake Michigan the perch were solid. My grandchildren caught 75 fish in one and half hours, all over 8 inches.

R. Fish were collected from Bear Lake and Muskegon Lake on 29 October 1986 to determine levels of organic and heavy metal contaminants. The Bear Lake fish community contained numerous largemouth bass, northern pike and carp. All species looked healthy at the time of collection. Large carp contained PCB concentrations (average of 3.7 ppm) that exceeded the Food and Drug Administration action level of 2.0 ppm. A 18.5" (47 cm) largemouth bass (1 of 10) contained 0.7 ppm mercury that exceeds the Michigan Department of Public Health action level of 0.5 ppm. (Another individual from Bear Lake, who attended the public meeting, indicated that he has recently caught numerous bluegills in Bear Lake.) Bear Lake's maximum depth is about 15 feet and may be susceptible to oxygen depletion during periods of ice cover.

Q. What do we know about storm sewer discharges into Muskegon Lake?

R. Ruddiman Creek, Ryerson Creek and the 11th Street stonasewer are typical of those in the metropolitan area that receive stormwater runoff, industrial noncontact cooling water and other nonsanitary wastes (Figure 3-14). City and County officials indicate that sanitarj and industrial process wastes are discharged to the Muskegon Metro WTF. Discharges to the stormswers are considered localized problem areas but will be proposed for investigation as part of the actions indicated in the RAP.

Q. What should we be doing about local problem areas such as Story/Ott?

R. Became informed about an issue by talking with MDNR district staff and share your concerns. Inquiry into the matter of concern and support corrective programs.

Q. With StoryIOtt Chemical Company being one of the worst contaminated sites in the state, what are we doing? What can the local area do to get same attention on this seriour problem?

R. This site is already receiving attention from both the MDNR and U.S. EPA. A detailed work plan was authorized by the MDNR (January 87) to define essential actions that will effectively drawdown and/orintercep- the contaminated groundwater plume from the site and prevent the venting of contaminated groundwater to Little Bear Creek. The MDNR directed project is to eliminate existing degraded stream conditions. U.S. &PA is directing a project that deals with developing a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the entire rite.

What is being done about StoryIOtt?

A contractor is presently developing plans for a system for intercept- ing and treating the contaminated groundwater plume that discharges to Little Bear Creek. $400,000 has been allocated to address this partic- ular issue. The plans are due this sumer. The parent company is demolishing the rtructures and removing holding tanka from- the area of the now defunct facility. Total cleanup of the area is dependent upon the allocation of Superfund monies.

We didn't know that we needed to write to our congressman about this Superfund legislation. Who do we contact about this?

This question arose at a time when there was some doubt about Coagress providing further financial support for Superfund legislation. The Congress did provide fuadlng to be used to clean up sites that are highly contaminated. For more information, contact Congressman Howard Wolpe 's off ice in Kalamazoo (616-385-0039) . Why are the ponds on the leased bow hunter's property purple?

This past summer (1986) a MDNR biologist microscopically analyzed samples of this purple material collected from the subject ponds and concluded the material was primarily Anacystis, an algae that was growing on the sedimants. Tbeir presence is often stirnulatad by elevated nutrient concentrations. L Several years ago we called the MDNR and news media about a pool of oil from some leaking pipes. W o uncapped oil wells were found. Two weeks ago theme were still there. The oil spill is still leaking and not capped. What is going to be done about this and when?

This particular leaking well has not as yet become an immediate candi- date for plugging. Programs administered by the Geological Survey Division (CSD) of the MlNR reportedly have low budgets and such re- rourcer are allocated to those projects that are adversely affecting drinking water wells or rurface waters. Please contact GSD Grand Rapids District staff at 616-456-5071 for more specific information.

Row are ve going to achieve total improvement in the lake as a whole from now on?

R. By defining existing problems and cause(s) then developing and imple- menting round corrective mearurer. This is the purpose of thisRAP. The lake har been greatly Improved over the past 10 years. Our collec- tive effort ehould be to maintain those improvements.

Q. From the City of Newaygo and downatream, what are we going to do to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen from the river?

R. First, it is necessary to deflne what are the acceptable loadings within the watershed, the major sources and then reduce loadings (nonpoint andlor point rourcer) in order to further improve the water quality of Muskegon Lake. i d

The 1973-74 EPA studies identified nitrogen as the limiting factor. We hope that in the next few years that the nonpoint source programs, which are now in infancy, will be designed to look at this problem. We support Clean Water Incentives Program to sponsor watershed projects.

Since the reduction of municipal and industrial discharges to Muskegon Lake in 1973, phosphorus has become the limiting nutrient and, there- fore, the major nutrient requiring control. Through the control of point and nonpoint source discharges, we are able to achieve desirqble water and habitat quality in Muskegon Lake.

West of Ruddiman Creek there is a spot in the swamp which does not freeze and has rainbow colors. There is a spot next to our place, a ditch, vhere it is all brown and rusty colored and high water has put the lake water back into this creek. There appears to be a dump and a Marathon pipe there. Is this a pipe station?

An inspection of this is proposed as part of the remedial actions developed for this RAP. This will involve Grand Rapids District staff (616-456-5071). A sutvey report will be sent to the requester once completed.

We object to Muskegon Lake being taken off the Area of Concern list at this time. Muskegon County has more hazardous waste sites and ground- water contamination problems than any other area. Furthermore, sedi- ments are contaminated in the lake bottom. These may be localized but they are hard to deal with. Combined sewer overflows are another area we are concerned about. What is going to be done about combined storm sewer overflows?

The purpose of the remedial action plan (RAP) is to initially define problems that are causing impairment of Lake Michigan, Bear Lake and Muskegon Lake. If there are demonstrated or suspected impaired uses, corrective remedial actions will be defined and implemented, if possi- ble, to restore those uses.

The car ferries from Ludington used to dump ashes into Muskegon Lake every day. With 300-400 passengers, they also dumped sewage into the lake.

It is now illegal to discharge sanitary waste and other materials from a vessel into the surface waters of the state. This includesthe Great Lakes and Muskegon Lake. Better onboard waste management facilities and practices have helped reduce the frequency of these discharges to Lake Michigan.

The big storm sewer on Ruddimaa Creek has a great potential for pollu- tion and should be monitored frequently.

Investigation of Ruddiman Creek in proposed as part of the remedial action plan. The impacts by storm water runoff on Ruddfman 'Creek should be assersed and appropriate corrective measures developed and implemented.

Q. Is the 7,000-8,000 foot brine injection disposal well still in opera- L

tion in the Laketon Township area.

R. The Harris Oil Company deep injection well is to be used to dispose of brine contaminated water purged from brine contaminated aquifers for which Harris Oil Company is allegedly responsible. This MDNR directed program is to rehabilitate shallow aquifers that are nov contaminated with brine. The MDNR has requested the Attorney General's office to file suit to force the cleanup.

Q. We need to change a law so that our wastewater system cannot accept any toxic materials. How are toxic materials being monitored in our wastewater treatment plant?

R. Our society is dependent on the production of a wide variety of prod- ' ucts that result in the production of toxic by-products and process wastes. These process wastes are required by municipal, state and federal law to be treatable by the receiving waste treatment facility. PerPlit limits to protect aquatic life and human health are required and developed for each surf&ce water discharger by the State of Michigan. Monitoring program assure that a facility is in compliance. In turn, the treatment facility has to limit the amount and types of waste it receives in order to meet state and federal discharge permit limits. Industrial pretreatment program further reduce the discharge of process wastes to the wastewater treatment facility.

Q. Why would any government agency permit any chemical plant to locate right next to its greatest water resources?

R. This has been a learning process for government officials, scientists and general public. Water is an essential component of most mnufac- turing processes. There ir a natural tendency to build facilities where water ir readily abundant and available for production and process waste disposal. At one tippC it was thought that "...dilution of pollution was the rolution..." and would limit the Impacts on surface water rerources. There has been a tremendous chanee in that philosophy due to rcientific findings, a better infomed public and gwernaental offici.ls and a demand to improve the quality of our environment. The federal Clean Water Law of the early 1970's was implemented and provided the tremendous financial assistance essential to rupport program8 directed towards cleaningup and protecting our surface waters and the Important uses they provide. Treatment technol- ogy has also Improved due to public demands to protect and Improve our environment.

Mort of the pollution problems arising from chemical plants are due to past practices and occurred at a time prior to man's knowledge about the toxic effects of discharging process wastes to our lakes and streams. Today, strict mnicipal, state and federal regulations and procedures provide assurances that environmental degradation and use impairments are minimized or prevented.

Q. Ryerson Creek by Farmers Market is filthy. Where does the filth come f ram? L

R. Stormwater runoff from the City of Muskegon is a primary source. Investigation of Ryerson Creek is recommended to determine conditions, probable causes and necessary remedial actions.

Q. Out into Lake Michigan there is a heavy mudline. This must be coming from Muskegon River and Lake. Why is it there?

R. The mudline most likely results from sediments and solids that are . discharged from the Muskegon River into Lqke Michigan. The material settles out and accumulates along the near shore due to wave action and onshore currents..

Citizen Comment: Eleven to twelve years ago there were no fish stories. It used to be acceptable to just discharge waste right into the lake, but attitudes and practices have changed. Even if we remove Muskegon Lake from an Area of Concern list, we want it to be kept on a "continu- ing concern" list.

Citizen Comment - We think that wastewater treatment system is doing a good job but we have a long way to go yet. We want the MDNR to look at nonpoint pollution sources in the entire basin. We want a clear, clean lake. Muskegon Lake is a precious resource and we want the MDNR to continue its work in the right direction and improve Muskegon Lake.

Citizen Comment - The State of Michigan is in the process of upgrading its water quality standards and everyone here should support this effort. Tougher dissolved oxygen standards will help the sports fishery and other steps will be taken to improve nonpoint source pollution. We encourage everyone to support the Part IV Water Quality Standards. (The upgraded water quality standards were adopted in 1987.)

Concerned citizens must take an active part in improving the environment of the Muskegon Area by keeping state and local officials informed about environmental conditions in the area. The MDNR Pollution Emergency Alert System toll free telephone number is 1-800-292-4706. This number can be used to report observed envirollmental problems of concern.

APPENDIX 4.1

MUSKEGON LAKE AND TRIBUTARY WATER SAMPLING DATA

[WMSRDC (1982) AND MDNR AUGUST 1986 AND MAY 19871

HISIC. lake Bear lake Ibrldlmant. Ibddlm Cr. W. Lake Litt le bar Llttle Bear Statlm 3 Statlan 5 . Sta. 11-2 Sta. 11-3 Sta. 1-1 Creek Creek Water Winurt Uater Water Uater Sta. D-1 Sta. 0 3

Virter Vater FERNMlR (rlem (-11) ( r ~ m ( 4 ) (d 1 (%/l) (rlem

H E S A R C N W. bka Bear lilke R~ldlrol~T. R~*ldllanCr. H&. ldre llttle Bear Uttle Bear Statlon 3 Statlcn 5 .Sta. 11-2 Sta. 11-3 Sta. 1-1 Crd Creek &tet Sedllnent Water ' Water Vater Sta. 0-1 Sta. D-3

Vater ' Vater I'NW IQ1.H (w) (d) (~1 1 ) ( ~ 1 1 ) (w/U (%m

610?? SOT STATION 2lHICH 610229

0 10229 AC04150.0 L1 4: 15 22.5 086 18 08.5 2

RUSKEGON LK-SOUTHYEST BASIN; RUSKEGON TY? SEE 26 26121 RICHIGAN MUSKEGON MJ BASIN: LAKE RICHIGIW 082700 MIN BASIN: MUSKESON RIVER 0302 21HICH 04060102003 0002,070 ON ITYPAIAMBHTILAKE

DEPTH 70 INOEX RILES

HUSKEGM LAKE IN RUSKESON COUNTY. 70 FEET DEEP BASIN LDCATD IN SE PRRT OF LAKE 1300 FT OFF TIP OF PENINSULA AT S.D. WARREN PAPER CO. INLETS-9USKEGDN RIVER THROUGH THREE CHANNELS AT E END, RYERSON CR. AT E END, RUDDIMAN CREEK ON S SIDE, BEAR LK CHAMEL & GREEN CR ON N SIDE. OUTLET-CHANNEL (IUSKEGOII RIVER) TO LK HICHIGAN AT WEST END. CITIES OF WSKESOW AHO N. MUSKEGON ADJOIN LAKE ON S, E AND N SIDES. ACCESS AT IUSKEGON STATE PARK ON NW SIDE OF LAKE.

5 SARPLE 6) 36 OBSERVATION(S) 13 PARAHETER IS)

PERIOD OF RECORD - 67104110 THROUGH 18/04/17

ENTER PARH CODE, 'NEXT STATION*, OR 'ALL' ALL b 10222, IICo4150. 0 43 !3 22.5 086 !8 08.5 2 IVZXE60N LK-SOUTMEST HSIN; RUSKESON TIP SEC 26 26121 MCHISAN HUSKEWN MJ BASIN: LME RICHISAN 082700 RIN BASIN: llUSKE6ON RIVER 0302 ?lMICH 04060102003 0002.070 ON ITYPAIMBNTILRKE

DEPTH 70 INDU RILES

PARAHETER NOBS 10 HATER TEllP CENT 4 n nnusp SECCHI INCHES t

300 DO RGIL 3 400 PH SU 4 410 T ALK CllC03 RGIL 3 605 DRG N N M I L 3 610 WH39H4- N TOTAL ffi1L 3 620 N03-N TOTAL M I L 1 630 NO2M03 I-TOTAL H61L 3 b65 PHOS-TOT 1161L P 4 900 TOT HARD CAMS M I L 1

32209 CHLRPHYL A U6lL 1 ?0507 PHOS-? ORTHO M/L ? 4

ENTER PAR5 CODE, 'NEXT STAT IMI*, OR 'ALLm

MAX 7.8

72 12.0 8.00

130 0,470 0.017 0.200 0.47

0.060 140 5.9

0.020

STORE? Syst ea

END-DATE 38/04/17 78104117 70104117 78/04/17 ?8/04117 79/04/1? 78104117 67lO4I 10 78/04/17 78/04/17 67104110 78/04/17 70104117

Table - Analytical results for a Huskegon Lake water quality survey of 12 August 86. in the vicinity of the southwest basin. Huskegon County, HI.

a IkcchI Disc U l w q h y l l lot11 k t b o Wi t r i te l l t r r t e l u o n i a Kleldrhl l o t r l BIntolved

Depth In). D.0. l r r n p r r ~ t y 1 fionphorun Phosphate l l t r o g m W1 trogen HI t rogm MI trogen 8011ln Uolldn r I f t l I C I l q l l 1 rlW (ug l l I l q l l 1 Ieg l l1 lqll) leg l l ) Irg11I l r g l l ) l e g l l l Iylll

a represmtn a l ~ t h t m p n l t r l n w l e f r r the n u h r t o a urlru8 depth equal t o 2: the Sectbl Disc rrrdlng. K 8 lktrrl valee l e r r t h m the b t c c t l o n level i nd l c r t d . I 8 t r r t e rroant detectel. Y Valw r rpo r t t d I e I ran t h r lowent v t l r e r r p o r t r b h nnlrr '1' t 0 d h

Table - Analytical results for a Huskegon Lake and Bear Lake water quality survey of 6 Hay 87. Huskegon County, HI.

II.5 IWI 12.3

APPENDIX 4.2

MICHIGAN' S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE 57 (2) GUIDELINE LEVELS

FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

JAMES J BUNWARD. GOVWW DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

- 7 I Y Y L ) r l m r o mom w

L v Y k Y Y g )

TO: All Interested Parties

FROM : Paul D. Zugger , Chief Surface Water Quality Division

SUBJECT: Rule 57(2) Guideliae Levels

The Rule 57(2) Guidelines state that the most recent calculations of vater quality-bared levels cf toxic substances.developed pursuant to. the Guidelines shall be compfled on an annual basis and be available for distribution by Februarp 1 cf each pear. The folloving list is in ful- fillment of that requirement, and is complete as of January 27, 1987. The values are subject to c h g e as new data or information becomes mailable.

Pule 57(?) Guideline Levels are utilized in makina water qualitv-based permit recotumendations to tbe Water Resources C~mmission concerning toxic substances in the surface water after a point source discharge is mixed with the receivin~ stream volume specified in R323.1082. These levels do not represent acce?table ambient levels in all waters of the state, nor do thev represen: or reflect necessary treatment-based con- siderations.

This list is infomational ooly and is not a mechanism to establish vater auality-based permit limits. It Is advisory in nature and not meant to be binding on mvone.

Water quality-based permit :imitations for toxic chemicals are develoved pursuant to existing procedures by staff in the Great Lakes and Environmental Assesment Section using the R323.1057(2) Guidelines and appropriate scientific data.

Questions concerning this list should be directed to Linn Duling, of the Great Lakes a d Environmental Assessment Section at 517/335-4188.

Arsenic C.dmlur ChrORiur C o ~ m r Cyanide Load Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc PCB DDT % Carbon tetrachloride * Phenol, 4-chloro-3-met41 Aniline % Acetone Chlorofora % Eexachloroothane % Bentone 8 Ethme, l,l,l-trichloro Mt)ylone chloride 8 Ethylene oxide 8 Ethtlone , 1 , 1 -dichloro 8 Eexachloroc~clo~ntadlene Propaae, 1,2-dichloro Trichloroethjrloae 8 Pentrchlorophonol 2,4,6-Trichlorophonol S Dinorob Naphthalene Bontidino, 3.3-dichloro S Bmzidina 8 Silvex Benzene, 1,2-dichloro

vPhenol, 2-chloro tthrlbenzene Styrene 8 Bonaone, 1,4-dichloro Phenol, 4-chloro Ethmo, 1,2-dibroro S Acroloin Ethane , 1,2-dichloro 8 Acrrlonitrile 8 Toluene Chlorobonmne

v Phenol Bis(2-chloroethoy) methane

C1.88 Class Class C1.88 Clras Clarr Class C1.88 C1.8~ Class C1.88

50 56 59 62 67 67 67 71 71 75 75 75 77 78 7 8 87 86 88 91 91 92 93 8 5 95 100 100 108 108 108 101 101

13 CRV b, 51 TLSC : 120 ACV I 430 ACV I 56 CRV I

2.2 C. 100 AC. 71 ACV i d

230 ELSC 4.6 TLSC

I Bule 57(2) Level a CHEMICAL N W CAS Nfm33ERi Non-Drinking Water @ I

I

I I Value (ug/l) Basis ;

--.------------------------------------------o--------~---o----------------~--g .............................................................................. Eexachlorobenzene i@ 118741 1 0.0019 CRV* : Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro 120821 : 22 HLSC Phenol, 2,4-dichloro 120832 t @exp(O.3589*pE+3.395)/13.95 ACV : l,4-dioxane 123911 360 ACV ; Tetrachloroeth~lene i@ 127184 1 20 CRV : Ethylene, t-1,2-dichloro 156605 : 90 TLSC* Benzene, 1,3-dichloro 541731 1 20 HLSC : Xylene 1330207 ; 40ACV : Di-N-propyl formamide 6282004 1 63 TLSC ; Mercury, methyl 7439976 1 0.0006 HLSC : Ammonia (Coldwater) 7664417 1 20 ACV Ammonia (Warmwater) 7664417 1 50 ACV : Chlorine 7782505 : 6 ACV I Chromium hexavalent 18540299 1 6 ACV 1 va I d\br& d 20.6 cRV

b N BS:

$ - This chemical is regulated as a carcinogen. The Rule 57(2) Level is not necessarily based on its 1 in 100,000 cancer risk value.

* - Professional judgement was used - minimum data not available. ACV- Aquatic Chronic Value TLSC- Terrestrial Life-cycle Safe Concentration HLSC- Human Life-cycle Safe Concentration CRV- Cancer Risk Value CAS = Chemical Abstract Service Number

0.83(ln 8)-4.84 Exponential equations: e.g., @erp(0.83(01n(H))-4.84) = e

where H = Hardness (mg/l) l.OO5l(pU)-3.661'

e ~xp(l.O051*pR-3.6617)/4.6 =

4.6 where pH is in Standard Units

APPENDIX 4.3

MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA FOR SAMPLES COLLECTED

JUNE 1972, 1975 AND 1980 AUGUST AND DECPiBER 1986

AND MAY 1987

Table - Ilurkeqm Lake analytical rnalts for sedirrnt r r g l n eollrctrl 12 August U ir the vicinity of Telrlya~ Continental Motors l t m u e Strnt facility) at the m t h of Ryasaa Creek. kskeqm Courty, Rl. Valwa on a hf mlqht basis.

K 8 irlicatn v a l w u, l n a thu thr l m l oi dWctim iJicrtad.

Table - Muskegon Lake sediment sampling station coordinates for the 8 December 86 survey. Muskegon County, MI.

Depth Latitude Longitude Station m (ft) (deg./min./sec.) (deg./min./sec.) ......................................................

2 8.6 (28) 43 14 56 86 14 59 3 2.1 (07) 43 14 32 86 14 49 7 6.8 (22) 43 14 03 86 15 50 8 3.1 (10) 43 14 04 86 15 45 12 12.3(40) 43 14 23 86 16 48 15 15.1(49) 43 13 42 86 17 37 17 7.1 (23) 43 13 16 86 17 51 18 12.3 (40) 43 13 18 86 17 42 19 13.8(45) 43 13 23 86 17 15 22 11.4 (37) 43 13 55 86 18 49 23 17.8 (58) 43 13 15 86 10 30

"Bank Point" Light Tower 43 13 49 86 17 24 (navigation light) ---- Coordinates derived from USGS topographic maps using a Numonics (Model 1220) digitizer.

Source : John Wuycheck M)NR/SWQD March 87

Station 2 Statla 3 Statin 7 Station I Statin 12 Station 13

total W i h (11 53.9 744 25.3 42.7 1s. 8 14.0 W e l l OIm kWd IqIkq) W e 0 23000.0 100000.0 110000.0 M e 0 330900.0 Kje1191 l Imlk#) 2100eO W 170.0 2100.0 5500.0 11W.O n00.8 total ~(IOICLOOPI Imlkq) W 290.0 ZJO.0 710eO 1100.0 WOO.0 2300.0

#&ti or 22 Station 17 Statim U Stattan 19 Station 21 (Sample I) ( W l e 2) Stat ir Z

I r C l r I - k r l l l i t a l r rsu l ls I w Ilrstrgon Latr sediunt samples co l lcc t r l 0 Betember Ob. Iluskrqon Counll, HI.

RB ~r lws l a n~mlheses mie k l v d f r n a l l We4 sanples IW#US wt swle mthadl ta mhtria 8 l w u l e t n t h li8tt. In IIIV 81 conwaicrtlml

Table - Analyt ica l r esu l t s f o r Bear Lake sediment samples co l lec ted 6 May 87, Muskegon County, M i . Values reported on a dry weight basis. Source: MDNR

Parameter Stat ion Stat ion Stat ion

1 2 3

A l d r i n ( PPb ) Arochl o r 1 242 ( PPb ) Arochlor 1254 (PPb) Arochl o r 1 260 ( PPb )

*Arochlor 1016 ( PPb ) *Arochlor 1221 ( PPb ) *Arochl o r 1232 ( PPb *Arochl o r 1 248 ( PPb ) *Aroch 1 o r 1 262 (PPb) *Arochl o r 1268 ( PPb

g-BHC (L i ndane ) ( PPb *BP-6 (PBB) ( PPb )

a-Chl ordane (PPb) g-Chl ordane ( PPb ) 2-Chloronaphthal ine (ppb) 4,4'-DDD (PPb) 4,4'-ODE (PPb) 1,4'-ODT ( PPb ) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) 1,3-Oichl orobenzene (ppb) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ( ppb) Heptachlor ( PPb) Heptachlor Epoxide ( PPb ) Hexabromobenzene ( PPb ) Hexach 1 orobenzene ( PPb ) Hexachlorobutadiene ( ppb) Hexachl oroethane ( PPb ) Methoxychlor (PPb) - M i rex ( PPb 1 Pentachl oroni trobenzene( ppb)

*Toxaphene ( P P ~ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb)

O i 1 and Grease ( PPm) K 20 73.3 Kje ldhal Nitrogen ( P P ~ ) ** ** Total Phosphorous ( PPd +* ** Mercury ( P P ~ K 0.5 K 0.1 Selenium ( P P ~ ) 1.9 0.7 Total Sol ids (%) 11.3 25.6

* = Seldomly encountered; repor ted semi-quant i tat ively. * = Results no t ye t available. K = Values are less than detect ion l eve l s indicated.

APPENDIX 4.4

MUSEGON LARE AND TRIBUTARIES SEDIMENT DATA (WMSRDC, 1982)

r

L

Figure - Muskegon Lake and t r ibutary sediment santpling stations during 1979 through 1981 survey by the WMSRDC. (Source: WMSRDC, 1982).

* a.

s!UI E H~sk. I.& HI&. I& HI&. Lake H&. Labe W. Lake W. IAe hdc. lake W. idce n&. ~ d c e SMI'IM Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. C Sta. I Sta. L Sta. J Sta. K Sta. C-1.

Sedirrent Sedlmt Mimnt Sedlmt Sallnmt Sedinmt Sedirrnt Sed k m t Sedln?nt PNWJ I:ITI~ ( w k ) ( ~ 4 3 ) (WW (&Y ( n r c k ) (~whe) (~ne/ke) (wn(B) (wh~)

Ni I I i lot i i.~m ic k i d

Pi lrcnd~le Meside M m - f i l te~al) Ia Resiche 'r~)tall akgiII1i~ ~ A ~ I C N I

O i l 6 (;ICIW 820 lux) 160 4n 41Y) 4 10 1U) - 3 0 12aI H)isttre (X) 56 67 14 26 32 n 28 33 2!j

$ ti~slumlul ! h l i c l ~ * 't't)~ill l ) ismIwl Sdi&

- . . A - -- -

!?J(I'I E b k . lake ilk lake Hrsk. lake Hrsk. lake )(ud<. I& )(ud<. laire W. lake tb&. Lake M. ldce s ~ A T I ~ I /J Grid I /J Grid I/J Grid I/J Grid IN Crid I/J Grid IN Grid I/J Grid I / J Crid

Sta. 1A , Sta. 1D Sra. 2A Sta. 20 Sta. U Sta. 3D S b . 48 Sta. 5A Sta. 4A Mlnrer~t Sdlnrelt S e l i ~ ~ t S e l i ~ a t Serlimat Sd immt Scxlllnent Sadiamt Willlent

I'EJVJ KIUI (Ilrrb) ( w h ) (%/kg) (@kg) (Wkcg) ( I l r rm (Igk) ( ~ h ) ( m e w a

SI\HII E h k . lahe H s k . lake HI&. lake H&. ldce Htsk. l i ke H~sk. lake Hsk. Ldre Wk. Lakr )(rk. Lake SIXI'I~N' IN Crld I/J Crld IN aitl IN Grid I / J Grid I /J Crld I / J Crld I/J &Id IN Crld

Sta. 1A Sta. I8 Sta. 2A Sta. 28 Sta. 3A Sta. 3 Sla. 4A Sta. 48 Sta. 5A Serlllnent Srr l imt serlimelit %lilmlt SeJirrent Serlimt S u l i m t M i r e n t Sellmer,i

FAItCJ EI1.X (&to ( ~ql/klJ) kf i lJ) fig) ( ~ 4 ) (figfig) ( W h ) ( ~ 4 3 ) (r~/kg)

A I I I I f i I a at i t I i t I . 'Ilw Itiglttst ctrw:u~t~at icrl of cartinai~rwts d ~ r v e l at each stat Ian I s recorded here. A A A I : . ~ ~ ~ ~ i s IL~MII lul 111 p r r s per m i l l i m ( p p ) . Ekj tc : t;(r~cvs Id t I)l;uJc i d i ~ t e tlut IM, ~ c s t ws jle~~fcunml. wces with a Irylllm n-* ilrlicate r l la t a test cas perforad, h t the results prowl

IM ,!;tt i ve . (31-clal values ilrl itate p ~ t u b t i i l l ly OI~IIIIW~I ic ctrrmt lat itrs.

A A I tqtl iwtc s,uqtle u;rs collected at yleciticrl sratiua. Ilie higlwt ccrlcer~tratlon of caltlvlinants observed at each statlan Is recorded here. ~Ah:;c~bic: i s r q m lul i t1 p r t s per ni l l i t r i (~qwr). I : I ; t i I i a t e I t I I s f ~ n . q w e s with a Iryflun O-* l~vlicale lliat a test was perf&, hut the results prwed

1" ~!,II IVI:. t : i ~ v I ( d V~IIIW i ~ m l i v , ~ ~ ~ ! ~ I I I W I iillly ~ I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ i t - C I N I I ~ ~ * I ~ I ; ~ ~ ious. f

A A It,~~li(..,lc :,,nq~)c u,ts co l lec te l at s ~ w i t i e l statjcrrs. lhe It i&t?s~ ccn ra t t ~a t i u t of ca l~ i n t i t r v~ t s d m 4 at Bach stat ion I s recorded here. AAAr:.twiv i s ~LJIIII 1111 i n p r t s per m i I I i t t ~ t (I~III). I : hrl(... h:~ t I,l,udi iw l i r i ue IIIII IN, 1cs1 MIS 1r.t toc~~rr l . Spwes u i~ l t a I r y 1 4 ~ ~ -" Ilr l icirte t l u t a test \kls p e r f o d , htt the rear i ts prwerl

l h I : (+ . t : i ta . Icv l V~II~WS i ~ w l i w c 1~1ttwI i.tIly p r t d ~ l t ~ ~ t t i a : a ~ ~ ~ w ~ t ~ t t t ~ t t i t " f c *

SNJM E Hsk. lake H&. lake M. Ldce H A lake W. lake Hd. Ldce W. Ldce W. lake W. Lake sI'AI'I~ I/J Gr id I / J Cxid I /J Grid IN C r l d K Grid K &Id K Grid K Grid K Crld

Sta. W Sta. 6A Sta. 68 Sta. 78 Sta. I Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Wimlt %limw~t Sulinent S d i n m t Sd l~nent Minent '!hJlmmt Sedimm t Saliamt

IMN KIM( (nghe) ( n c m k ) (Wkg) (n\r/kg) (wfig) (muM ( ~ 4 3 ) (rgW (wW

Ni I I i lo1 i i;wl it: &:It1

AA IIi.l~l imct. !;wqdc ws rol l e c t u l at s p w i Clul s t i l l itra. llu I d ~ I w ~ t c t rw:u~l tat icm ot c t r ~ t i u n i t t i ~ ~ t ~ dl6etvaI a t dl stat la1 i s recortkd Irere. A b h : . t 11it: i s I ~ X I I l t d i n ~ I I - ~ S PI' m i l l i f w (ppn). Eh,tt!; :;~,Iv,-; L:tc I11,wk I t m l l w ~ t ! IILII IM) I~**;I w; IWI I~IIHBWI. !+IvI~:; wit11 .a IIV~IIU~I II~III~;III~ t t s t ~ ~ ! r h ~ t n n ~ I lntt teswlts pmd ~wgat lve . C I ~ r l t d

v,~Itn-!; i ~ d i t . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ IU I I I,II l y 111 t h I 6 s m 1 1 i c t w m u t l I.II IINLS.

SAHlV E )(rslc. l& H&. I& H&. I& W. Ldce HI&. Ldca H&. Lake H&. lake Hsk. Ldce &. ldre SI'A' I~N~ IN Grid I/J Csid I/J G r i d I / J Grid K Crid K Gr id K G r i d K Crld K G r i d

Sta. 5B Sta. bA Sta. 60 Sta. 7U Sta. I Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 ' Sta. 5 Saliment Str l lnwlt f: rllment Sediment W i m e n t %li~ent Sedlnent S e d k n t SeJ1.ent

PUN ElFR (llrmfig) ( W h ) tfil~/kl!) (%/kg) OR&) ( w ~ B ) (r(l/ke) him (~k )

IIL-pIic.i~tc e m y h wds c o l l e c t 4 a t speci f i tx l s t a r i u s . 'Ille l~ig l rest c m e s r t r a t i a ~ o f c a l r a r i ~ w t s oketved a t each s t a t l m is reconled Irere. ""A !..mi(: i s I ~ I I I I tcxl 111 p11 IS (MX m i I I im (~ym). thtt:: ! i rwcs MI I~liuk i ~ r l l c a ~ e t l u t IMI test u t s ~ r r t o ~ n r ? r l . !5pi?cc.s v l t h a Ir)lJm "-" indicate test p r f o r m l l m ~ t results proved -the. Cl rc led

VAIIM-; huIic.,t~t! p i l m t i.11 ly 1~111Idtnu1 i t . m ~ w t i t t l i t @ i m s .

& A Ih.ldit;~tt! r;wtq~lc was cnllecterl at s p t ~ i f i u l s ta t ias . 'Ilw l ~ l g l ~ ~ t ctrlctstt~atlan nf cattirni~mtts dlservarl at each s t a t l m is recorded here. A A A I ~ t 1 1 i t : i s IL~IIM I L ~ i t t parts per m i l I i tm (14~1). &I,:: .';(\Iws I~II I)lak i ldicate l l u t IN) test \~;lr petfo~nml. Sptcc?l; w i ~ l r a I ly lJm W-* in l icate test p r f o d lmt results proved negative. Circled

v.tl~w:li i ~ m l i m c ~ r ~ l u l t i a l l y lu t h l t n u ~ it: t . t ~ ~ . t N ~ i ~ t itrs. P

A A Itlq)l icatc s;un()Ie v i collectal at s p x i f i t r l statiirls. llre Irlglest ccnrentiat l tr~ of cunti~~tti~mtts drserved a t each station I s rerorded lwe. LV.1 .;,,ltit. i s I~:~I)I t a d 111 pitrts per mi l l itm (ppn). th811.: a; l~l~~l-; 114 I III,II& l~mlIi.,btc~ I ~ I I I W tt-.t wm; p !~ ttuwuvl. ! i w e - ; wi lh ,I l ~ y l d u i ~ II~III~.III: II**;I IICI t t ~ m d In11 i e ~ d t s pr-1 nqpthc. (:Ireled

v . I~ I~* : ; i ~ d i t , ; ~ t e lxb tu~t i ,~ l l y ~ I A I I U I ~ I I ic ~~~IIM:UIII,I~ iws .

A A lb-y~licutc sn+ wis collectel at s( l~vl f iu1 staticra. 'Ihe l ~ i & e s t cmlcurtra~itrr of cmtmir\acrts dwrverl at ead~ statla, i s recorded here. AAAtxj~ie is I ~ U I 1-1 it1 lmrts per m i l l i m (lqw). k l c : Splw; k t ( $ l i~ lk ildicate that m I tst prfotnerl. qkre?; uith a lw!hen n-n IrrlicDte test p r f o d h l t r e d t s p c d negatiw. Clrcled

v , l l t ~ i~rlic;tle polurtially ~ ~ u l ) l c m ~ c ic: ctrlcuttritl i c m .

&XI-i A . r t i m o f W l e Stat Ian locatia\s

Smq~le Statlar C ws located i n tire v lc ln i ty of a fonner ar face water disdmrge to H d q p lake f r m the! S.D. &rrm Paper MU, nrv a Dlvlslan of 1111: :ict)t t I?qr?r Gq~wry.

Sryde Statiun I was located i n the vlcirrity o f dre l lartslmn Marirra, the nev YKX, ad the former Hichlgar Fadry ad Sylply Crrpany. l l r i s s ta t im was posit iu& s l rc i f lca l l y to evaltute tlre potential contr i lnrt la~ o f pollutartts Craw tlre Wiv l s lm Street* storr sewer.

w a~ Suy~le Stat iat I. was located I n the p r a l v lc in l ty of tlre faner City of NMth Hn iqp~ Sevalp Treabnent Plant, a former solid waste drp, a d i n

tlw i q ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( i ~ l \ t ~ . atea Aere f l y aslr plrl water i s dlsclmrged ly die B.C. Cdh Plint. f

Ssq~le Stat im J w s located i n a b y at-ea o f H&wgtn lake a!)acent to tlre H l c h l p FanJty Supply Capany..

.';aqde !;littiat C-1 rrcls located In Hdlycrr l a k e near the S.D. Vanen Paper H i l l .

Sl.11 i t r ~ 2 vis I rwatd at the eastern ad of the lake.

S ~ W V E S~ATICIJ ikarI.de H m H d q m ' IJ t t leBear l t t l e b r I.lttleBear bar &r hdalan Sta. P River River Craek Creek Creek M e lib Rmd Sediemt Sta. B-1 Sta. GI Sta. D-1 Sta. 0 2 Sta. D 3 P Grid-% P Grid-3b Sta. H-l

Strlinl~t Sdinmt Sedlms~t Strlimmt !blinent Sedlnent Sedlamt Sedlamt P f i . I:IUIS ( m u ) (%fie) f i g ) ' (rgfig) (wf ig ) (wf ig) (rg/kg) (rg/lrd) ( ~ g f i a )

I)iethy l Il~lloliate IN-I) wtyl lhldiate 1,2.l)il4w~yII~It-ilri1a Ihwtltyl I l~tlk~latc Fllut i ~ l ~ l ~ e

~ I~ I IUI I t Y l e

~IL::.;wIdtn wyc lq~3lrtimIlene I1rkru~(I,2,3-ccl)~yl-ule IvqJw)lcru El~l~~l~lluIuw? tli Ilcllwr~uw? N I I ~ I ~trt;trli~Jluiyliuni~~ Ilw.rru~ll~~uw? I'yt tl*?

t1111:: : I I i i ~ I I I I S I . !+res vi lh a r .YI .-* idIrare t1.t a lest uu p e r f a a d , but the r a t l t s prna . . . . .. . .. a . .. a . r

wars sr~qcrc Ihddim~r T. Rud~llnw Ryernr~ H d u q p H d w g m Wegm )ClskPgm Ilalrmgn Sta. 11-2 Creek Creek River Rlwr Rlwr Rlver Riwr W l m t Sta. 11-3 Sta. K-1 Sta. L-1 Sta. 1,-2 Sta. L-3 Sta. U Sta. N-1

Sedlamt Stdinrent Sedinent Sedlnerrt Sediment Sedlamt . Sedlmt PEJVIJ WMI (~h) (ylfig) (who (w&) (-fig) ( 1 (5&)

*)le Statiat A was locatd m b s q ~ l t o Creek i n d i a t e l y h t r e a r tram the tU'W pnrl t ted d l h r e llsed by the~ Courty k t a e t e r tLuL~aur l systrn (1.

Srylle Stptiaa C 4 . C - I -re locaterl I n a bedt water area of the tWcegon Rlver adjacent to the focner City of Y h s s a y

S q h Slaticrt D r r ~ s located an an t r r d t r l h ta ry to I.lttle Bear Creek I n an area 4uxe granhater m l e s have bear shnm ty I lNt as cmtmlmted h t m mstes asstr latd vltlr the forner Story/Ott O d d Car(lany (now tla Cordma Ole*lcal Calwy). %Is chmlcal aorpany 1s located m Agard Road, less tlliur a r l l e ~ m r t h t of ! hp le Statla1 0.

!b111le Statlat II vas locatd I d l a t e l y cklMlstrem frm lhrlllnan Pond jtrrt prior to I t s dlrclmrge to Hrdre(pr l h . Ilrddlm Rard Ha at the Pnd of ,I r t j o r u t lu t srohr sewer netmk s e r v l ~ ~ llle Cltles of H-n arrl thrdcegar lleights.

Sqde Stilticn H ras located at the wr~l l r of t l a south lwinrh of tlre thdrega~ Rlver damstrean of the m y Qap, the Qlarterline Ladflll, t l a 'I'elirlywCtrrti~wttal Hotors Cetty Stmet Plant NFllES pe~nltted didurge, as dl as a l l other upstre# pollutant s~uce9 a n t r l b u t l ~ to the kkgm Iliwr wlers ld .

Slydo Staclw 11' uas selectd as an altenutlve to R- Pl- T I m l e Statlm D. m l e Statlm 0' rras located m L i t t l e llear t h d c jarst , clr~titrcsrn hem I t s carflaltrre v l th t le so alld t ~ l h r t o r y . ~ 0 4 I

!iqh Statlat Ernas located m k r Creekdmmtrear f r a I t s canfl~lerrevith H t t l e k r Creekand throdmmttea fm Sta t lm~ ' . m l e s t a t l a r E \AS j r ) ~ i t i t r d to help assess tlre extent of cmtirlrratlan aenatlm f m lla fomw Story/Ott Olerical tkqmy and i t s asaclated sltes.

!inc(da Staticra 5 srl P vere located An Dear at the a r~ t l r of L l t t l e Bear (2eek d tas Intended as a Eurthcr delineatlm of irpacts associated with llr Sttwy/Ott Cfltwical m. S y d e Stirticr~ R1 was l m t e d a l q the south k w h of the t h d q m River at (Ire p l n t \Alere the TeledyneCantlnental Hotors Cetty Street P l a t qr3ittes i t s HlIES p d t t e d disdrarge.

Snplc S t i r t l r r~ 11-1, 0-2, anrl 0 3 were a l l located l ~ t the l l t t l e Oear Creek raterstrad a d vere l n t e d d to help JetemIra the extent of pllt~tlm u~rur t t l ry ( €tan tlre fornrr Story/Ott Ore*ital tbqlany.

S q h !i~,tcltrts II I, 11-2, awl 11-3 ore l~rltsrkrl to dl f fere~t late b e r m trllwtary cattr l lrrt ial of pollutants to Rddlnn W.

Sm(11c. Stiltitrt K - 1 m s located an Ryerscrt CI-edc, Jnwrrtrecn frrn sewial stmn sever attfalls.

Ni t r l lotr.lucct i c Acid

M E S A T I U 4 B e a r I A t h p l t o Htskegon Idtr leBear ihdrlilwn Mqp tkihqp~ l t t l e l l e a r BearCteek Sta. 5 Creek Rlver Creek Creek Rlver River aeek Sta. E Stdinrent Sta. A Sta. C Sta. D Sta. I1 Sta. ti Sta. 8 Sta. D Sedlnent

serliamt Serllnrent Serl imt Saliamt Sedlamt S e d l m t Sedlmnt PAIWEI1.R (@@fig) (r~/ke) ( ~ / k g ) (43fi8) ( ~ l g h ) ( ~ / k e ) (fS/kg) ( ~ / k s ) (~h)

W,:pIic.,~tc snq~lt?s were cnl lectul at stat l a w A, I), mrl H. l le I t l & s t cmcentratim of tile cmtalnimts dlsecved a t each s t a t l m I s recot&l here. thrll:: !ip:c.c-; Ic l 1 l)lsk iculicittc 11111 tw IIS~ w s IWI t t r tnul. qracrs with a Ity$trt '1-* icvlirate tlrat a test uas perfond, lut tlle renclts in-c.4

,rl>tl ivc. Ci l c lul valtris itrlicatc luttutr i d l y I,I tAilemtic ctr lctm~at itrs. f

~ I ~ q ~ l i c ; t ~ c .;m(~lrs were collectal at rtatiurs A, 0, sr l H. HE I~igllest curcnttatfon of tllr cantaainmts dervd at each stat lm is recorderl here. I : S ~ W I S left Olak ia l i r - te tlr;rt IMJ test ms (el f w ~ ~ l . !ipuw w i l l \ a lvyllrerl *-* lnllcate that a test was perfond, but the readts p r o d

ive. C i ~ c l a l valws i~wli t i~le ~ ~ U I I h l l y ~ I ~ I ~ U I U I h: cmtca~tmticnts.

. r ("

APPENDIX 4.5

MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA (GLNPO , 1981)

Figure - Huakegon Lake sediment sampling sites on 26 June 81 Huskegon County, HI. (Source: Draft GLNPO report due Harch 1987)

V A R I I N C E S T A N O€V I A l l ) r U m C I W 1 W W 330000 338800

4900.000 4900-000 66O*O 660.0

3-10 3-10 l9OOO0OO t9OOOoOO

8100000 8100.08 200.00 200.80 800.00 800.00

8 4 0 0 04.00 L @ O 8- 00 8-00 8.00 90 80 5-00

100.00 108.00 6-90 6-90

Sb.00 so.00 84.00 04000

900. 00 900. 00 1.10 1.10

11.00 11.00 30 38

39-00 39.80 23.00 23.08

100.00 180.0@ 6-60 60 68

8 1 0 0 ~ 8 0 8300.00 16-00 16.0@

21000.0@ 21000.00 1.98 1.90

1 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~ 0 0 8 140.000 I bO08OO 20-oao 20.ooe

160- 00@ I&@- 808 30.000 300000

200 208 460 468

4000 4-00 2.00 2.00

34-00 34.00 1.1000 1.1000

MEOIUM WAVE R WATEI WITER WATER WAVEI MATCI U A t E l UATER

mus11-01 43 14 24.0 086 18 09.0 2 NU SECIION OF L L l E NEIR WIOOLE OF LAUE 261 2 l MICMIGAM *USRECON LAUL mICH1CAM on2 TOO MUSRFCON 1115CLSB 121016 04060102 MQ

0039 FEET OEPTM

VhRIAMCE STAN OEV MAKIIU* 12.00000 3.464100 14 12100000 3.464100. 7 1.334100 1.155000 2 5

11.8 25.0

04 260.00

210.000

00 3 006 006 Oel 009 009 1009 009 010 080 010 010 010 010 ,010 010 010 010 010 .I@ ole 010 01 I 01 1 on 1 el 1 327 34 3 34 3 34 4 39 1 39 1 435 45s 4 ss 455 TOY 70 3 11 9

? a n a m t t t ~ m t o r u m I9 COO MU0 OR1 MCT mC/UG MATER !7 UJCLOL M 101 MU 0 OG0 lC M R I E I 11 ?nos nuo oar M ~ I m c r a c - r u r tm IS CTLWIDC S C O ~ C / R C 011 wt uawn , r CA *UO OR1 MCT )IC/IC-CL M l t E 1 !4 mc m u o OW MCT mtmc-nc M a t t e I4 UA )IUD OR1 MCT )IC/UC-MA WATER 8 I MU0 OR1 Y C 1 )IC/UC-I M I I l FR 10 b A MU0 ORT YCT ( r 6 / IG -b1 MITER 3 I wo OR1 MCT m c / u c - 1 MATE1 I1 CO mu0 OR1 MCT mC/IC-Co MATER

I8 CO )IUD 011 MCT WCIUC-CO MRTER 13 COPPER sEO)IC/IC O R I MCT M a l t a I2 L E A 0 StOll(;/(lC 0111 YCT WATER 19 MU rmo o w ucr m w r c - M W wrttr 13 (10 MU0 011 M C I MC/UC-NO MATtR 18 WICREL SEOIIC/UC OR1 MCT WATER '0 S I L V E R SEOIC/UC 011 YG? YRIER 19 SR W O OR1 S T W/U6-SR MLTER 0 V MU0 O n 1 MCT RC/UG-V M ~ T E R 13 ztm S E O ~ W U C 011 wt M~IER IY T I U mo 011 st mG/aC-su MATE1

13 11 mu0 ORI ucr ~CIUC-LI M L T ~ R '0 r e mu0 O W M C t )IC/UC-CE M L l P R 11 PttEWOLS SEOcH/lC 011 MCT MLT tR I9 OLTNPHTM S E W W U C OR1 Sf MAILR I9 BtWOOSUL SEOUC/IC OR1 UGT MAIER 18 T E T C L t 7 E SIEBOC/UC OR1 y b T MATE@ I2 m2E ?H7H WO-OR1 UC/ IC MATE R 2 we P n t n wo-oar uc/rs w r w 4 Y t T R I U l S t 0 -1 MCIMC/aC MITER

1) H )I1It& WOOEL INFO. MLIER 6 cc O~IEC TOR TVPE taro M A ~ C R 1 CC cotumu t l ? E Y L I E R 0 RtS !WE TO lML PERCEM? ML IER 2 R L S I b U E TOT VOL PERCEMT MATE1 1 M R C U R T S tD)IC/UC OR1 N G l MhTCR

"ORE1 R E T R I E V A L 0 A 1 E 8 6 0 1 1 / 1 9

C I R I M E T E l II 0 0 3 3 9 COO W D OWV MCT mC0KC MA1 0 0 6 2 7 I J E L O L N TOT W 0 I)G/ IC M A 1 o o u o ?nos m u o ORV ucr rw~c-• ~ 1 1 O @ 7 2 1 C V A N I O E S E O I C 0 I C ORV M6T M I 1 00911 C A MU0 O I I MCT MC0KC-CA MA1 0 0 9 2 4 nc auo O R 1 ucr W~/IC-nc urr 0 0 1 3 4 MA W O ORV MCT MC0KC-MA Y 1 l @ a 9 3 0 K MU0 ORV MGT n C 0 1 6 - K MA1 0 1 @ 0 8 O I MU0 O R 1 M G f WC0KC-OA MA1 01011 C O W O MET MCTM C0UC-CO MA1 I 0 W O ORV M 6 1 R C 0 I C - b MA1 0 1 0 2 8 CO MUD ORV MGT nC0aC-CO M I 1 O l @ 2 9 CWROMIUW S t O H G 0 I C 011 UCT MA1 0 1 @ 3 0 C O MU0 011 YCT m60IC-CO M a 1 0 1 0 4 3 COPPER S E O I C 0 K C 0RV M C I MAT 0 1 8 5 2 L E A 0 SEOWG/IC ORV MCT MA1 OIOS~ IM wo ORV MCT MC/IC-MN urt @ 1 @ 6 1 MO W0 O R 1 MCT WG0KC-M0 M I 1 01068 M~CIEL S~OMC/IC o w ucr MAI 01010 S I L V E R SEOMC/RS ORV M C I M A 1 0 1 0 0 $ 1 W0 O R 1 M C I MWKC-SR M a 1 @ I 0 0 8 V MU0 DRV M C 1 mC0KC-V MAT @ I @ 9 3 Z I N C S E O I C 0 I G D R 1 MCT MA1 0 1 1 0 3 T I M W O O R 1 MCT W V K C - S N MAT a1108 AL rmo o ~ i wcr ~C/IC-AL MAT 0 1 8 9 ) L I MU0 ORV YCT W C 0 K C - L I Y 1 T @ I 1 1 0 F E MU0 O R 1 M 6 I @IC/IC-FE M a 1 3 2 1 3 1 PWENOLS SEOMC0KG DRV M G I MAT 3 4 3 5 9 8EWOOSOL SEOUC0KC ORV MCT M a t 3 4 4 1 0 1 E t C L L T C S E O U W I S O R 1 Y6T MAT 3 4 5 1 9 I l 2 2 T C L E SEDU60RC ORV UCT M a 1 4 5 5 1 4 V T T R t U I SEO Ol lV MGI(IC0KC MAT 4 5 5 t 5 CC M I U € & ROOEL I f 0 M A 1 4 5 9 1 6 CC OLTEC 1OR TVPE I N F O M I I 4 S S l T CC COLI 'AN T l C E W I T 7 0 3 1 8 R E S I D U E TOTAL PERCENf M I 1 t o 3 2 2 RLSIOUE TOT VOL IEWCENI urr 7 1 9 2 1 WERCURV SCOMC0IC O R 1 MCT V L 1 T O 1 9 4 TO ICMLWO m € T H l N E O SEOUC0IC MAT

PC#= INVFMT w u s e l - o 9 (Statim 9)

4 3 1 4 12.0 0 8 6 I 5 41.0 2 M U S I ECOM 26121 n ~ c n t c r n nusn EGO* LIKE n t c n ~ c r n 0 8 2 1 0 0 l lUSIFCOW I t l S C L S b 8 2 1 0 1 6 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0001.910 ON

0 0 1 9 F E E 1 O E I T M

EWO O41E 81/06/26 01/06/26 81/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 81/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 @1/06/26 01/06/26 01 /O6/26 01101/26 81/86/26 01/06/26 . 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/@6/26 01/06/26 01#06126 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 81/06#26 01/06/26 01/06/26 81/06/26 01#06026 01/06/26 81/06/26 81/06/26 01/06/26 81/06/26 01/06/26 81/06/26 81/06/26 81/06/26

P ~ ~ I I ~ E T L R I I 3 0 1 P r P a 0 O 7 SEOUC/UC OR1 Y C I Y 4 1 I 3 1 1 P r P ' b 0 0 S E O U C 0 I 6 O R 1 Y b l YAW I 3 2 8 P.P'ODE sEOUC/UC OR1 YCT WIT , 9 4 3 fOHC-MU0 L l W O I N l DRVUC/UC Y L 1 ,983 P C O - I 2 4 8 IPOUG/(IC O R 1 YGT Y 4 1 I S 0 7 P C B - I 2 5 4 S € D U C / l 6 OUT Y C l Y 4 1 1101 H C ~ srouc/rc our u c ~ ur1 ,I11 6-CMLRDW )OD UC/KG Y4T 1 S l 4 1 l T R I U W S t 0 O R 1 Y C f N 6 / 1 6 Y 1 1 1 s t ~ cc m a r s noocc rnro. urv is16 CC OETEC TOR T l P E I N F O WIT I S 7 1 CC COLUMN T l P E Y 4 1 I 3 1 8 R E S E W € t O T 4 L PERCENT Y 1 7 I 3 2 2 REStOWE t o 7 VOL PERCENT Y L 1 9 2 1 l L R C U R 1 SEOMC/RC 011 YCT Y 4 1 I194 T R lCHCRO WE THIMED S EDUC/KC N I T

V I W I 4 N C E S T A N OEV MAXIMUM 1 4 - 0 8

1.00 1.00 2.00

s3.00 l S . 0 0

2.00 1.00

0.0000 1 4 I

2 5 43.4 16.0

0 2 2 0 1 0 9 8

2 6 - 6 6 36 0 90

400.00 I I . 0 0 0

110.000

PICE: 36 n u s o l - 1 4 (litation 14)

4 3 14 43.0 0 0 6 15 20.0 2 MUSREGOW 2 6 1 2 1 M I C I I C A N WUSRE601 LAIE W I L ~ I C A ~ 0 8 2 1 0 0 M U f l( EGOW I I I S G L S I 8 2 1 0 1 6 0 0 2 2 F E E 1 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 OEPTM 0006.520 OW

r a a r n E w a 1 3 3 9 COO I U D O R 1 U C 1 MC/16 M 1 I 6 2 1 I I E l O L W I O T rcU 0 M C / I C M I 1660 ?nos MUD DII MGT MC/IC-• ur n z t cvamtoe SEDMC/RC ORV MCT u1 1911 C A mu0 O R 1 MCT IC /UC-CA MA I 9 2 4 MC MUD oat YCT mc/RC-n6 MA I 9 3 4 *a w o O R 1 M 6 1 MC/UC-NI Ma 1930 1 M U 0 O R 1 M C l )rC/RC-U M 1 0 0 0 OA M U 0 O R 1 M W R 6 - O A MA 0 2 3 0 W O O R 1 MCT M W I C - 0 MA 0 2 8 C D WWl 011 MCT n t / I l C - C D MA 029 c n r o m t ~ c r stowc/rs ORV ~ C T ur 0 3 0 CO M U 0 O R 1 M C I MC/U6-CO MA 0 4 3 COIPCR s t o w w r c ORI MCT MA O S 2 L E A 0 S E O R W I C O R 1 U C l MA 0 5 3 #OW W O O a l WCT M W S C - I W M 1 0 6 3 I)O L U O O W MCT MC/R6-MO M 1 1#40 W I C I E L StOMC/U6 @RV MC1 M 1 l a l o S I t V E R SEOMS/IC ORV Y G 1 M 1 o sa auo oat WT nc /a~ -sa YL 000 v mu0 oa1 YCT MC/ IC-v Ma 1093 I tM SEOMC/@C O R 1 YCT MA 103 T I N MU0 OR1 M G I I G / I 6 - S W MA 100 AL w o ORV MCI mwuc-m ua

1 1 3 3 LI m u o OIT UCT ~CIIC-LI YA

1 E o I U m I E l IER 1 FR rEa 1 ER / € a IER /El) I C I ton I t l 1 € 1 IER I E l , € I ICR IER IER IER tca IER I E I ' € I ' e a rER 'ER

NUIIOER CEIW 1 l 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 840 .0000 1 1 6 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 1.100000 1 30000.00 1 l lOOO.00 1 100 .6000

MATER MATER M A l E l M I T E R M A l E l M I T E O MATER MAT E l M I I t I M I T E R MAI f a

0RV M6T YA YCT11&/IlG MA INFO. YA I N F O MA f VCE MA PERCENT Ma CERCEMT MA

O R 1 Wf MA SEDUC/KC YA SEOU6/KC YA SEOUG/KC YA SEDUG/KG ua YGTUG/KC WA

I E o l U n IER IER 'ER ' E l 'ER ' E l l ' ER 'E(l 'ER 'ER IER ' € I I f R

W U S 9 I - 1 4 4 3 I 4 43.0 0 9 6 I S 20.0 2 W S I P G O N 26121 WICMIG~N WUSI~GON L A K E W I C M I L A N 0 9 2 1 0 0 HUSIEGON 1 1 1 5 6 L S 8 8 2 1 0 1 6 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 OOO6.SZO OW

o o z i FEET OEPTM

n 0

0 x C' I O C

0

n * a = s n * s W e D B O

It t r 'I a- C C O t

0 0 o m c 0

~ m u m m ~ ~ ~ m w m ~ m k k m r k ~ a ~ . ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ i u o m ~ m m u k r u m 4 * * 0 9 m o * . 0 0 . D e N O e U k * *. W k Y . u . . * - 0 - 0 . * a *

8 & f f ~ ? P b P ~ f b b ~ b ~ b ? b & : b : f P b ~ Z o " ~ ? ~ P ~ S ~ o " ~ S ~ O O O ~ O O O O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O O O o o m * O O O O * . o m 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

w a ..I w s m

(I) 4 l z 0 m

k - m u u t w v m r O m - u o * w

k J ( u * * O Y Q 0 k r m m - W O O - 0 - I m * 0 0 0 Q Y 0 0 O m O m e N * N u r n * u - 0 0 0 0 & 0 * M

u l . . . . . l ~ 0 * 0 O o H k w * * O O Y * O u 0 O O 0 0 0 k 0 ~ 0. r r r U * O 1 0 0 0 0 0 * . . a .. . a . r a . . a . a a * . . . . . . O O O C O O P " * O O O 0 0 O O O * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PARAMETER 39903 PC@-I240 SEOUC/RC 39S01 PCB-1254 SEOUWRC 39101 WCO SEWC/IG 45914 VITRIUM SEO OR1 w m s cc n m r ~ nooEL ass16 cc orrec TOR r v r t 45571 CC COLUMN to310 REsrout TOTAL 10322 RESIOUt 1 0 1 VOL 11921 nERcuRv sEonwrc TOTSO OIC~LOIO nefmnt t o o 0 1 cnavsEne BNZO~NIH 01940 fiWTIPWEN SEO ORV

OR1 YCT ORV YC1 ORV Yb t

WCl~C/KC INFO. I NFO TVPE PERCENT PERCENT

OQV YC1 SEOUC/RC SEOUC/RC W6TUC/I(G

(IEOIUM WAlER WATER WAVER WAIER WATER WATER w r E u YArER WAIER WltER WAIER Y4TER WAICR

RMI( NUMBER 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I

nusol-IS 43 14 33.0 086 16 n u s t t m w 26121 n t c n r c m LAIF MICHIGAN nusa EGON 1115GLSI 821023

LEAN VARIANCE 65.00000 T5.00000 2.000000 9.200000 0.000000 1.000000 23.00000 23.10000 16.00000 .~000000 11.10000 450.0000 340.0000

04060102003 0005.910 OW 0036 FEET DEPTM

STAN OEV MAIIMUR 65.00 15.00

2 900 9.2000

0 1

2 3. 23.1 16.0 . 5

11.10 450.00

340.000

two o b r t 81/06/26 01/06/26 *1/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 01/06/26 91/06/26 81/06/26 a1/06/26 8 I/O6/Z6 01/06/26 01/06/26 01 /06/26

APPENDIX 4.6

MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN FISH SAMPLING DATA (WMSRDC, 1982)

-

W I I E SI'ATIW ti&. lake Hsk . I & e Bear lake Bear W e 1.t. Bear Lt. llear H&. M e Hlsk. M e kt M e b r Ldo B m Ldca Sta. 1 k a . 1 Sta. 5 Sta. 5 Creek Creek Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 7 Sta. 7 Sta. 7 B l t q i 1 1 Ilrrllllerul B l t q ! I 1 b t l l ld Sta. 0 2 Sta. 0-3 Urlte V. Sudter Pllre lhso Rfd Horse thpsites ~ m s l t e s Caqmsrte Ccrrpsite Sctrlpin Sculpin Slrker -ite I SudLer

I~CIU)IFIFN (-fig) (why) (wfig) (ryfig) k g (wW (~rgfilo (caafig) (wW ( d a ) (nghg)

APPENDIX 4.7

MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING DATA

(MDNR, 1986)

Table - Muskegon Lake tiah contaminant monitoring data for flsh collected 20 October 86. Huskegon County, MI.

I u c r t f a t 2.0 2.9 4.3 1. I 1.1 1.4 4.1 1.1 2.3 2.0 1.2

L h IbJut )uy l lc r Ia l )ulut Leq th tcrh k t g h l tpl: k: t

L.N. h s c L.N. Bra8 1.. a s L.I. Bea 42.1 44 37.n U. z I766 IW I616 LOW

F F F F

1 3 n l

L.I. h a s U.b fit6

F .-------------- I 6.061 1 6.6083 I 6.01 I 6.601 I 6.661 1 6.Wt 1 @..@@I

1 6.604 I 6.662

6.613 6.W

1 6.W 6.6U

6. I 6 6.613

1 6.W

I 6.604 I k.64

6.13 I 6.1

1.4

L.I. h a s lb.3 I26 I .----------

I 6.601 1 6.0061 I 6.661 I 6.601 I 6.461 1 @.OW1 I 6.601

r32n run

I. Plbr Y

12s. I -----------.

I 0.002 I 0.0003 K 0.003 K 0.002 1 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 . w 1 0.002

i Table - Bear Lakc fish contaminant monitoring data for srmpies cd lected 29 October 86. Huskegon County, NI.

values on a wet weight basis.

~ a b . Number : 65237 65238 65239 65240 6524 1 65242 Sprcies: L.N. Bass L.N. Bass L.N. Bass L.N. Bass L.N. Bass L.N. Bass Length lcm): 47.5 40 38.5 34.6 34.2 32 Weight (gm): 2120 1200 980 760 740 580

Paramet er Sex : F H H II F ?

Cadmium

Lead Nercury Nickel Zinc -

--

luglkg) K 10.0 (uglkg) K 100.0 luglkg) 600 luglkg) K 100.0 luo/kg) 670.0 luo/kg) K 100.0 !uglkg) 8300

Lab. Number: 65243 65244 65245 65246 65247 Species: L.N. Bass L.N. Bass L.I. Bass L.N. Bass N. Pike Length (cr): 30 29.6 35.5 31 70

L Parameter Weight (pm): 460 390 600 460 1800 scx : F n N N F

Cadmium luglkg) Chrortw (uglkg) copper luglkg) Lead luglkg) Rrcury (uglkg) Nickel Iugikg) Zinc itlgikg) --

Lab. Number: 65248 65249 65250 65251 65252 Spules: N. Pike N. Pike carp carp carp Length Ltr): 56.6 58.6 %. 5 ?Z 69.5 Yclght (gr) : 1250 I120 2350 300 5900

Paramet er Sex : F N I! N F - - Clldrium (uglkg) K 10.0 K 10.0 K 10.0 K 10.0 K 10.0 Chr~mlw luolkg) K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 Copper luglta) L 400 500 1300 (1300) 100 500

C Lead Iuglkg) K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 lkrcury iuglkg) 100.0 290.0 150.0 120.0 100.0

? Nickel (uplkg) K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 K 100.0 Zinc (uqlkg) 9900 14700 9700 (8600) 10600 14100 -

23 1

Lab. NurbW: 65253 65254 65255 65256 Species: CUP Carp Carp Carp Length h): 72.5 67 62 71.5 Weight (pa): 6670 4050 3970 7480

Parrrcter Sex : H H F F ---- --------+-------+ -+I---..--

Cadriur luglkp) Chroaiur (uglkq) Copper (uglkg) Lard (uglkg) Mercury (uplkp) Nickel (uglkg) Zinc luglkgl

K = Value is less than the detection level indicated.

Source: John Wuvcheck HDWWSHPD 27 hrch 87

hlhtllld h a h i c b l r l r a t d p m t l c l h r KII I q l k g l

Table - Bear Lake fish contaminant monitoring data for fish collected 29 October 88. Huskegon, HI.

L1. ~ U I U237 hpl l r r t r t L Spr ln~ L.I. kmt Lqth lcrlr 41.S klgbt l y l t 2l2@ kr r f ----------------------------

U231 D

L.I. kr 41.3 2IH

F .---------- I @.MI 1 @.Me2 I 1.m K @.MI K @.MI K @.WI K kt42

U2II D

L.I. ktr 0

la8 I ----------.

1 am2 1 0.0644 I kMl I 8.m K @.MI 1 @.ow 1 LM2

ba239

L.I. ktr ID. s m

I .-------------- I 8 . w I 0.w I @.MI I @.MI K @.MI I LMI K #.MI

bat0

L.I. h a s 14.1 1u I -----------.

I 6.01 I ..MI I kMl I @.MI K @.02 I CWI I @.MI

bJ2lS

L A Data U.3 bM I ----------.

I @.@.I I @.MI I kW I @.MI K LW I @.MI I @.MI

APPENDIX 5.0 MICHIGAN'S NPDES PERHIT DEVELOPMENT

PROCEDURE

SURFACE WATER QUALITY DIVISION PERMITS SECTION

Procedure No. 1

Title:. NPDES Permit Issuance Sequence

The NPDES bermlt istauaxice sequence below describes the several stips which must occur from the time a permit application is received until the permit is issued. The times allowed for various reviews are the best present estimates of the shortest realistic review periods. They assume a controlled rate of facilities entering the process. In other words, the response times could not be met if all permits on the expired backlog were put into the process at once. The NPDES permit issuance schedule, contained in Permits Section Procedure No. 2, explains the plan to systematically enter permits into this issuance sequence. Because of that procedure and current program plan priorities, processing of individual applications for permit reissuance may be delayed so that a controlled rate of permits enters the process. However, all new or increased use applications will be processed when received.

The following distinction is drawn between a "first draft permit", a "draft permit", aad a "proposed permit" in this procedure:

"First draft permit" means the permit draft sent out for pre-public notice review under Step C-3.

"Draft permit" means the permit version which is public noticed.

"Proposed permit" means the permit version which is presented to the WRC with a recommendation to issue.

The steps in the permit issuance sequence are as follows:

A. Application Review

1. Applications are sent directly to the Permits Section by the applicants and are logged in. The appropriate Unit Supervisor will determine if the application is scheduled to be processed during the fiscal year in accordance with Procedure No. 2 and current program plan priorities. If not, the applicant will be informed under item 4(c), below.

If the application is to be processed, the Unit Supervisor will review it for administrative completeness. Concurrently, a copy of the application is sent to the appropriate SWQD District Office for review. The District Office has 20 days* to foward conments on the completeness and accuracy of the information in the application and to provide any additional comments on site acceptability, recommended special conditions for the permit or compliance problems that should delay permit action. District

complents should be put in writing; however, informal discussions that might expedite the process are encouraged. Note: District colplnents on compliance problems or site unacceptability may be followed by a division recommendation to the Water Resources Commission to deny the permit.

*All response times are in calendar days. t

A monthly list of applications received is sent by the Permits Section secretarial staff to the Environmental Enforcement Division (EED). EED forwards colpments to the Permits Section within 20 days on any eaforcement actio~/probleu that should hold up permit action. Note: This may be followed by a division recommedation to the Water Rerources C ~ i s s i o n to deny the permit.

'

Withfn 30 days of receipt of the application, the Permits Section will notify the applicant as to the status of the application. The letter will state one of the following:

a. The application is acknowledged as administratively complete and the applicaat is informed that it has been assigned to the appropriate pernit unit for processing. The applicant is also informed that during the processing of the permit additional information may be requested if it is deemed necessary to complete or correct deficiencies in the application. This letter starts the permit issuance "clock."

b. The application is determined to be incomplete and the applicant is informed of the deficiencies and is requested to provide the necessary information by date certain.

c. If, in step 1 above, the application cannot be Fmmadiately processed due to current program plan priorities, a cursory review is done to determine if sufficient information is provided for it to be considered .n application for renewal. If so, a "delayed processing" letter is sent to the applicant informing him of when the permit is expected to be processed. A copy of the letter, along with the application is also sent to the district office.

B. Effluent Limit Development

Once the application has been acknowledged as administratively complete, the respective Unit Supervisor will review the application to determhe if treatment technology-based effluent limits (TTBELs) aadlor water quality based-ef f luent limits (WQBELs) are needed. For applications in the three industrial units, the Unit Supervisors will assign the application yo their respective statewide specialists or other staff member for development of TTBELa . The appropriate technologj-based recomnendations will be provided by memo within 30 days, to the respective Unit Supervisor.

Concurrent with the development of the TTBELs, the respective Unit Supervisors will screen the application in accordance with the approved screening criteria to determine if it should be evaluated for WQBELs. The screening criteria will identify those groups of discharges that do not need formal WQBEL development because TTBELs will be more stringent or where it has been determined that standard WQBELs will be used. If it is determined that WQBELs are needed, the Unit Supervisor forvards a copy of the application, along vith a WQBEL request memo indicating the request type and the priority, to the Planning 5 Special Programs Section-Water Quality Studies Unit. The WQBELs are due 30 days after receipt of the request memo. Note: An extra 20 days will be necessary if new low flow information is needed.

3 . The completed WQBELs are forwarded to the appropriate Unit Supervisor who assigns the facility to one of his staff members for permit drafting.

C. Permit Drafting

1. The first draft permit is prepared by the unit staff member assigned to the facility within 15 days after receipt of the WQBEL and/or TTBEL recwrmandations. Permits Section staff will use its judgment to inform other staff members as appropriate of decisions being made during this time. For example, if the WQBEL or TTBEL recommendations require the inclusion of interim effluent limitations or compliance schedules, the Pennits Section will informally review these first with the District before the draft permit is completed.

Upon completion of the draft permit, the permit processor prepares a Basis for Decision Memo for the permit development file. The memo indicates the reasons for the effluent limits and/or monitoring requirements being selected for inclusion into the draft permit as well as explaining any special conditions and schedules of compliance. If a recommended effluent limir or monitoring requirement is not included In the permit, the memo should state the reasons why the recommendation was not used.

3. The permit processor sends the first draft permit, along with the public notice and fact sheet (if o fact sheet is prepared), to the permittee. The first draft permit, public notice, fact sheet, and basis for decision memo are sent to the District Office and any sections which made WQBEL recoarmendations. EPA receives first draft permits for major dischargers only; the packet mailed to EPA should also include a copy of the application, any WQBEL or TTBEL recommendation memos, and the Basis for Decision Memo. Comments on the first draft permit are due back to the Permits Section within 20 days.

4. The Permits Section makes any needed changes to,the permit and public notice/fact sheet within 10 days. Therefore, a draft permit for public notice is complete 75 days after the "clock" starts.

D. Public Notice

1. The draft permit is placed on public notice, vith a public comeat period of 30 days. (See Procedure Y13 - Public Noticing of Permits)

2. The draft pernit (with public notice and fact sheet) is sent at the same tlme to the permittee, the District, adjacent prcperty owners listed in the permittee's application, and any names included on the mailing list for public notice. EPA receives a copy of the draft permit, the public notice, and the fact sheet for major dischargers only. Also, monthly lists of all permits public noticed and all permit8 lasued are sent to EPA (these are from the monthly activity reports). For discharges to interstate wathrs, the draft permit and public notice is sent to any other states whose waters could be affected by the discharge.

E. Permit Issuance

1. The Permits Section resolves concerns raised during the public notice period and responds to co~lllpents received. I

2. The permit processor prepares the proposed permit and WRC informational packets. The proposed permit is placed on the WRC agenda for action. (See Procedure X5 - Preparation of WRC Agenda )

3. The WRC takes action on permit issuance.

4. The approved permit.document is signed by the WRC Executive Secretary. Copies of the signed origlaal are sent to the permittee, the District Office and EPA (all permits).

F. Timing

There should be no delays in determining wlthln 30 days whether the p e a t application is adapinirtratively complete. The permit issuurce "clock" cannot start until the permit application is complete, because effluent limit development cannot proceed without complete information.

The permit drafting should be complete within 75 days unless new low flow information is needed or significant disagreements arise between the Department and the applicant that require additional time for negotiations. An additional 30 days are required for the public comment period.

There may be delays in the permit issuance step. This final step will take from 20 to 35 days depending upon when the public notice perioda edr. (See Procedure #5 - Preparation of WRC Agenda). L

Several situations could rerult in delays in permit issuance:

a. Based on comments received during the public notice period, the draft permit may require extensive revision. In some cases re-public noticing is needed.

b. A public hearing may be required, again depending on comments . rweived during the public notice period.

c. The.WRC could object to the permit proposed by staff.

d. The final effective date of the permit may be delayed indefi- nitely if a contested care hearing is granted by the WRC.

e. If EPA objects to the proposed permit and a compromise cannot be reached with DNR staff, permit issuance may be delayed for up to 180 days. In extreme cases, EPA has the authority to issue its OM permit over DNR objection.

In summary, the total time from receipt of an application until issuance is approximately 180 days for a "non-controversial" permit. "Controversial" permits could, as outlined above, take much longer to issue. The permit issuance timing is represented graphically on the attached chart.

Approval :

M& £ &tLL Chief, Permits Section

do llm ore r4,14f& Date

A. Applic. Review

Permi t8

D l e t r i c t

Env. Enf.

B. Permit

N * R u m l U L w Pernit.

PSPS

CLEM

Dia t t i c t

1 EP A

Applicant

C. Public M t i c e

EPA/Dlmt . Applicant

D. Permit IPrucmce Permite

mc

NPDES PERMIT ISSUANCE SEQUENCE

APPENDIX 5 . 1

PRIORITY LISTS FOR EVALUATION AND INTERIM RESPONSE AT SITES OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION PROPOSED

- - --

SAS Screen Ccnnm Site We* 6 Lhte anrl Locat lm Cule Same of Polnt of Renruce Renxrrce

Corrlty Scrrxncrl andTdrlp Ccrttiumi~lat la, klerase Pollutant Affected Rotentlally Affected

Xylem Toltrerr Crourdwter &face Vater Zinc lead Berrzene Soil Etllylbene

Benzene C r o h ter Surface Water Tul~ene Sol l Flora Xy lene . Dmzene GranmSter N3ne Toluene Soil Xylene

Soroy 011 Rmsevelt Pk Petro ref lnlng 614FBJ-IN41BD Roosevel t Patk

Tank

ladom Ccmsmxs Plaffr IK Cdh Plant Cirs elec ut Ill ty 61-I(N-16W-l7C City of lbdqpl

lbavy Hfg Surface Uater Cmnduater

Old Clly of Hlslct.garr nmp I s u l t l l l 61-1(N-lW-17111 City of wskqon

RB Oil

Sorrrce of b l n t of. Resalrce llesarrce Cattml~ut ion . Release Pollutant Af fected RotmtlaUy Affected

Gas statlar thrlergrad Talk

lleavy Hfg . CramJuater Soil

nal Oil Craurkater Surface \later Sllll

Petro reflnlrrg 1-

O d l ty Fam a d Fleet 61 - I(N-1 N6ll) Cl ty of Hc;krbcm

Iran. '::eel Faruliy l an l f i l l Arstlc, I d , Sedlr~nt Soil Crase, f l m l s , SlrrfaceVater Faura t h b n i ~ n C r a n h a ter

---

SAS Screen C h m Site h e k

6 lh te anl Loeat im Cotle Soruce of Point. of Reslluro ' Resarrce ( i r r ~ t y . Screed a n l T d ~ i p Cmtanimtim Release PoLlutant Affected Potentially Affected

kracmda Inlustries Steel vice prod M r w q r a r d (Xesols Ihlergrarr l Organics Talks Solvents

61-1(N-lN-2% Laketm

Broahy IF 6 1 a - l b v - WsIqpn I k ig l~ ts

Brotm Rd N of UII 61-10s-UU-I0 War Creek

l d f j l l Landfil l Ouneotic Clrn Surface Uater Sol l Falna

te RMd ILllorarn Barrel lkavy Hfg

Jdmsan Rahlcts %led b r * * Ddne aqxmnt nfg Lagoon O i l and Crease Surface !her 6l-lU4-16U-3WUl City of W e y u 1

Systech Licpici Tteacitumt ( b q b + * C l l a prud lnfg Ahqramul 9dim Fornete Granduater 61 - ~ - l 6 W ~ U ) Tirk HIS~~UI~ I k t s

*llu? ctrtnrnl s i te me i s for i t l rJ~r i f i c l i l~ im a l l y and does mt necessarily inlicate a party reslnrrsihle Em cmtminatim.

Soll

GraugIwa ter

Cramha ter Sol 1

Crandvater

Cmnhrater

Soil

Source of Point of Rewurce Resource h~tar lnat lan Release Pollutant Af fected Pbtentlally Affcsited

I

Story Oadcal Co Ott Conbva O m Prahrt Hfg 61-llN-1W-UBC) lbl tm

Metal lrarduare nfg

aler Prod Nfg

Oler Prod Hfg

Cramhater ~ f a e Wr, Sedlmmt Sol l surface water

Resldentlal Uell

lbze~le Cr& ter Surface L t e r Toltlne Xy lulr

Cannm Slte b* SI?S (hnrty anl d locatlm Cade h u e of hlnt of Resour- Resarrce Score h t e Scored 4 Tarrrdrlp Cartarlmtlm Release Pollutant AEfected h t m t i d l y Affected

l'elalynt? Cmtlnental Hotors 61-1CN-l6U-16a: City of H s k q p r

bP"h 011, Benzene, Craduater Ahqrad To11 me, Sol 1 Tank, Plpllne Xylem

I~I~IUMI Orloroforr Perc Crarr lwter I l l'li-iclrloroetlrane klckrrt i a l Uell

Surface Vtr Sedlnent Sltrface Uater A1 r

thumkter J r k e Uater. Air

Source of Point oP ResuKce krmrce Cantidnatim Release Pollutant Affected Rotertlally Affected

Sol 1

Ibl tan M and M 120 Area Cas station urlerllmurb fkzmm2 61-laCW-22m T d T ~ l t ~ m llul tan wefie

Cralmhtcr Residential Vcll

.- lbratlm Oil ~ r d r t ; Tetmlrral 011 s t o w Pipeline R e l o i l 61-ION-16V-03M City of M ~ B

Surface Uater Grtrruhater Soi 1

Sol1 .Crandliater Resident lal Uel l Surface Uater

thmar Sl te b* S!S C~nrtty ad aul locatim Cork Same of Point of Resource ksa~rce %I~.c IWe Scored rul T d r i p , Cmlanlnatlm Release Pollutant Affectd h tent ia l ly Affected

L i t t l e Black Creek&* 61-09N-16U-3XYl - Ulkrulur

landf i l l

Steel vice prod

B o v l l ~ equip mfg

Qun Prod Hfg

landf i l l

\LI)UYNI

I d f i l l

Lagmn

Ihkrgramd Tank

SI r r f ace Disclrarlp

l a d f Ill

Cirhlu, (hmrlu, Surface Water Sedi F ~ M RBI bad, Arsenic, Surface Vater Nickel, Cupper,

Ikmstic Coln Ibvy Hfg

Cllen Prod Hfg C~arduater Surface Water

rhest ic Can (;r& ter Surface Vater am Pral Hfg Sol l

Snwce of Point of Resource Resuufce Cattanlnat im Release hllutant A€ Eected btentially Af fectd

A'lle ccmmm site ~rae Is for identlflcatlm udy ad does mt necessarily Indicate a party respmslble for cantinlnatlan. ~WI:~w:ls )Law I& N Cn W

APPENDIX 9 . 1

SURVEY FORM FOR MDNR NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

I*.

Y

APPENDIX 9 . 2

A LISTING OF AGENCY CONTACTS AND CITIZENS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

MUSKEGON LAKE AREAS OF CONCERN REMEDUUl ACTION PLAN

(AS OF JUNE 1987)

MDSaGON LAKE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

STATE GOVERNMENT CONTACTS

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

Karl Hosf ord Wildl i fe Division 6th Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-1263

John Scot t F isher ies Division 6th Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-1280

Tom Doyle Fisheries Division 6th Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 5 17-373-6702

John Trimberger Fisheries Division Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t Office 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-5071

Dave Smith Fisheries Division Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-5071

Terry Ringler Grand Rapids Area Office 3319 P la in f i e ld Ave., NE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 616-456-2361

Rick Taszreak Environmental Response Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-8248

Roger Przybysz Environmental Response Division Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-5071

Ron Waybrant Hazardous Waste Division Grand Rapid8 D i s t r i c t 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-5071

I rn ie Jousma Surface Water Quali ty Div. Grand Rapids Dis t r i c t 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-5071

Denise Gruben Environmental Response Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-4807

Linn Duling Surface Water Quali ty Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-867

Elwin Evans Surface Watt. Quality Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-2867

Diana Klemans Surface Water Quality Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dave Kenaga Surface Water Quality Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-4314

Karen Gott l ieb Office of the Great Lakes Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-4226

Thomas Martin Office of the Great Lakes Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-3588

Les Nichols Recreational F a c i l i t i e s Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-335-4828

B i l l Creal Chairman MDNR 316 Committee Surface Water Quality Division BOX 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-335-4181

Dan Morgan Land and Water Management Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-0208

Jack Butterf ie ld Parks Division Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-1270

Marlene Lies t ico Geological Survey Division Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 6 16-456-507 1

Mike Cote Geological Survey Division Box 355 Plainwell, Michigan 49080 616-685-6851

Larry Karnes Department of Transportation Urine Transportation Planning Unit State Transportation Building, Box 30050 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-373-9058

Michigan Dept. of Public Health

Harold Rumphreys 3500 N. Logan P .O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-335-8350

John Hesse 3500 N. Logan P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517-335-8350

Jan Koehler 3500 N. Logan P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 517-335-9186

NON-STATE GO- CONTACTS

Muskegon County

Ted Baran Environmental Health Sanitarian 1611 E. Oak Avenue Muskegon, Michigan 616-724-6244

Mike Vander Hauvel Muskegon County Health Dept. 1611 E. Oak Avenue Muskegon, Michigan 616-724-6208

Dick Maher County Planner 990 Terrace Street Huskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6446

Dave Fisher Muskegon County Dept. of Public Works 990 Terrace S t r ee t Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6411

Frank Bednarek Muskegon County Bldg. 990 Terrace S t . Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6211

Muskegon County Library 635 Ottawa Muskegon, Michigan 49443

City - N. Muskegon

Mayor C. Max Fleischman City Hall 1502 Ruddman N. Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-744-1621

Citv of Muskegon

Virginia Zugich, City Clerk City Hall 933 Terrace S t r ee t Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6705

Robert F. Hagemann, 111 City H a l l 933 Terrace S t r e e t Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6724

Rick Chapla Dept. of Planning and Community Development City Hall 933 Terrace S t r e e t Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-724-6702

Ruth Kirklan ' Hackley Public Library 316 W. Webster Muskegon, Michigan 49140 616-722-7276

Township of Muskegon

W i l l i a m E. Farwig Township Hall 1990 Apple Ave. Muskegon, Michigan 49442 616-777-2555

Township of Lake

Donald G. Johnson Township Hall 2735 W. Giles Rd. Muskegon, Michigan 49445. 616-744-2454

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Greg Mund S o i l Conservation Service 940 Van Eyck S t r e e t Muskegon, Michigan 49142 616-788-3492

U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency - Region V

Pranus Pranckevicius Great Lakes National Programs Office 230 S. Dearborn S t . Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60604 312-353-3612

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Carol Deboise Det ro i t District Army Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detro i t , Michigan 48231 616-788-3492

Pam Bedore Detroi t D i s t r i c t Army Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detro i t , Michigan 48231

Eark Graz io l i Detroi t D i s t r i c t Army Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detro i t , Michigan 48231

U.S. Fish h Wildlife Service

Bob Pac i f ic Eatst Lansing Field Office 1405 S. Earrieon Rd. E. Lansing, Michigan 48823 517-337-6650

Margaret Kolar, Acting Field Supervisor East Lansing Field Office 1405 S. Harrison Road . East Lansing, Michigan 48823 517-337-6650

Tim Kubiak East Lansing Field Office 1405 S. Barrison Rd. East Lansing, Michigan 48823 517-337-6650

Dave Best East Lansing Field Off i c e 1405 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, Michigan 48823 517-337-6650

U.S. Coast Guard

Muskegon Lake 6 16-759-8581

In te rna t iona l Jo in t Cammission

John Bart ig Regional Office Winsor, Ontario, Canada 313-226-2170

Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Carols Fe t t e ro l f , Exec. Sec. 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 3 13-662-3209

Dave Jude Great Lakes Research Division University of Michigan 2200 Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 313-763-3515

Muskegon Conservation Club

Laurie Wasserman 3061 Idlevind Road Muskegon. Michigan 49441 6 16-759-0546

Charles Rowdebush 160 Lakeshore Blvd. Muskegon, Michigan 49441 616-737-2287

Michigan United Conservation Club

Carol Favero Resource Specialist P.O. Box 30235 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Muskegon Sport Fishing Association

C.C. Billinghurst 909 Toetenabe Lane N . Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-744-1210

Muekegon Steelhead & Salmon Fishing Association

Stanley Peterson 1076 Francis Ave. Muskegon. Michigan 49442 616-773-8258

W. Michigan Dive Center

Mark Hansen 2367 W. Sherman Blvd. Muskegon, Michigan ' 49441 616-755-3771

N. Branch Boat & Canoe Liver

Larry De Con 400 Causeway N . Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-744-1119

Tom Hamilton 8770 Indian Bay Rd. Montague , Mihcigan 49437 616-893-2175

John Koches W. Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission

137 Muskegon Mall Muskegon, Michigan49440-1192 616-722-7878

Cameron Davis Lake Michigan Federal 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2010 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-263-5550

Cindy Hughes Science Application International Corporation 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 703-821-471 1

Shari Schaftlein West Michigan Environmental Action Council 1432 Wealthy, S.E. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 616-451-3051

Dick Olsen City of Grand Rapids Chief Air Pollution 616-456-3148

Carla Bates League of Women Voters 435 Mitzi St. Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-828-6675

Tom Rodenmaches Grand Rapids Press 155 Michigan Ave. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-459-1504

Toby Dolinka Center for Environmental Study 143 Bostwick, NE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-4848

Brad Miller Senator Riegle ' s Off ice 716 Federal Bldg. 110 Michigan Avenue, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-456-2592

Joe Landis, V.P. of Region 8 Michigan Lakes and Streams 1642 Walnut Heights Drive East Lansing, Michfgan 48823 517-882-7399

Mich i~an House 96

M.L . Mickey Knight (R-Muskegon) 1450 Leaky S t . Muskegon, Michigan 49442 517-373-2646

Michigan Senate 33

Ph i l Arthurhultz (R-Whitehall) 6044 Murray Rd. Whitehall, Michigan 49461 517-373-1635

U.S. Congress 9

Guy Vander Jag t 2409 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, DC 20515

Jim Gibson Rep. Guy Vander J a g t ' s Office 950 W. Morton Ave. Muskegon , Michigan 49441 616-733-3131

Don Wicke 11262 Oak Ave . Three Rivers, Michigan 49093 616-244-5336

Ken Sherburn Muskegon Nature Club 1287 Peterson Rd. Muskegon, Michigan 49445 6 16-744-9886

M r . Donald G. Johnson Supervilror Township Xall 2735 West Gi les Road Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-777-2555

M r . Dave Sheehan WOTV CHANNEL - 8 120 College, S.E. P.O. Box B Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501 616-456-8888

John Lansing WWEITTP-3 280 Ann S t r e e t N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504 616-388-3333

Rob Sanford WWMTTV-3 280 Ann S t r e e t , N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504 616-784-4200

, M r . Jack Hogan WZZM TV - 13 645 3-Mile Road, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501 616-784-4200

M r . Ken Kolbe WZZM TV - 13 645 3-Mile Road, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501 6 16-784-4200

M r . B i l l Be t t s WZZM TV - 13 645 3-Mile Road, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501 616-784-4200

M r . Dave Lorenz WAVX - FM - 98.3 - THE WAVE 1826 Ruddiman Ave. North Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-744-2423

Mr. Tim Walters WKBZ RADIO 592 Pontaluna Road Muskegon, Michigan 49444 616-798-2141

Mr. Tim Breed WGHN P.O. Box 330 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417 616-842-8110

Mr. Bill Shoup W A B M - F M I W R J R - A M 6083 Martin Road Muskegon, Michigan 49441 616-798-2115

Ms. Ann Vandermyde WMUS FM / AM THE MUSIC STATION 517 West Giles Road Muskegon, Michigan 49445 616-744-1671

Ma. Pam Roberts WQWQ STEREO / WTRU SUNNY FM 873 Sumit Avenue Muskegon, Michigan 49444 616-798-2245

Ms. Connie Tripp w m - FM 11 Diane Avenue Muekegon, Michigan 19442 616-728-5333

Mr. Bob Burns Muskegon Chronicle Main Office 981-3 Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-722-3161

Mr. John Steveeon Muakegon Chronicle Main Office 981 - 3 Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-722-3161

Mr. Dave Kolb Muskegon Chronicle Main Off ice 981 - 3 Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-722-3161

The Honorable M.L. Mickey Knight 1450 Leahy St . Muskegon, Michigan 49442

The Honorable Carl Levin Senate Off i c e Bldg. Washington, DC 205 15

M r . W i l l i a m E. Fatwig, Supervisor Township Hall 1990 Apple Avenue Muskegon, Michigan 49442 616-777-2555

M r . Lee Kernen Chief of Great Lakes Boundary Water f Great Lakes - DNR P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 608-266-2277

D r . Dan Brazo - DNR U.S. Naval Armory Michigan City, Indiana 46360 219-879-8391

D r . William Eger, Director I n t e r t r i b a l F isher ies 6

Asseesment Program 206 Greenough St . Saul t Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783 906-632-6896

M r . Richard Hess Program Manager I l l ~ n o i s Dept. of Conaerv. 100 W. Randolph, Sui te 4-300 Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60601 312-917-2070

M r . Michael G. Walsh Muskegon Chronicle 981 Third St. , Box 59 Muskegon, Michigan 49443 616-722-3161

M r . John R. Campbell 'Muskegon Court Rouse County Commission 990 Terrace Muskegon, Michigan 49440 616-773-9131

Mr. Mark S. Hill 137 Muskegon Mall Muskegon, Michigan 49440-1192

Mr. Ray Grennan 2567 Miner Muskegon, Michigan 49440

Mr. Ed Shields 1716 Lakeshore Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Mr. Jim Wirtz 1531 Shettler Muskegon, Michigan 49444

Mr. Stan Prelkes 1828 Commerce Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Mr. Richard M. Freye 3171 Lakeshore Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Ms. Barb Grennan 2377 Westwood Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Mr. Steven J. Britton 681 Lake Torest Ln 0-12 Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Mr. James Read 2953 Memorial Muskegon, Michigan 49115

Ms. Carolyn Read 2953 Memorial Muskegon, Michigan 49445

Mr. Stan Peterson 1076 Francis Muskegon, Michigan 49442

Mr. John M. Maule 124 Bear Lake Muskegon, Michigan 49445

Yr. Charles A. Warber 1963 S. Ravenna Rd. Ravenna, Michigan 4945 1

W. E. E a l l 2700 Maple Island Road Twin Lairs, Michigan 49457

M r . Robert Legard 335 Ruddiman Muskegon, Michigan 49445

M r . John Moran 2400 Lakeshore Drive Muskegon, Michigan 49141

M r . Rich O'Naal 3638 Pi l lon Road Muskegon, Michigan 49445

M r . Mark S. H i l l 7829 Cook S t . Montague, Michigan 49437

Y?s . Renne Feichtenbiner West Michigan Env'tl Action Council 1432 Wealthy SE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 616-451-3051

?la. Arlene Esch Muskegon Health Dept. 1611 Oak Ave. Muskegon, Michigan 49442-2499 616-724-631 1