1987 Michigan DNR Statement Regarding Illegality of Coal Ash Dumping in Lake Michigan

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 jec 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

3.5.2 Water Supply
3.5.3 Sport and Commercial Fishing
3.5.5 Navigation
3.5.6 Noncontact Recreation
Page
3.6 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, OBJECTIVES, 28
AND APPLICABLE BENEFICIAL USES
4.0 IMPAIRED USE ASSESSMENT 31
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
L m d f ills
5.2.1.2 Groundwater Contamlnation by Industrial
Groundwater Discharges
5.2.1.3 Groundwater Contamlnation by Septic
Systeme
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 71

6.1 CONTINUOUS POINT SOURCES 71
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
6.4 IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS (CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS) 74
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
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
Page
12.0 APPENDICES
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MUSKEGON HARBOR SEDIMENT 115
AND BENTHIC ANALYSIS DATA, APRIL 1982
MDNR RESPONSE TO CITIZEN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS 125
PUBLIC MEETINGS 2 AUGUST 1986
MUSKEGON LAKE AND TRIBUTARY WATER SAWLING DATA 135
MICEIGAN'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE 57(2) 147
GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA 153
FROM SAMPLES COLLECTED JUNE 1972, 1975 AND 1980 AND
AUGUST AND DECEMBER 1986 AND MAY 1987
MUSKEGON LAKE AND TRIBUTARIES SEDIMENT DATA
WMSRDC, 1982
- 165
MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA '- -0, 1981 203

MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN FISH SAMPLING DATA - WMSRDC, 1982 217
-
MUSKEGON LAKE AND BEAR LAKE FISH CONTAMINANT
MONITORING DATA MDNR, 1986
225
MICHIGAN'S NPDES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURE 236

PRIORITY LISTS FOR EVALUATION AND INTERIM RESPONSE AT 244
SITES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION PROPOSED
SURVEY FORM FOR MDNR NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT 254
LISTING OF AGENCY AND CITIZEN CONTACTS 258

LIST OF TABLES .
Table Page
MUSKEGON LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN CBARACTERISTICS 10

ESTIMATES OF LAND COVER PER WATERSHED 14
ESTIMATES OF LAND USE IN THE IMMEDIATE MUSKEGON LAKE 15

WATERSHED
RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES USED IN MUSKEGON COUNTY IN 1986 17
URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORKS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA 18

NPDES PERMITTED DISCBARGES TO MUSKEGON LAKE AND LAKE 23
MICHIGAN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL ANGLER DAYS ON MUSKEGON LAKE 26
HISTORICAL IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE 32

IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE'S TRIBUTARIES 33
WATER QUALITP CHA~ACTERISTICS OF MUSKEGON LAKE 34
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER SAMPLES EXCEEDING 35
MICHIGAN'S RULE 57(2) GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN MUSKEGON RIVER WATER SAMPLES 36
(BRIDGETON, MI)
NONAFFECT SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA 38
C O W .?ISON OF SELECTED SEDIMEHT SURVEY DATA, KUSKEGON LAKE 42

PCB AND MERCURY, SEDZMENT DATA SUMMARY, MUSKEGON AND 45
BEAR LAKE
FDA AND PIDPH ACTION LEVELS AND IJC OBJECTIVES FOR 47
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH
4-10 DIOXIN LEVELS IN MUSKEGON LAKE FISH 50
4-1 1 DIOXIN LEVELS IN BEAR LAKE FISH 51

5-1 URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORK 55
5-2 KNOWN LANDFILLS IN MUSKEGON LAKE AREA 59

5-3 HISTORICAL INDUSTRIAL/MIMICIPAL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGERS 61
5-4 PROPOSED OIL WELLS FOR PLUGGING 64

Table Page
6-1 WHS WATER QUALITY DATA 73
7-1 PUMPING STATIONS SUMMARY 79
10-1 PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA OF CONCERN 104
10-2 PROPOSED -1AL ACTIONS

SOURCE AREA OF CONCERN
- MIJSKEWN LAKE TRIBUTARIES 105
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
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

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
L
the loadings of nutrients, oils, solids and toxicants. Nuisance algal
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 L
1987 has not been completed.
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. R e c ~ e n d a t i o n stowards
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 non the AOC. Every
attempt has been m ~ d eto 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 use lmpai-nts of the nearshore areas of Lake
Michigan, the remainder of the RAP deals with Muskegon Lake.
3.2 NATURAL FEATURES
3.2.1 Drainage Basin
The Muskegon River Basin is the second largest river basin in

Michigan. Its drainage area encompasses approximately 6,822 km2
(2,634 mi2) (Table 1). 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 COYYISIIOW
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
, . . . . ;Hi.
~igur.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) ofTotal ms/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 t o gently sloping topography covers the majority of Muskegon

County. Large sand dunes s t r e t c h along the Lake Michigan shoreline. The
dunes become smaller towards the east and gradually f l a t t e n i n t o a wide
plain. Stream channels and lake basins a r e located throughout the plain.
The eastern-rost portion of Muskegon County i s dominated by h i l l s . Eleva-
tiono i n the county range from 178 m (580 f t ) a t Lake Michigan t o 246 m (800
L
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 i n t o the North Branch and Middle Branch. The Middle Branch
divides again forming the South Branch about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) f u r t h e r down-
stream. Average annual flow r a t e s f o r t h e Muskegon River j u s t upstream of
the North and Middle Branches a r e 3.2 m 9 / s (114.3 c f s ) and 26.5 mvs
-
(935.4 c f s ) (Source: Jerry Fulcher MDNR Hydrologist). Bear Lake Channel,
the channel which drainr Bear Lake i n t o Muskegon Lake, has an average f l w
r a t e of 0.84 mS/s (29.6 cfs) (U.S. EPA, 1975). Mean flow r a t e s of Green
Creek, Ruddinun Creek and Ryerson Creek a r e 0.33 m 9 / s (11.8 c f s ) , 0.09 ms/e
(3.1 c f s ) and 0.2 m 9 / s (7.1 c f s ) , rerpectively (U.S. EPA, 1975).
Lake Michigan lake elevation annual averages f o r the period 1974 t o

1986 range from 178 t o 178.7 m (576.45 t o 581.06 f t ) . The 1986 annual
average elevation i s 0.8 m (2.6 f t ) greater than the lowest annual average
f o r the subject period recorded in 1977 (NOAA data). Lake Michigan water
l e v e l s 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 l e v e l (GLR, 1987). Fluctuating
Lake Michigan water l e v e l s influence Muskegon Lake l e v e l s and surrounding
groundwater tables.
3.2.4 Soil Types, . ~ u n off, ~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 areas
The percentage and acreage of each land cover is provided for the
Muskegon River Basin (Table 3-2). The extent and type of land cover in
the area was estimated through the use of aerial photography, but due to
seasonal changes, values presented are only general estimates.
L
Difficulty in the identification of water bodies or bare earth where some
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
WATERSHED
LAM)
USE
Muskegon Muskegon Bear Cedar
UNITS Lake River Creek Creek
Waste Dispoeal X
Acres
Industrial X
Acres
Residential X
Acres
Agricultural X
Acres
Transportation X
Acres
Extractive X
Acres
Institutional X
Acres
Open Space/ X
Recreational Acres
Commercial 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

plants, power generating plants or any operations which process raw materi-i d
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 lbs
Azinphos methyl 1.164.5
Carbamate
Parathion
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Met homyl
ParaquatIDiquat
Pyrethroids
Organo-Phosphate
Chlorinated Benzene Compounds
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 c w e r 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,
i m
Muskegon Beights, North Muskegon, Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores and the
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
Drainage Area Number of Stonn
Receiving Waters Hectare (Acres Sewer Outfalls
Muskegon Lake
R u d d W Drain
Ryerson Creek
Muskegon River
Four Mile Creek
TOTAL 2,849 (7,040) 59
Modified from WSRDC, 1978a.
18
Flgura 3-+'. Urban Storm Sever Network (WI(SR~C, 1978 a ) .
3.4 WATER USES (MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN)

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~lunitythat 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~anrnityof 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 conditions 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).

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

Facility Number Type Ieeuance Expiration Comment
Huekegon Lake
Coneume rs Power MI0001520 noncontact cooling water
B.C. Cobb Plant flyash transport wat.er

boiler blow down
filter backwash
S.D. Warren Co. MI0001210 noncontact cooling
Shaw Walker Co. MI0042897 noncontact cooling

N
W stormwater runoff
Teledyne Continental
Motore (Terrace St .) HI0002879 noncontact cooling
West Michigan Dock and

Market Corp. MI0004880 noncontact cooling
Wee t ran Corp .

(Weet Michigan Steel Foundry) MI0025038 noncontact cooling
Lake Michigan
Huekegon WTP MI0005371 filter backwash
Muekegon Heighte WTP MI0005096 filter backwash
Bear Creek
Nor-Am Chem Co. MI0041645 noncontact water

TABLE 3-6. (Continued)
Date Permit Diecharge Permit

Facility Number Type Iesuance ~ x ~ i r a t i o n Comment
Ruddimn Creek
.
CWC Text ron (Henry St ) MI0002666 noncontact cooling
.
Kaydon Corp IKaydon Bearing
Division
MI0004499 contontact cooling
stormwater runoff
Muekegon Pieton Ring MI0002658 noncontact cooling
Scaled Power (Muekegon ) MI0004057 noncontact cooling

stormwater runoff
Hoequito Creek
hekegon Co. W treated induetrial1 01128182 12/31/86 new permit

Mgt. Sye. No. 1 MI0027391 municipal wastewater preeently being
developed
Muekegon River
Marathon Pipe Line Co. HI0045225 treated groundwater
Teledyne Continental Hotore

(Getty St.) MI0029416 noncontact cooling 12120174 11/30/79 company propoeee
to treat purged
contaminated
groundwater
Zephyr (Naph-Sol Refinery) 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~mrarizedby 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 P w e r 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 ft)
exclusively a chub fishery.
. A third commercial fishing company is
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.

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-
ing thore ranging from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 it) in length. Bear Lake has
L
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.
27
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-
tial effect on their water quality by the Eolton ~andfill/Dump,the Duel1
L
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:
Rule 57(2)
Guideline
Toxic Concentration Levels
Substance Water Body (PP~) (PP~) Basis
Trichloroethylene Ruddiman Creek 230 94 ACV

(frichloroethene)
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 0.0006 HLSC

methyl mercury) Stormsewer Outfall
to Muskegon Lake
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 0.5
Mirex less than detection
PCB 0.1
Toxaphene
PBB
Dioxin
Unspecifled organic
compounds less than detection
MDPE -
FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Michigan Department of Public Health
IJC = International Joint Coaanisrion
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 debris logging induetry point

restricted excessive weed growth and nonpoint discharges
containing phosphorus
Elhiination filling of shoreline industrial filling activity

of fish habitat Westran Corp. fill
Ellmlnation
of benthic
substrate cwered with
lime and fibers
.
S .D Warren discharge
subatrate
Tainted fish phenols, gasoline , oils point source discharges

such as Naph Sol Refining,
Continental Motors, S.D.
Warren, N. Muskegon STPI
Aurora Refining
Benthic popula- dissolved oxygen depletion point and nonpoint

tions degraded high levels of P and N sources of P and N
oxygen demanding sediments "b
Recreational excessive weed growth point and nonpoint
activities algal blooms sources of P and N
restricted 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 contaminated groundwater

brook trout from Cordova (Ott/Story)
fishery
Tainted fish contaminated groundwater

from Cordova (Ott/Story)
Aesthetics obnoxious odor contaminated groundwater

degraded bacterial slimes from Cordova (0ttIStory)
Big Bear Creek
Tainted fish contaminated groundwater

from Cordova (Ott/Story)
Ruddiman Creek
Aesthetics visible oil film urban stormwater
degraded
Benthic comrmunity urban stormwater

degraded
Ryersan Creek
Recreational violation of WQS for urban stormwater

activities and odor, floating debris,
aesthetics turbidity, vieible
impaired oil film
Benthic community urban stormvater

degraded
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 -
C o ~ t y ,MI.
Water quality characterietics of Muskegon Lake. Muskegon
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 ~ e v e l sfor toxic substances.
Rule 57(2)
Guideline
Toxic Concentration Levels
Substance Water Body (PP~) -
Bas is
Trichloroethylene Ruddiman Creek 230 ACV

(trichloroethene)
1,2-Dichloroethane Little Bear Creek 840 to 9800 CRV
Vinyl chloride Little Bear Creek 90 to 2800 CRV
Mercury (as Division Street 2.2 HLSC

methyl mercury) Stormsewer Outfall
to Muskegon Lake
ACV = Aquatic Chronic Value

HLSC = Human Life-Cycle Safe Concentration
CRV = Cancer Risk Value
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 P1~ (PP~
-
Year Average Range Average Range
K - values less than the detection level indicated.

(Source: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data
Average values based on four samples.
- Michigan)
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 75
Copper 50
Cyanide 0.25
Iron 25,000
Lead 60
Manganese 500
Mercury 1
Nickel 50
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
L
outlet (Station 3). The data (Appendix 4.3) indicated that all thirty-two
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 s u n w y 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- R e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of selected Muskegon L a k e and
Bear Lake sediment s a m p l i n g , s t a t i o n s common t o ,
\
MDNR, WMBRDC AND GLNPO surveys.
TABLE 4-7. COMPARISON OF 1972, 1981, 1982 AND/OR 1986 MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA
(ppm dry weight b a e i s )
Total X
Group (Station) TKN Phoe. O6G HB Ae Cu Ni Cr Cd Zn Pb Solide Comment
Muekegon Lake
MDNR, 1972
E-S
A WHSRDC,l982
Sta. 2
' fi WNR, 1986
S t a . 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.
Number of Mean Range
Parameter -
Source Samples 0 0
PCB Muskegon Lake
MDNR, 1975 3
WMSRDC, 1982 4
GLNPO, 1981 4
MDNR, 1986* 12
(4)
Bear Lake
WMSRCDC, 1982 2 K 0.02 K 0.02
MDNR, 1987 3 (samples being reanalyzed)
Mercury Muskegon Lake
MDNR. 1972 13
MDNR; 1980 1
WMSRDC, 1982 15
GLNPO, 1981 6
MDNR, 1986 13
Bear Lake
MDNR, 19872 2
W R D C , 1982 1
MDNR, 1987 3
* -
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 ~croinvcrtebratesare 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.
L,
A number of biological surveys of Muskegon Lake have been conducted. A
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
O
O
-
Ruddiman Creek
Bear Lake north
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.
P a r m eter -
FDA -
MDPH -
IJC
AldrinIDieldrin
DDT and Metabolites
Lindane
Endrin 0.3
Heptachloroepoxide 0.3
Chlordane 0.3
Kepone 0.3
Mercury 1 0.5
Mirex 0.1 less than detection
PCB 2 0.1
Toxaphene 5
P BB 0.3
Dioxin 25-50 ppt
Unspecified organic '
compounds 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 organics [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 p p . 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 filletr*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 b u e d 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,

g m - c h l o r d a n e , 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)
Length Weight Dioxin (ppt)

Species Lab Number 0 -Sex 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Walleye 65207 60 2,430

65209 61.5 3,000
65210 63.7 2,680
Walleye 65208 56 1,940
65211 57.3 1,900
65212 56.5 1,940
65213 56 2,200
65214 53 1,760
65215 55.2 l,SgO
65216 55.2 1,840
Largemouth Bass 65217 42.9 1,700
65218 44 1,500
65219 37.8 1,070
65220 38.2 1 ,000
Largemouth Bass 65221 36.6 840

65222 35.4 780
65223 34.6 800
65224 35 710
65225 34 710
65226 36.5 820
Northern Pike 65227 91 5,590

65228 87.5 4,SO0
Northern Pike 65229 69 2,070

65230 58 1,530
65231 64.5 1,530
65232 58 1 ,300
65233 56 1,250
65234 60 1,320
65235 61.5 5 ,000

65236 60.5 2,850
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)
Length Weight Dioxin (ppt)

species Lab Number (cm) 0 -
Sex 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Largemouth Bass 2,120

1,200
980
Largemouth Bass 760
740
580
460
390
680
460
Northern Pike 1,800
1,250
1 ,120
Caw 2,350
5,500
6,670
4,050
5,900
3,970
7,480
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.
51
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 l e u t 28 days, then removed. These fish are presently being
analyzed for contaminants.
L
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 ~ndustrialPoint 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,
contaminated groundwater at Teledyne, or the result of historical discharges L
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 e s t h t e r (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
s t o m e w e r 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 Number of Outfalls

Hectare Acres
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 s h o w 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 h e d i a t e area due to the presence of the volatile
organic compounds and total organfc carbon (TOC) concentrations. In the
a e d i a t e 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
Story c
Contaminated groundwater
Visible
~~3
s* 2 surface water degradation
due t o contaminated groundwater
NOTE: This map shows the general geographic

locat ion o f docun~en Led groundwater con tarnina-
t i o n . but UOES NOT represent tke extent o f . ,
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 m e d i a t e 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 Violates 20-ft. isolation

Muskegon Dump Sec. 13 of Laketon T w p . distance from groundwater,
no industrial waste
believed present
Muskegon Causeway Sec. 17 of Muskegon Twp. Muskegon River floodplain,

Landfill industrial wastes
Consumers Power Sec. 7 & 17 Muskegon River floodplain,

B.C. Cobb Plant Muskegon Twp. fly ash
Fly Ash Disposal
Thompson Brothers Sac. 7 Muskegon Twp. Muskegon River floodplain,

Landfill demolition debris, inert
materials
Muskegon County Sec. 15 Muskegon Twp. Adjacent to Muskegon River

Landfill Authority floodplain, violates 20-ft.
Landfill isolation distance from
groundwater, general refuse
and garbage
Anchor Excavation Sec. 15 Muskegon T w p . Adjacent to Muskegon River

Wrecking Company floodplain, violates 20-ft.
Disposal Site isolation distance from
groundwater
Moorland kimship Sac. 6 Muskegon T w p . Violates 20-ft. isolation

Dump distance from groundwater,
general refuse
Dalton Township Sec. 16 Dalton Twp. Chemical wastes, general

Drrmp refuse
North Side Sac. 35 Dalton Twp. Saturated vith groundwater,

Landfill general refuse
h e l l and Gardner Sec. 27 Dalton Twp. Violates 20-ft. isolation

Landfill distance from groundwater,
general refuse
Cedar Creek Sac. 3 Cedar Creek Twp. General refuse

Township Dump
Eolton Township Sec. 34 Holton Twp. Violates 20-ft. isolation

Landfill 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 P w c r 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 I n 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
corrections.
L
60
TABLE 5-3. HISTORICAL INDUSTRIAL/MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGERS
Diecharge
Name of Firm Disposal Method Status Type
Teledyne Continental Motors Seepage Lagoon Defunctlremoved Proposed purge well

(Getty Street) system being developed
Cordova (Ott/Story) Seepage Lagoon Defunctlremoved

Chemical Corp.
Michigan Foundry Supply Seepage Lagoon Defunct Iremoved Process wastes and
(Weiner Property now owned cooling water
by Muskegon County)
Cannon Muskegon Corp. Seepage Lagoon Removed 1985 Cloeed loop cooling
eyetem process
to Metro.
Nugent Sand Seepage Lagoon Permitted Solidsleedimentation
Standard .utomotive Parts Defunct (stormeewer) Unknown
Geerpress Wringer Dry well Roof runoff only
Unico, Inc. Seepage Lagoon Defunct/removed
Campbell-Wyant-Cannon (CWC) Lined Lagoone NPDES permitted 1983 Cupla

(Henry Street) to Ruddiman Creek
Consumers Power Lagoons NPDES permitted discharge Fly ash, boiler

(B.C. Cobb Plant) blowdown
- -
Diecharge
Name of F' M Diepoeal Method Statue Type
Huekegon cdunty Seepage to Permit Application Lagoon Treated

rJHs I1 Groundwater from Pending on North Effluent
Storage Lagoon/ Application Area
Spray Irrigation
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, D i s t r i c t 12 Geologist)
Permit
Number Name Description/Conunents
Muskegon River N. Channel Area
P# 30 W. J. Slmon-G. Reeth # I W NW, Sec. 9, TlON, R16W. 330' from

NW S
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 (11-24-33) . O i l i s seeping under a
large t r e e with a rather large spring.
O i l rainbow can be seen q u i t e 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 c u l t . The o i l must be coming
from t h i s well a s it is the only well i n
the m d i a t e area.
PI 61 Reed O i l Co.-Heinz # I NE SW, Sec. 8, TlON, R16W. About 170' S W

from center Sec. 8; 120' from north & 150'
from e a s t property line. Plugged o i l well
(1-2-39). This well i r believed t o be t h
source of heavy residual o i l (biodegraded L
crude) flowing Into e a s t end of d i t c h 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 l y leaking, but plugging may remain
until later.
PW 92 Continental Motors Co.-

Continental # l
-
SW NE, Sec. 16, TlON, Rl6W 410 from
south l i n e of quarter section and 920'
west l i n e of quarter section. Plugged o i l
well (4-3-48). Well i r located i n t h e
median of Business 31, North Muskegon.
Well bore possibly leaks o i l and b r i n e
i n t o small swampy a r e j u s 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 t o a
very heavy sludge t h a t r e a l l y doesn't go
a n w e r e . There w a s one inspection t h a t I
saw v i s i b l e gas bubbling. This i r the one
well where I believe brine is coming up as
well bore. I sampled the s l i g h t discharge
of f l u i d and the t e s t r e r u l t s showed
55,000 ppm C1, much too great t o be
residual brine. Well s i t e has large
v i s i b l e area contrmiarted with o i l sludge
L
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
w e l l (9-25-39). Although I have never
been t o t h i s s i t e , a s i t i s i n a c c e s s i b l e
year round and i n f e s t e d with r a t t l e r s ,
s e v e r a l people t o l d me about f a l l i n g i n t o
the l a r g e o i l p i t . One person, Paul
Hadley - former pumper f o r Muskegon Dev.
Co., who has been on t h e scene s i n c e day
one, s a i d he was a t the w e l l s e v e r a l year!
while duck hunting. The w e l l bore was
bubbling gas and had o i l flowing i n t o t h e
r i v e r . Plugging would be very expensive
b u t necessary.
P# 262 Blue Arrow Petroleum Co.

Jon Torrent Est. # I
- NW SE SW, Sec. 8 , TlON, R16W - 1000'
from north q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e and 1440'
from e a s t l i n e of q u a r t e r s e c t i o n .
Plugged dry hole (10-15-30). Well is
located i n middle of north branch of
Muskegon River. Casing i s exposed 6-8'
above water surface. Well l e a k s o i l i n t o
and down r i v e r . Coast Guard very con-
cerned about t h i s well.
PI 986 Murkegon O i l Corp.

J. Torrent Est. 12
- SE NE SW, Sec. 8 , TlON, R16W -910' from
n o r t h q u a r t e r and 520' from e a s t q u a r t e r
l i n e . This w e l l was j u s t r e v e n t l y exhume
by Consumers Power Co. on t h e i r property.
No w e l l bore can be i d e n t i f i e d a s they
excavated a l a r g e 20 x 20' a r e a i n t h e
water t a b l e . The abundance of f r e s h o i l
and gas bubbling from within a p o r t i o n of
t h e excavation shows an a c t i v e l y l e a k i n g
well. Well must be plugged.
Bear Creek Area
PI 199 Concord O i l 6 Gas-Giles # l NE NW, Sec. 7, TlON, R16W - 225' from

south q u a r t e r s e c t i o n and 435' from west
q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e . Plugged o i l w e l l
(1-10-35). O i l l e a k s i n t o small drainage
d i t c h adjacent t o bowling a l l e y . I had
completed a small study i n t h i s a r e a w i t h
s u r f a c e bore holes. The old w e l l bore
appears t o be beneath a f a i r l y l a r g e
cherry t r e e . Exploeion meter t e s t i n g f n
t h e various bore holes and o i l s a t u r a t e d
sands point d i r e c t l y i n t h a t a r e a .
Plugging may be c o s t l y a s most c a s i n g 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 -

1690' north of SE corner of Sec. 5.
1125' west and
Unknown i f t h i s gas w e l l was ever plugged.

We have a plugging record dated 10-13-57
and a Notice of I n t e n t i o n t o Deepen w e l l
dated 1-22-31. Well used t o be located
next t o West Side Muskegon Roofing 6
Siding Co. Several y e a r s ago (1978-79) , I
inquired about t h i s w e l l a t the company.
The owner s a i d i t w a s plugged s e v e r a l
years ago, but a worker a t t h e p l a c e s a i d
he played horseshoes n e x t t o i t not but a
couple of months ago. I b e l i e v e the w e l l
was i n existence up t o 1957 and w r i t t e n
off at t h a t time w i t h t h e plugging record.
Since then and now, t h e w e l l w a s c u t o f f ,
capped and probably n o t plugged below .
ground l e v e l . 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.

Gus Bein 12
- Wi SE SW AU, Sec. 7, TION, R16W. W e l l r
not have been d r i l l e d a s t h e only recorr
is our old, old leftax which s t a t e s "loca-
tion'. There w a s , however, abundant o i l
and gas bubbling i n t h e iuanediate area. I
noticed t h i s when t h e a r e a was being
dcmucked f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new
bank i n 1978. The c o n t r a c t o r f o r t h e 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 w e l l bore f o r an
afternoon. We never found t h e w e l l bore
u t h e a r e a has a very high water t a b l e
and the sands kept slumping i n t h e 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 p r e s e n t a t t h e a r e a
d i r e c t l y above t h e w e l l bore.
P# 368 Wolverine Mineral Dm?. Co.

Gus Hein # I
- Wi 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
7. Plugged dry h o l e - -
plugging 2-1-32?
Sec.
4-21-30. We have two plugging r e c o r d s f o r

t h i s well. The e a r l i e r one shbwc c a s i n g
l e f t i n hold which corresponds t o apparent
present condition of w e l l . The second
plugging record i n d i c a t e s t h e w e l l was
p a r t i a l l y abandoned during t h e f i r s t L
plugging (bottom of hole) and then s h ~ ~
t h a t t h e r e s t of h o l e was plugged p r i o r t o
66
-
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 c o m e r 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 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.
5.2.2 Rural Land Runoff

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 P r o g r w 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

runoff. - due to stormwater
Ruddiman Pond and Ruddiman Creek
stormwater discharges.
- due to industrial and
-
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 MECHANISMS AND LOADINGS
The mechanisms whereby pollutants are released from the pollutant
sources to the surrounding environment include the air -
through volatiliza-
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 'MunicipalWastewater 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
wastewater. About 1.89 x 109m3 (0.5 billion gallons) and 7.6 x 10I !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 I n 1979, 1980, and 1981 detected di-n-octyl phthalate (4.0 ppb),
pmtachlorophenol (1.3 ppb) , bis (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 informtion]
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~tmonitoring 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 r a t e r s h e d t
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 projec 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. L o u t i o a of Pluskegon County W a s t m t e r 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 sufficient for current needs in 1 1
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 L a m . 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 D e e i g ~
Station pulps power telemetry lnatalleda Firm mgd to avg. flow ratio Remarke
No Yes
Yea
No e
Yes -- --
~ee8 Yes S.D. Warren indicate6 they
diecharge at a constant rate.
Therefore, a c t u ~ lpeaking
factor ie 1.6.
Yee No --
e 9-
Yes Yee
No No
No No --
No No Thie etation has limited
capacity.
No No --
No No
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.
STORAGE
LAOOONS
AERATED
LAOOONI
n
NORTH IRRIQATIOM
AREA WlTH UNDERMIAINS
NORTH IRR IBATI,..
P U M P ZITATIOM
SETTLlNO OUTLET
LAGOON LAQOOM
1-1
SOUTH IRRlQATlON L---J
PuM aTATIoN 8OUTH IRRIQATION
AREA WlTH UNDERDRAINS
F i g u r e 7-2. Schematic Diagram of Waetewater Hanagement Syatem ( m o d i f i e d 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
h e l l & Gardner Landfill, Dalton Township
The folloving paragraphs describe p r o b l w 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 I n 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 B o w , 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~munitieswere
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
L
site. During the removal, several areas of'purple stained soil were found.
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.
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~llationof 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
follovs : 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
1984
in
- 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.

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
t o 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 C o d s s i o n 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 C o d s s i o n 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.
s LOCAL POL I T ICAL UN I T S
WEST MICHIGAN SHORELINE

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
I 19 POSITIONS I
ARWIDE
TECHN ICAL
PLANN ING
ADVISORY
COMITTEE
I-----.
i COORDINATION AND
EVALUATION COMMITTEE
TASK FORCE
TITLES
POINT SOURCE
MANAGERENT
ALTERNAT I V E APPROACHES
NONPOINT SOURCE
WATER QUALITY
GROUNDWATER
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Figure 9-2 Org~nizacionalChart of 208 Planning Agency b d i f i e d 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 P w e r 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 I n 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 L
submitted to the MDNR divisions of Fisheries, Land Resource Programs and
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 p r o g r w 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 W u t e 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 1 1
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 t h e , 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).
Recommendation
* 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
MDPH action level. Chlordane concentrations exceed 0.3 ppm in large carp
L
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 contaminated sediments urban runoff euspec ted

degraded (P, N, ObC, As. Cd, Cr,
Ni, Pb, Zn)
recreational algal blooms potentially failed septic Define problem area and
activities and excessive weed growths systems, in-place eliminate septic systems
aesthetics degraded odors, shallow depth pollutante and nutrients diecharges to Bear Lake
nutrient enrichment. in sediments.
Little Bear Creek
eliminati n of toxic organic chemicals, contaminated groundwater Treatment of contaminated

brook trout fishery oxygen demand from Cordova (OttIStory) groundwater prior to
discharge to surface watere
tainted fish organic compounds contaminated groundwater

from Cordova (OttIStory)
Aesthetics obnoxious odor contaminated groundwater Cleanup site under Superfund

degraded bacterial slimes from Cordova (OttIStory)
septic conditions
Ruddiman Creek
aesthetics degraded visible oil film urban stormwater Evaluation of stormwater

pollutant loadings and NCCW
heat loadings
benthic community unstable flow. suspended urban stomwater Control/treatment of

degraded solids and silts stotmwater
TABLE 10-2 (Continued)
Impaired User Caueee Sourcee Remedial Actions
Ryerson Creek
recreational violation of WQS for urban etorenrater Control/treatment of

activities and odor, floating debrie, etormwater
aeethetice turbidity, viefble
impaired 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

Draft-First Problem Definition Survey, Ann Arbor, MI.
- Revised
Environmental Research Group. 1982b. Sample Collection and Analysis
Report
MI.
- Final-Third Source Identification Survey Phase V. Ann Arbor,
Environmental Research Group. May 31, 1980. Sample Collection and

Analysis Report
Arbor, MI.
- Draft - First Source Identification Survey. Ann
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.

L
Fetterolf, Jr., Carlos M. January 1962.. Investigation of Fish-Oil
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 h k e s Reporter) June/July/August 1987. The Center for the

Great Lakes. Vol. 4, No. 3.
- -
~ Chief Construction/Operations Division Army Corps of
G t a ~ i o l iMe,
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 L
Environmental Contrmination Priorities Lists Act 307, Groundwater
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.
Service.
- dirtrict U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
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 ~ ~ k e g o nMichigan.
,
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.
Little Bear Creek and Vicinity -
October 17, 1986.
Air sampling at
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
Years 1980 through 1985. Lansing, MI.
- Michigan Reports Water
-
Vennillion, R. 1980. Army Corps of Engineers. Public Notice.
nance Dredging and Beach Nourishment Muskegon Harbor, MI.
Mainte-
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.
- Region 14 -
-
WMSRDC. 1978a. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan
Part One River Basin Studies.
WMSRDC. 1978b. Areawide 208 Water Quality Management Plan
- -
Part Two Recommended Control Measures.
- Region t
WMSRDC. 1977. Future Lake and Stream Quality 1977 to 1998.
WMSRDC. 1977a.
1977 to 1998.
Technical Supplement to "Future Lake Stream Quality"
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, E n v i r o n m e n t a l Research G r o u p ' s ( E R G ) field
crew c o l l e c t e d s e d i m e n t and b e n t h o s samples from Muskegon C h e n n e l .
?!uskegon Chaznel r u n s 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 s a n 2 . T h e r e was
no v i s i b l e s i g n o f any s i l t b u i l d - u p 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 enc3untered, 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 bottom s e d i a e n t .
s e d i m e n t 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 GE=b=
s steel L
bowl, t h o r o u g h l y m i x e d , and p l a c e d i n t o wide-mout!! g l a s s
quarts .
Refer t o Table I f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of sediment types
encountered a t each s t a t i o n .
Macroinvertebrate Collection
Benthos s a m p l e s 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 p o n a r .
Grabs were p l a c e d i n a 5 - g a l l o n 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 s u s p e n d t k e o r g a n i s m s . The s c u r r y was t h e n
worked t h r o u q h 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
containers e s e r v e d wit!! 70% e t 5 a n o l .
F o r 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.
I
--- --
- -
Color Odor
-- Oil
--- --- Genera 1 Rewa rks -- --
-(;l.ilI)!? f o r Seclilnell t s , l iqlr t b r o w n 1i g h t ear t h y ' NO Depth S T l l - 34.0'
,311als i ~ r l o r ~ e i x e t lG. r i t t y t e x t u r e brown
- t ; ~ a O s f o r D e n t h o s , m o s t l y E racjmented Weather @ 13:30: Winds

IIP 1 Is, SOI v i t y observed. l i q h t o u t qf.,.por t l r n o r thwc
5 mph, s k y c l e a r b sulrny
6'J&
-t;rill,s f u r S c d i ~ n e r r l s , l i c ~ l r l :hrowrr light e a rthy NO D e p t h ST42 - 36.20'
;III,I w i t.11 EOIW l i y h t b l a c k - g r a y brown
tI iI . (;r i t t y t e x t u r e
- f ; r a l ) s f o r Den t l r o s , n u m e r o u s c r u s h e d
IIP 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 i s ~ e rtr s , v e r y h a r d packec light ear t h y NO D e p t h ST13 - 25.30'

a t ~ t l ,d i f f i c u l t lo (jet yood salnple.
Icatt b e a c l ~sand, g r i t t y t e x t u r e
no a c t i v i t y
-c;r;ll)s f o r Re~~llros, Weather @ 15:45 i n I r a r l ~ o ~
l)sc?l-vcfl Winds n o r t h n o r t h w e s t qus l
t o 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 '
.' ,I
'1
I.
TABLE 11
U . S . Army COE
Muskegon Channel
Macro i n v c r t e b r a t e Resul t s
ERG Sample J : 73957 73958 73953

C l i e n t ID: Station 1 Station 2 Station 3
01 igochaeta
Limnodrilus h o f f m e i s t e r i
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
ENVIRONHEIJTAL R :ARCH GRiJIJP, INC
ANALYTICAL REPllRT - RESULTS BY SI\tlPL.E
117 N FIRST CLIEIJT: C L I E N T P . 0. : D A C H 3 3 - 8 1 - 0 - 0 0 1 4 APPROVED. L
A f W AHIfWt. H l C H I C A I 4 48104 U . 8. ARIlY ENGINEER DETROI T 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 T E C I H I C A L OUEST I O N S RESIDUAL S M l P L E S W I L L
ERC FROJECT: 0397 OETROIT. nl 4 8 2 3 1 TO: a n d w l ~ s a r BE HELO FOH TUO UEEM
R E P M I DATE: 10- ha-82 A T l E N T l O N : FRANU 6 N I T Z .a*
e
CLIENI-ID IC(V~KEQON a2 I~USUEO~N II~

ERG SAHPLE U O E R 105/073958 103/073939
HATR IX ISEDIHENT IBEDIHENT
ULTS UNITS IRESULTS U N I T S IRESUCTS UNIT8
C l E H l C A L OXYCEN DEHANU
O I L AN!) GnEASE
1 OTAL P t 1 O S P t r n U S
I~IIAL WELUAIIL NITROGEN
fdWWN IA NlTROOEN
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
I S A H T I C I . E 9 1 Z I W O :SO. 0 7 3
I ' A I t I I C L E 91Z 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 II
I'ARAKE TER
L
a4
LI
L
.4
la.
lob.
tL
la&
In.
18.
MOTES \\\
ProiocI drplhs, roclwlbqa and rlrwNiam ara n i a m d to
NORTH 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
WICHIGAN
0 ..
LOCATION MAP
~ULL w FLIT
ma00 *an
'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
fishing
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 o c c u r r e L
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 office 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.
L
Q. Is the 7,000-8,000 foot brine injection disposal well still in opera-
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
fram? 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 L i t t l e 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 ) (d1 (%/l) (rlem
H E SARCN 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) (~11) (~11) (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 I N 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 STORE? Syst ea
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 MAX END-DATE
10 HATER TEllP CENT 4 7.8 38/04/17
n n n u s p SECCHI INCHES t 72 78104117
300 DO RGIL 3 12.0 70104117
400 PH SU 4 8.00 78/04/17
410 T ALK CllC03 RGIL 3 130 ?8/04117
605 DRG N N MIL 3 0,470 79/04/1?
610 WH39H4- N TOTAL ffi1L 3 0.017 78104117
620 N03-N TOTAL MIL 1 0.200 67lO4I 10
630 NO2M03 I-TOTAL H61L 3 0.47 78/04/17
b65 PHOS-TOT 1161L P 4 0.060 78/04/17
900 TOT HARD CAMS MIL 1 140 67104110
32209 CHLRPHYL A U6lL 1 5.9 78/04/17
?0507 PHOS-? ORTHO M/L ? 4 0.020 70104117
ENTER PAR5 CODE, 'NEXT STATIMI*, OR 'ALLm
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 ktbo Witrite lltrrte luonia Kleldrhl l o t r l BIntolved
Depth In). D.0. lrrnprr~ty 1 fionphorun Phosphate l l t r o g m W1trogen HItrogm MItrogen 8011ln Uolldn
rIftl ICI lqll1 rlW (ugllI lqll1 Iegll1 lqll) legll) Irg11I lrgll) l e g l l l Iylll
a represmtn a l ~ t t hm 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 n d l c r t d .
I8 t r r t e rroant detectel.
Y Valw r r p o r t t d I e Iran 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
LvYkYYg)
TO: All Interested Parties

FROM : Paul D. Zugger , Chief
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~mmissionconcerning
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 C1.88
C.dmlur Class
ChrORiur Class
Co~mr C1.88
Cyanide Clras
Load Clarr
Nickel Class
Selenium C1.88
Silver C1.8~
Zinc Class
PCB C1.88
DDT % 50
Carbon tetrachloride*
Phenol, 4-chloro-3-met41
56
59
Aniline % 62
Acetone 67
Chlorofora % 67
Eexachloroothane % 67 13 CRV b,
Bentone 8 71 51 TLSC :
Ethme, l,l,l-trichloro 71 120 ACV I
Mt)ylone chloride 8 75 430 ACV I
Ethylene oxide 8 75 56 CRV I
Ethtlone , 1,1-dichloro 8 75
Eexachloroc~clo~ntadlene 77
Propaae, 1,2-dichloro 78
Trichloroethjrloae 8 78
Pentrchlorophonol 87
2,4,6-Trichlorophonol S 86
Dinorob 88
Naphthalene 91
Bontidino, 3.3-dichloro S 91
Bmzidina 8 92
Silvex 93
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro 85
vPhenol, 2-chloro 95
tthrlbenzene 100
Styrene 8 100
Bonaone, 1,4-dichloro 108
Phenol, 4-chloro 108
Ethmo, 1,2-dibroro S 108
Acroloin 101
Ethane , 1,2-dichloro 8 101
Acrrlonitrile 8 2.2 C.
Toluene 100 AC.
Chlorobonmne 71 ACV i d
v Phenol 230 ELSC
Bis(2-chloroethoy) methane 4.6 TLSC
I
Bule 57(2) Level Ia
CHEMICAL N W CAS Nfm33ERi Non-Drinking Water I @
Basis ;
..............................................................................
I
--.------------------------------------------o--------~---o----------------~--g
I Value (ug/l)
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~lenei@ 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& 20.6cRV
b N dBS:
$ - 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
Well O mI kWd IqIkq) W e 0 23000.0 100000.0 110000.0 M e 0 330900.0
Kje1191l 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) Statir Z
IrClr I - k r l l l i t a l rrsulls I w Ilrstrgon Latr sediunt samples collcctrl 0 Betember Ob. Iluskrqon Counll, HI.
RB ~ r l w sl a n~mlhesesmie 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 - A6 nMay
a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s f o r Bear Lake sediment samples c o l l e c t e d
87, Muskegon County, M i . Values reported on a dry
weight basis. Source: MDNR
Station Station Station
Parameter 1 2 3
Aldrin ( PPb )
Arochl o r 1242 ( PPb )
Arochlor 1254 (PPb)
Arochl o r 1260 ( PPb )
*Arochlor 1016 ( PPb )
*Arochlor 1221 ( PPb )
*Arochl o r 1232 ( PPb
*Arochl o r 1248 ( PPb )
*Aroch 1o r 1262 (PPb)
*Arochl o r 1268 ( PPb
g-BHC (L indane ) ( PPb
*BP-6 (PBB) ( PPb )
a-Chl ordane (PPb)
g-Chl ordane ( PPb )
2-Chloronaphthal i n e (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 )
Hexach1orobenzene ( PPb )
Hexachlorobutadiene ( ppb)
Hexachl oroethane ( PPb )
Methoxychlor
M irex
(PPb)
( PPb 1
-
Pentachl o r o n i trobenzene( ppb)
*Toxaphene (P P ~
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb)
O i 1 and Grease ( PPm) K 20 73.3

K j e l d h a l Nitrogen (P P ~ ) ** **
Total Phosphorous ( PPd +* **
Mercury ( P P ~ K 0.5 K 0.1
Selenium (P P ~ ) 1.9 0.7
Total S o l i d s (%) 11.3 25.6
* = Seldomly encountered; r e p o r t e d semi-quantitatively.

* = Results n o t y e t available.
K = Values are l e s s than d e t e c t i o n l e v e l s indicated.
APPENDIX 4.4
MUSEGON LARE AND TRIBUTARIES SEDIMENT DATA
(WMSRDC, 1982)
r
Figure - Muskegon Lake and t r i b u t a r y sediment santpling

s t a t i o n s during 1979 through 1981 survey by
the WMSRDC. (Source: WMSRDC, 1982).
*
a.
s!UIE H~sk.I.& HI&. I& HI&. Lake H&. Labe W. Lake W. IAe hdc. lake W. idce n&. ~dce
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 Sedk m t Sedln?nt
PNWJ I:ITI~ (wk) ( ~ 4 3 ) (WW (&Y (nrck) (~whe) (~ne/ke) (wn(B) (wh~)
Ni I I il o t i i.~m
ic k i d
Pi lrcnd~leMeside
M m -f i l t e ~ a l ) I aResiche
'r~)tallakgiII1i~~ A ~ I C N I
Oil 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)~illl ) i s m I w l Sdi&
- .. A - -- -
!?J(I'I E b k . lake ilk lake Hrsk. lake Hrsk. lake I&
)(ud<. )(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 Sta. 4A S b . 48 Sta. 5A
Mlnrer~t Sdlnrelt S e l i ~ ~ t Seli~at Serlimat Sdimmt Scxlllnent Sadiamt Willlent
I'EJVJ KIUI (Ilrrb) (wh) (%/kg) (@kg) (Wkcg) (Ilrrm (I
g k) ( ~ h )( m e w
a
SI\HIIE h k . lahe H s k . lake HI&. lake H&. ldce Htsk. l i k e 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 Srrlimt serlimelit %lilmlt SeJirrent Serlimt Sulimt Mirent Sellmer,i
FAItCJEI1.X (&to (~ql/klJ) kfilJ) fig) (~4 ) (figfig) (Wh) (~43) (r~/kg)
A I I I I f i I a at i tI i t I . icrl of cartinai~rwtsd ~ r v eatl each stat Ian I s recorded here.

'Ilw Itiglttst ctrw:u~t~at
A A A I : . ~ ~ i~ s~ IL~MII lul 111p r r s per m i l l i m ( p p ) .
Ekjtc: t;(r~cvsIdt I)l;uJc i d i ~ t tlut
e M
I, ~ c s tw s jle~~fcunml.w c e s with a Irylllm n-* ilrlicate r l l a t a test cas perforad, h t the results prowl
i v e . (31-clalvalues ilrlitate p ~ t u b iti l l l y OI~IIIIW~I
IM ,!;tt i c c t r r m t l a t itrs.
A A Itqtliwtc s,uqtle u;rs collected at yleciticrl sratiua. Ilie higlwt ccrlcer~tratlonof caltlvlinants observed at each statlan I s recorded here.
~Ah:;c~bic:i s r q m lul i t 1 p r t s per n i l l i t r i (~qwr).
I : I ; t i I i a t e I t I I s f ~ n qw . e s with a Iryflun O-* l~vlicalelliat a test was perf&, hut the results prwed
1" ~!,II
IVI:. t : i ~ v I ( dV~IIIWi ~ m l i v , ~~I ~I I~W!I iillly ~ I I I I iIt - IC~
I N I~
I ~ ~~
* I ~ I ; ious.
~~
f
A A It,~~li(..,lc :,,nq~)c u,ts c o l l e c t e l at s ~ w i t i e statjcrrs.
l lhe Iti&t?s~ c c n r a t t ~ a t i u tof c a l ~ i n t i t r v ~d t s m 4 a t Bach s t a t i o n 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 i w l i r i u e IIIII IN, 1cs1 MIS 1r.t t o c ~ ~ r r l .Spwes u i ~ lat I r y 1 4 ~ ~ -" Ilrlicirte t l u t a test \kls p e r f o d , htt the r e a r i t s prwerl
(+
lh I: f
. t : i t a . I c v l V~II~WS i ~ w l i w c1~1ttwIi.tIly p r t d ~ l t ~i a :~ at t~ ~ ~ w ~ ti t~" t t t ~ t t 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 Grid 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 Sdinmt Sdl~nent Minent '!hJlmmt Sedimmt Saliamt
IMN KIM( (nghe) (ncmk) (Wkg) (n\r/kg) (wfig) (muM (~43) (rgW (wW
Ni IIilo1i i;wl it: &:It1
AA IIi.l~limct. !;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 ctrw:u~ltat ~ t icm ot c t r ~ t i u n i t t i dl6etvaI

~~t~ at d l s t a t la1 i s recortkd Irere.
Abh:.t 11it: i s I ~ X I I l t d i n ~ I I - ~ PI'
S 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 lntt
n n ~teswlts
I pmd ~ w g a t l v e . C I ~ r l t d
v,~Itn-!;i ~ d i t . ~ . ~
~ I~U ~I,II
I I l y 111t 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 Grid K Grid K Grid K Crld
Sta. 5B Sta. bA Sta. 60 Sta. 7U Sta. I Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 ' Sta. 5
Saliment Strllnwlt f: rllment Sediment Wiment %li~ent Sedlnent Sedknt SeJ1.ent
PUNElFR (llrmfig) (Wh) tfil~/kl!) (%/kg) OR&) (w~B) (r(l/ke) him (~k)
IIL-pIic.i~tce m y h wds c o l l e c t 4 a t specifitxl s t a r i u s . 'Ille l~iglrestc m e s r t r a t i a ~o f c a l r a r i ~ w t soketved a t each s t a t l m is reconled Irere.

""A !..mi(: i s I ~ I I I tcxl
I 111 p11IS (MX m i IIim (~ym).
thtt:: !irwcs MI I ~ l i u ki ~ r l l c a ~t leu 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 ~ tresults proved -the. Clrcled
VAIIM-; huIic.,t~t! p i l m t i.11 ly 1~111Idtnu1
i t . m ~ w t i tl ti t @ims.
&A Ih.ldit;~tt! r;wtq~lcwas cnllecterl at s p t ~ i f i u sl t a t i a s . 'Ilw l ~ l g l ctrlctstt~atlan
~ ~ t nf cattirni~mttsdlservarl at each s t a t l m is recorded here.
parts per m i l I i t m (14~1).
A A A I ~ t 1 1 i t : i s IL~IIMI L ~i t t
&I,:: .';(\Iws I~II I)lak ildicate l l u t IN) test \~;lrpetfo~nml. Sptcc?l; w i ~ l ra IlylJm W-* inlicate test p r f o d lmt results proved negative. Circled
it: t . t ~ ~ . t N
v.tl~w:li i ~ m l i m c~ r ~ l ui al ltl y l u t h l t n u ~ ~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 ccnrentiatltr~of cunti~~tti~mtts drserved a t each station I s rerorded lwe.
LV.1 .;,,ltit. i s I ~ : ~t Ia)dI 111 pitrts per m i l l itm (ppn).
th811.: a;l~l~~l-; 114I III,II& l~mlIi.,btc~ I ~ II IW tt-.t wm; p ! ttuwuvl.~ ! i w e - ; wilh ,I l ~ y l d u i ~ II~III~.III: t t ~ m dIn11 i e ~ d t spr-1
II**;IIICI nqpthc. (:Ireled
e b t u ~ t i ,l~yl ~ I A I I U I ~ I I ic ~~~IIM:UIII,I~
v . I ~ I ~ * : ;i ~ d i t , ; ~ tl x iws.
A A lb-y~licutcsn+ wis collectel at s ( l ~ v l f i u 1staticra. 'Ihe l ~ i & e s tcmlcurtra~itrrof cmtmir\acrts dwrverl at e a d ~statla, i s recorded here.
AAAtxj~iei s I ~ U1-1I it1 lmrts per m i l l i m (lqw).
k l c : Splw; k t ( $ l i ~ l kildicate that m I t s t prfotnerl. qkre?;u i t h 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
ic: ~ ctrlcuttritl
v , l l t ~i~rlic;tle polurtially ~ ~ u l ) l c m c icm.
A .r t i m o f W l e Stat Ian locatia\s
&XI-i
Smq~leStatlar C ws located i n tire v l c l n i t y of a fonner a r f a c e 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 llartslmn Marirra, the nev YKX, ad the former Hichlgar F a d r y ad Sylply Crrpany. llris statim
was positiu& s l r c i f l c a l l y to evaltute tlre potential contrilnrtla~o f pollutartts Craw tlre W i v l s l m Street* storr sewer.
w
a~ Sevalp Treabnent Plant, a former solid waste drp, a d i n
S u y ~ l eStatiat I.was located I n the p r a l v l c i n l t y of tlre faner City of NMth H n i q p ~
tlw i q ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( iatea ~ . f l y aslr plrl water i s dlsclmrged ly die B.C. Cdh Plint.
~ l \ tAere f
Ssq~leStat im J w s located i n a b y at-ea o f H&wgtn lake a!)acent t o tlre H l c h l p FanJty Supply Capany..
.';aqde !;littiat C-1 rrcls located In H d l y c r r l a k e near the S.D. Vanen Paper H i l l .
Sl.11 i t r ~2 vis I r w a t d at the eastern ad o f the lake.

EV
S~W S~ATICIJ ikarI.de H m Hdqm 'IJttleBear 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) (wfig) (wfig) (rg/kg) (rg/lrd) (~gfia)
I)iethy l Il~lloliate
IN-I) w t y l l h l d i a t e
1,2.l)il4w~yII~It-ilri1a
Ihwtltyl Il~tlk~latc
Fllut i ~ l ~ l ~ e
~ I ~ I It YU
le I I
~IL::.;wIdtnwyc lq~3lrtimIlene
I1rkru~(I,2,3-ccl)~yl-ule
IvqJw)lcru
El~l~~l~lluIuw?
tli Ilcllwr~uw?
N I II~ ~trt;trli~Jluiyliuni~~
Ilw.rru~ll~~uw?
I'yttl*?
t1111:: : I I i
. . .
iI
. ..
I~ I
. ..I
I S
a. ..
. !+res vilh a
a .
r .YI .-* i d I r a r e t1t. a lest uu p e r f a a d , but the
r
r a t l t s prna
wars sr~qcrc Ihddim~rT. Rud~llnw Ryernr~ Hduqp Hdwgm 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
PEJVIJWMI (~h ) (ylfig) (who (w&) (-fig) ( 1 (5&)
*)le Creek i n d i a t e l y h t r e a r tram the tU'W p n r l t t e d d l h r e llsed by the~
Statiat A was l o c a t d m b s q ~ l t o Courty k t a e t e r
t L u L ~ a u r systrn
l (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 Yhssay
S q h Slaticrt D r r ~ slocated an an t r r d t r l h t a r y to I.lttle Bear Creek I n an area 4uxe granhater m l e s have bear shnm ty I l N t as cmtmlmted
h t m mstes a s s t r l a t d 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 of t ! h p l e Statla1 0.
!b111leStatlat IIvas l o c a t d 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 l u t srohr sewer netmk s e r v l ~llle ~ Cltles of H-n arrl thrdcegar lleights.
S q d e Stilticn H ras located at the w r ~ l l rof t l a south lwinrh of tlre thdrega~Rlver damstrean of the m y Qap, the Qlarterline Ladflll, t l a
'I'elirlywCtrrti~wttalHotors Cetty Stmet Plant NFllES pe~nltteddidurge, as dl as a l l other upstre# pollutant s ~ u c e 9a n t r l b u t l ~to the k k g m
Iliwr w l e r s l d .
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
, t l e so alld
clr~titrcsrnhem I t s carflaltrre v l t h t~lhrtory.~
0
4 I
!iqh Statlat Ernas located m k r Creekdmmtrear f r a I t s canfl~lerrevithH t t l e k r Creekand t h r o d m m t t e a fm S t a t l m ~ ' . m l e s t a t l a r
E \AS j r ) ~ i t i t r dto 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 r L l t t l e Bear (2eek d tas Intended as a Eurthcr delineatlm of irpacts associated
at the a r ~ t l of
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 ~ the

t l l t t l e Oear Creek raterstrad a d vere l n t e d d to help JetemIra the extent of p l l t ~ t l m
u ~ r u r t t l r y (€tan tlre fornrr Story/Ott Ore*ital tbqlany.
S q h !i~,tcltrtsII I,11-2, awl 11-3 ore l~rltsrkrlto d l f f e r e ~ t l a t eb e r m trllwtary cattrllrrtial of pollutants to Rddlnn W.
Sm(11c. Stiltitrt K - 1 m s located an Ryerscrt CI-edc, Jnwrrtrecn f r r n sewial stmn sever attfalls.
Ni t r l lotr.lucct i c Acid
MESATIU4 BearIA thplto Htskegon IdtrleBear 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 Serlimt Saliamt Sedlamt Sedlmt Sedlmnt
PAIWEI1.R (@@fig) (r~/ke) ( ~ / k g ) (43fi8) (~lgh) ( ~ / k e ) (fS/kg) (~/ks) (~h)
W,:pIic.,~tc snq~lt?s were cnllectul at stat l a w A, I),mrl H. l l e 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-; I c l 1 l)lsk iculicittc 11111 tw IIS~w s IWI ttrtnul. qracrs with a Ity$trt '1-* icvlirate tlrat a test uas p e r f o n d , lut tlle renclts in-c.4
I,I
,rl>tl ivc. C i l c lul valtris itrlicatc luttutr i d l y tAilemtic ctrlctm~at itrs. f
~ I ~ q ~ l i c ;.;m(~lrs
t~c were collectal at rtatiurs A, 0, s r l H. HE I~igllestcurcnttatfon of tllr cantaainmts dervd a t each s t a t l m i s recorderl here.
I : S ~ W I S left Olak i a l i r - t e tlr;rt IMJ test m s (elf w ~ ~ l!ip . uw 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 valws
l i~wliti~~ le ~ U h:I cmtca~tmticnts.
h lIl yI ~ I ~ I ~ U UI
. 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 STAN O€V I A l l ) r U m CIW1WW
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
8400 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
100~000 100~008
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
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
MEOIUM VhRIAMCE STAN OEV MAKIIU*

WAVE R 12.00000 3.464100 14
WATEI 12100000 3.464100. 7
WITER 1.334100 1.155000 25
WATER 11.8
WAVEI 25.0
MATCI 04
UAtEl 260.00
UATER 210.000
?anamttt~ mtorum
003 I9 COO MU0 OR1 MCT mC/UG MATER
006 !7 U J C L O L M 101 MU 0 O G 0 l C MRIEI
006 11 ?nos nuo oar M ~ I m c r a c - r urtm
Oel IS CTLWIDC S C O ~ C / R C 011 w t uawn
009 , r C A *UO O R 1 MCT )IC/IC-CL MltE1
009 !4 mc m u o OW MCT mtmc-nc Matte
1009 I4 UA )IUD OR1 MCT )IC/UC-MA WATER
009 8 IMU0 OR1 Y C 1 )IC/UC-I MIIlFR
010 10 b A MU0 ORT Y C T ( r 6 / I G - b 1 MITER
080 3 I wo OR1 MCT m c / u c - 1 MATE1
010 I1 CO mu0 OR1 MCT mC/IC-Co MATER
010
010 I8 CO )IUD 011 MCT WCIUC-CO MRTER
010 13 COPPER sEO)IC/IC O R I MCT Malta
,010I2 L E A 0 StOll(;/(lC 0111 YCT WATER
010 19 MU rmo o w ucr mwrc-MW wrttr
010 13 (10 MU0 011 M C I MC/UC-NO MATtR
010 18 WICREL SEOIIC/UC OR1 MCT WATER
010 '0 S I L V E R SEOIC/UC 011 YG? YRIER
.I@ 19 SR W O OR1 S T W/U6-SR MLTER
ole 0 V MU0 O n 1 MCT RC/UG-V M~TER
010 13 ztm S E O ~ W U C 011 w t M~IER
01I IY T I U mo 011 st mG/aC-su MATE1
011
on 1 13 11 mu0 ORI ucr ~CIUC-LI MLT~R
el 1 '0 r e mu0 O W M C t )IC/UC-CE MLlPR
327 11 PttEWOLS SEOcH/lC 011 MCT MLTtR
34 3 I9 OLTNPHTM S E W W U C OR1 Sf MAILR
34 3 I9 BtWOOSUL SEOUC/IC OR1 UGT MAIER
344 18 T E T C L t 7 E SIEBOC/UC OR1 y b T MATE@
39 1 I2 m2E ?H7H WO-OR1 UC/IC MATE R
391 2 we P n t n wo-oar uc/rs w r w
435 4 Y t T R I U l S t 0 -1 MCIMC/aC MITER
45s 1) H )I1It& WOOEL INFO. MLIER
4 ss 6 cc O~IEC TOR TVPE taro MA~CR
455 1 CC cotumu t l ? E YLIER
TOY 0 R t S ! W E TOlML PERCEM? MLIER
703 2 R L S I b U E TOT VOL PERCEMT MATE1
119 1 M R C U R T S tD)IC/UC OR1 N G l MhTCR
"ORE1 RETRIEVAL 0A1E 8 6 0 1 1 / 1 9 PC#= I N V F M T
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~cntcrn nusn EGO*
LIKE ntcn~crn 082100
llUSIFCOW
I t l S C L S b 821016 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0001.910 ON
0 0 1 9 FEE1 OEITM
CIRIMETE 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 MA1
o o u o ?nos m u o ORV ucr rw~c-• ~11
O @ 7 2 1 C V A N I O E S E O I C 0 I C ORV M6T MI1
00911 C A MU0 O I I MCT MC0KC-CA MA1
00924 nc auo O R 1 ucr W~/IC-nc urr
0 0 1 3 4 MA W O ORV MCT MC0KC-MA Y1l
@ 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 n C 0 a C - C O MI1
O l @ 2 9 CWROMIUW S t O H G 0 I C 011 UCT MA1
0 1 @ 3 0 C O MU0 011 Y C T m 6 0 I C - C O Ma1
0 1 0 4 3 COPPER S E O I C 0 K C 0RV M C I MAT
01852 LEA0 SEOWG/IC ORV MCT MA1
OIOS~ MI wo ORV MCT MC/IC-MN urt
@ 1 @ 6 1 MO W0 O R 1 MCT WG0KC-M0 MI1
01068 M~CIEL S~OMC/IC o w ucr MAI
01010 S I L V E R SEOMC/RS ORV M C I MA1
0 1 0 0 $ 1 W0 O R 1 M C I M W K C - S R Ma1
@I008 V M U 0 DRV M C 1 mC0KC-V MAT
@I@93 ZINC 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 ~ wcr i ~C/IC-AL MAT
0 1 8 9 ) L I MU0 ORV YCT W C 0 K C - L I Y1T
@ I 1 1 0 F E MU0 OR1 M 6 I E FC
-IC
@
/I Ma1
3 2 1 3 1 PWENOLS SEOMC0KG DRV M G I MAT
3 4 3 5 9 8EWOOSOL SEOUC0KC ORV MCT Mat
3 4 4 1 0 1 E t C L L T C S E O U W I S OR1 Y6T MAT
3 4 5 1 9 I l 2 2 T C L E SEDU60RC ORV UCT Ma1
4 5 5 1 4 V T T R t U I SEO OllV MGI(IC0KC MAT
4 5 5 t 5 CC M I U € & ROOEL If 0 MA1
4 5 9 1 6 CC OLTEC 1OR TVPE I N F O M II
4 S S l T CC COLI'AN TlCE WIT
7 0 3 1 8 RESIDUE TOTAL PERCENf MI1
t o 3 2 2 RLSIOUE TOT VOL IEWCENI urr
7 1 9 2 1 WERCURV SCOMC0IC O R 1 MCT VL1
T O 1 9 4 TO ICMLWO m € T H l N E O S E O U C 0 I C MAT
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~~II~ETLR I V I W I 4 N C E S T A N OEV MAXIMUM
I301 P r P a 0 O 7 SEOUC/UC OR1 Y C I Y 4 1 14-08
I311 PrP'b00 S E O U C 0 I 6 O R 1 Y b l YAW 1.00
I328 P.P'ODE sEOUC/UC O R 1 YCT WIT 1.00
,943 fOHC-MU0 L l W O I N l DRVUC/UC Y L 1 2.00
,983 P C O - I 2 4 8 IPOUG/(IC O R 1 YGT Y 4 1 s3.00
IS07 PCB-I254 S€DUC/l6 OUT Y C l Y 4 1 lS.00
1101 H C ~ srouc/rc our u c ~ur1 2.00
,I11 6-CMLRDW )OD UC/KG Y4T 1.00
1Sl4 1 l T R I U W S t 0 OR1 YCfN6/16 Y 1 1 0.0000
1 s t ~cc m a r s noocc rnro. urv 14
is16 CC OETEC TOR T l P E I N F O WIT I
I S 7 1 CC COLUMN TlPE Y41 25
I318 RESEW€ tOT4L PERCENT Y 1 7 43.4
I322 REStOWE t o 7 VOL PERCENT Y L 1 16.0
921 l L R C U R 1 SEOMC/RC 011 YCT Y 4 1 02
I194 T R l C H C R O WE T H I M E D S EDUC/KC N I T 2 0 10 9 8
26-66
36 90
0
400.00
I I. 000
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
26121 MICIICAN WUSRE601
LAIE WIL~ICA~ 082100
M U f l( EGOW
I I I S G L S I 821016 0 0 2 2 F E E014 0 OEPTM
6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0006.520 OW
raarnEwa 1EoIUm NUIIOER CEIW

1 3 3 9 COO I U D O R 1 U C 1 MC/16 M1 I E l 1 l10000.0
I 6 2 1 I I E l O L W I O T rcU 0 MC/IC M I IER 1 840.0000
1660 ?nos MUD I D I MGT MC/IC-• ur 1 FR 1 160-0000
n z t cvamtoe SEDMC/RC ORV MCT u1 r E a 1 1.100000
1911 C A mu0 O R 1 MCT IC/UC-CA MA 1 ER 1 30000.00
I 9 2 4 MC MUD oat YCT mc/RC-n6 MA / € a 1 llOOO.00
I 9 3 4 *a w o O R 1 M 6 1 MC/UC-NI M a IER 1 100.6000
1930 1 MU0 OR1 M C l )rC/RC-U M 1 /El)
0 0 0 OA M U 0 O R 1 MWR6-OA MA I C I
023 0 W O O R 1 MCT MWIC-0 MA ton
0 2 8 C D WWl 011 MCT nt/IlC-CD MA I t l
029 c n r o m t ~ c rstowc/rs ORV ~ C Tur 1€ 1
0 3 0 CO M U 0 O R 1 M C I MC/U6-CO MA IER
0 4 3 COIPCR stowwrc ORI MCT MA I E l
OS2 L E A 0 SEORWIC O R 1 U C l MA , € I
0 5 3 #OW W O O a l WCT M W S C - I W M 1 ICR
0 6 3 I)O L U O O W MCT MC/R6-MO M 1 IER
1#40 W I C I E L StOMC/U6 @RV M C 1 M 1 IER
l a l o SItVER SEOMS/IC ORV Y G 1 M 1 IER
o sa auo oat W T n c / a ~ - s a YL tca
000 v mu0 oa1 YCT MC/IC-v M a IER
1093 I t M SEOMC/@C O R 1 YCT MA I E I
103 T I N MU0 O R 1 M G I I G / I 6 - S W MA ' € I
100 AL w o ORV MCI mwuc-m ua ' e a
1 1 3 3 LI m u o O
TI UCT ~CIIC-LI YA rER
'ER
MATER
MATER
MAlEl
MITER
MAlEl
MITEO
MATER
MAT E l
MIItI
MITER
MAI fa
WUS9I-14
4 3 I 4 43.0 0 9 6 I S 20.0 2
WSIPGON
26121 WICMIG~N WUSI~GON
LAKE WICMILAN 092100
HUSIEGON
11156LS8 821016 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 OOO6.SZO OW
oozi FEET OEPTM
IEolUn
0 R V M6T YA IER
YCT11&/IlG MA IER
INFO. YA 'ER
INFO MA 'El
f VCE MA 'ER
PERCENT Ma 'Ell
CERCEMT MA ' ER
O R 1 Wf MA 'E(l
SEDUC/KC YA 'ER
SEOU6/KC YA 'ER
SEOUG/KC YA IER
SEDUG/KG ua '€I
YGTUG/KC WA IfR
n n*
0 a=sn*s
0 W e DBO
x t r
C'I
OC
0
It Ia-
'
C C O t
00 omc
0
~ m u m m ~ ~ ~ m w m ~
*. k
m k m ru k
o m~ ~ am m
u . .
~ u. k ~r u~ m ~
*a*
m ~ ~ i
.
4 * * 0 9 m o * . 00. D e N O e U k * W k Y . * - 0 - 0 .
8
O
&O f O
f ~~? OP bO PO~ Of bOb ~~ b
O
~~ b ~? ~b &
O
:~b O: ofo~Pm ~b* O~~ OZ~O oOO*" ~~o?mO ~ ~P O~ SO ~Oo " ~ S ~
0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 00000000000000000. 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
k - - m u u
*
m
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .
w v m r m O uo w
... ..
kJ(u** O Y 0 Qk r m m - W O O - 0 - I
m * 0 0 0 Q Y 0 0 O m O m e N * N urn* 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 00 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
nusol-IS
43 14 33.0 086 16
nusttmw
26121 ntcnrcm
L A I F MICHIGAN
nusa EGON
1115GLSI 821023 04060102003 0005.910 O
W
0036 FEET DEPTM
PARAMETER (IEOIUM RMI( NUMBER LEAN VARIANCE STAN OEV MAIIMUR two obrt
39903 PC@-I240 SEOUC/RC OR1 YCT WAlER 1 65.00000 65.00 81/06/26
39S01 PCB-1254 SEOUWRC ORV YC1 WATER I T5.00000 15.00 01/06/26
39101 WCO SEWC/IG ORV Y b t WAVER I 2.000000 2 900 *1/06/26
45914 VITRIUM SEO OR1 WCl~C/KC WAIER 1 9.200000 9.2000 01/06/26
wms cc n m r ~nooEL INFO. WATER I 0.000000 0 01/06/26
ass16 cc orrec TOR r v r t
INFO WATER 1 1.000000 1 01/06/26
45571 CC COLUMN TVPE wrEu I 23.00000 2 3. 91/06/26
to310 REsrout TOTAL PERCENT YArER 1 23.10000 23.1 81/06/26
10322
11921
TOTSO
RESIOUt 1 0 1 VOL
nERcuRv sEonwrc
OIC~LOIO
PERCENT WAIER
OQV YC1 WltER
nefmnt SEOUC/RC WAIER
1 16.00000
I .~000000
1 11.10000
16.0
11.10
.5
a1/06/26
8 I/O6/Z6
01/06/26
too01 cnavsEne BNZO~NIH SEOUC/RC Y4TER I 450.0000 450.00 01/06/26
01940 fiWTIPWEN SEO ORV W6TUC/I(G WAICR I 340.0000 340.000 0 1/06/26
APPENDIX 4.6
MUSKEGON RIVER BASIN FISH SAMPLING DATA
(WMSRDC, 1982)
-
W I I E SI'ATIW ti&. lake H s k . 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 ka. 1 Sta. 5 Sta. 5 Creek Creek Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 7 Sta. 7 Sta. 7
Bltqi11 Ilrrllllerul Bltq!I1 b t l l l d Sta. 0 2 Sta. 0-3 Urlte V. Sudter Pllre lhso Rfd Horse
thpsites ~ m s l t e sCaqmsrte 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 fat 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 13nl
)uyllcrIal
)ulut L.N. h s c L.N. Bra8 1.. a s L.I. Bea L.I. h a s L.I. h a s
L e q t h tcrh 42.1 44 37.n U.z U.b lb.3
k t g h l tpl: I766 IW I616 LOW fit6 I26
k:t F F F F F I
.-------------- .----------
I 6.061 I 6.601
1 6.6083 1 6.0061
I 6.01 I 6.661
I 6.601 I 6.601
I 6.661 I 6.461
1 6.Wt 1 @.OW1
1 @..@@I I 6.601
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
r32n run
I.Plbr
Y
12s.
I
-----------.
I 0.002
I 0.0003
K 0.003
K 0.002
10.002
1 0 . w
1 0.002
i
Table - Bear Lakc fish contaminant monitoring data for srmpies cdlected 29 October 86. Huskegon County, NI.
values on a wet weight basis.
.
~ a b Number : 65237
Sprcies: L.N. Bass
65238
L.N. Bass L.N.
65239
Bass
65240
L.N. Bass
65241
L.N. Bass L.N.
65242
Bass
Length lcm): 47.5 40 38.5 34.6 34.2 32
Weight (gm): 2120 1200 980 760 740 580
Parameter Sex : F H H II F ?
--
Cadmium luglkg) K 10.0

(uglkg) K 100.0
luglkg) 600
Lead luglkg) K 100.0
Nercury luo/kg) 670.0
Nickel luo/kg) K 100.0
-
Zinc !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):
scx :
460
F
390
n
600
N
460
N
1800
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 3
00 5900
-
Parameter 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
lkrcury
Nickel
Iuglkg)
iuglkg)
(uplkg)
K
K
100.0
100.0
100.0
K 100.0
290.0
K 100.0
K 100.0
150.0
K 100.0
K 100.0
120.0
K 100.0
K 100.0
100.0
K 100.0
-
Zinc (uqlkg) 9900 14700
231
9700 (8600) 10600 14100
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
-.-+I
F
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
icblrlratd pmtlclh
r KII Iqlkgl
Table - Bear Lake fish contaminant monitoring data for fish collected 29 October 88. Huskegon, HI.
L1. ~ U IU237 U231 U2II ba239 bat0 bJ2lS

hpllrrtrt L D D
S p r l n ~ L.I. k m t L.I. kr L.I. k t r L.I. ktr L.I. h a s L A Data
L q t h lcrlr 41.S 41.3 0 ID.s 14.1 U.3
klgbt l y l t 2l2@ 2IH la8 m 1u bM
----------------------------
krr
.---------- f F I
----------. I
.-------------- -----------. I I
----------.
I @.MI 1 am2 I 8.w I 6.01 I @.@.I
1 @.Me2 1 0.0644 I 0.w I ..MI I @.MI
I 1.m I k M l I @.MI I kMl I kW
K @.MI I 8.m I @.MI I @.MI I @.MI
K @.MI K @.MI K @.MI K @.02 K LW
K @.WI 1 @.ow I LMI I CWI I M
@
I.
K kt42 1 LM2 K # M
.I 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 a c t i o ~ / p r o b l e uthat should
hold up permit action. Note: This may be followed by a division '
recommedation to the Water Rerources C ~ i s s i o nto 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
of Permits)
- Public Noticing
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~lllpentsreceived. I
2. The permit processor prepares the proposed permit and WRC
agenda for action. (See Procedure X5
Agenda )
-
informational packets. The proposed permit is placed on the WRC
Preparation of WRC
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
L
perioda e d r . (See Procedure #5 -
will take from 20 to 35 days depending upon when the public notice
Preparation of WRC Agenda).
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
Date
r4,14f&
NPDES PERMIT ISSUANCE SEQUENCE
A. Applic.
Review
Permi t 8
Dletrict
Env. Enf.
B. Permit
RumlUL
*
N
w Pernit.
PSPS
CLEM
D i a tt i c t
1 EPA
Applicant
C. P u b l i c
Mtice
EPA/Dlmt .
Applicant
D. Permit
IPrucmce
Permite
mc
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 S a m e of Polnt of Renruce Renxrrce
Corrlty Scrrxncrl andTdrlp Ccrttiumi~latla, klera
se Pollutant Affected Rotentlally Affected
Xylem Toltrerr Crourdwter &face Vater

Zinc lead Berrzene Soil
Etllylbene
Benzene C r o hter Surface Water

Tul~ene Soll Flora
Soroy 011 Rmsevelt Pk Petro reflnlng

Xy lene
Dmzene GranmSter N3ne

.
614FBJ-IN41BD Tank Toluene Soil
Roosevel t Patk Xylene
Ccmsmxs Plaffr IK Cdh Plant Cirs elec ut Illty ladom lbavy Hfg Surface Uater
61-I(N-16W-l7C Cmnduater
City of lbdqpl
Old Clly of Hlslct.garr nmp Isultlll
61-1(N-lW-17111
City of w s k q o n
RB
Oil
Sorrrce of b l n t of. Resalrce llesarrce
C a t t m l ~ uion
t . Release Pollutant Af fected RotmtlaUy Affected
Gas statlar thrlergrad

Talk
lleavy Hfg . CramJuater

Soil
Petro reflnlrrg -1 nal Oil Craurkater Surface \later

Sllll
O d l ty Fam a d Fleet
61- I(N-1N6ll)
Cl ty of Hc;krbcm
Iran. '::eel Faruliy lanlfill Arstlc, I d , Sedlr~nt Soil

Crase, f l m l s , SlrrfaceVater Faura
thbni~n C r a n h a ter
---
SAS Screen C h m Site h e k
6 lhte
( i r r ~ t y . Screed
anl Loeatim Cotle
anlTd~ip
Soruce of
Cmtanimtim
Point. of
Release PoLlutant
Reslluro
Affected
' Resarrce
Potentially Affected
kracmda Inlustries Steel vice prod Mrwqrard (Xesols Soll

61-1(N-lN-2% Ihlergrarrl Organics
Laketm Talks Solvents
Broahy I F ldfjll Landfill Ouneotic Clrn Surface Uater GraugIwater

61a-lbv- Soll
WsIqpn I k i g l ~ t s Falna
Brotm Rd N of UII te RMd ILllorarn Barrel lkavy Hfg Cramhater

61-10s-UU-I0 Sol 1
War Creek
Jdmsan Rahlcts %led b r * * D d n e aqxmnt nfg Lagoon O i l and Crease Surface !her Crandvater
6l-lU4-16U-3WUl
City of W e y u 1
Cmnhrater
Systech Licpici Tteacitumt (bqb+* C l l a prud lnfg Ahqramul 9dim Fornete Granduater Soil
61- ~ - l 6 W ~ U ) Tirk
HIS~~UI~ I k t s
*llu? ctrtnrnl s i t e m e i s for i t l r J ~ r i f i c l i l ~ iaml l y and does mt necessarily inlicate a party reslnrrsihle Em cmtminatim.
Source of Point of Rewurce Resource
h~tarlnatlan Release Pollutant Af fected Pbtentlally Affcsited
I
Story Oadcal Co Ott Conbva O m Prahrt Hfg aler Prod Nfg

61-llN-1W-UBC)
lbl tm
Metal lrarduare nfg Cramhater ~ f a Wr,e Sedlmmt

Sol l surface water
Resldentlal Uell
Oler Prod Hfg
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 h l n t of Resour- Resarrce
Score h t e Scored 4Tarrrdrlp Cartarlmtlm Release Pollutant AEfected h t m t i d l y Affected
Surface Vtr Sedlnent

Sltrface Uater
A1r
bP"h 011, Benzene, Craduater

Ahqrad To11m e , Sol 1
Tank, Plpllne Xylem
thumkter
J r k e Uater.
Air
l'elalynt? Cmtlnental Hotors
61-1CN-l6U-16a:
City of H s k q p r
I~I~IUMI Orloroforr Perc Crarrlwter

I l l'li-iclrloroetlrane klckrrt i a l Uell
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 Cralmhtcr
61-laCW-22m T d T~lt~m Residential Vcll
llultan wefie
.-
lbratlm Oil ~ r d r t ;Tetmlrral 011 s t o w Pipeline Rel oil
61-ION-16V-03M
City of M ~ B
Surface Uater
Grtrruhater
Soi 1
Sol1 .Crandliater
Residentlal Uell
Surface Uater
thmar Sl te b*
-
S!S C~nrttyad 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 t e n t i a l l y Affected
L i t t l e Black Creek&* Ulkrulur \LI)UYNI Cirhlu, (hmrlu, Surface Water Sedi F ~ M

61-09N-16U-3XYl RBI bad, Arsenic, Surface Vater
Nickel, Cupper,
landfill Idfill Ikmstic Coln

Ibvy Hfg
Steel vice prod Lagmn
B o v l l ~equip mfg Ihkrgramd

Tank
Qun Prod Hfg SI r r f ace Cllen Prod Hfg C~arduater Surface Water
Disclrarlp
landfill l a d f Ill r h e s t i c 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 ~raeIs for identlflcatlm udy ad does mt necessarily Indicate a party respmslble for cantinlnatlan.
~ W I : ~ w : l)Law
s 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

W i l d l i f e Division
6 t h Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
517-373-1263
John S c o t t
F i s h e r i e s Division
6th Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028
517-373-1280
Tom Doyle
6th Floor, Mason Bldg., Box 30028
5 17-373-6702
John Trimberger
Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t Office
350 Ottawa NW
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
616-456-5071
Dave Smith
Grand Rapids D i s t r i c t
350 Ottawa NW
616-456-5071
Terry Ringler
Grand Rapids Area Office
3319 P l a i n f i e l d Ave., NE
616-456-2361
Rick Taszreak
Environmental Response Division
Box 30028
517-373-8248
Roger Przybysz
350 Ottawa NW
616-456-5071
Ron Waybrant
Hazardous Waste Division
Grand Rapid8 D i s t r i c t
350 Ottawa NW
616-456-5071
I r n i e Jousma
Surface Water Q u a l i t y Div.
350 Ottawa NW
616-456-5071
Denise Gruben
Box 30028
517-373-4807
Linn Duling
Surface Water Q u a l i t y Division
Box 30028
517-373-867
Elwin Evans
Surface Watt. Quality Division
Box 30028
517-373-2867
Diana Klemans
Box 30028
Dave Kenaga
Box 30028
517-373-4314
Karen G o t t l i e b
Office of the Great Lakes
Box 30028
517-373-4226
Thomas Martin
Office of t h e Great Lakes
Box 30028
517-373-3588
Les Nichols
Recreational F a c i l i t i e s Division
Box 30028
517-335-4828
B i l l Creal
Chairman MDNR 316 Committee
BOX 30028
517-335-4181
Dan Morgan
Land and Water Management Division
Box 30028
517-373-0208
Jack B u t t e r f i e l d
Parks Division
Box 30028
517-373-1270
Marlene L i e s t i c o
Geological Survey Division
350 Ottawa NW
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
517-373-9058
Michigan Dept. of Public Health
Harold Rumphreys
3500 N. Logan
P .O. Box 30035
517-335-8350
John Hesse
3500 N. Logan
P.O. Box 30035
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 e e t
Muskegon, Michigan 49443
616-724-6411
Frank Bednarek
Muskegon County Bldg.
990 Terrace S t .
616-724-6211
Muskegon County Library

635 Ottawa
City - N. Muskegon
Mayor C. Max Fleischman

C i t y Hall
1502 Ruddman
N. Muskegon, Michigan 49445
616-744-1621
C i t v of Muskegon
Virginia Zugich, City Clerk

C i t y Hall
616-724-6705
Robert F. Hagemann, 111

City H a l l
616-724-6724
Rick Chapla
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
City Hall
616-724-6702
Ruth Kirklan '

Hackley Public Library
316 W. Webster
616-722-7276
Township of Muskegon
W i l l i a m E. Farwig
Township Hall
1990 Apple Ave.
616-777-2555
Township of Lake
Donald G. Johnson
Township Hall
2735 W. G i l e s 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
616-788-3492
U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n 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
D e t r o i t District
Army Corps of Engineers
Box 1027
D e t r o i t , Michigan 48231
616-788-3492
Pam Bedore
Detroit D i s t r i c t
Box 1027
Eark G r a z i o l i
Detroit D i s t r i c t
Box 1027
U.S. Fish h Wildlife Service
Bob P a c i f i c
Eatst Lansing Field Office
1405 S. Earrieon Rd.
E. Lansing, Michigan 48823
517-337-6650
Margaret Kolar, Acting F i e l d Supervisor

East Lansing Field Office
1405 S. Harrison Road .
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
517-337-6650
Tim Kubiak
East Lansing F i e l d Office
1405 S. Barrison Rd.
517-337-6650
Dave Best
East Lansing F i e l d Off i c e
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
517-337-6650
U.S. Coast Guard

Muskegon Lake
6 16-759-8581
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Cammission
John B a r t i g
Regional Office
Winsor, Ontario, Canada
313-226-2170
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Carols F e t t e r o 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.
616-737-2287
Michigan United Conservation Club
Carol Favero
Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 30235
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.
616-451-3051
Dick Olsen
City of Grand Rapids
Chief Air Pollution
616-456-3148
Carla Bates
League of Women Voters
435 Mitzi St.
616-828-6675
Tom Rodenmaches
Grand Rapids Press
155 Michigan Ave.
616-459-1504
Toby Dolinka
Center for Environmental Study
143 Bostwick, NE
616-456-4848
Brad Miller
Senator Riegle ' s Off ice
716 Federal Bldg.
110 Michigan Avenue, N.W.
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
M i c h i ~ a nHouse 96
.
M.L Mickey Knight (R-Muskegon)
1450 Leaky S t .
517-373-2646
Michigan Senate 33
P h i l Arthurhultz (R-Whitehall)
6044 Murray Rd.
Whitehall, Michigan 49461
517-373-1635
U.S. Congress 9
Guy Vander J a g 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.
6 16-744-9886
M r . Donald G. Johnson
Supervilror
Township Xall
2735 West G i l e s Road
616-777-2555
WOTV CHANNEL
120 College, S.E.
-
M r . Dave Sheehan
8
P.O. Box B
616-456-8888
John Lansing
WWEITTP-3
280 Ann S t r e e t N.W.
616-388-3333
Rob Sanford
WWMTTV-3
280 Ann S t r e e t , N.W.
616-784-4200
, M r . Jack Hogan
WZZM TV - 13
645 3-Mile Road, N.W.
616-784-4200
M r . Ken Kolbe
WZZM TV - 13
616-784-4200
M r . B i l l Betts
WZZM TV -
13
616-784-4200
WAVX - -
M r . Dave Lorenz
FM 98.3
1826 Ruddiman Ave.
-
THE WAVE
North Muskegon, Michigan 49445
616-744-2423
Mr. Tim Walters
WKBZ RADIO
592 Pontaluna Road
616-798-2141
Mr. Tim Breed

WGHN
P.O. Box 330
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
616-842-8110
Mr. Bill Shoup

WABM-FMIWRJR-AM
6083 Martin Road
616-798-2115
Ms. Ann Vandermyde

WMUS FM / AM THE MUSIC STATION
517 West Giles Road
616-744-1671
Ma. Pam Roberts

WQWQ STEREO / WTRU SUNNY FM
873 Sumit Avenue
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
616-722-3161
Mr. John Steveeon

Muakegon Chronicle
Main Office 981- 3
616-722-3161
Mr. Dave Kolb

Muskegon Chronicle
-
Main Off ice 981 3
616-722-3161
The Honorable M.L. Mickey Knight
1450 Leahy S t .
The Honorable Carl Levin

Senate Offi c e Bldg.
Washington, DC 205 15
M r . W i l l i a m E. Fatwig, Supervisor
Township Hall
1990 Apple Avenue
616-777-2555
M r . Lee Kernen
Chief of Great Lakes
Boundary Water f Great Lakes
P.O. Box 7921
- DNR
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
608-266-2277
D r . Dan Brazo
U.S. Naval Armory
- DNR
Michigan C i t y , Indiana 46360
219-879-8391
D r . William Eger, Director

I n t e r t r i b a l Fisheries 6
Asseesment Program
206 Greenough S t .
S a u l t Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783
906-632-6896
M r . Richard Hess
Program Manager
I l l ~ n o i sDept. of Conaerv.
100 W. Randolph, S u i t e 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
616-722-3161
M r . John R. Campbell
'Muskegon Court Rouse
County Commission
990 Terrace
616-773-9131
Mr. Mark S. Hill
137 Muskegon Mall
Muskegon, Michigan 49440-1192
Mr. Ray Grennan

2567 Miner
Mr. Ed Shields
1716 Lakeshore
Mr. Jim Wirtz

1531 Shettler
Mr. Stan Prelkes
1828 Commerce
Mr. Richard M. Freye

3171 Lakeshore
Ms. Barb Grennan

2377 Westwood
Mr. Steven J. Britton

681 Lake Torest Ln 0-12
Mr. James Read
2953 Memorial
Ms. Carolyn Read

2953 Memorial
Mr. Stan Peterson

1076 Francis
Mr. John M. Maule

124 Bear Lake
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
M r . John Moran
2400 Lakeshore Drive
M r . Rich O'Naal
3638 P i l l o n Road
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
616-451-3051
?la. Arlene Esch

Muskegon Health Dept.
1611 Oak Ave.
Muskegon, Michigan 49442-2499
616-724-631 1

1987 Michigan DNR Statement Regarding Illegality of Coal Ash Dumping in Lake Michigan

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1987 Michigan DNR Statement Regarding Illegality of Coal Ash Dumping in Lake Michigan

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Michigan Department of Natural Resarrces

Remedial Action Plan

Hichigm Department of Natural Resources

Thanks is also given to those individuals that have provided technical

Special thanks goes to Connie Pennell, Supervisor, MDNR Word Processing,

2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

3.2.1 Drainage Basin

3.3.1 Land Cover

3.4 WATER USES (MUSKEGON RIVEX BASIN)

3.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat

IMPAIRED USES, USE ATTAINABILITY, AND SPECIFIC CONCERNS

6.0 POLLUTANT TRANSPORT MECHANISMS AND LOADINGS 71

6.3 NONPOINT SOURCES 72

8.4 SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES

9.1 REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

9.3 IHTERAGECY AGREEMENTS

10.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

MUSKEGON LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA '- -0, 1981 203

MICHIGAN'S NPDES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURE 236

LISTING OF AGENCY AND CITIZEN CONTACTS 258

MUSKEGON LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN CBARACTERISTICS 10

ESTIMATES OF LAND USE IN THE IMMEDIATE MUSKEGON LAKE 15

URBAN STORM SEWER NETWORKS - MUSKEGON LAKE AREA 18

HISTORICAL IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE 32

C O W .?ISON OF SELECTED SEDIMEHT SURVEY DATA, KUSKEGON LAKE 42

4-1 1 DIOXIN LEVELS IN BEAR LAKE FISH 51

5-2 KNOWN LANDFILLS IN MUSKEGON LAKE AREA 59

5-4 PROPOSED OIL WELLS FOR PLUGGING 64

6-1 WHS WATER QUALITY DATA 73

7-1 PUMPING STATIONS SUMMARY 79

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

10-2 PROPOSED -1AL ACTIONS

3-3 MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN MUSKEGON COUNTY

5-2 OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION WELLS

7-1 LOCATION OF WMS

7-3 LOCATION OF CORDOVA (OTTISTORY) CHEMICAL COMPANY

9-1 MDNR ORGANIZATIONAL CEART

9-2 WMSRDC ORGANIZATION CHART

Muskegon Lake was identified as an AOC because prior to 1973, Muskegon

Mosquito Creek, a designated coldwater stream tributary to the Muskegon

The Muskegon Lake AOC has no apparent adverse impact on Lake

Impaired uses in Muskegon Lake and Bear Lake are restricted to

The 11th Street stormsewer (Division Street Stormsewer) Ryerson

Bear Lake sediments should be checked for PCBs since concentrations

Remedial actions will be developed and prioritized based on the outcome

The International Joint Commission (IJC), the Great Lakes National

Major problems that have historically characterized this AOC include

Although the water quality conditions have improved, low dissolved

Great Lakes Water Quality Management

Causative factors are unknown and an investigative

Causative factors knowns but RAP not developed and

Causative factors knoWU, RAP developed, and all remedial

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

2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the RAP process is to provide a coordinated approach

2.3 INTENDED USE

IJC/State Area of Concern

Source Area of Concern .

Impact Area of Concern

3.2 NATURAL FEATURES

3.2.1 Drainage Basin

The Muskegon River Basin is the second largest river basin in

f Direct Drainage Area Boundary