COMPREHENSIVE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FROURAi,




                   FOR THE




            LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN




        GRAND RIVER BASIN, MICHIGAN

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                FOREWORD
       This report on the Grand River Basin is the third in a series of
seven documents describing a water pollution control program for the
Lake Michigan Basin.  Two prior reports :  entitled "Milwaukee Area,
Wisconsin" and Green Bay Area, Michigan and Wisconsin" have already
been published and presented publicly at conferences called by Governor
Warren P. Knowles of Wisconsin.  These conferences on pollution of  Lake
Michigan were held in Milwaukee and Green Bay on June 28, and 30, 19^6,
respectively.

       The Federal feter Pollution Control Administration, Department of
the Interior is gratified by the interest in these first two reports .
The Administration is also pleased to note that steps have already been
taken to implement certain recommendations contained in the two prior
reports.

       The recommended actions set forth in this document when implemented
will protect and enhance the water of the Grand River Basin.  It will
increase their usefulness for recreational purposes.  It will provide a
more suitable environment for fish and aquatic life.  It will improve the
quality and usefulness of the Basin's waters for municipal and industrial
purposes, esthetic enjoyment and many other beneficial uses.

       Working together as a team the agencies involved with the control
of water pollution at all levels of government can and will bring the
program for water pollution control to fruition for the benefit of the
people and the nation.
                                            For the Administration


                                            James M, Quigley

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter No.                                    Page  No.
                 Foreward
                 Summary                           1
                 Recommended Actions             ill

    1.    INTRODUCTION

                 Purpose                           1-1
                 Scope                             1-1
                 Great Lakes-Illinois River
                       Basins Project               1-1

    2.    DESCRIPTION OF AREA

                 Geography                         2-1
                 Population                        2-2
                 Economy                           2-2

    3.    WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY GOALS

                 Water Uses                        3-1
                 Water Quality Goals               3-6

    k.    WATER SOURCES

                 General                           ^-1
                 Municipal                         h-1
                 Industrial                        k-2
                 Combined Sewers                    U-2
                 Steam Power Plants                 h-3
                 Agriculture and Land Runoff        U-3
                 Ships and Boats                    U-3
                 Dredging                          U-U
                 Phosphates                        U-5

    5.     LAKE  CURRENTS

                 Background                        5-1
                 Findings                          5-1
                 Summary                           5-2

    6.  PRESENT WATER  QUALITY AND PROBLEMS

                 General                           6-1
                 Summary                           6-1
                 Grand River Mouth Sampling         6-1
                 Grand River Intensive Studies      6-3
                 Waste Assimilation                 6-5

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Ho.                                    Page Ho.



    7.  WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES


                 General                           7-1
                 Municipal Waste Treatment         7-1
                 Industrial Waste Treatment        7-1
                 Combined Sewers                   7-2
                 Reduction of Nutrients            7-2
                 Plant Operation                   7-3
                 Monitoring                        7-3
                 Dredging                          7-^
                 Thermal Discharge                 J-h
                 Plow Regulation                   J-k
                 State Water Pollution
                      Control Program              7-^


8.    PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION


9•    BENEFITS

      BIBLIOGRAPHY

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              LIST OF TABLES

                                                               On or After
TableJiumber                        Title                      Page  Number

    1-1             Program Reports                              1-1
    1-2             Technical Committee to the GLLRB
                      Project                                    1-3
    2-1             Drainage Areas                               2-1
    2-2             Streamflows of Record at Specific
                      Gage Locations                             2-1
    2-3             Present and Projected Populations             2-2
    2-4             Value Added by Manufacture and
                      Manufacturing Employment-Eleven
                      County Area                                2-3
    3-1             Principal Water Uses                         3-1
    3-2             Total Water Intake-Municipal Water
                      Systems                                    3-1
    3-3             Municipal Water Demands 1962 and Projec-
                      tions to 1980 and 2020                     3-2
    3-4             Self-supplied Industrial Water  Demands
                      1959 and Projections to 1980  and 2020       3-2
    3-5             Water Intake-Steam Power Plants              3-5
    3-6             Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality
                      Criteria for Specific Water Uses           3-7
    4-1             Municipal Waste Inventory of Major
                      Communities                                4-1
    4-2             Industrial Waste Inventory
                      (Major Industries)                         4-2
    4-3             Types of Municipal Sewer Systems -
                      Major Municipal Waste Sources              4-2
    6-1             Water Quality - Grand River at  Mouth,
                      March 1963 - April 1964                    6-2
    6-2             Radioactivity - Grand River at  Mouth
                      1963 Average                               6-3
    7-1             Municipal Waste Treatment
                      Construction Weeds (Major
                      Communities)                               7-1
    7-2             Plant Waste Reduction Needs for Major
                      Industrial Waste Sources                   7-1

-------

-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1



Figure Number
1-1
1-2
5-1
6-1
6-2










      LIST OF FIGURES

                                          On or After
           Title                          Page Number

Grand River Basin, Michigan                  1-1

Great Lakes and Illinois River Basins        1-1

Annual Water Movements at Grand Haven,
  Michigan                                   5-1

DO and BOD Profiles - Grand River
  Below Jackson                              6-4

DO and BOD Profiles - Grand River
  Below Lansing                              6-4

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             SUMMARY
General

      The waters of the Grand River Basin are degraded in
quality particularly below Jackson, Lansing, Grand Rapids and
the mouth of the Grand River.  This degradation in quality is
evidenced by low dissolved oxygen levels, high stream temperatures
and other biological, chemical, microbiological and physical para-
meters analyzed by the Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project.

      Pollution of the waters of the Grand River is further evidenced
by the impairment of legitimate water uses., jNWhol&^ind, partial body
contact recreation is potentially hazardous 'siSej^^mgn colif orm and
fecal streptococci densities below Jackson andijansing.  The fishery
of the Grand River is harmed by low dissolved oxygen levels and
high stream temperatures.  Esthetic enjoyment is impaired by the
unsightly appearance of the Grand River at Jackson and certain
other areas.

Sources of Pollution

      Municipal waste treatment plants of the Grand River Basin
serve a present population (1962) of 540,000.  The combined effluents
from these municipal treatment facilities discharge a total of 17,000
pounds of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) daily to the waters
of the Grand River Basin.  These wastes are equivalent in oxygen-
consuming power to the untreated wastes of over 100,000 persons.
Other municipal waste sources include the overflows from combined
sewer systems.

      Industrial wastes discharging directly to the waters of the
Grand River Basin put an additional 15,000 pounds of BODc, into the
streams daily.  These wastes are equivalent in oxygen- consuming power
to the untreated wastes of over 90,000 persons.

      In addition to the organic waste load discharged from industries
and municipalities, thermal discharges also have a significant bearing
on water quality.  For example, cooling water discharges from steam
electric generating stations at Lansing affect desirable water uses
adversely.
Future Conditions

      Growth projections made by the Great Lakes- Illinois River Basins
Project economists indicate that the 1960 Grand River Basin population
of 9^9>000 may increase more than two-fold by 2020.  Industrial activity
due primarily to productivity and increased demands, is expected to
double by 1980 and continue to expand in the decades that follow. Water

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
demands and waste flows will increase at a more moderate pace due to water
reuse and other efficiencies.  These and other related factors indicate
that the untreated waste load received by all municipal sewerage systems
in the Basin will increase to about 2,500,000 PE by 2020.  By comparison,
the present estimated untreated waste load received by all municipal
sewerage systems of the Grand River Basin is approximately 540,000 PE.

Need_ for Comprehensive Program

       The present severe impairment of water uses in the Basin and the
increasing waste loads which will be imposed on the waste treatment
facilities point out the need for the adoption and implementation of a
comprehensive program for water pollution control in the Grand River Basin.
The program of necessity must emphasize construction of new and enlarged
sewerage facilities, proper operation of new and existing facilities,
and intensive and continuous monitoring of operation, waste treatment
efficiency and water quality.
                                    11

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
                        RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
       1.  All municipal waste treatment facilities should be
designed and operated to provide secondary  (biological) waste
treatment and to achieve an overall reduction in untreated BODi-
of 90 percent or higher, on a continuous basis.  The major
municipal plants and needed improvements are listed in
Table 7-1.

       2.  Continuous disinfection should be provided for all
municipal waste treatment plant effluents in the Grand River Basin.

       3.  All separately discharging industrial wastes should
receive the equivalent of secondary treatment, as described above.
Where practicable, industrial wastes should be discharged to
municipal sewerage systems.  The major industries needing improve-
ments are listed in Table 7-2.

       k.  Sanitary sewage discharged from  industries should
receive the same treatment as recommended for municipal wastes.

       5.  Maximization of phosphate removal, through modification
in the operation and/or design of existing and newly constructed
secondary waste treatment facilities should be an immediate
objective.  Records of phosphorus removal at the treatment plants
of the Grand Hiver Basin should be carefully evaluated after one
year to determine if significant phosphorus removals have been
achieved.  If such removals are not achieved, consideration should
be given to the installation of chemical precipitation facilities
at such plants,

       6.  Combined sewers should be prohibited in all newly
developed urban areas and should be separated in coordination
with urban renewal projects.  Existing combined sewer systems
should be patrolled and overflow regulating devices should be
adjusted to convey the maximum practicable amount of combined
flow to treatment facilities.
                    17.  Even with veil operated secondary sewage treatment       . J1     \p b
             facilities at Jackson and Lansing present waste loads and increas-  ^M J  ijA u'-.v
             ing waste loads in the future make it impossible to maintain    - /fc-  -r   •
•             desirable water quality conditions in the Grand River under          '     '  .-'(,<,
             natural streamflow conditions.  Because of the limitation of     "],':,.    ,  V  / ,. „  |
             streamflows and storage sites, low flow augmentation for water    Y^ u* '"'  •u":v/,<.,.>,,,
             quality control will not alone solve these water quality         .],    —          /
•             problems.  It is, therefore, recommended that the cities of      ~l\s'<-{ w -- -]
             Jackson and Lansing provide some form of advanced waste
             treatment beyond existing secondary treatment.  (See Table 7-1 )

 l

 l


-------

-------
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
                                                  It     .
                                                     \     -\  , _ .•"       \

                                                  ^ *  \i£*ftJ( \ ^^-X «'X -^''V,-\\ "  &~&^ -
                                                    .. i.s>W} ^.  oM  vu:   u,^
                                                     v  '         • ' J£r*f*~-- ' \
                                                   b> M< •--  ^->— :•  H  A ,. .v,_
It is further recommended that work begin, as  soon as possible,
on a demonstration project to determine the best  combination  of
advanced vaste treatment methods and  streamflow augmentation
which will achieve a desirable water  quality downstream  from  these
two cities.  The Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration
will be available to assist in this matter.

       8.  Streaaflow regulation may  be necessary in the Grand
River Basin even after a high degree  of waste  treatment  is provided,
if the desired water quality goals are to be met.   However, stream-
flow regulation is not to be considered as a substitute  for the
waste treatment improvement measures  recommended  herein.

       9-  Agricultural practices should be reviewed to  ensure   UMA-o '^-Mc4-    ""
the maximum protection of the waters  of the Grand River  Basin
from the improper application of fertilizers and  pesticides.
The use of pesticides and herbicides  should be more closely
scrutinized.  At a minimum, accurate  estimates of quantities
utilized on a county basis should be  developed.  -This will aid
in pinpointing potential problem areas.

      10.  Increased thermal discharges at Lansing and other
critical water quality sites in the Grand River Basin should
be prohibited.  Where practicable, steps should be taken to
reduce the existing thermal discharges to the  Grand River at
Lansing.

      11.  Tl:n off-shore disposal of  dredgings from harber and channel
areas which contain residujs from the sewage of cities and
industries is a poor practice, if the quality  ©f  the water of
Lake Michigan is to be maintained.  It is recommended that
those involved in such practices provide other means of  disposal
which will not adversely effect the water quality of the Lake.

      12.  Monthly reports covering the operation of all municipal
and industrial waste treatment plants including the quality and
quantity of discharged effluent should be submitted to the
Michigan Water Resources Cemmissien and other  appropriate State
agencies.

      13.  The ©peration of all streamflew regulation facilities
should be reviewed to ensure the availability  of  the maximum
practicable streamflow at all times.
                                 IV

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
      1^.  All industries and municipalities and  others
discharging wastes into the waters of the Grand River  Basin
or otherwise affecting the water quality of the Basin
should submit, within six months to the appropriate  State
agency, a report containing a time schedule for the  completion
of any new construction, modifications to any  existing structures,
process changes or operating procedures necessary to meet  the
above recommendations.


      15.  The water quality monitoring program of the Michigan
Water Resources Commission in the Grand River  Basin  should be
strengthened.  The program should be geared to indicate  change
or trends in water quality and the need for additional quality
improvement measures.


      16.  The Michigan Water Resources Commission or  other     *]{',•  :v.    j*; v
appropriate State agency should conduct waste  treatment  plant   ,,->~A.. - Jfl C A
inspections at least annually for small and medium-sized plants,  Y-[-• .
and at least twice annually for the larger plants.


      17.  It is recommended that the water pollution  control
activities in Michigan be strengthened in terms of staffing and    ' V
budget.  WJ.th_additional._re_sgurces_and the support available from  \ 'ij-vu,.
the Federal Water"I5Dilution Control Administration the implementa-
tion of the program outlined herein and similar programs in other
Basins throughout the State can be accelerated to meet the growing
need for clean water.
                                 v

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
                                CHAPTER I

                              INTRODUCTION
 Purpose

        This report presents an action program of water pollution
control, geared to provide high quality waters in the Grand River
Basin,Michigan through abatement of existing pollution, and to
provide continuing control of pollution through preventive actions
scheduled in anticipation of future problems.  This report and re-
sulting program have been developed from both extensive and intensive
information on present water quality, water uses and trends in water
usage, present and anticipated future waste loads, the existing and
projected population and economic growth, and other relevant facts.
The information was gathered by the Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins
(GLIRB) Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Department of the Interior, during its study of'the Great Lakes Basin.
       The area (See Figure l-l) within the scope of this report
includes the Grand River and the entire watershed tributary to the
Grand River.  Water quality conditions in the adjacent water of Lake
Michigan at the mouth of the Grand River are also considered..

Great Lakes -Illinois River Basins Project

       This report is one in a series of 7 documents (Table l-l) being
prepared by the GLIRB Project at Chicago,Illinois.  When completed
these 7 reports will present a comprehensive program for water pollution
control in the entire Lake Michigan Basin.  In addition to the Lake
Michigan Basin, GLIRB Project, with Program Offices currently located
at Cleveland, Ohio, Rochester, New York and Detroit, Michigan, is
developing similar programs for the watersheds of Lakes Erie, Ontario,
Huron and Superior and the Illinois River Basin ( Figure 1-2).

                               Authority

       Comprehensive water pollution control studies were authorized
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, as subsequently
amended.  Inititation of the Great Lakes -Illinois River Basins
Comprehensive Program Activity followed an appropriation of funds by
the 86th Congress late in 1960.  In accordance with the provisions of
the Act the Secretary of Health^  Education, and Welfare delegated the
responsibility for the comprehensive study to the Division of Water
Supply and
                                  1-1

-------

-------
I
1
!





I



I



I



I



I



I



I



I



I



1



I



I



I



I



I



I
                                                                                N
                                                                            84°
43
                                                                            84°
                    10
                   _j	
                          20
Miles
                  Scale
                                                    GREAT  LAKES  S  ILLINOIS

                                                      RIVER  BASINS  PROJECT
                                                GRAND RIVER BASIN-MICHIGAN
                        U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                   FEDERAL \AATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADr/:":

                   Great Lakes Region            Chicago,Illinois
                                                                                       FIRIIKP

-------
                TABLE 1-1
  GREAT LAKES -ILLINOIS RIVER BASINS PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
                  FOR THE
              LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                        Program Reports
 I
 •      Green Bay Area, Michigan and Wisconsin
         Milwaukee Area, Wisconsin
 |      Grand River Basin, Michigan
 •      Kalamazoo River Area, Michigan
         St. Joseph River Area, Indiana and Michigan
 •      Calumet Area, Illinois and Indiana
         Lake Michigan and Tributary Areas (Summary Report)
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
V10S3NNIW
                                                      FIGURE  1-2

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
Pollution Control of the Public Health Service.  Passage of the "Water
Quality Act of 1965" gave the responsibility for these studies to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA).
As a result of Reorganization Plan Wo. 2 of 1966 the FWPCA was transferred
from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Department of
the Interior effective I4ay 10,1966.

                               Organization

     Following the initial appropriation of funds by Congress in I960,
a task force designated the GLIRB Project was organized to conduct
the comprehensive study.  The Project headquarters are located at 1819
West Pershing Road,, Chicago, Illinois.  The permanent staff of The Project
includes specialists covering a broad gamut of professional skills,
including sanitary and hydraulic engineers, chemists, biologists,
bacteriologists, radiochemists, oceanographers, and economists.  The
Project has drawn freely on the resources of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center at Cincinnati, Ohio.Valuable counsel and advice have
been received from a Technical Committee appointed by the Surgeon General
of the Public Health Service.  This Committee is composed of men in re-
sponsible positions in State water resource and water pollution control
agencies, municipal water and sewer departments, private research organi-
zations, conservation groups and industry.  Table 1-2 gives the names
and positions of the Technical Committee Members.

                            Cooperative Program

     As required by the authorizing legislation the GLIRB Project has
worked closely with other Federal, State and local agencies to develop
a comprehensive water pollution control program.  A list of the principal
agencies which have participated through preparation of special reports
or through their release of supporting information is as follows:

     Illinois

          State Sanitary Water Board
          Department of Public Health

     Indiana

          Stream Pollution Control Board
          State Board of Health

     Michigan

          State Water Resources Commission
          Department of Health

     Wisconsin

          State Committee on Water Pollution
          State Board of Health

                                   1-2

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
Weather Bureau
Office of Business Economics
I

*                  U.S. Federal Power Commission
•                  U.S. Department of the Army
                         Corps of Engineers
I                  U.S. Department of the Interior
                         Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
•                       Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
•                       Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
                         Geological Survey
|                  U.S. Department of Commerce

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-------

-------
  I
  I
  I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                                 TABLE 1-2
               TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO THE GLIRB PROJECT
                                 MEMBERS
Norval E. Anderson
Consulting Engineer
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 6o6ll
Burton H. Atwood
National Treasurer
Izaak Walton League
Crystal Lake, Illinois

Albert G. Ballert
Director of Research
Great Lakes Comnission
Rackham Building
Ann Arbor, Michigan

K. W. Bauer
Executive Director
Southea ste rn Wi s. Re g. Plann. Cornm.
Old Court House
Waukes'-a. Wisconsin 5318?

R. M. Billings
Assistant to Vice President
Researc"- and Engineering
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Lakeview Mill
Neenah  Wisconsin 5^957

Dr. C. S. Boruff
Technical Director
Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc.
Peoria 1  Illinois
James A. Kelly
Waste Control Department
628 Building
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland  Michigan
C.W. Klassen
Technical Secretary-
State of Illinois
Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois 62706

B.J. Leland
Engineer in Charge of C!' icago Office
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
1919 West Taylor Street
Chicago, Illinois 6o6l2

Edward C. Lqgelin
Vice President
U.S. Steel Corporation
208 South. La Salle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60690

R. C. Mallatt
Technical Service Superintendent
American Oil Company
2831 Indianapola s Blvd
Whiting, Indiana 46394
P. J. Marsc" all
Vice President in Charge of
Engineering
Abbott Laboratories
l4th and Sheridan Road
Worth Chicago, Illinois

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                                 TABLE-1-2 (Con't)


                TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO THE GLIRB PROJECT
                                MEMBERS
Horace R. Frye
Supt. Water and Sever Department
City of Evanston
Evanston, Illinois


H.H. Gerstein
Chief Water Engineer
Bureau of Water
City Hall
Chicago, Illinois 60602

Ross L. Harbaugh
Assistant to the Vice President
Manufacturing and Research
for Environmental Technology
Inland Steel Company
Indiana Harbor Works
East Chicago, Indiana

R. A. Hirshfield
Staff Engineer
Commonwealth Edison Company
Chicago, Illinois 60690
O.J. Muegge
State Sanitary Engineer
The State of Wisconsin
Board of Health
State Office Building
Kadison 2, Wisconsin


Loring F. Oeming
Executive Secretary
State of Michigan
Water Resources Commission
200 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan 48912


B. A. Poole
Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control
Board
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis J, Indiana

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                                CHAPTER   2

                            DESCRIPTION OF AREA
Geography

       The Grand River Basin is located in the south-central part of the
lower peninsula of Michigan (Figure 1-2).   The Basin contains a drainage
area of 5572 square miles.  It is approximately 135 miles long and 70 miles
at its maximum upstream width.  All or part of 19 counties are contained
within the area.  The Grand River Basin is bounded on the north by the
Muskegon River and Saginaw River watersheds; and on the south by the
Kalmazoo River watershed.

                                Hydrology

       The Grand River originates in the northeast corner of Hillsdale
County some 15 miles south of Jackson,Michigan.  Six major tributaries
are the principal contributors to runoff in the Grand River Basin.  The
Flat, Rogue and Maple Rivers enter the main stream from the north, the
Thornapple River from the south, and the Lookingglass and Cedar Rivers
from the east.  These six streams together with the Portage River near
Jackson comprise a total of some 3>500 square miles of drainage area. The
remaining drainage area is accounted for by about 30 minor tributary
creeks, ranging in size from 65 square miles down to 2 square miles.  The
gradients (slopes) of the tributary streams range from 2g to 5g feet to
the mile.

                                Table  2-1

                     Drainage Areas - Grand River Basin

              River                             Drainage Area
                                                (Square Miles)

              Grand                                 5,572
              Portage                                 186
              Cedar                                   463
              Lookingglass                            312
              Maple                                   775
              Flat                                    562
              Thornapple                              845
              Rouge                                   255

       Streamflows at specific gage locations are given in Table 2-2.
                                     2-1

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                CHAPTER   2


                            DESCRIPTION OF AREA
Geography


       The Grand River Basin is located in the south-central part of the
lower peninsula of Michigan (Figure 1-2).  The Basin contains a drainage
area of 5572 square miles.  It is approximately 135 miles long and 70 miles
at its maximum upstream width.  All or part of 19 counties are contained
within the area.  The Grand River Basin is bounded on the north by the
Muskegon River and Saginaw River watersheds; and on the south by the
Kalmazoo River watershed.


                                Hydrology


       The Grand River originates in the northeast corner of Hillsdale
County some 15 miles south of Jackson,Michigan.  Six major tributaries
are the principal contributors to runoff in the Grand River Basin.  The
Flat, Rogue and Maple Rivers enter the main stream from the north, the
Thornapple River from the south, and the Lookingglass and Cedar Rivers
from the east.  These six streams together with the Portage River near
Jackson comprise a total of some 3*500 square miles of drainage area. The
remaining drainage area is accounted for by about 30 minor tributary
creeks, ranging in size from 65 square miles down to 2 square miles.  The
gradients (slopes) of the tributary streams range from 2\ to 5g feet to
the mile.


                                Table  2-1


                     Drainage Areas - Grand River Basin


              River                             Drainage Area
                                                (Square Miles)


              Grand                                 5,572
              Portage                                 186
              Cedar                                   463
              Lookingglass                            312
              Maple                                   775
              Flat                                    562
              Thornapple                              845
              Rouge                                   255


       Streamflows at specific gage locations are given in Table 2-2.
                                     2-1

-------

-------
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                           Topography and Soils

       The ground surface of the entire Basin is covered with glacial
deposits with bedrock outcropping at only two or three locations.  The
glacial debris consists primarily of sands and gravels on the terminal
moraines, the outwash plains and the till plains.  Clay, fine sand, silt
and finely ground lime are found in the old glacial lake beds.  The loamy
sands, clays and muck soils are prominant throughout the valley and, because
of their fertility and favorable texture, produce high yields of crops.

                                  Climate

       The average annual temperature throughout the watershed is about
49°F.  Mean monthly temperatures range from a low of approximately 25°F in
January to 72°F in July.  Mean monthly precipitation ranges from a low of
about 1.9 inches in December to a high of 4 inches in June, with an average
annual precipitation of 32.9 inches.  Most of the precipitation occurs from
April to September.  The period of December through February is the time of
lowest precipitation (3).

Population

       The Grand River Basin had a I960 population of approximately 949,000.
It has grown at a faster rate than the Nation since 1940, increasing by
more than 300,000 in that period.  In I960, 67 percent of the Basin's popu-
lation was municipal.  The major cities in the Basin include:  Grand Rapids
(173,300), Lansing (107,800), Jackson (50,700), and Wyoming (45,800).
Table 2-3 shows the I960 total and municipal population of the Basin and
the projected populations for the years I960 and 2020.

                                 Table  2-3

                   Present and Projected Populations
                             Grand River Basin

       i960                             1980                  2020

Total          Municipal         Total     Municipal     Total     Municipal

949,000         636,000        1,260,000    940,000    2,300,000   1,980,000

                                  Economy

       The Grand River Basin includes all or major parts of eleven Michigan
Counties (Berry, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Ingham, Ionia, Jackson, Kent,
Montcalm, Ottawa and Shiawasee).  Manufacturing is the predominant economic
activity in the eleven county area which approximates the Basin(4).  In
1963, value added by manufacture totalled $1.7 billion.  Major industries
                                    2-2

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
    CV
CM

CV
m





CD H
S! Cn
fn*
9
P~J
i
fe C


£*
•H
CO
cd
PQ

^
CD
•H
PS
1
o

0 -H S
r-t-'-s I O
CM CO rH rH
Ej CM PL,

CD s— ^ J>5 J2
c^t^-c^-r^s o c-~-vQLr\cv cvo
HOOO ^O C\i£>-tOtO OO
r-H-d-HtO H cVu^r^-4-c\Jc^\
rH C^





O o~\ u-\ UA O
C\J t>- 1 £>- 1 1 t>- 1 1 1 c^i
rH ^O


JH cd O i
-P T3 i-^ :
CO
t>


1
•H
C
CD -H
JM
p
C
o
•H
p
cd
o
,Sj

CD
tiO
OJ
CJ
u
•H
CM
•H
O
0
ft
CO
p
cd

*"CJ
J_,
o
0
CD

CM
0
O
H
CM
CD

-P
CO




^5£






^ ^
cv o o '& "-o 2t
;|c . 1 1
C7^-4'CY>\O>irH-4'lJAC~- O
rH rH O 0~\
f~~t


/— N
cd co
CD CD
5-1 rH
is
CD
tlO CD
cd l-i

cd cr
M CO
Q — •







^frHur\O H -^OtQC^-^O
C^NOU-\C°\ txD a^-^tcvr-*- c^\o
rH xO C*^ CV CV -4* tX) ^^ C1— CV C7^
•N •% »S
rH CV ~*








1





C
o

CO Ufl CO CO
•c( C T3 T3
•H -H -H -H
ft CO ft cd ft
cd G cd -H T3 fd
CteSbO c£ Ci^cr4
•H O i-! C cd O O
p
d)
o
o









1
1
COC •HCDCDcdCxJcu'O
^Opco rHrH-HhCD^J C
O-pcoG Ut)ftC!>srH Oed
cdcdcdcd cd fdoScdo^
"-aPqWh^ tq gMcno KC5




CO
CO
3 rH
, — i f f
bo ft
bO ft
C -M cd
t3 TJ k t3 T-I -i i ^ C . iW (-*
v-i *-, lu X-* *JM i 1 g~t •T-' ri j Vt
cdcdTScd o ftgcdo Eocd
J-ifnCDf-i O cd-.yrH,C O h
C5OOO >-l S c-'(i,E-i 05 CS
                                                                                                               CO
                                                                                                               0)
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               CO
                                                                                                               g
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               CD
                                                                                                               f-,
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               P
                                                                                                               -d
                                                                                                               C
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               •H

                                                                                                               •8
                                                                                                               H

-------

-------
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
in the area include transportation equipment, fabricated metals and
furniture and fixtures.  Table 2-4 shows trends in value added and manu-
facturing employment.


                                Table  2-4


           Value Added by Manufacture (In 1957-1959 Constant Dollars)
             and Manufacturing Employment for the Eleven County Area


               1947              125.4               1958            1963


VAM($1000s)    840,000         1,250,000          1,140,000       1,680,000


Mfg.Employment 121,622           127,865            113,954         130,056


       Projections of population, manufacturing employment and productivity
increases indicate that industrial activity in the Basin may be expected
to increase six to seven-fold by the year 2020.


       Agriculture is diversified in the Grand River Basin with dairying,
livestock raising and cash grain farming, all relatively important.
                                   2-3

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                CHAPTER  3

                    WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY GOALS




Water Uses

       The principal water uses in the Grand River Basin include:

                     Municipal Water Supply
                     Self-supplied Industrial Water
                     Recreation
                     Irrigation
                     Fish and Aquatic Life
                     Wildlife and Stock Watering
                     Hydropower
                     Commercial Shipping
                     Cooling Water Supply
                     Waste Assimilation
                     Esthetics

       Present and anticipated future water uses for the main stem of
the Grand River have been determined, in cooperation with the Michigan
Water Resources Commission (5).  Water use stream sectors were established
on the basis of a consideration of changing water quality and changes in
water uses or certain physical features of the area.  The principal water
uses in each of the stream sectors are presented in Table 3-1.  The prin-
cipal water uses in the Basin are discussed in the following sections of
this Chapter.

                          Municipal Water Supply

       In 1963 there were 54 communities in the Grand River Basin served
by community water supply systems.  These facilities served an estimated
population of 534*000 and supplied water at the average rate of 88 million
gallons per day (mgd).  Of this total, approximately 45 mgd were supplied
for domestic, public and commercial uses and 43 mgd were supplied for in-
dustrial use.  Table 3-2 summarizes municipal water use data for the
Grand River Basin.

                                TABLE  3-2

                     Total Water Intake - Municipal Water
                        System, Grand River Basin

 Source        Population Served  Water Intake(mgd)   Per Capita Water Intake
                                                                    (gal./day)

Surface Water        214,000          35.2                 165
Ground Water         320.000          52.9                 165
       Totals        534,000          88.1                 165


                                    3-1

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                TABLE  3-1

                          Principal Water Uses
                          Grand River Basin
     Water Use
Grand River Sectors

ir Supply
icess Water
Contact
'y Contact

,ic Life
'olerant
'acultatiye
intolerant
Itock Watering

.pping
Supply
it ion

1
-
P
P
P
-

P
P
P
-
P
P
P
P
2
_
A
P
P
P

P
P
P
-
-
A
P
P
3
—
P
_
P
P

P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P
4
P
P
P
P
P

P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P
5
—
P
P*
P
P

Pi'r
PJC-
P
P
-
P
P
P
6
_
A
—
P*
P

P*
P
P*
P
-
P
P
P*
7
A
P
P
P
P

P
P
P
P
-
P
P
P
8
_
-
_
P*
P

P*
-
P*
P
-
-
P
P*
9
A
A
P
P
P

P
P
P
-
-
-
P
P
Recreation
   Whole Boi

   Limited '.

Irrigation

Fish and Aq

   Pollutio.

   Pollutio

   Pollutio:

Wildlife an

Hydropower

Commercial

Cooling Wat

Waste Assimilation

Esthetics
      NOTE:  P = Present use and anticipated future use.
             A - Anticipated future use.
             - = Insignificant present and anticipated use.
             •x- = Use presently adversely effected by pollution.

Sector                           Sector Description

  1          Lake Michigan to the upstream end of commercial shipping
             (Mile Pt. 2.6).
  2          Upstream end of commercial shipping to Eastmanville
             (Mile Pt. 19-3).
  3          Eastmanville to Interstate Highway 196 (Mile Pt. 35-8).
  4          Interstate Highway 196 to the confluence with Thornapple
             River (Mile Pt. 61.4).
  5          Confluence with Thornapple River to Grand Ledge (Mile Pt.139-5)
  6          Grand Ledge to Moores Park Dam at Lansing (Mile Pt. 155.4).
  7          Moores Park Dam at Lansing to Onandaga (Mile Pt. 187.6).
  8          Onandaga to immediately upstream of Jackson (Mile Pt. 222.0).
  9          Immediately upstream of Jackson to headwaters.

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
       Municipal water demands for the major water service areas and
projections to the years 1980 and 2020 are presented in Table 3-3.  The
projections are based upon considerations of population growth, antici-
pated industrial expansion and industrial water use efficiency factors.


                               TABLE  3-3


                 Municipal Water Demands 1962 and Projections
                             to 1980 and 2020


               Source of     Population       1962       1980      2020
Service Area    Water'!H;~"     Servedj[l962)    Demand     Demand    Demand


Grand Rapids'"-     S,G          252,000        40.7        68       131
Lansing**         G            127,000        22.4        40       112
Jackson           G             55,000        10.5        16        30
Grand Haven       G             11,000         3.3
Greenville        G              7,450         1.3
Hastings          G              7,320         0.8
Ionia             G              6,700         0.2
Saint Johns       G              5,900         1.0
Grand Ledge       G              5,770         0.6
       -;c~  Includes Wyoming, Grandville, and East Grand Rapids.
      •5HS-  Includes East Lansing and Lansing Township.
     -x-x-x-  s = surface water source,  G - ground water source.


                    Self-supplied Industrial Water


       Based on County data provided by the U. S. Bureau of the  Census
in a special tabulation for the GLIRB Project, it has been determined that
the major demand for self-supplied industrial water occurs in the Grand
Rapids, Lansing, and Jackson areas as shown in Table 3-4.  Projections
contained in the Table were developed following consideration of antici-
pated increases in industrial output and water use efficiency factors.


                               TABLE  3-4

                   Self-Supplied Industrial Water Demands
                   1959 and Projections to 1980 and 2020


Service,, Area      1959 Demand.(mgd)    1980JDemandfagd)    2020 Demand (mgd)

Grand Rapids             5                  8                    14
Lansing                  23                    6
Jackson                  6                  9                    14
                                  3-2

-------

-------
  I
  I
  I
  I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                               Recreation

       The study area abounds with natural resources capable of satis-
fying the needs of residents for water-oriented outdoor recreation.
However, many of the streams and lakes within the study area are de-
graded in water quality to the point where clean water is not available
for all recreational pursuits.

       There are many lakes in the study area which provide excellent
recreational potential.  The eastern shore of Lake Michigan around
Grand Haven offers a great opportunity for water-oriented recreation.

       The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has identified areas of serious
water recreation impairment due to water pollution(6).  In general the
impaired areas are the harbor water at Grand Haven, the downstream end
of the Portage River, and the Grand River below Jackson, Lansing, and
Grand Rapids.

       In metropolitan areas such as Jackson and Lansing the demand
for water-oriented recreation exerts heavy pressure on the waters of
high quality which are available for recreational purposes such as
swimming.  At the present time the demands are largely satisfied by
city parks and public and private pools.  Residents of the Grand Rapids
area find the eastern shore of Lake Michigan inviting and within reasonable
driving distance.

       The State of Michigan has identified potential parks and camp
grounds and is contemplating the construction of reservoirs for recrea-
tional purposes (6,7).  The need to control water pollution at all such
facilities is paramount since such pollution could well jeopardize the
water uses contemplated at such facilities.

                               Irrigation

       The soils in the Basin which require irrigation are located,
for the greater part, adjacent to Lake Michigan.

       In the Upper Grand River Basin, above Ionia, specialized crops
such as mint account for the greatest acreage in agricultural irriga-
tion.  These are followed by potatoes, field crops, cucumbers, pickles,
and melons.  Non-agricultural irrigation (golf courses, cemeteries,
parks, etc.) accounted for 740 of the 4800 acres irrigated in this
part of the Basin.  The overall results of Michigan Water Resources
Commission irrigation surveys indicate that there were 23% more irri-
gation s^stetis and 28$ more acres irrigated in the Upper Grand River
Basin during 1960-61 than there were in 1957-58(7).

       In the Lower Grand River Basin truck crops accounted for about
35$ of the agricultural irrigated acres with rasberries, blueberries,
flowers and nurseries also having significant acreage in irrigation.
                                  3-3

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
Of the estimated total of 6500 acres in irrigation, cemeteries, parks
and golf  courses accounted for about 800 acres(8).

       Present  (i960) water usage for irrigation in the Grand River
Basin is  estimated to be an average of 3•5 mgd during the growing
season(9).  Using a straight line projection it is anticipated that
this usage will incr  -,se threefold by 1980.  Increasing demands by the
rapidly growing population for more fibers and foods will be one of
important factors influencing the demand for irrigation.  However,
the demand on existing water resources will be minor compared to the
total water usage in the Basin.

                         Fish and Aquatic Life

       There are about 260 miles of main stream channels in the Upper
Grand River Basin above Ionia.  This includes the Grand, Maple,
Lookingglass, Cedar, and Portage Rivers.  Although not generally known,
this stream system offers many opportunities in fishing and even duck
hunting.  A number of reservoirs at power dams furnish expanded fishing
and hunting opportunities(7).

       In the Grand River Basin there are 12 State Game Project Areas
where public hunting and fishing opportunities are provided.  Fishing
opportunities exist at the Grand Haven State Park.  Public fishing
sites are available at 48 lakes and streams in the Basin with an area
of about 2,100 acres and frontage of about 21,600 ft.  Over 250,000
fish, including trout, bass, pike and bluegills were planted during
1962 in 10 of the 19 counties of the Basin(lO).

                     Wildlife and Stock Watering

       The present (i960) agricultural water use for stock watering
in the Grand River Basin is about 3.5 mgd(9).  Projections of this
usage indicate that the demand will increase 1^ times by 1980.   The
use of water for wildlife and stock watering does not play a signifi-
cant role in the water quality problems of the Basin.

                                Hydropower

       As of 1965 there were 12 hydroelectric power plants in the
Basin, with a total installed capacity of 13,500 kilowatts(KW)  and
a total average annual generation of 46,400 megawatt hours (MWH).
Five of the plants are located on Thomapple River, two are located
on the Flat River, one is located on Spring Brook and four are  located
on the main stem of the Grand River.  Five potential future hydro-
electric sites on the Grand River have been identified by the Federal
Power Commission.   The sites are located at Grand Rapids,  Saranac,
Portland, McGee and Danby and would have a total potential capacity of
18,700 KW and a total average annual generation of 65,400 MWH(11).
                                  3-4

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
       The use of water for hydroelectric power generation is not con-
sidered to be a major use in the Basin.  However, water quality problems
may develop from the operation of such plants, particularly below dams
during off-peak power demands when water releases may be drastically
reduced.  This can be seen in reviewing Table 2-2.

                          Commercial Shipping

       Grand Haven is one of Lake Michigan's major commercial harbors
currently handling in excess of 2^ million tons of commerce annually.
Harbor vessel traffic has averaged 2.9 million tons for the period
1955-64, while during 1964 the traffic was 2.6 million tons.  The
harbor is located at the mouth of the Grand River.  A shallow-draft
barge channel extends about 15 miles up the Grand River serving commer-
cial sand and gravel deposits, located near the channel's upper end(l2).

       By I960 through 2020 the traffic tonnage may be expected to
increase somewhat, however, the actual number of ship movements may be
expected to remain approximately the same due to an anticipated increase
in vessel size.

                            Cooling Water

       As of 1965 the Federal Power Commission reported that there are
14 thermal electric power plants in the Basin.  Table 3-5 summarizes
data relating to capacity and cooling water intake, when operating at
capacity, at each of the 10 steam plants.  There are also 4 internal
combustion plants in the Basin with an installed capacity of 28,800 KW.

                              TABLE  3-5
                      Water Intake-Steam Power Plants
                             Grand River Basin
Location

Grand Haven
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Lansing
Lansing
Lansing
East Lansing
Eaton Rapids

       Totals
Installed
Capacity(KW)

   20,000
   20,000
    4,050
    1,250
   81,500
  136,000
   50,000
   75,000
   12,000
    1,250

  401,050
  Est. Water
Intake (Gal./KWH)
     56.
     56.
     56.
     56,
     56,
     56,
     56.
     56,
     56,
     56.3
 Est. Cooling
Water Intake(mgd)

      27
      27
       6
       2
     110
     184
      68
     101
      16
       2

     543
                                 3-5

-------
r.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                      o
       The use of water for cooling purposes in steam power plants is
considered to be significant in the study area with concentrated uses at
Lansing,  Most cooling waters are returned to streams or lakes 12 - 13 F
warmer than at intake.  Stream temperatures as high as 90°F have been
recorded below the power stations at Lansing(l3).

                           Waste Assimilation

       Use of streams in the Grand River Easin for waste assimilation is
one of the predominant present day uses, and in several locations it is
the cause of extreme water quality problems as discussed in Chapter 4
and 6.

                               Esthetics

       The use of water for esthetic enjoyment is an intangible benefit
which is directly related to the availability of clean water.  It is a
very important factor in determining the recreational potential of the
Grand River Basin.  Camping, picnicking, and sightseeing are all the more
enjoyable when accompanied by esthetically pleasing lakes and streams.
Pollution robs the water of its esthetic value for such water related
activities.  Since this Basin will be called upon to provide recreation
for many people living both within and outside the Basin, it is very
important that the area and waters of the area be kept esthetically
pleasing.

Water Quality Goals

       The preceding discussion of water uses now being practiced as well
as the anticipated growth of these uses presupposes that adequate water,
both in quantity and quality, will be available to accommodate them.
Quantity factors have been described in Chapter 2.  Quality factors re-
quire consideration of both technical needs of the water uses to be
accommodated and judgment with respect to compatibility of water quality
requirements of competing water uses.  The development of water quality
criteria is a first step in the development of the quality factors needed
in water pollution control.

       The establishment of water quality criteria for the significant
water uses of the Lake Michigan Basin was accomplished through the
organization of four water quality work groups chaired by a member of the
Technical Committee shown in Table 1-2.  These work groups consisted of
representatives of the States, municipalities and industries of the Lake
Michigan Basin.

       These four work groups, The Municipal Work Group; The Industrial
Work Group; The Fish, Aquatic Life, and Recreation Work Group; and the
General Work Group considered water quality needs to support eleven
specific water uses, namely:
3-6

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                      Municipal Water Supply
                      Industrial Water Supply
                      Recreation - Whole and Partial Body Contact
                      Irrigation
                      Fish and Aquatic Life
                      Wildlife and Stock Watering
                      Hydropower
                      Commercial Shipping
                      Cooling Water Supply
                      Waste Assimilation
                      Esthetics

The criteria developed by the four work groups give maximum or minimum
desirable concentrations of various water quality parameters, above or
below which the stated water uses would be adversely affected.  Limits
were not set for all water quality parameters but rather for those
parameters which are generally most significant in the Lake Michigan
Basin.  The findings of the water quality work groups are summarized in
Table 3-6.  Minimum dissolved oxygen requirements and maximum coliform,
phosphate, and ammonia nitrogen concentrations are most pertinent to
water quality problems within the Basin.

       There are certain sectors in the Basin in which specific uses
discussed in this Chapter are being jeopardized.  The affected are in-
dicated on Table 3-1 by means of an asterick.  In these sectors, where
pollution is adversely affecting water quality to the extent that the
established water quality criteria are not met, the criteria become the
water quality goals to be met by pollution control measures.  Further
discussion of the water quality problems in the study area is contained
in Chapter 6.  These areas will be protected through the comprehensive
water pollution control action program for the Grand River Basin out-
lined in Chapter 9.
                                 3-7

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
   I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 O
 I
 CO 03
   C

 83
 3°
 K c
 g-<
I H tQ
 H



1
i
§
i
h
K °
3 E=4
F4
3ARAMB
jit ions
^
fH -P
EH fl
M (1)
3H
P O
C? O
00
u*
2= c
s
fc
O
|
*-t



w
0
;r>
s
i
- T/2a (x^a)
. (^03) s^JTnS
I/2a (XTK2)(nOd
e-[qnios -sc-Hd
(•on pioqsajiii)
(xea) sjopo
T/2=
(XBn) ssau-E&u-Eft
•[/Sui (XBUI)
(++3J) coil
T/3E (X-ea)
JO SpTUS^D
T/Sia (>TEa)
sp-r[os pa?etosstc
T/Sm r
(3TBu^ 11-tjm
T/Pafx^m) ^aCS
' '1^^ (^
ap-m{) cnojtI
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
                     TABLE 3-6  (Continued)               •

                                                                                f
  (1)  Coliform Guides                                             '             {
                                                                                S
         Coliform Guide A - Recreational whole body contact  use.   The
 water uses for which this guide is intended are  those  that  entail
 total and intimate contact of the whole body with the  water.   Examples
 of such use are swisiniing, skin diving,  and water skiing,  in which the          j
 body is totally immersed and some ingestion of the water  may  be                 j
 expected.-  Recommended guide value for coliforms is 1,000 per 1OO              }
 milliliters (1,000/100 ml).  For all waters in which coliform levels
 are below the guide value of 1,000/100 ml, the water is considered
 suitable provided there is proper isolation from direct fecal con-
 tamination as determined by a sanitary survey.  Situations  may arise
 wherein waters having coliform counts somewhat higher  than  the guide
 value can be used, provided supplemental techniques are used  to                 \
 determine safe bacterial quality.  The analysis  for fecal streptococci         J
 is more definitive for determing the presence of organisms  of                  I
 intestinal origin, and is suggested as the supplemental technique to           \
 be employed.  Based on a very limited amount of  information,  a limit           i,
 for fecal streptococci of about 20/100 ml is suggested providing there         j
 is an accompanying limit on the coliform level.   As a  provisional              \
 limit, it is suggested that a coliform level of  10,000/100  ml be               j
 permitted provided the fecal streptococcus count is not more  than               i
 20/100 ml, and provided also that there is proper isolation from                f
 direct fecal contamination as determined by a sanitary survey.                  ',

         C ol i f o rm ..Quid e B - Recreational,  limited body  contact use and
 commereial~snipping™[barge traffic).   The water  uses for  which this             '.
- guide is intended are those that entail limited  contact between  the             ;
 water user and the water.  Examples of such uses are fishing,  pleasure          ;
 boating, and commercial shipping.  Recommended guide value  for coli-            \
 forms is 5,000/100 ml.  For all waters  in which  coliform  levels  are
 below this guide value, the water is  considered  suitable  for  use, |              •
 provided there is proper isolation from direct fecal contamination as           ".
 determined by a sanitary survey.

         For waters which have coliform levels above the guide  value and          ,
 such levels are evidently caused primarily by organisms of  other than
 fecal origin,  the limiting count may  be as high  as  50,000/100  ml,
 provided the fecal streptococci count is  not  more than 100/100 ml.               ;
 The  provisional coliform limit  of 50,000/100  ml  is based  on an    i
 examination of reported and measured  data for the Illinois  River Basin          !
 streams.   It is believed to be  an acceptable  limit  for taking  into               :
 consideration,  and providing for the  occurrence  of, background coli-            ;
 form levels.   With the accompanying limit on  fecal  streptococci,  it is          ;
 reasonable to  expect that the danger  of infection by enteric organisms

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                       TABI£ 3-6  (Continued)


will be  remote.   It  is understood  that the provisional limit would
be  subject  to modification as more analytical data are accumulated
and critically reviewed.

         Coliform  Guide C - Applies to Municipal Water Source.  Where
municipal water treatment includes complete rapid-sand filtration
or  its equivalent, together with continuous postchlorination, source
water may be considered acceptable if the colifonn concentration
(at the  intake) averages not more  than 5,000 per 100 ml in any one
month, and  the count exceeds this  number in not more than 20 percent
of  the samples in any one month.   Samples should be tested at least
once daily.

         Coliform  Guide D - Applies to Industrial Process Water at the
source.  Although the requirements of this use will vary widely with
the processes of  a particular industry, Coliform Guide C, for
municipal source, is considered generally applicable.  As covered by
food and drug acts and other regulations, water incorporated into
products for human ingestion should, of course, meet finished
drinking water standards.

(2)  Odors, Threshold Number

        The differences in type of odors makes it difficult to assign
numbers for water quality goals with respect to this parameter.   For
some types of odors the difficulty of removal is greater than for
others.  To reach acceptable treated levels, experience has shown
that it is more difficult to reduce a "hydrocarbon"  type odor of 6
threshold units than an algae-type odor of 15 units.   It is therefore
felt that a maximum limit on hydrocarbon odors be 6,  and the average
daily odor be less than 4 units.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                 CHAPTER  4

                               WASTE SOURCES
General
       The Grand River and the streams tributary to it receive an
estimated organic waste load of 32,000 pounds of 5-day 20°C biochemical
oxygen demand (BODc) per day.  Approximately 15000 pounds are from in-
dustries with separate discharges.  The most significant waste loads in
terms of water use impairment are discharged at Jackson, Lansing and
Grand Rapids.

       The following paragraphs summarize the major waste sources in the
basin.  Consequences of these discharges are discussed in Chapter 6.

       Approximately 540,000 people (14) served by 47 municipal sewerage
systems discharge an estimated 17,000 pounds of BODr per day to the
streams of the Grand River Basin.  This is discharged as treated sewage
from an untreated load of approximately 90,000 pounds of BOD,- per day.
This represent an overall reduction of approximately n/vf
       Of the 47 municipal sewerage systems 18 provide minor or no treat-
ment.  Of the remaining 29 systems, 9 provide only primary treatment,
(sedimentation and sludge disposal) and 20 provide secondary treatment
(primary treatment plus filtration or activated sludge).  Major municipal
sewerage facilities having connected populations of 5>000 or more are
listed in Table 4-1.  Their locations are shown on Figure 1-1.

       By 1980 the total untreated waste load received by municipal
sewerage facilities is projected to reach 175,000 pounds of BODr per
day.  This assumes that by 1980 the total municipal population (See
Table 2-3) will be served by municipal waste treatment plants.  With the
attainment of a minimum overall 90% waste treatment efficiency in terms
of BODc reduction (See recommendations) the discharged waste load would
be approximately 18,000 pounds of BOD^ per day.  This is approximately the
same as the current (1962) estimated load discharged to the streamsof the
Grand River Basin.

       Projecting waste loads to the year 2020 indicates that the un-
treated load received by municipal waste treatment facilities may increase
to 410,000 pounds of BODj per day.  With the attainment of a minimum over-
all 95% waste treatment efficiency in terms of BOD^ reduction (See recom-
mendations) the waste load discharged to the Grand River Basin streams
would reach approximately 20,000 pounds of BOD^ per day.
                                   4-1

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I




























CQ

M
EH
f—j
£~<
t2
§
O
o

§:?
••3 H
gj s^x
S
**
&4 |SJ
H O M
I CQ
•* £ gj
w o
*~^ EH pel
" B >
|S
£5
CQ pri
ts °

••3
P-.
1 L 1
o
hH

3




























•d
0)
4--"
* efl
0)
£x) ij
S &





'd ^
0) 4>
-P -P
 a
H ft)
OJ 0)
O ?H
0) +3
£1 CQ








-P1
•H
S
£3
Q
§
o

0
c\
vo
^
no







O
O
0
ff\
oo
l/N










§
•A









R
0
O
0)
CQ






__j.
»
VD
H
CM










J-l
0)
•H
K

nrf
fi
cd
M
o








£3
O
W
rM
O
•?


o
o
MD
»\
iH







0
O
•^
f*"4
H










O
O
LTN
v^P







Kj
^
1
0
o
0)
CQ






CM

CM










J-)
0)
-H
PH

-d
S3
03
^H
o





g
K)
•ri
flA
O
W 0)
tw -p
o aj
as -p
HD CQ


OOOLO, OOOOO
O O O H U-. L^ O O O

•• VS«S«N«N*\^^«S
H CM ra
O
H
H
O -P
0)
«j -P
03
OOOOOOOOO 'dO)
OOOOLi^OOOO 0)5-1
oovo OOCMVO^OOO S-i-*
»\«N"S*\"N-%«X^»N 3
OOVO t-COONCOLTN.^- CQ>3
LTN t1— OO H tQ H
H CM aj "«
CQ O
0) O
•r-i O
O 0)
fl w
0)
•H ^
o ~eR-
•H 0
OOOOOOOOO ^ CO
OOOOLT\OOOO <+4
O OHVD m-=J-VQOO 0)'--.
LTNOirxLTNVOC— VOOH -PO)
CO CO CM H fl +^
H CM CU H
S -H
-P CM
08
0) Cjj
EH -H

rH rH M H r*^ t-*-l
rCirtiHrCiMH 'CJM T^'H
OOjlJOSS^UOS JH 4-^
O O -H O «H -H CJ O -H 0) *^-^
(UQJJ'HQ^jHMOOJ'H Q|
CQ CO PH CO PH p_i |2J CO PH 4^
w n
Q 
SJ
cd
'H (D
O Js
^^ LT^\ VO OO CO f~H CVJ VO C^ £5 M
• • *•••*•* Q £jj
OOCOHOJCOONOH P.^
H H H H H VD O
^-. o
H 0)
CQ
II
• •*£
• 00
-p
nH C3
0) --a
•H *• ' 03
K +5 0)
SH JM M r^l ?H !H !H Cj ?H
0>0>0>0)0)JnO)0>a> Cd+^
•H -H -H ^ Pi > vH -H -H 0) >s
PH p^3 PH CJ) O| .j-^ PH p^j Q^ J> ^
Cd PH *H 05 •



0) M fn -P c{ f— 1 JL( ^ ^ p.
OOc^CQEHpiHC^OO fj -^^v
O •> 0)
•H bj3
H H
P -P CQ
P, a
o o) 
CQ TJ ^^ f~f pit J> • J~l »r^
rt (UOtaH edcd W-p-p
^uoi-q^t^.H K X o

•H rcj 4-* *H S4 Cfl fC^ "T^ 4-^ PH I^M v — x
§O
f^H
CDCDMCOcOfHOMjH


-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
Industrial

       Industries with separate outfalls discharge approximately 15,000
pounds of BODj daily to the streams of the Grand River Basin(l5).  Major
industrial waste sources are listed in Table 4-2.

       Industrial waste load projections have been made to the years 1980
and 2020.  The untreated waste loads are expected to increase 1.5 times by
1980 and 3-0 times by 2020.  Increases in industrial waste treatment
efficiencies are expected to reach 90% by 1980 and 95% by 2020, as compared
to the present overall removal efficiency of 30% of the 5 day BOD.  The
increases in removal efficiency will reduce the BODj loads discharged
direct to streams to approximately 4,000 Ibs./day in 1980 and 2020.

Combined Sewers

       It has been estimated that a quantity, equivalent to 3 to 5 percent
of all untreated waste-water flow in combined sewer systems, is annually
discharged to streams by overflows(l6).   It is also known that a far
greater percentage of the solids are discharged to streams from overflows.
This is due to the fact that the sludge deposited in the sewers is
flushed out by the storm flow.

       Of the 47 communities with public sewer systems in the Area only
about 8 have completely separate sewer systems.  The types of sewer
systems of the major municipal waste source are listed in Table 4-3.

                                 TABLE  4-3

                       Types of Municipal Sewer Systems
                       Major Municipal Waste Sources
                           Grand River Basin(17)

       Municipality                          Type of Sewer System

       Jackson                               Combined
       East Lansing                          Separate and Combined
       Lansing                               Separate and Combined
       Grand Ledge                           Separate and Combined
       Saint Johns                           Separate and Combined
       Hastings                              Combined
       Greenville                            Combined
       Ionia                                 Separate and Combined
       Grand Rapids                          Separate and Combined
       Grand Haven                           Combined
                                   4-2

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I



























3
I — I
t^
!=>--«•
P LT\
fe iH
M 	
o <2
1-3 O
< M
s w
— - o
K

EH !3
p^ ) — (
OJ M CQ
1 P> <£
-* S PQ
H
W 03
i-3 w 13
pq EH >
< CQ M
EH 
,O C(H tr\
<. O K

w ,C tj
0) -P S3
H ^ cd
— 1 Q C_ i
S 2 O





SO
S3
•H
0) 0)
O M
(1) .p
K CQ


S3
O
•H
-P
cd
o
o








CU

Jj

r*s
Pi
cd

9
o
o




1










LP,
t —
ir\



c-
0

CD





S3
0
fe







0
*
l>-
£s^_






?H
O
^>
•H
K
"S
cd
fn
O



O
cd
S3
cd

c?
co







£>
H


O
cd
S3
cd
^
cd
CO



o
H
CM
OJ









O
ON
LTN
OJ


CO
vo

CD
S3
0
•H
"S
D
1

CO







OJ
•
VD
LA






^
CD
f>
•H
K
8
UO
o
K


Tl
M
o
a
o
o
M

'"'O
C!
-H
£l
^ H
H 03
o
fe CQ
0) O

•H CO
M v— -*
0)
{> CD
rH ^

Is Is



o'
H
LT\









UA
CM
O^
-d"


oo
»
OJ






§

^







^D
•
0
^M^






^
CD
>
•H
K
•a
cd

o
CO
•d
•rt
cd
P3

-a
cd
M
O
o
•H
-p
cd
£-4
o
&
o
o
cd
oO O
S3 -H
•H 5-1
bO 0)
cd Q
r^J *^
CJ
cd 'w
PH 0



O
OJ
ON










LTx
H
\Q
H


ON
•
0




S3
0
O
fcfl
cd








o
*
H

















§
0}


•a
cd

0



SH
0)

-p
s
1-5
I-t
I — t
o3 ^
c^J i^J
r
-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Steam_Power Plants

       Thermal discharges from two steam electric generating stations
at Lansing, Michigan are particularly significant from a water quality
standpoint.  The temperature of 90°F reported by the Michigan Water
Resources Commission(13 was measured prior to the installation of
additional generating capacity at Lansing.  With the increased generating
capacity in operation, stream temperatures in the Grand River at Lansing
will reach well above 100 °F under average stream conditions for August.

A££i£ul;l^re_and Land Runoff

                               Fertilizer

       Present estimates of fertilizer use for the Grand River Basin
show that approximately 8,000 tons of nitrogen and 15,000 tons of phos-
phate have been used annually.  The applications of these are projected
to increase four and two fold respectively by 2020.

                                Phosphates

       During 1963 - 1964 the GLIRB Project conducted a rural land runoff
sampling study to assess the relative amounts of phosphate and other
substances transported to streams by rural runoff in the Lake Michigan
Watershed.  Based upon the results of this study, it is estimated that
there is an annual total soluble phosphate runoff from rural land of about
940,000 pounds per year in the Grand River Basin(lS).  Estimates of the
total amount of phosphate discharged to Lake Michigan from the Grand River
Basin are discussed under the separate heading "Phosphates."

                       Pesticides and Herbicides

       Pesticide contamination of streams is a matter of growing concern.
Agricultural activity is considered to be the major source of the pesti-
cides which have been found in water(l9).  Pesticides and Herbicides
used in the Grand River Basin include D.D.T., Diazimon, Guthion, Malathion,
Parathion, Sevin, Thiodan, and Toxaphene.  Unfortunately, there is little
or no information available as to the amounts that are/in the Grand River
Basin.                                               used

Ships and Boats

                           Commercial Ships

       The large number of vessels plying Grand Haven Harbor represents
a considerable potential for pollution of the Harbor waters.  Among the
possible sources of pollution are cargo spillage, dunnage, bilge waste,
ballast water, fuel spills, garbage and sanitary wastes.  Uncontrolled
                                  4-3

-------

-------
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
discharges of these wastes can result in serious pollution problems to
beaches, shore property, recreational waters, fish and aquatic life, and
municipal and industrial water supplies.

        Commercial shipping has increased significantly since the opening
of the  St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.  While all new vessels built since
1952 specifically for -ise on the Great Lakes have been equipped with waste
treatment facilities, ocean-going ships generally have no provision for
waste treatment.  The majority of these ocean-going vessels are designed
to discharge sanitary wastes from multiple outlets making onboard waste
collection and treatment an expensive and complex installation.

       The U. S. Public Health Service has established regulations
governing vessel waste discharges in the Great Lakes based upon their
legal responsibility for the interstate control of communicable diseases.
Restricted areas have been established in which the discharge of sewage,
or ballast or bilge water, from vessels is prohibited.  Restricted areas
include the x^ater within a three mile radius of domestic water intakes.
These restrictions apply to the waters within a three mile radius of the
water intakes for Grand Rapids and Grand Haven(20).

                           Recreational Boats

        In addition to the heavy commercial traffic, Grand Haven Harbor
is also an important recreational boating center.  About 4000 recreational
craft annually are passed through the Spring Lake Bridge which joins
Ferrysburg and Spring Lake.  There are numerous marinas and boat clubs
along the lower part of the Grand River.  Many of the larger recreational
craft are equipped with galley and toilet facilities which may discharge
untreated or inadequately treated wastes to the Harbor or Lake waters.
Oil and gasoline wastes, as well as garbage and sewage from onboard cooking
and toilet facilities, are the major potential sources of pollution.

Dredging

       Maintenance dredging is done by the Corps of Engineers to maintain
authorized navigation depths in Grand Haven Harbor.   Dredged materials
are disposed of in the deep waters of Lake Michigan.

       Water quality surveys made in 1963 by the Great Lakes-Illinois
River Basins Project, showed significant evidence of pollution material
in the bottom deposits of Grand Haven Harbor.  Transfer of this pollutional
material to Lake Michigan via the dredging process creates an additional
zone of pollution in the Lake.
                                   4-4

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 Phosphates
                    Transport to Streams and Lakes from
                                Rural Lands
        The GLIRB Project conducted a sampling study of eight streams
 draining small rural watersheds(18).   The purpose of this study was to
 assess the relative amounts of phosphate and other substances transported
 to streams by rural runoff in the Lake Michigan Watershed.

        The amount of total soluble phosphate reaching streams from land
 runoff, in the Grand River Basin, as estimated from samples taken on the
 eight pilot watersheds, is about 940,000 pounds annually or approximately
 0.3 pound per acre of watershed.

                            Municipal Sources

        Domestic sewage is relatively rich in phosphorus compounds.  Most
 of this phosphorus comes from human excreta and synthetic detergents.
 The amount of phosphorus released by human metabolic processes is a
 function of protein intake and for the average person in the United
 States, this release is considered to be about 1.5 grams per day(2l).
 Synthetic detergent formulations contain large amounts of phosphates.
 It is estimated that 2.5 grams of phosphorus per capita-day are discharged
 to sewer systems as a result of the use of synthetic detergents.

        When the above per capita figures for phosphorus from human ex-
 creta and detergents are expanded to  cover the entire sewered population
 of the Grand River Basin the quantity becomes quite large.  The GLIRB
 Project municipal waste inventory shows that 540,000 people are served
 by sewer systems in the Basin.

        From a study of five sewage treatment plants in Illinois and
 Indiana it was found that the average phosphate removal was 38 percent.
 Using the above figures on population and the per capita phosphorus dis-
 charged, along with the average percent removal, it is estimated that
 a total of approximately 3,300,000 pounds of soluble phosphate from
 humans and detergents are discharged  to the waters of the Basin each year.
 However, not all of the amount reaches Lake Michigan.

                         Tributary Mouth Sampling

        In addition to the land runoff sampling from the eight small sub-
 basins discussed above, sampling stations were established at the mouth
 of the Grand River.   These stations were sampled intermittently for one
 year during the same period in which  the land runoff stations were
 sampled (See Chapter 6).

        Sampling at the mouth made it  possible to estimate the total soluble
 phosphate load reaching Lake Michigan from the Grand River.   It was deter-
mined that atotal of approximately 2,000,000 pounds of soluble PO^ being
 discharged to the Lake annually.

                                    4-5

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                                      * '
                                                                   y~"
                                                                       v

                                                                   /'''  , t<
                                   CHAPTER 5
                                                    vXr'   •-'-'    '•'  '-i.v
                                  LAKE CURRENTS     '  • ^  ./•>'*  v''> ' \ **

Background                                             N'  ^ **   •,t4s

       The GLIRB Project studied currents in Lake Michigan adjacent to the
Grand Haven area from 19^3 thrcligh the summer of 1964.  Instruments used in
this continuous study included automatic recording  current meters, anemometers
and thermographs.  The objectives of the study were to obtain information
relative to the fate and movement of pollutants.

       Prior to the field effort previous Lake Michigan current studies were
reviewed.  These studies utilized drift cards and bottles floating at the
surface and were conducted only during summer periods.

Findings

       The primary factors which influence Lake Michigan currents adjacent to  -
Grand Haven are the winds and the configuration of the shoreline.  Winds repre-
sent the principal energy source for putting the waters in motion, while the
shore line maintains the north-south orientation of currents in the area.  Water
movements tend to parallel the shore as the water depth decreases.  Patterns
of current flow near Grand Haven were typical of this phenomenon.

       Density, due to temperature differences, plays a role in the movement
of pollutants entering the Lake.  During the summer stratification a pollutant,-
depending on its initial -density, will rise, sink or come to rest on the thermo-
cline.  Under winter iso-thermal conditions in the lake the pollutant,, being
of lower density than the lake water, would normally rise toward the surface.
Grand Haven is located on the windward side of the lake and consequently
experiences more downwelling than the western side of the Lake.  The effect of
downwelling would be to disperse an effluent into the main portion of the Lake
more rapidly than would occur by ordinary.transport.

       Water motion, such as transport or the net movement of a water mass, can
also effect the discharge of a pollutant.  If the current is extremely small
then a pollutant may build up into a nearly stationary mass.  The eastern shore
of the Lake however, rarely has periods of low transport speeds.  Thus, discharged
wastes are normally diluted by the moving water.

       Water transport adjacent to the city of Grand Haven was to the north or
the south depending on the effect of the windstress prevailing at the time of
the study.  The net flow or residual current appears to be periodic at Grand
Haven.  The net flow during 1963=6^ appeared normally to be to the north except
for October and November (Figure 5-1).  The eastern shore of the Lake, which
includes the Grand Haven area, experienced prolonged periods of winds from the
north quadrant during these two months.
                                      5-1

-------

-------
                          86°20'
 43°IO'-
V
 SECONDARY
                                                     • 43°IO'
N
                        %   OF   FLOW
                       10     20      30
                                          40
                                                    GREAT  LAKES  8  ILLINOIS
                                                     RIVER  BASINS  PROJECT
                                                   ANNUAL WATER MOVEMENTS
                                                    AT GRAND HAVEN.MICHIGAN
                                                   US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                              FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
                                              Great Lakes Region           Chicago,Illinois
                                                                         FV3URE 5-1-

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary


       The general flow in the winter, spring and summer shows a decided
northward flow in response to the prevailing southerly winds.   In the fall
the northerly winds reverse the normal northward flow and the  flow "becomes
southerly.  Because of the long fetch over the Lake the response of flow
direction to the prevailing wind is excellent.  This response  produces
swift currents and unusual downwellinc, conditions during the summer.
Both downwelling and fast-moving currents tend to increase the rate of
dispersion near the Grand Haven area.  Since downwelling is characteristic
of this area, pollutants will be mixed into the main body of the northern
basin rather quickly and normally will escape detection.
                                 5-2

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                CHAPTER  6

                   PRESENT WATER QUALITY AND PROBLEMS
General

       The information and interpretations presented in this discussion
are based on data collected by the GLIRB Project during its water quality
studies of the Lake Michigan Basin (1962-1964).   The GLIRB Project studies
have been supplemented by data obtained from other Federal agencies, the
State of Michigan and local agencies.  Two programs of study were carried
out by the GLIRB Project with respect to water quality of Lake Michigan
tributaries.  The first consisted of weekly sampling of tributary mouths
to determine average annual loadings discharged to the Lake and water
quality variability.  The second consisted of intensive studies of stretches
of certain tributaries to determine the effect of organic wastes on stream
oxygen resources.

Summary
       The chemical, biological, bacteriological and radiochemical data
presented in subsequent pages form the basis for the following conclusions
with respect to water quality effects:

       1.  The Grand River for a 25 mile stretch below Jackson is
           polluted.  The principal i,vaste source causing pollution is
           the effluent from the Jackson sewage treatment plant.

       2.  The Grand River for a 20 mile stretch below Lansing is
           polluted.  The principal waste sources causing pollution are
           the effluent from the Lansing and East Lansing sewage treat-
           ment plants.  Cooling water discharges from Thermal-electric
           power plants in Lansing intensify the adverse effects on
           water quality.

       3-  The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has reported impairment of
           water recreation in the Grand River for a 30 mile stretch
           below Grand Rapids'.(6) However, the GLIRB Project did not
           conduct intensive sampling in this sector of the stream since
           the Michigan Water Resources Commission had definite plans
           for such sampling.  The report of the Michigan Water Resources
           Commission has not been published.

Grand_River Mouth Sampling

                     Physical and Chemical Findings

       During the period from March 1963 through April 1964 the GLIRB
Project collected samples at the mouth of the Grand River to determine


                                    6-1

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
loadings of various substances being carried into Lake Michigan.  The
analytical results of th/.s sampling are shown below in Table 6-1.  Of all
the chemical parameters reported, the two nutrients, total soluble phos-
phate and ammonia nitrogen, are most illustrative of the waste inputs dis-
charged to Lake Michigan by the Grand River.


       Considering al] Lake Michigan tributaries, the Grand River is one
of the greatest contributors of soluble phosphate and ammonia nitrogen with
inputs of 5300 and 7000 pounds per day, respectively.  In general, the
chemical parameters for given streams in the Lake Michigan Basin follow
definite patterns.  In the Grand River phosphate and ammonia nitrogen
concentrations are high and a pattern of high values is also seen for the
other chs.7iical parameters as shown in Table 6-1.  With respect to loadings
the Grand River is one of the major contributors of dissolved substances
to ths Lake.

                               TABLE  6-1
                      Water Quality - Grand River at Mouth
                           March 1963 - April 1964


                 No. of Samples
52
52

51

52


51


44

52

52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
Total Soluble
  ::rl— N
Concent ration(mg/l)
Average
0.52
0.68
0.72
0.77
Range
0.12-1.1
0.05-1.5
0.04-2.4

Loading
(Ibs./day)
5330
6970


Total Dissolved
  Solids

Tot?l Suspended
  Solids
  Cl

  Si®2
  Ca
  K
  ABS
  r% ->

  Cd
  Ni
  Zn
  Gr
  Pb
350


 24

 74

 42

5.3
72
 26
 28
2.8
0.28
0.14

0.04

0.04
0.11
275-570


  6-84
 56-100

 19-67
2.5-17
 51-85
 16-30
7.1-43
2.1-3-9
0.11-0.73
         Not Detectable at Test Sensitivity.
                                    6-2

-------

-------
 I
 I
 1
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
 I
I
I
 I
       The maximum phenol concentration on the eastern side of Lake Michigan
was 7.2 micrograms per liter (mg/l) close to the mouth of the Grand River.
BOD^ values as high as 8.6 mg/l were recorded near the mouth.  An average
total chromium concentration of 0.04 mg/l was found at the mouth of the
Grand River.  This concentration is less than the Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards(22) mandatory limit of 0.05 mg/l for hexavalent
chromium.

                           Biological Findings

       During 1962 and 1963 samples were collected at the mouth of the
Grand River.  Amphipods were the principal organisms observed and sand
was the bottom type.  Totcl populations of 10,000 - 15,000 benthie animals
per square meter were found as far as several miles from the shore.

                         Radiochemical Findings

       Fallout is the most significant source of radioactive contamination
in the Lake Michigan Basin because of the potential hazards of the radio-
isotopes produced.  However, naturally occurring radionuclides are probably
the major contributors to the total radioactivity of the surface waters in
the Basin.

       The analytical results from 1963 sampling in the Grand River at
the nouth are shown below in Table 6-2.

                                TABLE  6-2
                               Radioactivity
                            Grand River at Mouth
                               1963 Average

Portion                          Qj°JLs_ Alpha              Gross Beta
                              Concentration (pc/l)      Cone ent rat ion ( JDC/I)

Suspended Solids                     •>•-1                        4
Dissolved Solids                     -.-I                       12
Total Solids                         si                       16

       In relation to the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards,
tho conceiitritions reported above meet the Standards.  !.However, a specific
determination of the Strontium -90 concentration would be necessary in
order to verify that the concentration was equal to or less than 10
picocuries per liter (pc/l)J.

Grand River Intensive Studies

                     Physical and Chemical Findings

       The effects of organic loadings on the oxygen resources of the
Grand River below Jackson and Lansing are indicated in typical profiles of


                                   6-3

-------
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the dissolved oxygen (DO) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) shown in
Figures 6-1 and 6-2.

       In Figure 6-1 the apparent effects of effluent aeration at the
Jackson sewage treatment plant are shown with a rise in the stream DO from
about 0.4 mg/1 to 3 mg/1 in a distance of about 0.5 mile below the plant
discharge.  The stream DO concentration then decreases rapidly to a low
of about 0.2 mg/1 at a point about 7 miles below the plant discharge. The
highest DO concentration in the study reach, 3.5 mg/1, was found at a point
about 19 miles below the Jackson plant discharge.  Desirable fish and
aquatic life cannot survive under such degraded oxygen conditions and the
Etreavn sector is unsuitable for other uses as shown in Table 3-1.

       In Figure 6-2 the high BOD levels, reaching a maximum of 29 mg/1
about 3 miles below the Lansing Sewage treatment plant discharge, result
in DO levels below 3 mg/1 for a 19 mile stretch below the Lansing plant.
The minimum DO, about 0.6 mg/1, occurs about 10.5 miles below the Lansing
plant.  As was the case below Jackson, desirable fish and aquatic life
cannot survive bslo,; Lansing due to the degraded oxygen conditions.  The
stream is also unsuitable for other beneficial uses as shown in Table 3-1.

       Further demand on the oxygen resources of the Grand River below
Lansing results from the Thermal discharges of the steam electric genera-
ting stations at Lansing.  Increases in stream temperatures below the
stations result in a higher rate of biological activity and a more rapid
uptake of dissolved oxygen.  The increased temperatures also limit the
total amount of dissolved oxygon available for waste assimilation due to
a lo\rering of oxygen saturation values.  As discussed in Chapter 4 the
stream temperatures below Lansing, under certain conditions, can easily
rise above 100°F.  These temperatures, in themselves, impair water uses
at Lansing (see Table 3-6).

       The Grand River in the stream reaches below Jackson and Lansing
was also found to be esthetically undesirable and objectionable for
recreational uses such as boating, water skiing, and similar aquatic
sports.  The organic loadings causing these polluted conditions originate
from the discharges of municipal sewage treatment plants.   The major
municipal waste discharges are listed in Table 4-1.

                        Microbiological Findings

       Limited microbiological studies were conducted in conjunction with
the intensive DO - BOD studies below Jackson and Lansing.   Analyses for
both total coliform and fecal streptococci organisms were made.

       Below Jackson 11 samples were collected at eight stations and
analyzed for coliform and fecal strep.  Total coliform organisms reached
a maximum density of 233,000 per 100 ml.   At a point about 1.5 miles below
the Jackson sewage treatment plant discharge and 0.5 mile below the Prison
                                   6-4

-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
a.     £
5     t'
                                                          O
                                                          O
S   :|
Id   -  £
«   £  •
^   a  ^
         I   '3
                     ra   o»
                     "H   "^

             -d  °"  <0   (Q
          S  ^  'C  -O   T3
          ._   ?  m  a:   c
          *   o   -  -   n
          «  £  S  5   .£
          % 2  ~  Z   t
          tr   Q-  t  3   E
          o   o  a,  j:   o
          a.  S  to  - CD
o £ »
to > 3
d5 5 "^
0 Q
Q z
 < o
d a- -J
^ s
Q £
UJ "
U. CQ
                                                                                                                                                                         t
                                                                                                                             000
                                                                                           UJ


                                                                                           LJ


                                                                                           ii

                                                                                           cc
                                                                                           UJ


                                                                                           cc
                                                                                                                             O co
                                                                                                                             Oto
                                                                                                                             O CM

                                                                                                                           o «-
                                                                                                                                                   FIGURE  e-i

-------
o
z
LU
CD
UJ
_)
              ^
              O
              o
Z 2 o
S 59
£ c s

•500
S it S
CC «1 O
    o
    c « -c .S a
      c   -
      -i z 5 o x o
                            H

                            z
CO


- ir1

I) O
- cc
   0-
cO
   c/)
CO S


< CO

   ££
t- LU
                                                                 o
                                                                       DJ
                                                                       _J

                                                                       lJU
                                                                                e?

                                                                                CO

                                                                                <
                                                                                _j
                                            OQ  ~
                                            cr —
                                         CQ >
                                         c5 cr
                                         o Q
                                         Q 2;

                                            cc
                                            o

                                                                                     .-: o
                                                                                     Q -
O
CC

I-
2

Id
X
H
U-
O
I-
z
Id
r»
                                                                                       K  X. X
                                                                                       cc  "J J

                                                                                       s.i
                                                                       UJ
                                                                       C5
                                                                       
                                                                               e n

                                                                               o 
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plant discharge.  The maximum fecal streptococci density was 6400 organisms
per 100 ml.  About 0.5 mile below the Jackson plant discharge, the maximum
densities were found in samples collected October 14, 1964.

       Below Lansing 17 samples were collected at eight stations.  Total
coliform organisms reached a maximum density of 930,000 per 100 ml during
the May 13, 1964 sampling;  at a point approximately 1 mile below the
Lansing sewage treatment plant discharge.  The maximum fecal streptococci
density was found at a point about 5.5 miles below the Grand Ledge sewage
treatment plant discharge, reaching 11,700 organisms per 100 ml during the
October 14, 1966 sampling.

       The bacterial densities reported above indicate a high degree of
pollution most likely resulting from the discharge of wastes from the
municipal sewage treatment plants at Jackson, the State Prison, Lansing
and Grand Ledge.  The densities are of such magnitude as to seriously
impair beneficial water uses such as body-contact recreation and municipal
and industrial v^rater supply.  The densities present a definite hazard to
the health of humans coming in contact with the waters effected.

Waste Assimilation

       Based on consideration of the location of principal municipal and
industrial waste discharges in the Grand River Basin and the quantitative
end qualitati\re characteristics of the receiving waters, two reaches of
the main stem of the Grand River below Jackson and Lansing were selected
for waste assimilation studies.

       Waste assimilation stream studies were conducted by the GLIRB
Project to determine the total streamflow required to meet a range of
water quality goals in the Grand River below Jackson and Lansing.  During
1964 intensive stresm investigations, as described in the previous section
of this Chapter, were conducted on these reaches during May, July and
October.

       A computer program was utilized to develop a mathematical model
which reproduced the stream conditions observed during these intensive
sampling periods.  Using projected flow and quality data for the waste in-
puts within the study reaches of the stream, the model was used to compute
the total streamflows required for flow regulation for water quality con-
trol.  It has been assumed that a 90^ BOD^ removal will be provided by
1980 and a 95% BOD5 removal will be provided by 2020 for both municipal
and industrial waste discharges.

       Based on the desired uses of the Grand River below Jackson and
Laming are given in Table 3-1 (Sectors 5, 6 and 8) and a consideration
of the water quality criteria necessary to support these uses, dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 3.0 and 4.0 mg/1 are the minimum water quality
goals below Jackson and Lansing, respectively.  The maintenance of these
minimum goals will assure the absence of nuisance odor conditions; permit
recreational use involving body contact (when municipal waste treatment


                                   6-5

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plants provide effluent disinfection); support fish and other aquatic life;
and in general provide for the esthetic enjoyment of clean surface waters.

       The estimated ranges of total streamflow required to maintain a D.
0-. concentration of 3.0 mg/1 below Jackson are 50 to 270 cfs in 1980 and
90 to 540 cfs in 2020.  Below Lansing the streamflows required to maintain
n.O. of 4 mg/1 are 60 to 480 cfs in 1980 and 160 to 1760 cfs in 2020.
Ranges in streamflow requirements are presented primarily due to the wide
variation in stream temperatures over the year.

       The ability of existing streamflows to meet the above demands is
assessed by comparing the estimated maximum required flows in 1980 and
2020 with the 7 day once-in-10-year low flows as shown in Table 2-2.  The
comparison indicates that existing low flows will not be adequate to
assimilate the treated waste discharges at Jackson and Lansing in 1980
and 2020.  Thus, it is concluded that some combination streamflow regula-
tion and advanced waste treatment, beyond 95$ BOD5 removal, will be re-
quired to achieve the water quality goals of 3 mg/1 DO bdlow Jackson
and 4 mg/1 below Lansing.
                                    6-6

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                               CHAPTER  7

                      QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
General

       The problems of water pollution control in the Grand River Basin
are complex.  Solutions to these problems will of necessity involve a
comprehensive program which includes construction of new sewerage
facilities; and continuous and intensive monitoring of operating proce-
dures, treatment plant efficiency, and water quality conditions to deter-
mine necessary additional construction and operation needs as they arise.
In addition, some combination of advanced waste treatment and flow regula-
tion may be required to attain the desired water quality below Jackson
and Lansing.  These phases of the comprehensive program for pollution con-
trol in the Grand River Basin are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Municipal Waste Treatment

       The immediate goal in the treatment of municipal wastes is the
provision of biological (secondary) treatment at each waste treatment
plant.  Such treatment is considered adequate in terms of present tech-
nology and provides 90 percent BOD5 removal.  Adequate effluent disinfec-
tion is also considered to be a necessity in the Grand River Basin
particularly where recreational use of the receiving waters is prevalent.
There is also a present need for increased phosphate removal.

       There are approximately 47 municipal sewerage facilities in the
Grand River Basin.  Of these,20 provide secondary biological waste treat-
ment.  Municipal waste treatment construction needs for the major
communities of the Grand River Basin are shown on Table 7-1.  These needs
are based on waste flow and waste load projections to the year 1980.

Indust rialJaste Treatment

       Minimum treatment needs for major industries with separate outfalls
are listed in Table 7-2.  In developing this list it was considered that
the equivalent of secondary waste treatment as described in the preceding
section would be required.  The recommended BODt; load limits shown on
Table 7-2 were arrived at by estimating the present untreated waste load
and projecting this figure to I960 by using an industrial growth multiplier.
Then a 90^ BODc removal of the 1980 untreated waste load was applied.  The
present untreated waste load used in the above calculation was estimated
from a knowledge of the existing discharged waste load and existing
treatment practices.
                                   7-1

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
H
w
pq
EH
 CO

 M
 EH
SI
O
u
ro  <£.
Q  C3
W  M
H  W
S  O
    n

Is;

O  S
P^  CO
EH  
EH  M
           Q
          O
       CO
       PH
       M
       O
-p
CD
a
-P
03

M
£H

CD
-P
CO
03
>-^»
T3
CD
O
G

_>'

•a;
o
-f">
cd

•H

o
rH
,G
O

•*,
G
O
•H
CO
£
oj
ft
X

-p
G
CD
s
-p
CtJ

f-t


CD
1 1
CO
cd
*S
'-0
0)
o
G
cd
£>
•n
•=c


-P
C

a
+3
03
CD
£_4
EH

^
cd

"S
o
o
CD
CO


-P
G
CD
s
-p
cd
CD
J_j
£—1

. &
03

G
O
0
0)
co

••\
-p
G
CD
e
-p
cd
CD
^i
EH

1 &
cd
•d

o
o
CD
CO







C
O
•H
-P
03
G
•H

O

c~]
O


G
0
•H
-p
cd
G
•H

O

,G
O

«>
G
0
•H
CO
G
cd
ft

H


-P
G
Q)
P!
-P
cd
CD
£_t
EH

&
03

^j
O
O

co
 G
 O T*
•H  CD
-P -P|
 cd  o|
H  CD |

 ft
 O  O
PH CJ
 COj

li
£

1
 co
 CD
£i
                            o
                            8
                           O
                           O
                           o
                            H   u-\
                             o
                             o
                            co
                           o
                           CD
                          co
            >-.;
            -P
            •H
            G
                     i
                             o
                             to
                             o
                             cd
                                 •H
                                  CO
                          -p
                           co
                           cd
O
O
O
o
o
o   o
O   u>
o
o
                                        o
                                        t-t
                                                        •-o
o
o
                                                                    xO
                                        fn
                                        EH
 o
 CD
CO
                                       EH   EH   EH
      O   -r)
      CD    ^
     CO   PH
                                                                     S-t
                                                                    EH
                                                              OH


bO
G
•H
CO
c^
crt
hH
CD
W3
'~&
$

TJ

ci3
^
o
CO
F]
O

-p
G
•H
o3
CO


CO
G
•H
-p
CO
03

CD
H
H
•H

C
CD
CD
|Lf
C5




cd
•H
G
O
M
o
o
o
  •>
o
OJ
C\i
                          fn
                         EH


                          O
                          CD
                         CO
                                                                                   EH
                                                                             0}
                                                           I
                                                                 G
                                                                 CD

                                                                 03
                                                                                                      £*
                                                                                                  Q)  03
                                                                                                  -P  G
                                                                                                  O  O   •

                                                                                                  fn  CD  -P
                                                                                                  O  CO  -H
                                                                                                         iH
                                                                                                  G H  03
                                                                                                  O  03  3
                                                                                                  •H  G  U
                                                                                                  -P  O
                                                                                                  O.-H  .C
                                                                                                  fs -P  bfl
                                                                                                  O  C  -H
                                                                                                  co  CD  x;
                                                                                                  T(  >
                                                                                                  03  G  >a
                                                                                                      O  r~\
                                                                                                   " O  CD
•H  G  ?H
-p  -H +3
 cd  ^  X
 JH  O  CD
-P  H
i—I  i—I ^
•H  O  O

       -P

 ti  O  §
 O  -H  3
• H  -P rH
-P  ct! <+H
 cd  G «H
-P  -H  CD
-H  43
 ft g  0)
•H  O -P
 O  O  CO
 0      cd
 !H  G  fe
                                                          rH  ?H  CD
                                                           cd  O -p
                                                           o      cd
                                                          •H  t>5  CD

                                                           CD  bO-P

                                                           O  -H  cd
                                                              CO
                                                           I       CD
                                                                                                  CD  CO
                                                                                                         •H
                                                              CO  SH
                                                          43  CD  ft
                                                           Oi  O
                                                           (POO
                                                           f-<  SH -P
                                                          -p  ft
                                                                 -P
                                                           CD -P  G
                                                          -P  G  CD
                                                              CD  g
                                                              g -P
                                                             -P  0)
                                                              cd  CD
                                                              CD  !M
                                                              SH -P
                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                  cd
                                                                                                  CD
                                                                               G     CD
                                                                               cd -P  -P
                                                                               > -H  co
                                                                               T3  C  cd

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
CO
+3   (D
 C  -H
 CD   O
 CO  -rH
 CD  CM
 !-t  CM
(^  W

T3  -P
 CD   C
-P   0)
 rt   a
 S  -P
•H   ct3
                                                         O
                                   n3
                                   P.
                                   O
                                  O
                                                                                O
























1
£*•—


n

en
-d4
EH










CO
r^i
c3
PH
K^5
O
co

jl:p
EH
CO

•H

bfl -H
>-t f~~*
•H
TS "d
05 ^ — • CD
O H| 73










..Q CD ! O O O O
-j; s - - EJ ^ o o tr\
^3 nj Q g
cj o! o
^ ,% rq o
Hi
F4
EH
CO
O
<5 pS
M M
CO

o m

frl M
O CM
Ps
Q
CO S
a ^
s
* — '
-P 0
CO t>, K
r-
CD Tltj
tiO 1 i
ct3
45 •
CJ CO
CO 43
•H rH,
Q ^
CD O C
-,3+3 0)
01 cd co
cd K CD
t* fn
p t




 O UA «"N
O- O CV H
LP\ U~\ Q^ ^O
CV -j- H



CO
' 73 C
O -HO
£ a
o
O
tp -rl

f~1
P"H
-P
cS
O
n9
x-^l 1-*
73 cd O3
0 ft K EC
03 O
Cl CM 73 73
03 ^J C C
ft o cd o)
n3 O ft ft
co er; cs cb


^
rH
•H
s

o
a3

05
!t
o3
co
73
•H
?H
O
^

CD
C
•H
ft
CD
>
H
O
3:
'wl
s
03
EH

»>
CO
CD
0

CO
^^^"


po rat Ion
ft
o
o

60
rn
•H
bJj

"vj
O
05
OH


05
CJ
•H
ft
CD
g
•<

CM
O


5-i
CD
05
CD
i.. ~]

rH
H

£*
d)
-P
•H
rC<
1-2





£>^
CH*
ci3
f2.
6
0
0



-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Combined Sewers

       Historically, the development of our Nation's sewer system
followed a general pattern.  Diversion of storm water was the earliest
concern of communities.  Discharges were made directly to water-courses,
usually at many points.  Later these sewer systems were used to carry
sanitary sewage also.  As the public became increasingly aware of the need
for treatment of sanitary wastewater, the many short sewers discharging
untreated domestic v:aste to various points in streams were provided with
interceptors and the collection system was modified to deliver the waste
to a single point - the treatment plant.  When sanitary and storm water
are combined it is necessary, in times of storm flow, for the sewers to
overflow directly to the stream.

       Studies of combined sewer systems have indicated that the combined
overflows contain    ..  from 3 to 5 percent of the average annual untreated
domestic sewage flcv.  During storms as much as 95 percent of the sewage
flow is discharged with the storm \vater runoff.  Storm water alone was
demonstrated to carry significant amounts of pollution load, particularly
in the early portions of storms when a flushing action occurs in the
sewers.  The storm water washes large amounts of deposited sludge out of
the sewers.  For example, data from Buffalo, New York some years ago
indicated that one-third of the City's annual production of sewage solids
overflowed without treetment, although only 2 to 3 percent of the sewage
volume actually overflowed(16).

       The need for solutions to the problems caused by overflows from
combined sewer systems is pressing and is receiving much current atten-
tion(23)•  The Water Quality Act of 1965 established a four-year program
of grants and contract authority to demonstrate new or improved methods
to eradicate the problems of combined sewer overflows.

       Until economically feasible methods for solving the problems are
developed, existing combined sewer systems should be patrolled.  Overflow
regulating structures should be adjusted to convey the maximum practicable
amount of combined flows to and through waste treatment facilities.  Com-
bined sewers should be prohibited in all newly developed urban areas and
in coordination with urban renewal projects.

Reduction of Nutrients

       The degree of phosphate removal attained by the municipal and
industrial treatment plants in the Grand River Basin is not known.
However, the removal of phosphates is known to vary among plants of
similar design for reasons that are not always evident.  Research in
progress shows promise of accomplishing substantial removals at nominal
cost.  It may be necessary in the future to use some form of advanced
waste treatment to further remove phosphates.
                                    7-2

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
Plant Operation

       Proper plant operation must follow proper plant design in order
to efficiently reach the goals of water pollution control.  The im-
portance and value of proper plant operation must be emphasized at all
levels of public authority.  Effective operation can be encouraged by
means of a routine inspection program.  Inspections should be conducted
by the appropriate State agencies on at least an annual basis for the
small and medium-sized plants, and at least, bi -annually for the larger
plant s .

       The Michigan Department of Health, administers a mandatory sewage
tj 3".tmeut plant. op^r;--tors ' certification program.  State-sponsored
operator training programs aie also a useful tool for elevating the level
of overall plant pciformance.  Today, with increasing activity in the
field of water pollution control at the Federal, State and local levels,
operator training courses should be conducted at least annually.  The
Michigan program, consisting of annual training on a regional basis, com-
pares favorably with the training programs sponsored by other states.

       Monthly operation reports should be submitted to the appropriate
State water pollution control agencies from each municipal and industrial
wasue treatment facility.  These reports should contain sufficient in-
formation oo describe waste treatment efficiency and the quality and
quantity of the effluent discharged to the waters of the Grand River
Basin.  Monthly operational reports would provide the State with more
curi'ont information and would enable them to take much quicker action
concerning needed improvements.

Monitoring

       The maintenance of desirable water quality on a continuing basis
calls for a routine monitoring program covering the significant water
quality pai-cjneters r.t strategic points.
       The c'v'.sting water quality monitoring program of the Michigan
Victor Resources CoiHnission currently consists of one station in the Grand
River Basin at Grand Haven.  The monitoring program of the Commission
needs expansion to include stations at critical points in the Basin,
such cs below Jackson, Lansing and Grand Rapids.  The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration will cooperate and assist the Commission
to the fullest extent of its resources and personnel in expanding its
monitoring program.

       The industries, municipalities and others, discharging wastes
within the Grand River Basin, should submit monthly reports to the
appropriate State agency concerning the quality and quantity of the wastes
discharged.  These reports could, in many cases, be combined with the
monthly operational report which was discussed under Treatment Plant
Operation.


                                    7-3

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
       The overall monitoring  program  should be  geared to  provide  an
adequate picture of  all  ••"_ dtes being discharged  to  the waters  of the Basin
ana adjacent waters  01 Lake Michigan and  serv& to indicate trends  in water
quality or the need  for  additional water  quality improvement measures.

       As part of an overall monitoring program  efforts  are needed to
assess the potential problems  associated  with agricultural practices in
the Grand River Basin.   There  is  a lack of  reliable information concern-
irg land v.3e pra-t^ces and the quantities of pesticides  and fertilizers
applied within the Basin.  Reliable data  concerning application rates on
ri yearly basis in each county  would be very helpful in identifying poten-
tial water quality problem areas.

Dredging

       The practice  of dredging to maintain adequate navigation depths
is recognised s.s necessary.  However, the subsequent disposal  of dredgings,
particularly thoso containing  residues of municipal and  industrial wastes,
can create o;- increase water quality problems.   The present practice of
off-shore disposal of drecgings in Lake Michigan is not  considered con-
sistent uioh the poal of water quality management in Lake  Michigan.
Alternative schemes  for  disposal  of dredgings should be  devised and eval-
uated by all Federal, State and local agencies concerned.   Appropriate
act:'.on tc eliminate  thi" direct waste input to Lake Michigan should be
initiated as soon as practicable.

TJrermal Dischai res_

       Where practicable thermal  discharges should  be reduced  where other
water uses are adversely affected.  As discussed in Chapter 6  the  area
below Lansing is p.uticulr.rly  significant from this standpoint.  In the
planning of new installations  requiring large amounts of cooling water
the quality requirements of the receiving streams should be a  prime
iVctoi in dnteimining the  2ocation of such  installations.

Filer: Regulation

       Tli3 nucd for  stiearn.flov regulation for x;ater quality control at
t\\T. critical roaches :'.n  th~ Grand River,  below Jackson and Lansing,  were
dijvussed at the close of  Chapter 6.  In  both reaches it appears that
Goreamflou re^ula^ion would be required to  further  improve water quality,
C.VGU after the ^rovifiio.i of high  degrees  of wd.ste treatment efficiency.
However, utreorruio1-  regulation cannot be  considered for  a  quality  improve-
ment measure until an Adequately  high degree of  treatment  is provided for
municipal and industrial wastes.

State Water Po?Aution_ContrqjL_ Pro gram

       The Federal Water Pollution Control  Act recognizes  the  primary
i-o.3ronsibi.lity of the States in the control and  prevention of  water pollu-
tion.   The effectiveness of a  State program, however, is dependent upon
                                   7-4

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
adequate funds and personnel with which to accomplish this mission.


       The State of Michigan has achieved commendable success in the
control of water pollution with the staff and funds available.  However,
even though much has been accomplished by the State in controlling con-
ditions, much remains yet to be done.  In 1964, the Public Administration
Service prepared a survey report for the Public Health Service concerning
the budgeting and staffing of State programs(24)•   This report, containing
suggested guidelines for use in evaluating the adequacy of State water
pollution control programs, may be of assistance to the State of Michigan
in terms of evaluating the present water pollution control efforts.


       In view of the water pollution control problems still existing
in the Basin consideration should be given to an accelerated program to
match the needs for clean water for all legitimate uses.  An accelerated
State water pollution control program utilizing fully the resources and
programs of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will
C\,.MVC the c'.rli -so possible  accomplishment of our common goal - more
effective use of our water resources.
                                    7-5

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                CHAPTER  8


                         PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
       The implementation of the Comprehensive Water Pollution Control
Program for the Lake Michigan Basin will involve the combined efforts of
the water pollution control agencies at all levels of government.  Spe-
cific recommendations for implementing the Lake Michigan Program, and for
coordinating the subbasin programs will be contained in the Summary Report
for Lake Michigan, which will be the final report in the Lake Michigan
series.  The recommendations contained in the Summary Report will in no
way conflict with recommendations contained in the Grand River Basin water
pollution control program, nor will it interfere in any way with any steps
taken to implement those recommendations.


       Accordingly it is recommended that the Michigan Water Resources
Commission consider the Comprehensive Water Pollution Control Program con-
tained herein as the basis for improvement of the quality of the waters
in the Grand River Basin.  The Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion will cooperate with and assist the Commission to the fullest extent
of its resources and personnel in each action taken to achieve ©bjectives
consistent with the Program.
                                   J-l

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                               CHAPTER  9

                                 BENEFITS

       Implementation of the recommendations contained in this report
will result in substantial improvement in the quality of the waters of
the Grand River Basin and the adjacent waters of Lake Michigan.  The
program objectives, however, are more specific and have been developed
to provide water of satisfactory quality for both present and planned
uses as shown on Table 3-1.  Accomplishment of Program objectives will
result in both tangible and intagible benefits to the people of the Grand
River Basin in particular, and to the people of Michigan and the Nation
as a whole.  As the waters of Lake Michigan serve many States and are of
National importance, all will share in the benefits resulting from the
enhancement and protection of these waters for both present and future
needs.

       Residents of the Basin will benefit from the assurance of a safer,
more palatable water supplied to their homes, business establishments,
industries, schools and public buildings.  Owners of property adjacent
to and near bodies of water will derive increased esthetic enjoyment and
enhanced property values from the elimination of ugliness and unsightly
conditions resulting from water pollution, including nuisance algal
blooms stimulated by over-fertilization.

       Michigan residents and visitors from out-of-state who use the
area streams and lakes for swimming, water skiing, boating and other
water-oriented sports will be protected against infectious diseases
which can be spread as a result of water pollution.  The sports fishermen
will find additional fishing areas to challenge his skill, and improved
fishing as a benefit of enhanced water quality.

       As a return on their investment in improved water quality, industry
will share in the benefits through assurance of consistency in the quality
of process water it needs for many of its products and other water uses.

       In addition to these immediate and direct benefits resulting from
the control of pollution, the preservation and protection of the quality
of the waters of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes is an important bene-
fit which is essential to the Nation's continued growth and prosperity.
This immense fresh water resource, the greatest in the world, is beginning
to show the effects of man's carelessness.  Lake Erie provides a clear
demonstration that size is no protection against pollution and that man
has the capability of destroying the usefulness of even a major water
resource.
                                   9-1

-------

-------
I
•

_
•
™
                  The Calumet, Milwaukee and Green Bay areas of Lake Michigan are
           already affected adversely by pollution.  Should the Lake as a whole
           reach critical levels of nutrients or  other persistent contaminants, it
           would require many decades before remedial measures could result in
           restoration of satisfactory water quality.  An action program based upon
           the recommendations contained in  this  report is essential for protection
           of an invaluable water resource,  Lake  Michigan.


                                                                             '
                               Ttl/1  ^i                "*~  ?      *   ^
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
                                             9-2

-------

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY


 1.  Surface Water Records of Michigan, 1964 •  U.  S.  Department
     of the Interior, Geological Survey District  Office,  Lansing,
     Michigan.


 2.  DroughtFlow of Michigan Streams.  University of Michigan,
     School of Public Health, Department  of  Environmental Health,
     Ann Arbor, Michigan, I960 and  1964.   Supplement.
 3.  Climatolo;vi.cal Data, Michigan Annual  Summary,  1964.   U.  S.
     Department of Commerce,, Weather  Bureau, Asheville, K.  G.  (1965).


 4.  U.S. Census of Manufactures;  194?, 1954,  1958 1963.   U.S.
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,  U.  S. Government
     Printing Office, Washington,D. C. (194-9, 1957,  19^1,  1965).


 5.  Water Quality Criteria.  Appendix No.  8, Lake  Michigan Basin
     Report, U. S. Department of the  Interior,  FWPCA,  Great Lakes-
     Illinois River Basins Project, Chicago, Illinois  ( to be
     published).


 6.  Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation Lake Michigan Basin.  U.  S.
     Department, of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor  Recreation, Lake
     Central Region, Ann Arbor, Michigan (  June 1965).


 7.  Water Resource Conditions and Uses in the  Upper Grand River Basin.
     Michigan Water Resources Commission,  Lansing,  Michigan(196l).


 8.  Michigan Summary of Irrigation.  Michigan Water Resources  Commission,
     Lansing, Michigan (1958).


 9.  Malted States Census of Agriculture 1939,  Michigan Counties.
     U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1961).


10.  Grand River Basin Data Book.
     U.S. Army Engineer District Detroit Corps  of Engineers, Detroit,
     Michigan.


!!•  Planning Status Report, Water Resource Appraisals for Hydroelectric
     Licensing, Grand River Basin, Michigan.
     Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Power,  Washington B.C.  (1965).


12.  Water Resources Development in Michigan.
     U.S. Army Engineer DJvision, North  Central  Chicago,  Illinois
     (January 1963).

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              BIBLIOGRAPHY (CON'T)


13.  Oxv;en Relationships  of  Grand River.  Lansin;- to Grand Ledf?e , 1960 Survey
     Michi an "l&ter Resources Commission Lansing, Mic1 i an (May 1962)^


lU.  19o2 Inventory of  Community  Sewera ;e Facilities  Lake Mi cl i an Basin.
     U.S. Department  of t" e Interior  FWPCA ,  Great Lakes -Illinois River
     Basins Project   CMca"o.  Illino.' s (  Unpublished).


15.  19^3 Inventory of  Industrial Waste  Sources  Lake i-lic' i an Basin. U.S.
     Department of t'-e  Interior,  FWPCA,  Great Lakes - 111?, noi s River Basins
     Project', C1 ica o  Illinois  (  Unp oils ed).


l6.  Pollutional  Effects  of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined Sewer
     Systems.  Public Health  Service Publicat;on TTo. 12^6. U.S. Government
     Print in  Office  I/as" in'tO'-' ,  D.  C.  (November
17.  Municipal Waste F~cilitj.es  19^2 Inventory.   Public 'leal!'" Service
     Pn.br cation Wo. 1065,  Vol.  5-   U.S.  Government Printi,)- Office
     Was  in^ton. D. C.  (1963).


13.  Runoff as a Source  of  Pbosp' ate in the Waters of Streams and Lakes.
     Preliminary Report  Prepared by H.  Hall  U.  S. Department of Heart! •
     Education and Welfare   FWPCA,  GLIRB Project,  Chica- o  Illinois (Feb
     1963).


19-  Pesticides and Water Pollution ,  James B.  Coulter.  Presented at tie
     FallPVotie Education  Meeting  of t' e Interstate Commission on t e
     Potomac River Basin held at Martinsbur' .  West Vdr'-inia( September 2^
20.  Disc' arse of Vessel Wastes  in  Fres1:  Water Rivers and Lakes-Tbe Great
     Lakes and Connectin  Waters.   Public Heart1'  Service Interstate
     Quarantine Re, vlation. Federal Re1 ister (  September 16,  19oO_)_.


21.  Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers.  C. N.  Sawyer  McGraw-Hill Book Co.
     Inc.; New York, v. Y. (  I960).


22.  Public Health Service Driukin   Water Standards:  1962.   Public Health-
     Service Publication Ho.  956.   U.  S.  Government Print in  Off ce,
     WasMn-.ton D. C .  (1962).


23-  Storm Water Control Looks Like Costliest Pollution Fi'Jrt Yet.
     En ineerin'  Hews Record"  :-Tew  York  N.  Y.  (  Marc'  3!  1966).


2U.  Staffing and Bud ;eLar^ Guidelines  for State  Water Pollution Control
     A encies.  Public Administration  Service-  Chicago.  Illinois ( 196^) •

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------