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
------- |