Volume 5
Chicago, Illinois
Ian.31, Feb.1-2f Feb.5-7196|
Executive Session
March 7, 8 and 12,1968
I L L I N 0 I S
CONFERENCE
INDIANA
PoSfiuf'cn of
Lake Michigan and its tributary basin
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
2188
1 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1968
2 MORNING SESSION
3 9:30 a .in.
4 MR. STEIN: Let's come to order.
5 We will now hear from Michigan. I
6 would like to call on Mr. John Vogt.
7
MICHIGAN PRESENTATION
8
9 MR. VOGT: Mr. Chairman, for the record
10 I will be Michigan's Conferee today and tomorrow
11 as designated by Mr. George Liddle, the Chairman
12 of the Michigan Water Resources Commission. I am
13 the Chief of the Division of Engineering of the
14 Michigan Department of Health and Vice Chairman
15 of the Michigan Water Resources Commission.
16 Alternate Conferees will be Mr. Liddle,
17 and also Mr. Ralph Purdy, Chief Engineer of the
18 Michigan Water Resources Commission.
19 The Michigan Presentation today, Mr.
20 Chairman, will involve a presentation of a joint
21 report prepared by the-Michigan water Resources
22 Commission and the Geological Survey Division of
23 the Department of conservation and the Michigan
24 Department of Health.
25 We also have appearances by people who
-------
2189
I J. E. VOGT
2 have requested opportunity to make statements.
3 Since we have previously informed those who have
4 requested an opportunity to make appearances that
5 they would be put on this morning, I plan on call-
6 ing these people first, because some of them have
7 other commitments and need to leave. So, there-
g fore, we will hold our State Report until after
9 the appearances have been made.
19 We also have some statements that have
11 been presented to us which I will merely enter
12 into the record, with your permission.
13 MR. STEIN: As I understand it, we have
14 just two other commitments and that is Mr. Klassen
15 has Mr. Egan, President of the Metropolitan Sani-
16 tary District of Greater Chicago, when he comes
17 we will put him on. And when Governor Knowles
18 comes, we expect him about 2 o'clock, we will make
19 arrangements for the Governor to make his statement
20 and try to fit in with the Governor's schedule.
21 With the Governor, I imagine, we would have to
22 find the closest breaking point and put him on as
23 soon as we can to accommodate his schedule.
24 MR. VOGT: We will certainly do that.
25 Now, upon the announcement or the calling
-------
2190
1 J . E . vOGT
2 of the Conference by Secretary Udall, we sent out
3 a letter to several hundred people in Michigan
4 who we knew would be interested in this Conferenc
5 and I would like to introduce into the record a
copy of this letter, a copy of the news release
7 which the Michigan Water Resources Commission put
g out, and also a list of the people who received
9 this letter.
10 KR. STEIN: Without objection, that
11 will appear in the record as if read.
12 MR. VOGT: A copy of that is being
x
13 distributed to the Conferees.
14 (Which said material is as follows:)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2191
1 J. E. VOGT
2
3 STATE OF MICHIGAN
4 GEORGE ROMNEY, GOVERNOR
5 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
6 RALPH A. MAC MULLAN, DIRECTOR
7
8 CONSERVATION COMMISSION WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION
9
CARL T. JOHNSON GEORGE P. LIDDLE
10 Chairman Chairman
E. M. LAITALA JOHN E. VOGT
11 ROBERT C. MCLAUGHLIN Vice Chairman
AUGUST SCHOLLE R. DALE BALL
12 HARRY H. WHITELEY GERALD E. EDDY
JAMES W. MURRAY
13 LYNN F. BALDWIN
JIM GILMORE
14
15
300 MILL ST., LANSING 48926
16
Tel. 373-3560
17
18 December 29, 1967
19
Subject: Federal Conference on Pollution of Lake
20
Michigan and its Tributary Basin
21
The Secretary of the Interior of the
22
United States has called a conference on the
23
pollution of Lake Michigan and its tributary basj
24
(Wisconsin-Illinois-Indiana-Michigan) under the
25
provisions of the Federal Water pollution Contro
-------
2192
! J. E. VOGT
2 Act (P.L. 84-660, as amended). The conference is
3 called on the basis of a request from Governor
4 Otto Kerner of Illinois, dated November 22, 1967,
g and on the basis of reports, surveys or studies
6 available to the secretary. Applicable portions
7 of the Federal Act are quoted herewith:
8 Section 10
9 " (a) The pollution of interstate or navic[
j
10 able waters in or adjacent to any State
11 ( or states (whether the matter causing or
12 contributing to such pollution is dis-
13 charged directly into such waters or
14 reaches such waters after discharge into
\
15 a tributary of such waters), which en-
16 dangers the health or welfare of any
17 persons, shall be subject to abatement
18 as provided in this Act.
19 *****
20 " (d) (I) Whenever requested by the
21 governor of any State . . . , the Secre-
22 tary shall, if such request refers to
23 pollution of waters which is endangering
24 the health or welfare of persons in a
25 State other than that in which the
-------
2193
j J . E . VOGT
2 discharge or discharges (causing or con-
3 tributing to such pollution) originates,
4 give formal notification thereof to the
, water pollution control agency ... of
the state or States where such discharge
_ or discharges originate and shall call
a promptly a conference of ... the state
<» ,
9 water pollution control agency . . .of
10 the state or states, if any, which raay,b<
jj adversely affected by such pollution . .
12 The secretary shall also call such a con-
13 ference whenever, on the basis of reports
14 surveys or studies, he has reason to
15 believe that any pollution referred to
10 in subsection (a) and endangering the
17 health or welfare of persons in a State
13 other than that in which the discharge ox
19 discharges originate is occurring; . .
20 The conference will convene at 11:00 a.m.
21 Wednesday, January 31, 1968, at the Sherman House,
22 Chicago, Illinois.
23 Secretary Stewart L. Udall of the U. S.
24 Department of the interior will serve as chairman
25 of the conference. The Michigan water Resources
-------
219*1
t J. E. VOGT
2 Commission has designated its Executive Secretary,
o Loring P. Oeroing, to participate in the conference
A as the State's conferee, with its chief Engineer,
4
5 Ralph W. Purdy, and its Chairman George P. Liddle
6 or his representative as alternates.
Under the law, the purpose of the con-
8 ference is to ascertain:
9 l. whether pollution of Lake Michigan
10 is occurring that is subject to abatement.
n under the Federal Water Pollution Contro],
12 Act-
13 2. The adequacy of measures taken toward
14 abatement of the pollution.
15 3. The nature of delays, if any, being
I6 encountered in abating the pollution.
17 This announcement constitutes an invita-
18 tion for you to attend or be represented at the
19 Lake Michigan conference, and to inform you that
20 the opportunity is available to you to make a
21 ment. For accuracy of the record, any facts or
22 views you wish to present should be submitted in
23 writing. Your statement may be forwarded to this
24 office before January 26 or may be filed with me
25 at the time of the conference.
-------
2193
1 J. E. VOGT
2 If you desire to present a statement for
3 the record, please notify roe not later than January
4 19, 1968.
5 Very truly yours,
6 WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
7 (Signed) LORING F. OEMING
8 Loring F. Oeming
Executive Secretary
9
10 - - -
11
NEWS FROM MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
12
13 January 11, 1968
14
Michigan will be represented at the
15
Federal conference on pollution of Lake Michigan
16
and its tributary basin by Loring F. Oeming,
17
executive secretary of the state water Resources
18
Commission. The conference will convene at 11 a.m
19
Wednesday, January 31, at the Sherman House,
20
Chicago, Illinois. Called by Secretary of the
21
Interior Udall who will serve as chairman, the
22
conference also involves Wisconsin, Illinois and
23
Indiana.
24
25 Under the law, the purpose of the
-------
2196
I J. E. VOGT
2 conference is three-fold. The conferees must
3 determine (1) whether pollution of Lake Michigan
"4 is occurring that is subject to abatement under
5 the Federal water Pollution Control Act. (2) the
6 adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the
7 pollution and (3) the nature of delays, if any, be
g ing encountered in abating the pollution.
9 The conference is open to the public and
10 persons attending will be given an opportunity to
H make statements. For accuracy of the record, how-
12 ever, any facts or views to be presented should be
13 submitted in writing. Statements may be mailed to
14 the water Resources, commission, 200 Mill Street,
15 Lansing 48926, prior to January 26 or filed with
16 the commission's executive secretary at the time
17 of the conference.
18 Over 450 notices of the Lake Michigan
19 conference have been mailed by the Water Resources
20 Commission to local units of government, Industrie^
21 conservation groups and other organizations and
22 interested citizens.
23
24
25
-------
2197
j J. E. VOGT
2 News Release re Federal conference on pollution of
3 Lake Michigan and its tributary basin sent to:
4 (listed by municipality)
5 Capitol Building Press corps (20 copies)
6 MUCC Board of Directors (12 copies)
7 THE BENTON HARBOR NEWS PALLADIUM
Benton Harbor
8
CHARLEVOIX COURIER (weekly)
9 charlevoix
10 ESCANABA DAILY PRESS
Escanaba
11
BENZIE COUNTY PATRIOT (weekly)
12 Frankfort
13 DELTA REPORTER (weekly)
Gladstone
14
GRAND HAVEN DAILY TRIBUNE
15 Grand Haven
16 THE WEEKLY WAVE (weekly)
Hessel
17
HILLSDALE DAILY NEWS
18 Hillsdale
19 HOLLAND EVENING SENTINEL
Holland
20
KALAMAfcOO GAZETTE
21 Ka lama zoo
22 THE STATE JOURNAL
Lansing
23
MICHIGAN-OUT-OF-DOORS (MUCC monthly)
24 Lansing
25 LEELANAU ENTERPRISE-TRIBUNE (weekly)
Leland
-------
2198
J. E. VOGT
2 LUDINGTON DAILY NEWS
Ludington
3
MANISTEE NEWS ADVOCATE
4 Manistee
5 MANISTIQUE PIONEER TRIBUNE (weekly)
Manistique
6
THE HERALD -LEADER
7 Menominee
8 THE MUSKEGON CHRONICLE
Muskeg on
9
NEW BUFFALO TIMES (weekly)
10 New Buffalo
11 NILES DAILY STAR
Niles
12
PETOSKEY NEWS -REVIEW
13 Petoskey
14 NORTH WOODS CALL (weekly)
Ros common
15
THE ST. JOSEPH HERALD-PRESS
16 St. Joseph
17 ST. IGNACE REPUBLICAN NEWS AND
ST. IGNACE ENTERPRISE (weekly)
18 St. Ignace
1*> SAUGATUCK COMMERCIAL-RECORD (weekly)
Saugatuck
20
SOUTH HAVEN DAILY TRIBUNE
21 South Haven
22 MENOMINEE COUNTY JOURNAL (weekly)
Menoxnine
23
THREE RIVERS COMMERCIAL
24 Three Rivers
25 THE RECORD EAGLE
Traverse city
-------
2199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
C
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J. E. VOGT
WHITEHALL FORUM-WHITE LAKER
Whitehall
WOOD NEWS (radio/TV)
Grand Rapids
(weekly)
TOTALS
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Radio/TV
Others
18
11
1
1
32
63
MAILING LIST
LAKE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE
International, National and Interstate Commissions
Leonard J. Goodsell, Executive Dir.
Great Lakes Commission
2200 N. Campus Boulevard
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Hon. Matthew E. Welsh, Chairman
United States Section
International Joint Commission
1711 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20440
John P. Kavanaugh, Governors Alternate
Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission
Office of Economic Expansion
Department of Commerce
Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
-------
2200
J. E. VOGT
2 Norman S. Baldwin, Executive secretary
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
3 1451 Green Road
P. O. Box 640
4 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
5
Raymond F. Clevenger, Chairman
6 Great Lakes Basin Commission
2200 North Campus Boulevard
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
8
9 Michigan state Agencies
10
11 R. G. Rice, M.D., Acting Director
Department of Public Health
12 3500 North Logan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48914 (I.Do)
13
14 George Romney, Governor
Office of the Governor
15 The state Capitol
Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
16
17 Michigan Natural Resources council
Department of Conservation
18 Lansing, Michigan 48926 (I.D.)
19
Herbert Dejonge, Director
20 Department of commerce
Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
21
22 B. Dale Ball, Director
Department of Agriculture
Lewis Cass Office Building j
Lansing, Michigan 48913 (I.D.)
24
25
-------
1
2201
J. E. VOGT
2 Keith Wilson, Director
Waterways Division
3 Michigan Department of Conservation
1004 Cadillac Square Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
William T. McGraw, Director
Tourism Division
Michigan Department of Conservation
7 Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
8
Kenneth Dorman, Sec.-Mgr.
Upper Michigan Tourist Council
Box 1188
10 Iron Mountain, Michigan 49806
11
Henrik stafseth. Director
12 Department of state Highways
Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
13
14 cletus Courchaine, Eng. in charge
Northern Peninsula Office
15 Department of Public Health
305 Ludington street
16 Escanaba, Michigan 49829
17
Aurey strohpaul, Sec.-Mgr.
18 west Michigan Tourist Association
107 Pearl Street, N.E.
19 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502
20
R. G. Hill, Executive Sec.
21 State Soil Conservation committee
Room 324 Natural Resources Building
22 East Lansing, Michigan 48823
23
Ralph A. Mac Mullan, Director
24 Department of Conservation
Lansing, Michigan (I.D.)
25
-------
2202
1 J. E. VOGT
2 Members of Water Resources Commission
3
4 George F. Liddle (Chairman, representing
Municipal Groups
5 John vogt, for Director of Public Health
Gerald E. Eddy, for Director of Conservation
6 Stanley Quackenbush, for Director of Agriculture
James V. Murray, for State Highway commission
7 Lynn F. Baldwin, for Conservation Groups
James Gilmore, Jr., for Industrial' Groups
8
9
Michigan Legislators
Secretary of Senate
11 Senators
12
Harold w. Hungerford
13 Gordon Rockwell
Emil Lockwood
14 Robert vanderlaan
Milton Zaagman
15 Oscar E. Bouwsma
John F. Toepp
16 Thomas F. Schweigert
Joseph S. Mack
17 Gilbert E. Bursley
James G. Fleming
18 Harry A. DeMaso
Anthony Starom
Charles O. Zollar
20
House of Representatives - Cleric of the House
21 *
22 Frederic J. Marshall
DeForrest strang
Don R. Pears
Lionel J. stacey
24 James H. Heinze
William V. Weber
25 Cyril H. Root
-------
2203
I J. E. VOGT
2 House of Representatives - Cleric of the House
Continued
3
4 Edson V. Root, Jr.
James s. Parnsworth
5 Dale Warner
Thomas L. Brown
6 Phillip O. Pittinger
Thomas 6. Ford, Sr.
7 Stanley J. Davis
Peter Kok
3 Johannes C. Kolderman, Jr.
Melvin Destiger
9 Francis W. Beedon
Edgar A. Geerlings
10 Nelson G. Tisdale
Robert W. Davis
11 Dominic J. Jacobetti
Blair C. Woodman
12 Lester J. Allen
Stanley M. Powell
13 Martin D. Buth
Dennis O. Cawthorne
14 Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
15 Russell H. Strange
Arnell Engstrom
16 Charles H. Varnum
Jack L. Gingrass
17
James N. Folks
18 Hal W. Ziegler
Thomas G. Sharpe
19 Charles J. Davis
20
21 5. Legislative committees
22
23 senate Special committee to study Problems concern
ing the Great Lakes and Their Tributaries. Chair-
24 man - Sen. Charles O. Zollar.
25 senate Special Committee on Fishing in the Great
Lakes. Chairman - Sen. John F. Toepp
-------
2204
n J. E. VOGT
1
Legislative committees (Continued)
2
3 Joint Legislative Committee on Water Resources
Planning
4 Co-chairman - Representative Raymond J. Baker
Co-chairman - Senator Gordon Rockwell
5
senate committee on conservation and Tourist
Industry.
Chairman - senator Gordon Rockwell
7
House Committee on Conservation and Recreaton.
8 Chairman - Representative Raymond J. Baker
9
1U ^* Congressmen
11
United States Senators
12
13 senator Phillip A. Hart
Senate Office Building
14 Washington, D.C.
15
Senator Robert P. Griffin
16 senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
17
18
United states Representatives
20
21 Representative Marvin L. Esch
House Office Building
22 Washington, D.C.
23
Representative Garry Brown
24 House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
25
-------
2 205
J. E. VOGT
2 United states Representatives (Continued)
3
Representative Edward Hutchinson
4 House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
6 Representative Gerald L. Ford
House Office Building
7 Washington, D.C
8
Representative Charles E. Chamberlain
9 House Office Building
Wa shington, D.C.
10
Representative Guy Vander Jagt
House Office Building
12 Washington, D.C.
13
Representative Blford A. cederberg
14 House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
15
16 Representative Philip E. Roppe
House Office Building
17 Washington, D.C
18
19 7. Townships
20
21 Joseph A. Paris!, Jr., Exec. Dir
Michigan Townships Association
22 712 south Holmes
Lansing, Michigan 48912
23
24
25
-------
2206
J. E. VOGT
8. Municipalities
3
Robert E. Fryer, Director
Michigan Municipal League
205 South State Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
6
7
9. Planning Commissions
8
9
Bruce Brown, Exec. Sec.
Michigan society of Planning Officials
1937 Cromwell Drive
n Holt, Michigan 48842
12
13 10. watersheds
14
John H. Kennaugh, Exec. Sec.
Grand River watershed Council
16 609 Prudden Building
Lansing, Michigan 48933
17
18
19
11. conservation - Recreation
20 Merrill Petoskey, Secretary
Michigan Association of Cons . Ecologists
21 408 Kalamazoo Plaza
Lansing, Michigan 48914
22
23 James L. Rouman, Exec. Dir .
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
24 P. O. BOX 2235
Lansing, Michigan, 48911
25
-------
2207
1
\ J. E. VOGT
2 conservation - Recreation (Continued)
3
Charles Welch, secretary
4 Michigan Outdoor Writers Assoc.
P. O. BOX 128
5 500 Lake Avenue
Roscommon, Michigan 48653
6
7 Norn Spring, President
Michigan steelheaders Assoc.
8 1416 Lake Street
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
9
10 Howard Brown, President
Upper Peninsula sportsmens Assoc.
11 Newberry, Michigan 49868
12
American Power Boat Association.
13 Whittier Hotel
415 Burns Drive
14 Detroit, Michigan 48214
15
Tudar ApMadoc, Chairman
16 Michigan Council - Trout Unlimited
2526 State Street
17 Saginaw, Michigan 48602
18
Miss Olga Madar, Director
19 U.A.W. Recreation Department
8000 East Jefferson Avenue
20 Detroit, Michigan 48214
21
David H. Rathbun, Outstate chairman
22 Ducks Unlimited
1109 Security Bank Building
23 Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
24
25
-------
2208
J. E. VOGT
1
2 conservation - Recreation (Continued)
3
Mrs. Harry H. Geitgey
4 D.A.R. Conservation Chairman
3995 Berry Road
6 Plymouth, Michigan 48170
6
John R. Spyker
7 Michigan Salmon Anglers
Box 192
8 Grandvilie, Michigan 49148
9
Mr. Fred Lefton, Executive Director
Outboard Boating Club of America
333 North Michigan Avenue
11 Chicago, Illinois 60601
12
13 12. ^ AGRICULTURE
14
15 Daniel E. Reed, President
Michigan Farm Bureau
16 P.O. BOX 96
Lansing, Michigan 48925
17
18 Grover Grigsby, Master
Michigan State Grange
19 314 North Walnut
Lansing, Michigan 48933
20
21
13. Industrial and Commercial
22
23
John C. McCurry, General Manager
24 Michigan Manufacturers Association
1590 First National Building
25 Detroit, Michigan 48226
-------
2209
J. E. VOGT
2
3
Organizations
4 Harry Hall, Exec. Vice President
Michigan State chamber of commerce
215 South Washington Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48925
6
7 John J. Carey, President
Michigan Society of Professional Eng
Electrical Engineering Department
University of Michigan
g Ann Arbor, Michigan
10
Miss Sadie Jones
Michigan Federation of womens club
416 North Clinton, Box 30
12 Grand Ledge, Michigan 48837
13
League of women voters of Michigan
14 4612 Woodward
Detroit, Michigan 48201
15
16 Donald M. Pierce, secretary
Michigan water Pollution Control Assoc
17 Michigan Department of Public Health
3500 North Logan Street
18 Lansing, Michigan (Z.D.)
19
Roy Jensen, Executive Secretary
20 Michigan Fish Producers Association
Route 62
21 Escanaba, Michigan
22
23 " i
24
25
-------
2210
1 J. E. VOGT
2
3 LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
4
5 MunicipaIjties
6
7 1. Mayor and Council
City of Albion
8 112 West Cass Street
Albion, Michigan 49224
9
10 2. Mayor and Council
City of Allegan
11 112 Locust Street
Allegan, Michigan 49010
12
13 3. President and Council
Village of Alpha
14 Alpha, Michigan 49902
15
4. President and Council
Village of Bangor
Pine street
17 Bangor, Michigan 49013
18
Mayor and Commission
19 City of Battle Creek
E. Michigan Avenue at
20 E. Division street
Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
21
22
23
24
6. Mayor and Council
City of Belding
Belding, Michigan 48809
7. Mayor and Commission
25 City of Benton Harbor
200 Wall Street . ^««oo
Benton Harbor,—Michigan A9022
-------
2211
1 J . E . VOGT
2 8. President and Council
Village of Berrien Springs
3 123 west Ferry Street
P.O. Box 182
4 Berrien Springs, Michigan 49103
5
9. President and Council
6 Village of Beulah
7228 Commercial Avenue
7 Beulah, Michigan 49617
8
10. Mayor and Commission
9 City of Big Rapids
226 North Michigan Avenue
10 Big Rapids, Michigan 49307
11
11. Mayor and Commission
12 City of Boyne City
100 State Street
13 Boyne City, Michigan 49712
14
12. Mayor and Commission
15 City of Bridgman
582 Lake street
16 Bridgman, Michigan 49106
17
13. Mayor and Council
18 City of Bronson
114 East Chicago Street
19 Bronson, Michigan 49028
20
14. Mayor and Commission
21 City of Buchanan
107 west Front Street
22 Buchanan, Michigan 49107
23
15. Mayor and Commission
City of Cadillac
201 North Mitchell street
25 Cadillac, Michigan 49601
-------
2212
1 J. E. VOGT
2 16. President and Council
Village of Caledonia
3 Caledonia, Michigan 49316
4
17. Mayor and Commission
5 City of Caspian
340 Caspian Avenue
6 Caspian, Michigan 49915
7
18. President and Council
8 Village of Cassopolis
120 North Disbrow Street
9 Cassopolis, Michigan 49031
10
19. Mayor and Council
11 City of cedar Springs
66 south Main street
12 Cedar Springs, Michigan 49319
13
20. Mayor and Council
14 City of Charlevoix
210 State Street
15 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
16
21. Mayor and Council
17 City of Charlotte
146 south Bostwick Avenue
18 Charlotte, Michigan 48813
19
22. Mayor and Council
20 City of coldwater
5 south Monroe street
21 Coldwater, Michigan 49036
22
23. Mayor and Commission
City of coloma
144 North Church Street
24 Coloma, Michigan 49038
25
-------
2213
J. E. VOGT
2
24. Mayor and Council
3 City of coopersville
289 Dandorth
4 Coopersville, Michigan 49404
5
25. Delhi Township, Inghaxn County
6 Township Hall
Holt, Michigan
7 Attention: Mrs. Enid M. Lewis, Clerk
8
26. Delta Township, Eaton County
9 Route 2
Lansing, Michigan
10 Attention: Mrs. Dorothy I. Staley, Clerk
11
27. Mayor and Council
12 City of Dewitt
Dewitt, Michigan 48820
13
14 28. Mayor and Council
City of Dowagiac
15 241 South Front
Dowagiac, Michigan 49047
16
17 29. Mayor and Commission
City of East Jordan
18 201 Main Street
East Jordan, Michigan 49727
19
20 30. Mayor and Council
City of East Lansing
21 410 Abbott Road
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
22
23 31. Mayor and Commission
City of Eaton Rapids
24 Corner Main and Harolin streets
Eaton Rapids, Michigan 48827
25
-------
^__________ 2214
|| 9 n w^^m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
J. E. VOGT
President and Council
Village of Edmore
Edraore, Michigan 48829
President and Council
Village of Elberta
Elberta, Michigan 49628
President and council
Village of Elk Rapids
131 River Street
Elk Rapids, Michigan 49629
Mayor and Council
City of Escanaba
121 South llth Street
Escanaba, Michigan 49829
Mayor and Council
City of Evart
101 North Pine Street
Evart, Michigan 49631
Mayor and Council
City of pennville
117 North Maple street
Pennville, Michigan 49408
President and Council
Village of Fowler
South Main Street
Fowler, Michigan 48835
President and Council
Village of Fowlerville
105 Power Street
Fowlerville, Michigan 48836
-------
_ 2215
J. E. VOGT
2
40. Mayor and Council
3 City of Frankfort
412 Main Street
4 Frankfort, Michigan 49635
5
41. Mayor and Commission
6 City of Fremont
101 East Main street
7 Fremont, Michigan 49412
8
42. Mayor and commission
9 City of Qaastra
Main Avenue
10 Gaastra, Michigan 49927
11
43. Mayor and Commission
12 City of Gladstone
1100 Delta Avenue
13 Gladstone, Michigan 49837
14
44. Mayor and Council
15 City of Grand Haven
519 Washington street
16 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
17
45. Mayor and Commission
18 City of Grand Ledge
120 South Bridge Street
19 Grand Ledge, Michigan 48837
20
46. Mayor and commission
21 City of Grand Rapids
35 Lyon Street, N.W.
22 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502
23
47. Mayor and Commission
24 City of Grandville
3063 Wilson Avenue, S.W.
Grandville, Michigan 48418
-------
2216
1 J. E. VOGT
2
48. President and council
3 Village of Grant
Grant Michigan 49327
4
5 49. Mayor and Council
City of Greenville
6 401 South Lafayette Street
Greenville, Michigan 48838
7
8 50. Harbor Point Association
Harbor Point, Michigan 49740
9
10 51. Mayor and Council
City of Harbor Springs
11 349 East Main Street
Harbor Springs, Michigan 49740
12
13 52. Mayor and Council
City of Hart
14 218 Washington street
Hart, Michigan 49420
15
16 53. Mayor and Council
City of Hartford
17 7 East Main Street
Hartford, Michigan 49057
18
54. Mayor and Council
City of Hastings
20 102 south Broadway
Hastings, Michigan 49058
21
22 55. Mayor and Council
City of Hillsdale
Corner Broad and I
Hillsdale, Michigan 49242
23 Corner Broad and Hillsdale streets
24
25
-------
2217
J. E. VOGT
56. Mayor and council
City of Holland
270 River Avenue
4 Holland, Michigan 49423
5
57. President and Council
Village of Homer
112 west Adams Street
7 Homer, Michigan 49245
8
58. Mayor and Council
9 City of Ionia
114 North Kidd Street
10 Ionia, Michigan 48846
11
59. Mayor and Commission
12 City of iron River
106 West Genessee street
13 Iron River, Michigan 49935
14
60. Mayor and Council
15 City of iron Mountain
206-208 East Ludington Street
16 Iron Mountain, Michigan 49801
61. Mayor and Commission
18 City of Jackson
132 west Washington Street
19 Jackson, Michigan 49201
20
62. Mayor and Commission
21 City of Kalaroazoo
241 west south Street
22 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006
23
63. Mr. John F. Meacham, Director
24 Kent county Board of Aeronautics
3206 Madison Avenue, S.E.,
25 Grand Rapids, Michigan
-------
2218
1 J. E. VOGT
2
64. President and Council
3 Village of Kent City
Kent City, Michigan 49330
4
65. Mayor and Council
City of Kingsford
6 305 South Carpenter Avenue
Kingsford, Michigan 49802
7
8 66. President and counsil
Village of Lake Odessa
g Page Memorial Building
Lake Odessa, Michigan 48849
10 /
H 67. President and council
12 Lincoln Avenue
13
Village of Lakeview
Lincoln Avenue
Lakeview, Michigan 48850
14 68. Mayor and Council
City of Lansing
15 111 West Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933
16
17 69. President and council
City of Lawrence
18 Lawrence, Michigan 49064
70. President and Council
20 City of Lawton
South Main Street, Box 399
21 Lawton, Michigan 49065
22
71. President and Council
23 Village of Leslie
107 East Bellevue street
24 Leslie, Michigan 49251
25
-------
2219
J. E. VOGT
2
72. Mayor and Council
3 City of Lowell
301 East Main Street
4 Lowell, Michigan 49331
5
73. Mayor and Commission
6 City of Ludington
205 south William street
7 Ludington, Michigan 49431
8
74. Mayor and Commission
9 City of Manistee
78 Maple street
10 Manistee, Michigan 49660
11
75. Mayor and Council
12 City of Manistique
East Lake Shore Drive
13 Manistique, Michigan 49854
14
76. Mayor and Commission
15 City of Marshall
323 West Michigan Avenue
16 Marshall, Michigan 49068
17
77. Mayor and Council
18 City of Mason
137 West Maple Street
19 Mason, Michigan 48854
20
78. Mayor and Council
21 City of Menominee
711 First Street
22 Menominee, Michigan 49858
23
79. President and council
24 Village of Middleville
High street
25 Middleville, Michigan 49333
-------
2220
1 J. E. VOGT
2
80. Mayor and Commission
3 City of Muskegon
208 West Clay Avenue
4 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
5
81. Mayor and Council
6 City of Muskegon Heights
2724 Peck Street
7 Muskegon Heights, Michigan 49444
8
82. President and Council
9 Village of Nashville
Nashville, Michigan 49073
10
11 83. Mayor and council
City of New Buffalo
12 224 West Buffalo Street
New Buffalo, Michigan 49117
13
14 84. President and Council
Village of Newaygo
15 Community Building
Newaygo, Michigan 49337
16
17 85. Mayor and Council
City of Niles
18 506 East Main Street
Niles, Michigan 49120
19
20 86. Mayor and Council
City of North Muskegon
21 1502 Ruddiman Avenue
North Muskegon, Michigan 49445
22
23 87. Mr. Ronald w. Ruscett
Director of water Utilities
24 Ottowa county Road commission
616 North 6th Street
25 Grand Haven, Michigan
-------
2221
1 J. E. VOGT
2
88. Mayor and Commission
3 City of Otsego
117 East Orleans
4 Otsego, Michigan 49078
5
89. Mayor and Commission
6 City of Parchment
650 South Riverview Avenue
7 Parchment, Michigan 49004
8
90. President and Council
9 Village of Paw Paw
111 East Michigan Avenue
10 Paw Paw, Michigan 49079
11
91. President and Council
12 Village of Pentwater
Pentwater,.Michigan 49449
13
14 92. Mayor and council
City of Petoskey
15 200 Division Street
Petoskey, Michigan 49770
16
17 93. Mayor and Council
City of Plainwell
18 323 East Bridge Street
Plainwell, Michigan 49080
19
20 94. Mayor and Council
City of portage
21 7800 Shaver Road
Portage, Michigan 49081
22
23 95. President and Council
Village of Portland
24 259 Kent Street
Portland, Michigan 48875
25
-------
2222
1 J. E. VOGT
2
96. President and council
3 Village of Quincy
17-19 West Chicago Street
4 Quincy, Michigan 49082
5
97. Mayor and Council
6 City of Reed City
201 west Upton Street
7 Reed City, Michigan 49677
8
98. Mayor and Council
9 City of Rockford
8 East Bridge Street
10 Rockford, Michigan 49341
11
99. Mayor and Commission
12 City of St. Johns
121 East walker Street
13 St. Johns, Michigan 48879
14
100. Mayor and Commission
15 City of St. Joseph
616-620 Broad Street
16 St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
17
101. President and Council
18 Village of Saugatuck
201 Butler Street
19 Saugatuck, Michigan 49453
20
102. Mayor and Commission
21 City of Scottville
105 North Main Street
22 Scottville, Michigan 49454
23
103. Mayor and Council
24 City of South Haven
529*5 Phoenix Street
25 South Haven, Michigan 49090
-------
2223
J. E. VOGT
2
104. President and Council
3 Village of Sparta
156 East Division Street
4. Sparta, Michigan 49345
5
105. President and Council
6 Village of Spring Lake
102 West savidge street
7 Spring Lake, Michigan 49456
8
106. Mayor and Commission
g City of starabaugh
208 Third Street
10 Starabaugh, Michigan 49964
11
107. President and Council
12 Village of Stephen son
Stephenson, Michigan 49887
13
14 108. Mayor and commission
City of sturgis
15 124 N. Nottawa Street, P.O. Box 280
Sturgis, Michigan 49091
16
17 109. President and council
Village of Suttons Bay
18 Suttons Bay, Michigan 49682
110. Mayor and Commission
20 City of Three Rivers
29 North Main Street
21 Three Rivers, Michigan 49093
22
111. Mayor and commission
23 City of Traverse city
160 East State street
24 Traverse City, Michigan 49684
25
-------
222*1
J. E. VOGT
1
2
112. President and Council
3 Village of Union City
Union City, Michigan 49094
4
113. President and Council
Village of vicksburg
6 202 South Main Street
Vicksburg, Michigan 49097
7
114. Mayor and Commission
City of Watervliet
9 Corner Pleasant & First Streets
Watervliet, Michigan 49098
10
115. Wequestonsing Association
Ind. Br. Harbor Springs
12 Harbor Springs, Michigan 49740
13
116. Mayor and Council
14 City of Whitehall
405 East :colby Street
15 Whitehall, Michigan 49461
16
117. Mayor and Council
17 City of white cloud
1020 Wilcox Avenue
18 White Cloud, Michigan 49349
19
118. Mayor and Council
20 City of Williamston
161 East Grand River Avenue
21 Williamston, Michigan 48895
22
119. Mayor and Commission
23 City of Wyoming
1155 28th Street, West
24 Wyoming, Michigan 49509
25
-------
2225
J. E. VOGT
2
120. Mayor and Council
3 City of zeeland
21 south Elm Street
4 Zeeland, Michigan 49464
5
121. Kent County Department of Public Works
6 1500 Scribner Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
7
8 122. Mr. Frank W. Bouma
Kent County Drain Commissioner
9 1500 Scribner Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
10
11
MAILING LIST
12
LAKE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE
13
14 Industries
15
16 Albion Malleable Iron Company
601 North Albion street
17 Albion, Michigan 49224
18
Allegan Metal Finishing Company
19 Allegan, Michigan 49010
20
Allied paper Corporation
21 Monarch Division
1608 Lake street
22 Kalaraazoo, Michigan 49001
23
Lakeshore Division
24 Bendix Corporation
U. S. 12
25 st. Joseph, Michigan 49085
-------
2226
J. E. VOGT
2
Bill-Mar Poultry
3 Borculo, Michigan 49464
4
Bissell, Incorporated
Box 1888, 2345 Walker,
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501
, Box 1888, 2345 Walker, N.W.
o
6
_ Bohn Aluminum and Brass Company
365 West 24th street
g Holland, Michigan 49423
9
Brooks and Perkins, inc.
10 Cadillac Manufacturing Division
101 Haynes Street
n Cadillac, Michigan 49601
Brunswick corporation
13 2605 Kilgore, Box 2111
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003
14
15 Burnette Farms Packing Company
Lawrence, Michigan 49064
16
17 Burnette Farms packing Company
805 Griswold Street
18 Hart, Michigan 49420
Campbell, Wyant and Cannon Foundry Company
2Q Roosevelt Park
Henry Street
21 Muskegon, Michigan 49444
22
Campbell, Wyant and Cannon Foundry Company
23 Muskegon Heights, Michigan 49444
24
Carnation Milk company
25 Sheridan, Michigan 48884
-------
2227
J. E. VOGT
2
Central concrete Products company
3 15151 Mill Pond Road
Big Rapids, Michigan 49307
4
5 chase Manufacturing
Division of Gulf and western
6 {Scott's incorporated)
281 Chase Road
7 Douglas, Michigan 49406
8
Chef Pierre, inc.
Box 544, Cass Road
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
10
Allied Paper corporation
King Division
12 1608 Lake Street
Kalaraazoo, Michigan 49001
13
14 Alpha, incorporated
Eau Claire, Michigan 49111
15
16 Aluminum Extrusions, Inc.
Charlotte, Michigan 48813
17
18 American Aggregates corporation
Box 728, 8600 North westnedge
19 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
20
American Motors corporation
21 Kelvinator Division
1545 Clyde Park, S.W.
22 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
23
Amway corporation
24 7575 East Pulton
Ada, Michigan 49301
25
-------
1
2
Ashley Corporation
3 P.O. Box 245
Ashley, Michigan 48806
4
5 ASP & Manufacturing Company
702 North 6th Street
6 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
7
Attwood Corporation
8 1016 North Monroe
Lowell, Michigan 49331
9
10 Aunt Janes' Foods
Division of Borden Company
Edraore, Michigan 48829
12
Chemical processes of Ohio
13 Northport, Michigan 49670
14
Cherry Growers, inc
15 709-715 East Front street
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
16
17 Clark Equipment Company
324 East Dewey
18 Buchanan, Michigan 49107
19
Clark Equipment Company
20 1300 Falahee Road
Jackson, Michigan 49204
21
22 Clark Equipment Company
Pipestone Road
23 Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
24
25
2228
J. E. VOGT
-------
2229
J. E. VOGT
2
Coloma cooperative Canning company
3 west Street
Coloma, Michigan 49038
4
5 Columbia poods Division
Michigan Fruit Canners, Inc.
6 Main and Ash Streets
Ellsworth, Michigan 49729
7
g Constantino Paperboard Division
The Davey company
9 Centerville Road
Constantine, Michigan 49042
10
Consumers power company
Big Rock point
12 Box 338
Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
13
14 Consumers power Company
P.O. Box 6
15 Comstock, Michigan 49041
16
William Reid
17 Consumers power company
Jackson, Michigan 49203
18
19 Consumers power Company
Port Sheldon, Michigan
20
21 Continental Motors corporation
205 Market street
22 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
23
Continental Motors Corporation
24 76 North Getty Street
Military Division
25 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
-------
2230
1 J. E. VOGT
2
Clark Equipment
3 24th street
Battle Creek., Michigan 49015
4
5 Corning Glass Works
North and Clark Streets
6 Albion, Michigan 49224
7
Crystal Refining company
8 901 North Williams
Carson City, Michigan 48811
9
10 Crystal Pure vinegar
fielding, Michigan 48809
11
12 Daggett Cheese Factory
Daggett, Michigan 49821
13
14 Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Company
Extruded Metal Division
15 fielding, Michigan 48809
16
The Dow Chemical Company
17 Madison and 7th Streets
Ludington, Michigan 49431
18
E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Co., Inc
P. O. Box A
20 Montague, Michigan 49437
21
Donnelly Mirrors
49 West Third St]
Holland, Michigan 49423
22 49 west Third street
23
24
Du-wel Decorative company
P.O. Box 307
25 Bangor, Michigan 49013
-------
2231
J. E. VOGT
2
Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company
3 200 North Beechtree Street, Box 308
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
4
5 East Jordan Canning Company
East Jordan, Michigan 49727
6' "
7 Eaton, Yale and Towne, Inc.
Fuller Transmission Division
8 222 East Mosel Avenue
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
9
10 Eaton, Yale and Towne, Inc.
Valve Division
11 462 North 20th Street
Battle Creek, Michigan 49016
12
13 Eaton, Yale and Towne, inc.
West Hanover Street
14 Marshall, Michigan 49068
15
Eau Claire Packing Company
16 Box 152
Eau Claire, Michigan 49111
17
Elberta Packing Company
100 Frankfort Street
19 Elberta, Michigan 49628
20
Electro chemical Finishing Company
21 Middleville, Michigan 49333
22
Elk Rapids Packing Company
23 BOX 128, 701 U.S. 31
Elk Rapids, Michigan 49629
24
25
-------
1
2
Elk Rapids Packing Company
3 Lake Leelanau, Michigan 49653
4
Evart Products company
5 601 West 7th Street, Box F
Evart, Michigan 49631
6
7 Faas Foods, Inc.
Central Lake, Michigan 49622
8
9 Federal Mogul Corporation
East Grove
10 Greenville, Michigan 48838
11
French Paper Company
12 100 French Street, BOX 214
Niles, Michigan 49120
13 "
14 Fresh-Pale corporation
1790 Second Street
15 Martin, Michigan 49070
16
Frigid Foods, Inc.
17 Suttons Bay, Michigan 49682
18
Frigo Brothers
19 Carney, Michigan 49812
20
General Foods corporation
21 275 Cliff Street
Battle Creek, Michigan 49017
22
23 General Poods Corporation
Liberty Dairy
24 North River Street
Evart, Michigan 49631
25
2232
J. E. VOGT
-------
2233
J. E. VOGT
2
General Motors corporation
3 Fisher Body Plant No. 2
2060 Voorhies, N.W.
4 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
5
Gerber Products Company
6 445 State street
Fremont, Michigan 49412
7
Gibson Refrigerator company
515 west Gibbon Drive
9 Greenville, Michigan 48838
10
Gibson Refrigerator company
11 122 North Ashfield
Belding, Michigan 48809
12
13 Grand Haven Brass Foundry
230 North Hopkins Street
14 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
15
Grand Trunk Railroad Company
16 Car Shops
Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
17
18 Hanna, M. A. Ore company
Iron River, Michigan 49935
19
20 Harbison-Walker Refractories company
U.S. 31, Box 189
21 Ludington, Michigan 49431
22
Hart cherry Packers, Inc.
23 100 Union Street
Hart, Michigan 49420
24
25
-------
2234
1 J. E. VOGT
2
Hart and Cooley Manufacturing Company
3 500 East 8th street
Holland, Michigan 49423
6 Hartford Metal Protection company
520 Heywood Street
Hartford, Michigan j 49057
7
Hastings Aluminum Products, Inc
8 Box 230, 429 South Michigan
Hastings, Michigan 49058
9
10 Hastings Manufacturing Company
325 Hanover
11 Hastings, Michigan ; 49058
12
Hawthorne Paper Company
13 Box 2858 Kings Highway
Kalaroazoo, Michigan 49003
14
15 Heinz, H. J. Company
431 west 16th street
16 Holland, Michigan 49423
17
Hilfinger-Jackson Corporation
654 Hupp Avenue \
Jackson, Michigan 49203
20
Holland Suco color company
21 471 Howard
Holland, Michigan 49423
22
23 Holland Die Casting and Plating Co., Inc
582 East Lakewood
24
25
Holland, Michigan
49423
-------
2235
J. E. VOGT
2
Honee Bear Syrup Canning Company, Znc
3 RPD #2
Lawton, Michigan 49065
4
5 Hooker Chemical Company
Whitebeck Road
6 Montague, Michigan 49437
7
Howes Leather Company, Inc
8 W. Front, P.O. Box 97
Boyne City, Michigan 49712
9
10 Hudsonville Creamery and Ice Cream company
Burnips, Michigan 49314
11
12 Hudsonville Dairy
3300 Van Buren
13 Hudsonville, Michigan 49424
14
Huroboldt Mining Company
15 504 Spruce street
Ishpeming, Michigan 49849
16
17 General Motors corporation
Oldsmobile Division
18 1014 Townsend Street
Lansing, Michigan 48921
19
20 Grand Rapids Brass Company
Division Crampton Mfg. Co
21 420-50th Street, S.W.
Box 1687
22 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501
23
Industrial Rubber Goods Division
24 St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
25
-------
2236
J. E. VOGT
2
Inland Lime and Stone Company
3 Gulliver, Michigan 49840
4
Inland Steel Company
5 Sherwood Mine
Iron River, Michigan 49935
6
7 jervis Corp.
2900 Wilson, S.W.
8 Grandville, Michigan 49418
9
Kalamazoo Paper Company
10 Mills 1-2-3
Box 2738
11 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003
12
Kalamazoo Rendering Company
13 6300 East Main
P.O. BOX 868
14 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49004
15
Kawneer company
16 1105 North Front street
Plant #1
17 Niles, Michigan 49120
18
Kaydon Engineering Corp.
19 2860 McCracken street
Muskegon, Michigan 49443
20
21 Keeler Brass Company
State Street
22 Middleville, Michigan 49333
23
Kellogg Company
235 Porter Stre<
Battle Creek, Michigan 49016
24 235 Porter street
25
-------
2237
J. E. VOGT
2
Kingston Products Corp.
3 Douglas Manufacturing
141 Railroad
4 Bronson, Michigan 49028
5
Kirsch Manufacturing Company
6 309 North Prospect Street
P.O. Box 391
7 Sturgis, Michigan 49091
8
Brown Company
9 KVP Sutherland
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
10
11 Lakeside Refining Company
2705 East Cork
12 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
13
Lamb-Knit Goods
14 Elm Street
Colon, Michigan 49040
15
16 Lamina Tool and Die Corp.
Lamina Bronze Products
17 Division of Lamina, Inc.
Bellaire, Michigan 49615
18
19 Leelanau Fruit Company
Suttons Bay, Michigan 49682
20
21 Lefere Forge and Machine Company
665 Hupp Avenue
22 Jackson, Michigan 49203
23
Light Metals corporation
24 Prairie Avenue, 2740 Prairie s .W
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
25
-------
_____ _ 2238
J. E. VOGT
2
Lortin Products Company
3 East saugatuck, Michigan 49407
4
Manistee Salt works
5 1501 Main street
Manistee, Michigan 49660
6
7 Manistique Pulp and Paper Company
P.O. Box 111
8 S. Mackinac Avenue
Manistique, Michigan 49854
9
Marathon Division
American Can company
n 144 First Street
Menomlnee, Michigan 49858
12
13 Marquette iron Mining company
Republic Mine
14 Republic, Michigan 49879
15
Mason County Cherry Packers
Ludington, Michigan 49431
17
Mead Corporation
18 Escanaba Division
Escanaba, Michigan 49829
19
20 Mead, Johnson and company
725 East Main Street
21 Zealand, Michigan 49464
22
Menasha Corporation
23 Paperboard Division
Box 155, N. Farmer Street
24 Otsego, Michigan ^ 49078
25
-------
. 2239
1 J. E. VOGT
2
Meyer Provision company
3 Iron River, Michigan 49935
4
Michigan Consolidated Gas company
5 Six Lakes, Michigan 48886
6
Michigan Fruit Canners, inc.
7 Pennville, Michigan 49408
8
Michigan Milk Producers Assoc.
9 Ovid, Michigan 48866
10
Michigan Mushroom company
n Niles, Michigan 49120
12
Midland wire corporation
13 616 Fourth
Three Rivers, Michigan 49093
14
15 Midway Packing Company
926 South Main
16 Wayland, Michigan 49348
17
Midwest Timer Service, inc.
18 Box 146
Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
19
20 Miles Laboratories, Inc.
zeeland Plant
21 209 North Centennial
Zeeland, Michigan 49464
22
23 Millburg Fruit Exchange
Millburg, Michigan 49022
24
25
-------
224-0
J. B. VOGT
1
Miller .Industries, Inc.
Plant NO. 1
, Reed City, Michigan 49677
3
Germay Division
Miller Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 157
Reed City, Michigan 49677
6
7
Misco Precision Casting Company
116 West Gibbs
Whitehall, Michigan 49461
9
Morgan-McCool, inc.
102 Grandview Parkw.
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
12
Morton Chemical company
Foot of 6th
Manistee, Michigan 49660
I4
15 Murch, A. F. & Co.
R.F.D. NO. 1
Paw Paw, Michigan 49079
17
Murray Packing Company, Inc.
18 11-llth Street, Box 175
Plainwell, Michigan 49080
19
20 Naph-sol Refining company
North Muskegon, Michigan 49445
21
22 National Fruit Product company, Inc
Kent City, Michigan 49330
23
24 National Gypsum Company
Kings Highway, Box 2152
25 Kalamazoo, Michigan ,,49001
-------
1
J. E. VOGT
2
, Nelson Metal Products Division
Midland Ross Corporation
. 2980 Prairie street
Grandville, Michigan 49418
5
New Era Canning Company
New Era, Michigan 49446
7
New York Airbrake company
Galesburg, Michigan 49053
9
New York central Railroad
Jackson, Michigan
11
_ North American Extrusion Corp
P. O. Box 406, N. Riverview Drive
Parchment, Michigan 49004
13
14
Northern Michigan Electric Co-op
15 Boyne City, Michigan 49712
16
Northport Cherry Factory, Inc.
17 Northport, Michigan 49670
18
Onekama Canning Company
Onekama, Michigan 49675
20
Ott Chemical company
2i 500 Agard Road, Box 153
Muskegon, Michigan 49445
22
23 Owens-Illinois Glass Company
Charlotte, Michigan 48813
24
25
-------
22^-2
J. E. VOGT
2
Packaging Corporation of America
3 American BOX Board Division
Filer City. Michigan 49634
4
5 Packaging Corporation of America
American BOX Board Division
Chicago Drive
Grandville, Michigan 49418
7
g Packaging Corporation of America
Grand Rapids Caron Division
9 1957 Beverly, S.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
10
11 Paris Gravel Company
20151 coolidge Road
12 Big Rapids, Michigan 49307
13
Parke-Davis and company
14 188 Howard
Holland, Michigan 49423
15
16 Parsons Corporation
Box 112
17 Traverse City, Michigan 49684
18
Pearl Grange Packing Company
19 44 City Market
Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
20
21 Penn-Dixie cement corporation
438 East Lake street
22 Petoskey, Michigan 49770
23
Pet Milk Company
24 118 Main
Coopersville, Michigan 49404
25
-------
22*13
J. E. VOGT
2
Pet Milk company
3 652 Elm
Wayland, Michigan 49348
4
5 pet Milk company
Musselman Division
6 32 Lakeshore Division
St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
7
8 pet Milk company
Musselman-Dwan Division
9 S. Kalaroazoo
Paw Paw, Michigan 49079
10
11 pet Milk Company
pet-Ritz Pood Division
12 1121 Main
Frankfort, Michigan 49635
13
14 petoskey Plating Company
petoskey, Michigan 49770
15
16 pittsburg Forging company
919 Amur Street
17 Jackson, Michigan 49203
18
Plainwell Canning and Preserving Company
19 East Bridge street
Plainwell, Michigan 49080
20
21 Quality Frozen Foods
Lawrence, Michigan 49064
22
23 Quincy Products Company
Division Stubnitz-Greene corporation
24 50 South Main
Quincy, Michigan 49082
25
-------
2244
1 J. E. VOGT
2
Ralston Purina Company
3 Box 197, 150 South McCamly Street
Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
4
5 Rapid River Cheese company
Rapid River, Michigan' 49879
6
7 Remus cooperative Creamery Company
Amble, Michigan 49329
8
9 Research Molding and Film Company
RPD No. 1
10 Mendon, Michigan 49072
11
Rex Paper Company
12 P.O. BOX 751, Kings Highway
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
13
14 Rockford Paper Mills, Inc.
7734 Childsdale Road, N.E.
15 Rockford, Michigan 49341
16
Rockwell-Standard corporation
17 Universal joint Division
1 Glass Street
18 Allegan, Michigan 49010
19
Rudy Manufacturing Company
415 East Prairie Ronde street
0, Dowagiac, Michigan 49047
ti\.
22
Samary Pood Products
23 150 west Randall
Coopersvilie, Michigan 49404
24
25
-------
2245
1 •!. E. VOGT
2
Sanders Packing company
3 Ouster, Michigan 49405
4
Saranac Milk Company
5 Saranac, Michigan 48881
6
Schaefer Manufacturing Company, Inc
7 101 North Broadway
Union City, Michigan 49094
8
9 Schmidt Packing Company
P.O. Box 227
10 Niles, Michigan 49120
11
Scott Paper Company
12 Menominee Groundwood Mill
Menominee, Michigan 49858
13
14 Sealed Power Corporation
2001 Sanford Street
15 Muskegon Heights, Michigan 49444
16
Shakespeare Corporation
17 241 East Kalaroazoo street
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006
18
19 Sill Farms Market
Route NO. 1
20 Lawrence, Michigan 49064
21
Silver Mill Frozen Foods, Inc.
22 old Pipestone Road, Box 155
Eau Claire, Michigan 49111
23
24 Simplicity Pattern Company, Inc
901 Wayne street
25 Niles, Michigan 49120
-------
2246
1 I J. E. VOGT
2
Simpson Lee Paper Company
3 || Vicksburg, Michigan 49097
4
Smeltzer Packing Company
5 || BenzOnia, Michigan 49616
6 „
South Haven Chemical Company
7 | Foot of Broadway
South Haven, Michigan 49090
M
8
9 I Speas company
Fremont, Michigan 49412
ii
10
11 I Standard Lime and stone company
Manistee, Michigan 49660
ii
12
13 || Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
605 East State street
14 || Scottville, Michigan 49454
15
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
16 || 409 Wood
Hart, Michigan 49420
17
18 || Store-A-Way, Inc.
Dewitt, Michigan 48820
-19
20 | Traverse city Canning Company
8th and Lake Avenue
21 I Traverse City, Michigan 49684
22 „
Union steel Products company
23 I 504 North Berrien
Albion, Michigan 49224
24
25
-------
2247
J. E. VOGT
2
Upjohn Company
3 7000 portage
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
4
5 United Foods, Inc.
Sodus Fruit Division
6 Sbdus. Michigan 49126
7
Universal Metal Products
8 Leigh Products, inc.
Main street
9 saranac, Michigan 48881
10
Valley Metal Products Co.
800 East Bridge Street
Plainwell, Michigan 49080
12
13 Waldorf Paper Products company
Mac Sim Bar Division
14 Box 187, 431 Helen
Otsego, Michigan 49078
15
16 Wallace stone company
Hersey, Michigan 49639
17
18 warren, S. D. Company
2400 Lakeshore Drive
19 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
20
Watervliet Paper Company
279 Paw Paw
Watervliet, Michigan 49098
23
Welch Grape Juice company
24 Lincoln
Lawton, Michigan 49065
25
-------
2248
J. E. VOGT
1
2
Weyerhaeuser Company
3 White Pigeon, Michigan 49099
4
Weyerhaeuser company
5 111 Mill
Plainwell, Michigan 49080
6
7 Whirlpool corporation
Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
8
9 Whitehall Leather Company
Division of Genesco
10 Whitehall, Michigan 49461
11
Whitehouse Milk company, Inc.
12 Stephenson, Michigan 49887
13
White Products corporation
14 Lafayette street
Middleville, Michigan 49333
15
16 wolverine Finishes Corp,
836-50 Chicago Drive, S ,W
17 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
18
Wolverine world Wide, inc.
19 123 North Main
Rockford, Michigan 49341
20
21 zeeland Poultry Processing Company
406 West Washington
22 zeeland, Michigan 49464
23
Empire Iron Mining company
24 Cleveland-Cliffs Iron company
504 Spruce Street
25 ishpeming, Michigan 49849
-------
2249
J. E. VOGT
2
Leslie Metal Arts, Inc.
3 3225 32nd street, S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508
4
. utilex Corporation
425 Frank street
- powlerville, Michigan 48836
o
7
Withrow Pickle company
8 Sand Lake, Michigan 49343
9
Mr. Hereford Garland, Director
10 institute of wood Research
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, Michigan
12
western Michigan University
Andre L. Caron, Regional Engineer
13 National council for Stream Improvement
14 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
15
Mr. Buford Nash, General Manager
& Vice President
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
17 3044 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48202
18
Mr. John W. Demcoe, Vice President
& General Manager
20 Grand Trunk Western Railroad
131 West Lafayette Boulevard
21 Detroit, Michigan 48226
22
Mr. C. L. Towle, President
23 Ann Arbor Railroad
13530 Michigan Avenue
24 Dearborn, Michigan 48121
25
-------
2230
J. E. VOGT
2
Mr. Ben J. Pederson, General
3 Supervisor of Operations
Mackinac Transportation company
4 214 East Hewitt
Marguette, Michigan
5
6
7
STATE OF MICHIGAN
8
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
9
TO: Bill Walsh RECEIVED
10 January 2, 1968
From: Otto Sonefeld Hater Resources
Commission
12
Per our conversation, I would suggest
13
you contact the people on the attached list for
14
any hearings or meetings on Lake Michigan pollution
15
problems
16
The Grand Trunk, C & O, and Ann Arbor
17
all own and operate their own equipment. so does
Mackinac Transportation company except that it is
19
jointly owned by soo Line, New York Central and
20
Pennsylvania Railroads. (Official office of MTC
21
is in Detroit but Mr. Pederson is still the man
22
to contact.)
23
24
25
-------
2251
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J. E. VOGT
Mr. Buford Nash, General
Manager & Vice President
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
3044 west Grand Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Mr. John W. Demcoe, Vice
President & General Manager
Grand Truck Western Railroad
131 west Lafayette Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Mr. C. L. Towle, President
Ann Arbor Railroad
13530 Michigan Avenue
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
Carferry service
between Ludington
and Milwaukee,
Mani towac, and
Kewaunee
Carferry service
between Muskegon
and Milwaukee
Mr. Ben J. Pederson, General
Supervisor of Operations
Mackinac Transportation Company
214 East Hewitt
Marquette, Michigan
Carferry Service
between Elberta
(Frankfort) and
Manitowoc, Kewaunee
Menorninee and
Manistique
Carferry service
between St. Ignace
and Mackinaw City
Mr. peter B. Spivak, Chairman
Michigan Public Service Commission
Lewis cass Building
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Mr. Otto p. sonefeld, Director
Railroad Division
Michigan Public Service commission
Lewis cass Building
Lansing, Michigan 48913
-------
2232
1 J. E. VOGT
2 MR. VOGT: The first person I would like
3 to call is Dr. MacMullan, who is the Director of
4 the Michigan Department of conservation. We have
5 copies of Dr. MacMullan's presentation which will
6 be distributed very shortly to the Conferees.
7 DR. MAC MULLAN: Thank you, Mr. VOgt.
8
STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH A. MAC MULLAH
9
DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OP CON-
10
SERVATION TO FEDERAL CONFERENCE ON
11
POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS
12
TRIBUTARY BASIN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
13
FEBRUARY 6, 1968
14
15 OR. MAC MULLAN: Mr. Secretary, conferees
16 Ladies and Gentlemen:
17 j; am Dr. Ralph A. MacMullan, Director of
I8 the Michigan Department of Conservation. My depart
19 ment is responsible for the management of the
20 natural resources of Michigan--its fish, its wild-
21 life, its forests, its water, all its varied recrea
22 tion resources. In the Department is the water
oo
Resources Commission. Mr. Loring F. Oeming is
Executive Secretary to the Commission and functions
25 also as head of the Department water Resources
-------
: 22 53
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 Division. He is Michigan's designated official
3 conferee at this conference.
4 In our Water Resources Commission, we
8 have an effective instrument for pollution control.
6 Its seven members include the directors of the
7 Departments of Conservation, Public Health, state
8 Highways and Agriculture, plus individuals repre-
9 senting the interests of industry, municipalities
10 and conservation organizations. Thus, a broad
11 spectrum of interests is brought to bear on pollu-
12 tion problems and on commission decisions with
13 respect to those problems. The system works very
14 well.
15 We believe we have one of the best water
16 pollution control programs in the Nation. Quite
17 frankly, we think it is the best. Abetted by a
18 strong pollution control law and backed by a public
increasingly aware of and aroused about the impor-
20
| tance of clean water, Michigan is keeping abreast
21
of its water problems, we have not solved all of
no
them, of course. in particular, our cities have
23
not yet been able to finance all of the needed
2 treatment facilities, although there is new hope
in proposals, now before our Legislature, for
-------
225*1
R. A. MAC MULLAN
substantial bond issues. However, we know what the
needs are and where they are, and I am confident we
will meet them with increasing speed.
Michigan pollution control program has
been described in detail in our report presented to
the conferees earlier in this conference. it is not
my purpose to discuss the technical aspects of our
9 pollution problems in Lake Michigan and the steps
10 being taken to control them. Mr. Oeming and his
11 assistants most certainly can do this with much
12 greater expertise and depth of knowledge than I could
13 Rather, I would like to present to this conference sojrne
14 broad considerations of the importance of Lake Michigan
15 as a recreation resource. I will also briefly discusjs
16 three specific problems which are of special concern
17 to me as a natural resources administrator.
18 Michigan automobile license plates bear
19 the slogan, "The Great Lake state," and our state is
20 indeed in the center of the Great Lakes region, we
21 exercise jurisdiction over 41 percent of all the
22 Great Lakes, and over 58 percent--well over half--of
23 the specific subject of this conference, Lake Michigan.
24 In all, we "own" some 38,575 square miles of Great Lakes
25 surface or, as former Michigan Governor Chas S. Osborn
-------
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 once so aptly put it, "two square miles of fresh,
3 sweet water to every three square miles of land."
4 About one-third, or 13,037 square miles, of that
5 Michigan Great Lakes water is in Lake Michigan.
6 Michigan is one of the leading tourist
7 states. In fact, tourism is our second-largest
g industry, topped only by manufacturing. It generates
$ a business volume of at least a billion dollars
10 annually. Thirty-five to 40 percent of our tourist
H traffic comes from out of state; indeed, much of it
12 comes from our sister states represented at this
13 conference. Michigan's standing as a tourist state
14 is solidly based on her recreation attractions.
15 people come to have fun and enjoy themselves in the
16 out-of-doors. It is just plain good business, if
17 nothing else, for us to keep our outdoors clean and
18 attractive. And, of course, there are even more
19 important reasons, as we all well know. Ultimately,
20 the very existence of the human race depends upon a
21 fit and habitable natural environment.
22 Some 4*5 million visitors use our 15 state
23 parks along the Lake Michigan shore each year. Un-
24 told other numbers avail themselves of the 214 miles
25 of beaches and shoreline in public ownership. The
-------
2256
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 volume of use of the 800 miles of privately owned
3 shoreline is impossible to calculate.
4 Late last summer and fall. Lake Michigan
5 took on an important new recreation role, which you
6 will be hearing a lot more about in the years to
7 come—that of a sportfishing center for coho salmon.
8 I am sure you are at least generally aware of our
9 salmon program, the truly remarkable initial success
10 we have enjoyed, and the enthusiastic, almost crazy
11 response of the public to this new recreation
12 resource.
13 In Lake Michigan the tremendous population
14 explosion of alewives is a symptom of the imbalance
15 of present fish populations. The attendant massive
16 alewife die-offs brought into focus the need to re-
17 establish a proper balance of prey and predator
18 species. It might be said that our salmon program
10 developed out of a pollution problem. Those of you
20 here in Chicago who have been exposed to the sight
21 and stench of millions of dead alewives littering
22 your beaches and clogging your water intakes will
23 know what I mean when I call the alewife a pollution
24 problem. We have it in Michigan, too, on a massive
25 scale. It cost our tourist industry an estimated
-------
. ; 2257
j R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 55 million dollars in lost business last year alone.
3 People just couldn't stand the stink, and went else-
4 where.
5 A substantial alewife die-off may occur
g again next summer. Governor Romney has requested
7 a supplemental appropriation from the Michigan
g Legislature to provide standby funds for a coopera-
9 tive state-local alewife control and clean-up prograjn
10 While dead alewives are obviously a
11 serious nuisance problem, live alewives can be an
12 extremely valuable resource. This is particularly
13 true if they can be converted through the food chain
14 into more valuable and desirable game fish species.
15 The coho and also the chinook salmon we
16 are stocking in Lake Michigan, along with lake trout
17 and other species, feed on alewives. Once a proper
18 ecological balance between these predators and their
19 alewife prey is established, the alewife problem
20 will come under control. That should happen in the
21 relatively near future, if all continues to go well.
22 it is unfortunate that more solutions to pollution
23 problems cannot be achieved with such happy and pro-
24 ductive fringe benefits.
25 It is belaboring the obvious for me to
-------
2238
j R. A. MAC MULLAH
2 state that most outdoor recreation today is water-
3 oriented, and that water for recreation must be
4 clean water. We are fond of saying that water which
5 is suitable for all types of recreation, including
6 swimming, is by definition suitable for all other
7 types of use. we firmly believe that it should be
8 our objective to preserve the quality of Lake
9 Michigan water up to recreational standards, we
10 recognize that there are and will continue to be
11 difficulties in meeting those standards in certain
12 parts of the lake, particularly in the vast urban-
13 industrial complex at the south end. Nevertheless,
14 we are convinced that this is the goal we should be
15 shooting for.
16 Lake Michigan lies within a day's drive
17 of more than 50 million people, and it draws them lijke
18 a magnet. As its sportfishing potential increases,
19 as the proposed Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake-
20 shore is established (and I am convinced it must be)
21 as its other recreation potentials are more fully
22 developed, it will draw more and more visitors.
23 Already, a significant number of our Lake
24 Michigan swimming beaches have moderate to severe
25 algae problems during the summer months. it is
-------
2259
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 hypothesized that the recently reported phenomenon
3 of an outbreak of diatoms and filamentous algae in
4 the lower half of the lake is related to an influx
5 of nutrients—phosphates and nitrates — flowing into
6 the lake from tributary streams, as well as from
7 wastes discharged directly into the lake. The
8 methods of sewage treatment in general use today
9 do not remove these nutrients. Here is an instance
10 where we must apply better technology to solve a
11 problem which meanwhile is likely to become increas-
12 ingly serious.
13 Now, I would like to address myself to
14 three specific problems which cannot be cured simply
15 by better methods of sewage treatment.
16 The first of these is thermal pollution.
17 Production of thermonuclear electric power in the
18 United states is expected to increase by more than
19 60 times--60 times--in the next twelve years. The
20 Wall street Journal reported recently that "Lake .
21
Michigan alone may have at least 10 giant nuclear
22 stations on its shore by the mid-1970•s." There is
23
one plant in operation, one under construction, and
24 one on the drawing boards--a11 on Lake Michigan--at
25 the present time. Thermonuclear plants require
-------
. 2260
l R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 enormous volumes of water for cooling, and in the
3 process that water is heated to high temperatures
4 before it is discharged. One moderate-sized plant
5 presently under investigation would use half a
6 billion gallons each day and elevate the temperature
7 28 degrees (F).
8 What will be the effect if we permit the
9 equivalent of 10 hugh hot-water rivers to flow into
10 Lake Michigan? we frankly don't know. I suggest
11 that we ought to be finding out, and we ought to be
12 aware of the probable consequences before we go any
13 farther with this kind'of development. Otherwise,
14 we may find out the hard way--after it is too late.
15 There seems to be some question whether
16 or not such massive inputs of heat will mean an
17 increasing elevation of annual lake temperature.
18 And I see after I prepared this manuscript
19 that in your report, the Federal Government
20 Report, that you estimate that this is not going to
21 be a sizeable consideration, maybe in the range of
22 a tenth of a degree. As a biologist, I can predict
23 with some confidence that any permanent warming of
24 Lake Michigan, even if very slight, will have wide-
25 spread ecological effects. It could change the
-------
2261
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 biological patterns of the lake, and even though we
3 are not concerned, apparently, that this is going to
4 be a problem, I would like to point out that we do
5 feel, that we are concerned, that some widespread
6 problems could result from this even to changing
7 the climate, and so forth and so on, on a sizeable
8 portion of the eastern side of Lake Michigan where
9 our prevailing westerly winds affect the rainfall
10 very much as they come across Lake Michigan.
11 And we also would have a possibility of
12 mean summer temperatures being increased. Certainly
13 warming the water would hasten even more the
14 eutrophication--or biological aging--of Lake Michigan
15 which is alleged to be proceeding at from 300 to
16 500 times its natural rate. Now, I don't want to
17 seem to be using scare tactics by comparing Lake
18 Michigan to Lake Erie, because the two lakes are
19 very dissimilar. Lake Erie is shallow and has a
20 relatively rapid flow-through time period; Lake
21 Michigan is deep and has a very slow flow-through
22 period. These latter conditions warrant extreme
23 caution, however, in the disposition of any non-
24 biodegradable wastes, because they are going to be
25 in the lake for a long time? the water doesn't move
-------
2262
l I R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 much. The important thing is that what roust be
3 avoided at all costs is permitting the development
4 of a highly eutrbphic fringe around the edges of
5 Lake Michigan. This would drastically curtail (if
6 not even eliminate) its recreational use. Here we
7 can, I'm sure, and we must apply the lessons that
3 we have learned with Lake Erie with profit.
9 Senator Muskie of Maine has been endeavor-
10 ing to make the Atomic Energy Commission face up to
H the fact that heat can be as much a pollutant as
12 radioactivity, and should therefore be a concern of
13 that commission in its atomic energy licensing pro-
14 cedures. Of course, heat can also be of benefit,
15 but nonetheless, we have to be concerned about
16 what its effect will be.
17 Possible thermal effects fall into two
18 possible categories, local and basin-wide, and into
19 two types within those categories, short-term and
20 long-range. it seems to me that evaluation and
21 mitigation of any local effects should be an obliga-
22 tion of the research project developer, much as it
23 is. in hydro-power situations, but widespread ecologi
24 cal influences should be financed as a broad based
25 industry-wide responsibility.
-------
2263
I R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 One possible solution to financing the
3 industrial obligation might be to place a tax (basec
4 on volume of cooling water used) on each plant as
5 it cones into production. Such a tax could be
6 extremely small—and still yield sufficient revenues
7 over the years to provide a substantial fund for
8 environmental studies, mitigation of damages, and
9 eventually enhancement of the environment which is
10 or may be affected, we don't have any pat answer,
11 and I am no expert on taxes, but surely this con-
12 ference can and should address itself to this problem
13 and recommend a solution.
14 There is another thing that is inherent
15 in this concept, I think, and that is that it isn't
16 just a matter of saying to industry, well, you are
17 going to have to do this and that, and you are going
18 to have to do more things. We have to fully
19 appreciate that in this, as in any other kind of
20 pollution, if we want clean water ultimately it goes
21 back down to where the consumer, that is us, are
22 going to have to pay f&r it. The margin of profit,
23 ^f it could be squeezed any thinner it would have
24 been, I think, and if it can be squeezed thinner it
25 shall be, but these things that are going to cost
-------
2264
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
R. A. MAC MULLAN
money we are going to have to pay for, and this
means you ana I ana Joe Doaks. so it is all
right for us to say that we want these things. It
is inferred automatically that we are willing to
pay for thsmn. And this Nation can pay for them.
second specific area of pollution which
I believe this conference should explore is that of
pesticides. And that is quite a bit closer to my
heart. It is particularly gratifying to me to
observe che attention which has been given already
at this conference to this form of pollution by
Senator Nelson and in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration report on water problems
Lake Michigan. Last year, it was proposed to spray
dieldrin in Michigan Berrien County, a tributary
watershed of Lake Michigan, to control Japanese beetles
I opposed that application, and it has been postpc
In evaluating pesticides, the two factc
most important to an entomologist, toxicity and pe
sistency, are the same ones which cause natural
resources managers the greatest concern. Of the two,
persistency poses the greatest environmental thrca
because of the increased likelihood that the pesti-
cide will hit non-target organisms sometime through
in
ned.
rs
r-'
-------
2263
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 its life. The half-life of dieldrin in soil, for
3 example, is more than eight years, and it is toxic
4 at varying levels to a broad spectrum of organisms.
5 It has affected guppies in the laboratory at concen-
6 trations as low as 1.8 parts per billion. Wisconsin
7 researchers have analyzed fish which contained as
8 high as 4.18 parts per million of dieldrin, or about
9 2,500 times the level which affected those laboratory
10 guppies. Fish from Lake Michigan have been found
11 to contain .25 to .3 parts per million of dieldrin.
12 Whether that is a dangerous level we do not know.
13 We can be sure that dieldrin is dangerous at some
14 level to any form of fish or animal life.
15 DDT also has a very long half-life, and,
16 of course, these half-lives vary according to condi-
17 tions, but in DDT it may be from five to twenty years
18 for half-life. Because of the concentration of DDT
19 and other chlorinated hydrocarbons as they pass
20 through the biological food chain, a residue level
21 far below that lethal to any organism can ultimately
22 prove totally destructive somewhere along the line.
23 Levels in water may be concentrated 10-fold by algae|l
24 10 to 100-fold by zooplankton, 1,000-fold by fish,
25 and 20 to 100,000-fold by fish-eating birds. There
-------
2266
1 R. A. MAC MULLAH
2 seems little doubt, as an example, that this is one
3 of the important reasons for the drastic decline in
4 numbers of pur national bird, the bald eagle.
5 Recent analyses of DDT residues in cohc
6 salmon and their eggs from Lake Michigan showed
7 concentration in the fish flesh of from 1 to 5
8 parts per million and in the eggs of from 1 to 3
9 parts per million. Some coho fry hatched from
10 eggs taken from Lake Michigan salmon last fall
11 are showing typical symptoms of pesticide poison-
12 ing. We have had larger losses of these young
13 fish in our hatcheries than we had anticipated.
14 They are not yet catastrophic to our coho program,
15 but they are serious. we cannot definitely say
16 that pesticides are responsible, because some
17 virus diseases of young fish have symptoms like
18 those of pesticide poisoning. There are also
19 possibilities of a deficiency of some chemical,
20 like iodine or thiamin. We are having tests made
21 to try to determine the exact cause.
22 Nonetheless, we have every reason to
23 believe that pesticides are one of the prime
24 suspects as a possibility.
25 The concentrations are very close to
-------
2267
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 those which have been shown to affect lake trout
3 survival in some eastern lakes. And they actually
4 exceed those which have been shown in British
5 Columbia research to affect coho salmon under some
6 conditions, we most certainly are close to the
7 danger point. And we most certainly cannot stand
3 a build-up.
9 And this, I think, is just about the
10 nub of this problem here. Here we have automati-
11 cally in a fish just newly introduced into Lake
12 Michigan concentrations of DDT at a point which
13 in other cases has been detrimental to the repro-
14 duction of fish. If we haven't learned in this
15 Nation the lesson from this DDT, despite the great
16 things that DDT did in its day, but if we haven't
17 learned our lesson and if we are still going to
18 be unaware and unthinking about what we do with
19 even greater poisons, then I think that we
20 ought to have our heads knocked together.
21 I believe that this conference should
22 develop a plan to stringently control pesticides
23 residues in the Lake Michigan basin, with particulalr
24 emphasis on those chemicals which are relatively
25 persistent or, as we have come to term them, "hard.
-------
2268
l R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 we have identified seven--DDT, dieldrin, a.ldrin,
3 endrin, heptachlor, lindane, and chlordane--which
4 we believe should be either banned entirely or
5 used only under the most careful controls. And
6 again I am not putting.a timetable on this, but thifc
7 should be our goal. Malathion, raethoxychlor and
8 other relatively non-persistent chemicals provide
9 acceptable substitutes, although more inconvenient,
10 for most uses. And I am confident that we would
11 be developing more and more as we go along. I am
12 pleased to see the comments again in the Federal
13 water pollution Control Report here calling for
14 some supervision and monitoring and identification
15 of the quantities of these. That is the first step
16 Third and finally, I would like to dis-
17 cuss briefly the problem of oil discharges from
18 shipping. I choose not to refer to them as "spills
19 because we doubt that they are very often accidenta
20 Recently, 18 ships passed through the Detroit River
21 and Lake St. clair. Subsequently, an oil film was
22 discovered which covered a vast portion of the lake
23 and was moving down the river toward Lake Erie.
24 The circumstances were such that the oil unquestion
25 ably came from one of those vessels. Yet despite
-------
2269
I R. A. MAC MULLAH
2 efforts by our Water Resources investigators, the
3 Federal water Pollution Control Administration,
4 the coast Guard and Canada, the offender was not
5 identified.
6 Last summer, an oil slick covering several
7 square miles was reported in Lake Michigan. As far
8 as I am aware, the cause was never determined.
9 These oil discharges can cause death to
10 thousands of ducks and other waterfowl. They can
11 cause secondary effects by destroying plants and
12 other aquatic organisms upon which waterfowl and
13 fish feed. They can result in tremendously expen-
14 sive clean-up operations for.boat owners, marina
15 operators, and beach managers. They need not be
16 of the magnitude of the Torrey canyon disaster to
17 have those effects.
18 The sooner these oil discharges are dis-
19 covered, the greater the liklihdOd of determining
20 the cause. I was pleased, therefore, by the plan
21 of Mr. Paul Cannon, Chicago area manager of the
22 Federal Aviation Administration, for reporting of
23 oil slicks by commercial and private pilots. I
24 would like to see this conference take a strong
25 position in this matter, so that those responsible
-------
^__ 2270
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 for such discharges can be identified and brought
3 to account.
4 In conclusion, let me say that I believe
5 this conference to be extremely timely. You may
6 be sure that my Department will extend to you
7 every possible assistance and support. I appreciate
8 this opportunity to bring these matters to your
9 attention.
10 Thank you, gentlemen.
11 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
12 (Off the record.)
13 MR. STEIN: May we get back on the record
I4 Are there any comments or questions of
15 Dr. MacMullan?
16 yes, Mr. Poston.
17 MR. POSTON: I appreciated very much Dr.
18 MacMullan's concern for pesticides. To us this
19 has been a problem that is very difficult to get a
20 handle on and to have definite recommendations as
21 to what ought to be done.
22
One of the things in which I was interested,
23
whether he has any suggestions as to whether or not
there might be state legislation for licensing or
25 total prohibition, how he might suggest that this
-------
2271
I R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 could be handled.
3 OR. MAC MULLAN: Mr. Poston, we are talk-
4 ing on that subject in Michigan right now. Two or
5 three things are involved.
6 First there are certain chemicals which
7 we think we ought to stop using just as quickly as
8 we can, and this, of course, is a very controver-
9 sial subject, but I would suggest right now, I thir
10 without too much contradiction from any of the
11 quarters who are involved, that DDT is particularly
12 virulent and that it can almost always be replaced
13 by something else.
14 Secondly, we have the problem of --. well
15 that is one thing.
16 There are some other things, like
17 dieldrin, for example, which is a particularly
18 nasty one, we think, and we should work very quick
19 ly toward eliminating the use of that, I think,
20 almost entirely.
21 Secondly, there is a large area that we
22 can operate in to solve this problem by regulating
23 the use of these things. I think of an example of
24 a poured concrete basement wall in an institution
25 that serves food, for example, where you have an
k
-------
2272
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 ant problem. There one of the roost dastardly
3 chemicals could be used probably with safety within
4 that confine if the material were completely safe-
5 guarded from getting into the environment
6 Ideally, if we could find a chemical,
7 the best pesticide that I would endorse would be
8 extremely persistent, because that is one of the
9 best qualifications of a pesticide, if it were
10 completely able to kill one target organism that
11 you wanted to. Then you have got the ideal.
12 So that persistency in itself is not bad
13 Persistency is bad because of the non-target organi
14 it hits. So, we have that second problem of very
15 careful regulation of even the most potent chetilcal
16 The third problem, as I see it, is a very
17 general and difficult one to get at and that is the
18 indiscriminate use—and by that I don't mean the
19 professionals at all, because they are discriminate
20 but the indiscriminate use by the innocent house-
21 wife or rose gardener who dumps a thousand times
22 as much chemical, perhaps innocently, on his garden
23 than he needs to, and this contributes to this load
24 this pesticide load, unwittingly. YOU can't expect
25 the housewife to read the fine print. I can't even
a.
-------
• 2273
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 understand those organic compounds that are put on
3 the can of a buzz bomb. So we have this problem
4 of regulating for the people, just like the food
5 and drug does, what things are safe to use and what
6 aren't.
7 Our approach in Michigan at this time is
8 to, through legislation, try to set up a board,
9 something more than an advisory board, which has
10 the responsibility for determining when and how
11 these things are to be used. And I think it might
12 be very similar to the water Resources Commission,
13 where they decide when and what can be done.
14 If we had this board and if it were a
15 well-constructed board representing all people
16 concerned, it should have the authority to say
17 when and when not all governmental agencies, right
18 down to townships and villages, and so on, would
19 use these pesticides; and I would give it another
20 authority if I had my way about it: they would
21 also have the responsibility and the authority to
22 regulate the licensing of individuals.
23 For example, I think that we are at a
24 point now where, I'll bet you before I get kicked
25 out of my job that we are going to have some of
-------
^___ 2274
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 these things eliminated, like DDT and others,
3 the actual elimination of those which are the most
4 nasty.
5 And lastly, I have to end up on an
6 optimistic note, that with this technology we have
7 I don't think we are very far away from developing
8 chemicals to use to do these very worthwhile jobs
9 that have to be done much more safely. I think
10 we laugh about my ideal pesticide, but I think we
H will come to it some day or very closely to it.
12 And in that same line, I think again,
13 just like in pollution control, we have to have
14 a steady pressure, not an unwielding pressure,
15 we have to have a steady pressure to move this
16 way, just as this conference is doing here, becaus^
17 if we don't we will do things like we did with the
18 race situation where we sit for a hundred years
19 after we fought a civil war to solve it.
20 We have to push. We have a responsibility
21 as government leaders to see that we move forward
22 steadily and reasonably, but we have to do this.
23 MR. STEIN: Thank you. Dr. MacMullan.
24 Are there any further comments or ques-
25 tions?
-------
2275
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
•2 MR. KLASSEN: I would just like to ask
3 a question, Mr. Chairman.
4 Does Michigan control the application of
5 herbicides and pesticides that the farmer, not
6 the professional, but the farmer applies? if so,
7 I would be interested to know how you control
8 this. This is a difficult problem.
9 DR. MAC MULLAN: No, we don't have any
10 control. As a matter of fact, there are some
11 gentlemen here who can correct me if I am wrong on
12 this, our control amounts principally to licensing
13 the applicator, for a crop duster or something
14 like that, and we don't have any regulations on
15 the farmer or on the housewife.
16 I would like to say a word in defense of
17 the farmer, though, because I am accused sometimes
18 of being a little bit inconsiderate of him. The
19 unconscious pressure of the agricultural people
20 has done a lot, probably more than anyone else,
21 to come along with developing new uses and better
22 chemicals. So we have this pressure of the indust
^3 itself.
24 A good example is the use of DDT to sprap
25 for Dutch Elm disease. Now, in our Michigan state
-------
, 2276
1 R. A. MAC MULLAH
2 University, in cooperation with our Department of
3 Agriculture, this problem of using so much DDT in
4 municipalities -- and this is probably one of the
5 large major sources of infection -- we now have a
6 system whereby we use roethoxychloride with a
7 helicopter, a technique which is not unreasonable,
8 in fact the price may be similar. This thing was
9 developed without any law or anything, and this
10 was a good move.
11 But I think that if we can regulate very
12 carefully the use by state agencies and all governf-
13 mental agencies, this will be a big example and
14 then we will be able to point the finger a whole
15 lot more at the other uses which may be indiscriminj-
16 ate.
17 And secondly, I am very glad to see the
18 recommendation here that at least we know county
19 by county how much we are putting on. I am quite
20 concerned about Lake Michigan because we are sur-
21 rounded by fruit country and there have been very
22
harsh chemicals used on the fruit orchards and thi
oo
may be one of the greater sources to Lake Michigan
24 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, this is real
25 interesting. While we have a man here that knows
-------
, 2277
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 this, I would like to ask a couple more questions.
3 In Illinois approximately 15 percent of
4 the application is done by these professionals
5 that you are controlling. The other 85 percent,
6 we figure, comes from the individual farmer. I
7 just wanted to ask if this same general figure applies
8 to Michigan.
9 And secondly, I was interested in your
10 comment that you were glad to see in this Federal
11 Recommendation that there would be a county by •
12 county reporting or recording. Could you tell
13 me so far -- I am asking this as we need this
14 . information -- the second question, how you would
15 go about in Michigan, which would also apply to
16 Illinois, to get this amount that is being applied
17 county by county from the individual farmer if you
18 have no control over him? I am asking for infor-
19 mat ion.
20 DR. MAC MULLAN: Well, to answer your
21 second question first, I don't have any idea that
22
I can give you right here about how to do that.
23 That is a tremendously difficult job. It would
certainly have to be done by some kind of a sam-
25
pling. But all j am doing here is endorsing whole-
-------
2278
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 heartedly the idea that we should identify this
3 problem.
4 I have talked to some of my friends in
5 Agriculture who say that when we found this out
6 we would be surprised at how little it is because
Y the farmers themselves have developed better
g techniques, and, of course, no farmer wants to
9 spend money for pesticides that arenrtt going to do
10 him some good.
11 I think it can be done, it would have
12 to be done on a sampling basis and it might not
13 be able to be done on a county-by-county basis.
14 But we have had more difficult problems that we
15 have solved before, so I would just dismiss that
16 and say that the statisticians and agriculturists
17 can do this, at least give us a better idea.
18 To answer your first question about what
19 percent the farmers are guilty of, I have been
20 talking again to my agricultural friends and wonder
21 ing if we could identify what percent is by the
22 housewife, what percent is by the farmer, what
23 percent is by governmental agencies, and I think
24 the answer is, because we have been through it
25 back and forth, we don't know, we have had a
-------
2279
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 couple of studies. One study I am aware of in
3 Red Cedar River, I believe, said that about 70
4 percent of it, Ralph, was through municipal drains,
5 something like that. But again, this is a very
6 typical area.
7 I think that one of the largest sources
g is run-off on streets from settled communities
9 going through municipal sewage disposal plants, and
10 this I am very optimistic about because this is
n something that we have a better way of controlling,
12 perhaps. This is another figure that I think it
13 would be worth our while to find out.
14 MR. KLASSEN: We don't agree with that
15 in Illinois. We have had some studies made by the
16 State water Survey in the chain of lakes, I don't
17 want to belabor this point, but it shows, and I
18 think this is pretty much the country over, not onj.y
19 this country but other countries, that a very
20 large percentage comes from agricultural run-off,
21 particularly, and this will show that I am not a
22 farmer but have many farmer friends that tell me
23 that if they get a rain within 24 hours after they
24 make an application of fertilizer they lose from
25 60 to 70 percent in their run-off into the streams
„
-------
2280
I R. A. MAC MULLAH
2 DR. MAC MULLAN: Well, that may be true,
3 Mr. Klassen. I am not familiar with that.
4 MR. STEIN: A point in there, and I
5 think this is well taken, is Mr. Biglane here?
6 Just to be sure. Down in Louisiana where they
7 were using endrin on, oh, I guess they were using
g it on the sugar cane and on cotton, when we got a
9 fast run-off the local conditions in the bayous
10 were absolutely devastating; even relatively large
H animals in the bayous, the reptiles, were just
12 wiped out. And I think that is fairly well docu-
13 mented. I don't think there is any doubt.
14 Another thing we found there was that
15 when a commercial sprayer would go up, what they
16 would do is just run the airplane over a field
17 and if a little stream were there they would apply
18 the pesticide to the stream as well as the field;
19 this was the simple thing to do, and you got a big
20 dose coming in that way. And I think with some of
21 those you can, possibly with education or building
22 ditches and being careful of the run-off, a lot of
23 this can be prevented.
24 DR. MAC MULLAN: Mr. Stein, that would
25 be a fourth area that we might move forward in.
-------
2281
1 R. A. MAC MULLAN
2 I didn't mention it deliberately because I think
3 we have cone so far along that line.
4 In Michigan, for example, and there are
5 other people who know more about this than I, I
6 think we have been so concerned that our actual
7 mechanics of application are pretty tightly
9 regulated and that again is something that is
g relatively easy to take care of.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
11 Are there any further comments or ques-
12 tions?
13 (No response.)
14 MR. STEIN: If not, I think we will call
15 on Mr. Klassen now.
16 Mr. Klassen.
17 ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
18
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, due to the
10
cooperation of my fellow conferees, we have kept
20
delaying because of the inability of President
21
Egan of the Metropolitan Sanitary District to be
22
here for the last several days. He is with us
23
this morning, and with the concurrence of my
24
Conferees I am going to call on President John
25
-------
^_____ 2282
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 Egan of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
3 Chicago.
4
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. EGAN,
5
PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN SANI-
6
TARY DISTRICT OP GREATER CHICAGO
7
8 MR. EGAN: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of
9 the Conference, distinguished guests, ladies and
10 gentlemen, and the members of the Sanitary Distric
11 of Greater Chicago;
12 There was a time, and it has not been
13 too long ago, when I might have been a trifle
14 self-conscious about standing up here and talking
15 to a gathering like this. There was a time when
16 a good many of you, or at least the organizations
17 you represent, had some fairly harsh things to
18 say about the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
19 Greater Chicago.
20 But on this happy occasion, I feel
21 absolutely certain that we're all friends, we're
22
all here for the same purpose, to protect the heal
23 and well-being and the enjoyment of the people who
24 live in the states bordering on Lake Michigan.
Ever since the sanitary District was
;h
-------
2283
1 J. E. EGAN
2 organized back in 1889, more than three quarters
3 of a century ago, we have been active in fighting
4 pollution of Lake Michigan. Consequently, we can
5 lay some claim to being pioneers in the battle
6 which1 brings us together this morning.
7 Lots of water has flowed-^opposite the
g usual direction, I might add—down the Chicago Riv^r
9 since our war against contamination and pollution
10 began. In the course of this battle, the Metropol^.-
11 tan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has been
12 sued, we have been enjoined, we have been estopped
13 we have been condemned, we have been restrained.
14 we have been hamstrung and interfered with and
15 persecuted in all of the thousand and one ways kno^n
16 to men and their lawyers. But our heads are still
17 unbowed and we're still heart and soul with you in
18 this fight that will take our united action to win
19 One of the recent contributions to the
20 battle was made by the Metropolitan Sanitary
21 District of Greater Chicago last October. Through
22 the good offices of congressman John Kluczynski
23 and many of his colleagues in both Houses, the
24 trustees were able to present at a congressional
25 hearing our protest against the dumping of dredginfgs
-------
l J. E. EGAN
2 in Lake Michigan. The Array Corps of Engineers
3 was most cooperative and ordered the dumping
4 stopped.
5 Every time I say, "The Metropolitan
6 Sanitary District of Greater Chicago," I realize
7 what a mouthful it is. Perhaps I should take time
3 out for a moment or two and explain just why we
9 have been so identified by such a long title.
10 We were originally organized by the
H state Legislature in 1889 as the Sanitary District
12 of Chicago. But today and for the past several
13 decades we have functioned as a "Multi-Municipal-
14 ity" that includes Chicago and 114 distinct com-
15 munities. We protect the water supply of some
16 five and one half-million souls through the collec
17 tion and treatment of sewage.
18 And now for a bit of a confession:
19 If we have been in the vanguard of the
20 battle against this problem, Chicago has also been
21 one of the very first to be guilty of water pollu-
22 tion. Our corporate guilt goes back to the days
23 when we dug our first sewers and began dumping
24 our waste matter into the lake. To avoid pumping
25 this same waste matter back into the domestic
-------
^_ 2285
I J. E. EGAN
2 water system, the city dug water intake tunnels
3 into the lake. In time, these tunnels had to be
4 extended farther and farther as the volume of
5 waste got greater and greater.
6 We can probably date our real awakening
7 to the dreadful situation facing us on August 2, 1^85
8 That was the day of a record-breaking rainfall of
9 some six inches. That was the day when the resi-
10 dents of the city turned on their water faucets
11 and foul sewage poured out.
12 That was the day Chicago realized at
13 last that something drastic had to be done to
14 correct a condition that was causing citizens to
15 absorb cholera, typhoid and dysentery germs with
16 their drinking water, diseases which at the time
17 caused fifty out of each thousand deaths every
18 year.
19 The sanitary District has come a long
20 way since that day. How far we have come can
21 best be summed up in the words of Dr. Luther Terry
22 former U.S. Surgeon General and head of the U.S.
23 Public Health Service:
24 "Today Chicago has one of the best,
25 most efficient, and most superbly maintained
-------
^_ . 2286
1 J. E. EGAN
2 waste treatment plants in the whole world. The
3 modern complex of facilities treats the waste of
4 five million people and thousands of industries
5 every day."
6 Another citation we all like to quote
7 is from the American Society of Civil Engineers,
8 who termed the sanitary District "One of the
9 seven Wonders of American Engineering."
10 What have we done to deserve this?
11 Well, we've invested something more
12 than a ha If-billion dollars in this "complex of
13 facilities," including one of the finest research
14 laboratories in the world built at a cost of
15 over two million dollars.
16 We maintain 71 miles of navigable canals
17 linking the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway with
18 the inland waterway system to the Gulf of Mexico.
19 We maintain some 400 miles of intercept-
20 ing sewers, we collect and treat one billion 250
21 million gallons of sewage every day.
22 We operate the largest sewage treatment
23 plant in the world.
24 And you all know about the feat that
25
played what was perhaps the most important part
-------
2287
l J. E. EGAN
2 in our fight against waterborne diseases. This
3 was the construction of the 28-mile Sanitary and
4 Ship canal and a system of locks.
5 Even though we now offer primary and
6 secondary treatment of our sewage, and we are
7 well on the way to completion of tertiary treat-
3 ment, this flow of water away from Lake Michigan
9 has not been without its trials and tribulations.
10 It has caused considerable criticism and some
H rather harsh words and a good deal of legal action
12 that I mentioned lightly a few moments ago. But
13 all of that sort of thing, I trust, is water over
14 the dam--over the Brandon Road dam at Joliet, to
15 localize the figure of speech.
16 In spite of the trials and tribulations
17 we have suffered, regardless of the accolades
18 that have come our way for our successes, believe
19 me, ladies and gentlemen, every single one of us
20 involved with the Sanitary District realizes that
21 we have still a lot to learn. We know full well
22 that it is only by pooling our collective experience
23 and by working together with all of you that we car
24 hope to prevent the disaster which stares us in
25 the face. And it is a disaster which threatens
-------
2288
! J. E. EGAN
2 our very lives, as well as the full enjoyment
3 that Lake Michigan can bring to all of us in
4 the years to cone.
5 The communities served by all of us here
6 today, this vast and constantly growing Midwest
7 Megalopolis, still have a serious fight on our
g hands, a fight that is literally for survival, a
9 fight that actually goes back to those biblical
10 times when Moses laid down the law of sanitation
11 for the wandering Isrealites.
12 But I must raise a question, a question
13 which, I am sure, will not meet with popular
14 response:
15 DO WE HAVE THE ANSWER?
16 We at the Sanitary District thought
17 that we had the answer in 1900 when we reversed
18 the Chicago River.
19 We thought we had the answer when we
20 built the world's largest sewage treatment plant.
21 We again thought we had the answer when
22 we erected the largest installation of the zimpro
23 process.
24 We have investigated a great many pro-
25 posals of late, but, frankly, we do not know the
-------
2289
j J. E. EGAN
2 answer. And in the course of reading the papers
3 that have been presented at this conference, I
4 have serious doubts as to where the solution lies.
5 Is there enough money available--yes,
5 even ELederal rooney--to do the job for even Lake
7 Michigan alone?
g It seems to me that if' this gathering
9 of knowledgeable and dedicated people has revealed
10 anything, it has disclosed the need for a radicall
11 new approach to the problem. Model T methods just
12 aren't effective in a "jet" society, we can't
13 wait ten or twenty years for presently known
14 methods to be implemented, we must come up with
15 something that will do the job NOW, and by that
16 I mean within the next four to five years.
17 I hate to face the prospect, but even
18 that time may not be enough in which to save the
19 lake.
20 It seems to me that we must take every
21 step we can to curtail further pollution by known
22 methods right now. But, in the meantime, we must
23 turn to our universities and our other research
24 facilities to zero in on this job. We must do
25 what we did when we needed an atom bomb, we must
-------
2290
! J. E. EGAN
2 organize every resource of science and man's
3 energy to come up with a practical, workable
4 answer, we need a new Manhattan Project and we
5 need it nowl
6 Much as I dislike to conclude on this
7 pessimistic note, I think it would be a mislead-
8 ing and tragic course to pursue if we did not
9 readily admit that while our discussions have
10 delineated the problem, it now remains for us
11 to find a solution.
12 And when and if we find a solution it
13 will not only save Lake Michigan, but end the
14 growing fears of men all over the globe who are
15 beginning to realize their survival depends on
16 the answer.
17 It is a fight that can be and will be
18 won by sessions like this today, accompanied by
19 our firm and high resolution to fight shoulder
20 to shoulder for this, our common cause.
21 MR. STEIN: Thank you. President Egan,
22 for a very comprehensive and provocative statement,
23 Are there any comments or questions?
24 Speaking for the Federal Program,
25 President Egan has been one of the most forward-
-------
2291
1 J. E. EGAN
2 looking and cooperative water Pollution Control
3 administrators in the country on any level, and I
4 think if we had men like President Egan we could
5 show that this complicated problem of Federal,
6 State, municipal and industrial cooperative rela-
7 tionships can work.
8 I would like to just say one thing. One
9 of the other major cities in the country was in
10 Washington the other week with a considerable
11 delegation arguing with us about our requirement
12 that they upgrade their treatment plant, and the
13 answer was, "For a large city in the country we
14 provide the best treatment. Why are you bugging
15 us?"
16 And I said, "You do? Are you going to
17 take on Chicago?"
18 so he said, "No, we have to discount
19 Chicago."
20 MR. EGANi Thank you, Mr. Stein.
21 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
22 (Applause.)
23 MR. STEIN: Mr. Vogt.
24
25
-------
2292
1 J. E. VOGT
2
MICHIGAN PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
3
4 MR. VOGT: Mr. Chairman, the next
5 speaker that I would like to call for Michigan
6 is Mr. John Calkins. He is the chief Deputy
7 Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture,
8 and he will present Mr. Dale Ball's statement.
9 Mr. Ball is the Director of Agriculture in Michigan
10 We are also passing out at this time
11 copies of Mr. Calkins' statement.
12
STATEMENT BEFORE FEDERAL CONFERENCE
13
ON POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS
14
TRIBUTARY BASIN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
15
February 6, 1968
16
BY B. DALE BALL, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN
17
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
18
19 PRESENTED BY JOHN CALKINS, CHIEF
20 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
21 OF AGRICULTURE
22
MR. CALKINS: Thank you, Chairman Stein.
23
Mr. vogt, conferees, ladies and gentlemen:
24
25 The Michigan Department of Agriculture
-------
2293
! JOHN CALKINS
2 is closely involved in the management of Michigan
3 natural resources, including those specific aspects
4 of natural resources management which are the con-
5 cern of this conference.
6 The Director of Agriculture is a member
7 of the state Water Resources Commission, the Air
8 Pollution control commission, and is chairman of
9 the State soil Conservation Committee. The
10 Director of Agriculture is chairman of the drainage
11 boards for all of the more than 1,000 established
12 inter-county drains within the state.
13 A major responsibility of the Michigan
14 Department of Agriculture is in consumer protection
15 guaranteeing the wholesoraeness and sanitation of tho
16 food supply of Michigan's more than 8 million
17 residents. But the department is also deeply
18 involved in matters that affect the livelihood of
19 93,000 Michigan farm operators who control the
20 management of more than 13 million acres of
21 Michigan land area—about one-third of the total
22 area of the state.
23 The record should note that Michigan
24 farm land managers have made outstanding contribu-
25 tions in natural resources management. Substantial
-------
229^
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 increases in food have been accomplished without
3 increasing acreage.
4 A study of the Department of the Interior
5 January 1968 report, "Action for Clean Water,"
6 reveals that probably three aspects of Michigan
7 agriculture are of special concern to this con-
8 ference. These are sedimentation, agricultural
9 fertilizers, and agricultural pesticides.
10 While this report does not list sedimen-
11 tation as a major area of concern, I think it
12 deserves mention.
13 In Michigan, organized soil conservation
14 districts are in operation in all but two of the
15 state's 83 counties. soil conservation districts
16 are vitally concerned with sedimentation problems,
17 and in every case a major portion of each district's
18 efforts are directed to reducing soil erosion and
19 resultant sedimentation. The leadership of Michigai
20 83 soil conservation districts is largely from
21 agriculture.
22 Agriculture is .only one of the factors
23 involved in soil erosion. Major contributors are
24 uncontrolled erosion from building sites, roads
25 and stream banks. It is interesting to note that
-------
2295
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 agricultural soil scientists set standards for
3 soil erosion losses that are as much as 20 tiroes
4 less than known examples of erosion that is presently
5 occurring in connection with building and construction
6 sites.
7 The report on water pollution problems
8 that preceded this conference states that eutrophi-
9 cation is a threat to the usefulness of Lake
10 Michigan and states this is due to several elements
11 and that the element most amenable to control is
12 phosphorous. About two-thirds of the present
13 annual supply of phosphate going into Lake Michigan
14 (estimated to be about 50 million pounds) comes
15 from municipal and industrial wastes.
16 The other third is a composite of all non-
17 point sources. An unknown fraction of this latter
18 third is natural in origin. It gets into the water
19 by leaching from soils and rocks on the watershed.
20 One of the contributing factors, according to the
21 report, is the residue from applications of phos-
22 phate-rich fertilizers to farm lands.
23 An interesting fact pointed out in this
24 pre-conference report is that we know the source
25 of two-thirds of the phosphate pollution going into
-------
2296
! JOHN CALKINS
2 Lake Michigan--this is municipal and industrial
3 waste waters. Wherever phosphate-bearing waters
4 can be captured and put through a treatment plant,
5 techniques are now available for removing a high
6 percentage of the phosphate content at a reasonable
7 cost.
8 In regard to phosphates originating in
g farm fertilizers, it is important to recognize the
10 following facts:
U (1) Agricultural fertilizers have con-
12 tributed greatly to soil conservation.
13 (2) Phosphates in fertilizers are
14 cldsely bonded into the soil and not
15 readily subject to loss into watersheds.
16 In fact, so closely bonded are phosphates
17 that farmers must resort to banding
18 fertilizer directly into the plant root
19 areas.
20 (3) In today's agriculture, scientifically
21 blended "custom" fertilizers aife Often
22 applied according to a field prescription
23 so as to minimize over-application of any
24 elements involved.
25 (4) Agriculture in general is very
-------
2297
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 careful in application of fertilizers,
3 which are an expensive item in farm
4 production.
5 (5) The fraction of phosphate eutrophica
6 tion contributed by agricultural ferti-
7 lizers is as yet an unknown fraction of
8 the one-third composite that is contribut
9 ed by all sources other than municipal
10 and industrial wastes.
11
Identifying these phosphate losses from
12
agricultural fertilizers and developing methods of
13
holding them to an absolute minimum is of real
14
concern to agriculture.
15
When and if such losses can be identified
16
and science comes up with better ways of keeping
17
these expensive phosphates bound into the farmer's
18
topsoil, there is no question that, without outside
19
coercion, agriculture will take advantage of this
20
knowledge. There has already been great progress
21
in this direction.
22
Now, in regard to pesticides, even critic^
23
of pesticide usage admit that pesticides are a
24
necessary tool in agriculture and natural resources
25
-------
2298
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 management. Food shortages by 1984 have been
3 predicted, even with the use of pesticides for a
4 more productive agriculture. Agriculture is con-
5 cerned that through public hysteria, aroused often
6 by innuendo, agriculture will be robbed of one of
7 its most important working tools.
8 As many of you know, representatives of
9 Michigan agriculture were in court within the last
10 few months to answer a citizen's suit concerning
11 the use of certain pesticides. Much of the pub-
12 licity surrounding this legal action involved
13 innuendo, and the public was often hard-pressed
14 to sort fact from fiction. The case involved the
15 use of so-called "hard" pesticides, certain
16 chlorinated hydrocarbons.
17 No segment of our society is more concerned
18 with the proper use of "hard" pesticides than
19 agriculture. Such pesticides are registered at
20 the Federal level under standards developed jointly
21 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
22 Department of Health, Education and welfare. in
23 Michigan, in addition to Federal registration,
24 pesticides roust have label registration by the
25 Michigan Department of Agriculture, and we maintain
-------
2299
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 one of the most modern laboratories in the Nation.
3 In the continual search for better
4 methods of pest control, agriculture is in the
5 forefront. Michigan State University has a
6 nationwide reputation for leadership in this
7 field. Right now MSU is fast developing the finest
8 pesticide research facility in the entire Midwest
9 and one of the finest to be found anywhere in the
10 world.
11 Agriculture is in desperate need of rea-
12 sonable finite tolerances for pesticide residues.
13 Analytical technology has made such advances that
14 we can measure down to a few parts per billion
15 rather than to half a part per million considered
16 as "zero" a few years ago. As a result, good and
17 safe mi lie has been barred from the market and
18 dumped for no reason other than the increasing
19 sensitivity of our instruments.
20 The substitution of finite tolerances for
21 insignificant negligible residues, instead of a
22 mathematical concept of zero, does not concern
23 safety,3 but it does concern our ability to feed
24 ourselves at reasonable cost.
25 It is important that these answers be
-------
• , 2^00
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 provided, and not only from a public health stand-
3 point; the controversy and atmosphere of uncertainty
has delayed the correction of unnecessary restric-
5 tions and has discouraged industrial research
6 efforts that might have been directed toward
7 developing safer, more selective and more efficient
8 pesticides.
There is interesting research on record
that points up the vital need for more research
and more facts before we make decisions that would
I2 have repercussions, not only throughout agriculture
but that would affect the present and future food
supply of every citizen.
I5 Specifically, may I refer to a recent
study by a Michigan State University scientist.
17 I believe Dr. MacMullan referred to this earlier.
18 This study took place near my own backyard, along
19 the Red Cedar River that runs through rich southern
20
Michigan farm land and a number of communities,
21
including my home town of East Lansing, Michigan.
22
This research, conducted by Dr. Matthew
23
J. Zabik, involved collection of water samples
24
throughout the season at 14 points along the Red
Cedar River. some of these points were adjacent to
-------
2301
l JOHN CALKINS
2 intensively used agricultural lands and some were
3 below municipal sewage outlets. Dr. Zabik's study
4 showed that 70 to 90 per cent of the pesticide
5 pollution in the Red Cedar River comes from urban,
6 not farm and rural, sources. He also found very
7 little evidence of land wash contributing to the
8 Red Cedar pollution problem.
9 Dr. Zabik stated that the key to cleaning
10 up the river is to raise the level of treatment
11 at sewage plants along the waterway so that more
12 nutrients and other pollutants will be removed.
13 He noted that tertiary treatment of this type would
14 also significantly decrease the pesticide residue
15 in the river, since much of it is carried by
16 suspended matter. Dr. Zabik stated that it is
17 currently "very, very difficult" to determine the
18 exact effects pesticides have on aquatic life.
19 Another example that points up the need
20 for more research in the area of chemical residues
21 is a recent study indicating that certain chemicals
22 generally of urban or industrial origin and closely
23 related to the so-called "hard" pesticides, have
24 been detected in bird's livers and eggs in greater
25 quantities than the organochlorine, or "hard",
-------
2302
1 JOHH CALKINS
2 pesticide residues.
3 These compounds are polychlorobiphenyls
4 closely associated with our common industrial and
5 household plastics, and they are known to be toxic/
6 The purpose of citing these last two ex-
7 amplea is to establish the fact that until we know
8 aore about the sources of chemical pollution and
9 their effect upon nan and his environment, the scien-
10 tific implicationo of pesticide residue tolerances,
11 and the means to definitely measure and identify
12 these residues, we oust proceed with reason and
13 caution in developing workable guidelines for the
14 use of pesticides. It does not make sense to out-
is law all uses of chlorinated hydrocarbons. And I
16 would like to say right here that the Michigan
17 Department of Agriculture has curtailed its use of
18 "hard" pesticides in many, many areas, even though
19 we did use or did plan to use dieldrin this last
20 fall to control an infestation of Japanese Beetles.
21 The record will show that we have greatly decreased
22 our use of it and we are substituting other pesti-
23 cides for the use of DOT and some of the other
24 "hard" pesticides. But there are sensible and
25 responsible uses for these tools, the hard pesticides,
-------
; 23Q3
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 in natural resources management.
3 Agriculture has demonstrated it is will-
4 ing to follow sound scientific guidelines establish-
5 ed in the areas of erosion control, fertilizer
6 application and pesticide usage.
7 The facts will prove that Michigan is
8 taking aggressive action in the area of water
9 conservations
10 ...Our pesticide research facilities
11 are among the best in the world.
12 ...Soil conservation districts are active
13 in soil and water management throughout
14 the state.
15 ...Governor Roroney has recommended a
16 billion dollar program to reduce pollu-
17 tion in Michigan, including a S335 millioji
18 state bonding provision.
19 .. .The Michigan Water Resources commissioji
20 is now carrying out and will continue to
21 carry out a comprehensive program of
22 pollution abatement to protect and preser
23 the quality of Lake Michigan water.
24
Thank you.
25
\re
-------
2304
1 JOHN CALKINS
2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
3
4 1. "The Effect of Urbanization on
Sedimentation in the Clinton
5 River Basin," University of
Michigan, July 1967.
6
2. Committee on Appropriations,
7 House of Representatives, Report
of the Surveys and Investigations
8 Staff, National Agricultural
Chemicals Association, reprint
9 pages 17 and 18, 1965.
10 3. National Academy of Science,
Report of the Pesticide Residues
11 Committee, 1965.
12 4. "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in
British Wildlife," NATURE
13 Magazine, October 21, 1967,
pages 227-229.
14
15 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
16 Are there any comments or questions?
17 (No response.)
18 MR. STEIN: I would like to point out
19 one aspect of your paper which I agreed with, and
20 i think this is a very important one as long as it
21 is brought up and might save everyone a good deal
22 of time, and that is that zero tolerance controvers;
23 The notion of someone saying that you can't have
24 any of any specific material or if you find any in
25 there leads to some very peculiar results. What
-------
2305
1 JOHN CALKINS
2 this means in practice is we use existing tech-
3 niques, and, for example, if they can detect with
4 using existing techniques down to five parts per
5 million, if that testing doesn't show any material
6 like that, the product is considered to be reason-
7 ably safe and is out on the market. This technique
g is just as good until the next bright young boy
g comes up with an improved technique and instead
10 of five parts per million will find five parts
H per billion, and suddenly all these products
12 which were on the market and everyone was using
13 that didn't seem to cause anyone harm suddenly
14 become unsafe and we run into a controversy. Then
15 what happens, in a year or two someone comes up
10 and finds out how to detect the stuff down to
17 five parts per trillion and we are in this opera-
18 tion all over again.
19 so I think we have to not be too glib
20 or get ourselves involved with something which we
21 think is a poison and talk about zero tolerance
22 and we are not going to have any of this, because
23 while that has been done in the past, it has led
24 to a lot of fruitless controversy that has had to
25 be resolved. I think Mr. Calkins is right, we have
-------
2306
l JOHN CALKINS
2 to come up with finite numbers or perhaps we can prbvio
3 a kind of escape hatch. This zero tolerance
4 technique is not the one that works, and I think
5 this has been fairly well demonstrated.
6 Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Vogt.
8 MR. VOGT: The next presentation will be
g by Dr. Peter I. Tack on behalf of the Michigan
10 Association of Conservation Ecologists.
11 We are now passing to the conferees
12 copies of the remainder of the presentations, so
13 please keep them handy.
14
THE POSITION OF THE MICHIGAN
15
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION ECOLOGISTS
16
ON LAKE MICHIGAN EUTROPHICATION
17
BY
18
PETER I. TACK, CHAIRMAN AND PROFESSOR
19
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
20
PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY
21
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
22
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
23
PRESENTED FEBRUARY 6, 1968
24
MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION ECOLOGISTS MEETING
25 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
-------
2307
1 P. I. TACK
2 DR. TACK: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
3 ladies and gentlament
4 INTRODUCTION
5 I have been asked by the President of
6 the Michigan Association of Conservation Geologists
to present the position of this organization on
8 the pollution of Lake Michigan.
9 In order to save tine, in going over the
10 name of this organization I will use the initials
11 M-A-C-E and simply pronounce it MACE.
12 MACE is an organization of practicing
13 environmental scientists and allied administrators
14 whose membership embraces the great majority of
15 the competent experience in observation of the
16 decline of quality of the aquatic environment in
17 Michigan.
18 It is my purpose at this Conference to
19
proclaim the deep concern of the members of this
2fl
" I organization about the rapid decline of water
21 quality in Lake Michigan. This lake,, with its
22
22,400 square miles of surface, 1,661 miles of
23
shoreline, and large volume of formerly high quality
water is a large and important segment of human
25 environment. The size of this segment alone
-------
. 2308
l P. I. TACK
2 demands our very best efforts to preserve it in
3 its cleanest possible state.
4 Among the roost important economic
5 considerations is that of public water supplies for
g many municipalities. This reason also commands our
7 best efforts. There are, of course, many other
g reasons. Perhaps the most pressing demand for
g cleaning and preserving the water quality of Lake
lO Michigan is economic.
11 While little effort has been devoted to
12 compiling the economic value of this resource,
13 this value may be hinted at through the losses
14 experienced by Michigan communities along Lake
15 Michigan as a result of the alewife mortality of
16 1967 and the ensuing odors which drove away vaca-
17 tionists. The Michigan Tourist and Resort council
18 has estimated this loss alone as 55 million dollars
19
THE CONCERNS OF MACE
20
21 The rapid increase in the apparent effects
22 of eutrophicatibn on water quality in Lake Michigan
23 is one of the most urgent causes for concern. The
24 evident blooms of blue-green algae are unmistakeabl^
25 indicators of enrichment of this environment, which
-------
2309
1 P.I. TACK
2 has long been characterized by cold, clean, trans-
3 parent water. These algae require certain minimal
4 levels of mineral nutrients to sustain populations
5 which may be described as a bloom. These nutrients
5 have evidently been increased in abundance to the
7 point where these blooms may be sustained. Esti-
g mates of the contributions of mineral nutrients
9 have been made for at least some tributary streams.
10 These estimates are impressive in view of the known
H ability of these algae to respond vigorously to
12 minute changes in level of such nutrients as
13 phosphorous.
14 Not all of the pollution problems arise
15 out of eutrophication, however. The presence of
16 appreciable amounts of pesticides in this environ-
17 ment are cause for grave concern. The amounts of
18 pesticides in fishes from Lake Michigan are now
19 approaching levels where they may be expected to
20 affect population levels and success of restoration
21 of fishes to Lake Michigan. While cause and effect
22 relationships have not been firmly established, the
23 high mortalities occurring among the coho fry at
24 the time they cease their dependence on stored yolk
25 and start feeding on natural foods are suspected to
-------
2310
- - • — - ---—-.--•--" - ,^
1 P. I. TACK
2 result from the relatively high pesticide burdens
3 of these fishes. This suspicion is not casual or
4 capricious. There is enough scientific evidence
5 to cause deep concern.
6 The continuing presence of type E
7 botulism toxins in Lake Michigan must also be view-
8 ed with concern. Eutrophication of the Lake water
9 is implicated in the presence of this toxin. This
10 toxin is produced only in the absence of oxygen
11 or the presence of very small amounts of oxygen.
12 This condition may occur where the oxygen is
13 reduced by organic wastes or dead alewives which
14 also provide a protein base on which the organism
15 can grow. The prospect of increased warming of
16 Lake Michigan waters in the near future, as a
17 result of thermonuclear power plants now under
18 construction, can also be expected to make the
19 cleanup of these waters more difficult. The higher
20 temperature will increase growth of algae, bacteria
21 and similar organisms and may be expected to heightjen
22 the decrease of oxygen and the production of
23 botulism toxin. The vast amount of heat planned tc
24 be added to Lake Michigan is cause for deep concerr
25 There are, of course, many other reasons
-------
2311
I P. I. TACK
2 for urging action to clean up these waters. The
3 aesthetic reasons cannot be denied in a society
4 that has become acutely aware of the quality of
5 their environment and which demands an improved
6 quality habitat in which to live.
7 THE URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM
8
The Michigan Association of Conservation
9
Ecologists wishes to emphasize the urgency of this
10
problem, we request immediate arrangements for
organized and concerted action to rehabilitate
12
these waters. Any deferment of action will have
13
long-range effects on water quality. The levels
14
of mineral nutrients now in the Lake will sustain
15
appreciable algae blooms for many years since
16
these minerals are recycled many times through
17
successive generations of algae, animals which live
18
on algae, ending ultimately in fish. The very lone
19
period of residence of water in Lake Michigan will
20
also insure the long term residence of these
21
nutrients. it may be unrealistic to expect
22
instantaneous or sharp reductions in the amount of
23
mineral material entering the Lake, but every
24
effort should be made to insure such reduction as
25
quickly as possible.
-------
2312
1 P. I. TACK
2 The entire history of the battle for dee
3 water has been characterized by its slow gains.
4 The losses generally have exceeded the gains by a
5 substantial margin. This has been true even where
6 the size of the water involved was infinitesimal
7 in comparison with Lake Michigan. The magnitude of
8 this job is enormous, and little experience is
9 available for guidance in a work of this magnitude.
10 There are also many governmental agencies and sub-
11 divisions involved, which complicates the approach
12 greatly. These obstacles to progress are not
13 cited to overawe or discourage those involved, but
1^ are given to emphasize the need for immediate and
I5 concerted action.
16
FURTHER ACTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN
17
18 Many positive and progressive steps can
19 be taken at an early date to improve the quality
20 of water entering Lake Michigan through its many
21 tributaries. Among the first of these steps should
22
be the setting of realistic goals for achieving
21
interstate water quality standards. These goals
should be set and announced with maximum participa-
tion of state and local governmental units and
n
-------
2313
1 P.I. TACK
2 their agencies. Each community's part in achieving
3 these improvement goals should be delineated so
4 the magnitude of individual jobs may be readily
5 comprehended. Among the specific steps which may
6 be taken would be the formation of local, water she<},
7 state and regional citizens committees to focus
8 attention on jobs to be done at each level. Jobs
9 which are in need of this kind of attention are
10 the anticipation of the approach to capacity of
11 local waste water treatment plants, correlating
12 widespread information on such topics as thermal
13 pollution, and relating progress and problems to
14 the public. This would permit the development of
15 public support for increasing the capacity of
16 treatment plants before the pollution of receiving
17 streams becomes intolerable.
18 Watershed committees should assist in
19 coordinating public support for water improvement cfn
20 an area basis. State and regional committees should
21 assist in the broader coordination of problems and
22 progress, as well as in the development of support
23 for bonding and appropriations issues. There is
24 great need for public support at every level of
25 government if progress is to be made in improving
-------
. 231*1
! P. I. TACK
2 quality of water in Lake Michigan. The public
3 appears to be demanding improved environmental
4 quality, but the translation of this demand into
5 action over so wide an area as the watershed of
6 Lake Michigan will require a great and concerted
7 effort involving the best leadership at every
8 level.
9
AWARENESS OF PROGRESS BEING MADE
10
11 In focusing on what needs to be done
12 to improve this vast segment of environment, the
13 tendency is to overlook or discount progress of
14 the past or present, we do not wish to do this.
15 The efforts to reduce or remove phosphates from
16 detergents should be applauded and encouraged in
17 every possible way. so also should the progress
18 being made in reducing the pollution from pleasure
19 craft on our public water be applauded and support-
20 ed. Many localities and industries are taking stej
21 to control their own waste disposal problems. Thee
22 are encouraging signs of public support for this
23 environmental improvement surge.
24
25
s
e
-------
2315
1 P. I. TACK
2
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
3
4 The cost of any program to clean up
5 Lake Michigan will ultimately fall on the citizen
6 either through taxes, increased cost of goods and
7 services, loss of recreational places, or a com-
8 bination of these. it is, therefore, with a clear
9 conscience that we urge bonding and taxing programs
lO to finance the proposed clean-up program. The
II cost of such a program will be great, and they wii:.
12 need to be spread over long periods of time.
13
EDUCATION NEEDED
14
15 Finally, there is a great need for a
16 coordinated and cooperative educational enterprise
17 associated with this program. Many of the pollu-
18 tional problems now being encountered never should
19 have arisen. The selection of different alterna-
20 tive methods of waste disposal could have avoided
21 many problems. The recovery of many waste products
22 has in the past proved profitable, but were adopted
23 reluctantly.
24 Further progress in developing profitable
25 uses for waste products should be vigorously pursue!
-------
2316
! P. I. TACK
2 The dissemination of information and knowledge
3 about recovery of wastes is important and should
4 be promoted. These are essentially educational
5 processes, which are now of pitifully small
6 proportions. Education is needed also to achieve
1 support for the program. This support will be
8 more easily won if a coordinated education program
9 is instituted.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you. Professor Tack.
11 Are there any comments or questions?
12 MR. VOGT: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment
13 Dr. Tack, in the further actions which
14 you are proposing that should be taken, I am sure
15 that you are well aware that the first step in
16 this series of actions that you have suggested
17 has already been accomplished in Michigan in that
18 water quality standards for the interstate waters
19 have been adopted following many public hearings
20 around the state and also a plan of implementation
21 has been developed and the various water uses whicl
22 are to be protected have also been defined follow-
23 ing many public hearings, also following the sugges
24 tions that you have proposed here whereby citizens'
25 groups have been involved in great depth. And I
-------
. • 2317
I P. I. TACK
2 think that you are well aware of that.
3 DR. TACK: I am, sir, aware of that.
4 My charge here is merely to urge that we proceed
5 with these things vigorously and that we set
6 realistic goals in achieving these standards.
7 I realize we have plans, but achieving is another
8 matter, and this is what we are urging.
9 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
10 Are there any further comments or
11 questions?
12 That was a very thorough and thought-
13 provoking statement. Very good.
14 Mr. Vogt.
15 MR. VOGTj The next appearance was to be
16 by Mr. Leonard J. Goodsell, Executive Director of
17 the Great Lakes commission, but I believe the
18 state of Illinois introduced Mr. Goodsell*s state-
19 ment in the record last Friday, because, of course
20 the Great Lakes commission does include all of
21 the states that are represented here in Illinois
22 and introduced Mr. Goodsell's statement already,
23 so we can pass that.
24 The next presentation will be by Mr. John
25 Kennaugh of the Grand River Watershed Council.
-------
^___ 2318
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 John, copies of your presentation have
3. been distributed to the Conferees.
4 MR. KENNAUGH: Thank you, John.
5
THE ROLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO COMBAT
6
THE NATIONAL WATER POLLUTION PROBLEM
7
THE MICHIGAN GRAND RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL
8
609 Prudden Building, Lansing, Michigan, 48933
9
JERROLD H. KEYWORTH, Chairman
10
JOHN H. KENNAUGH, Executive Secretary
11 I
12 MR. KENNAUGH: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
13 ladies and gentlemen: I am John H. Kennaugh,
14 Executive Secretary of the Michigan Grand River
15 Watershed Council, and you will note from our
lfi paper that this is a governmental entity represent-
17 ing the local communities throughout the Grand
18 River watershed area.
1® It is my privilege to present on behalf
20 of the Council our paper under the title, "The
21 Role of Local Communities to combat the National
99 '
** Water. Pollution Problem."
00
THE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEM
Three significant factors are contribu-
25 ting to the water pollution problem in our streams
-------
2319
t J. H. KENNAUGH
2 and in our lakes. We all recognize these as
3 PEOPLE, PROSPERITY and PRODUCTS. The State of
4 Michigan is not unlike the other progressive states
5 of our country. The population has increased thre«
6 fold during the past sixty years and is projected
7 to increase approximately two tiroes by the turn of
8 the century. Our prosperity has likewise changed,
9 which is reflected in the changing water demands
10 of our people. At the beginning of the century th<
11 domestic demand for water was five gallons per day
12 per person. Today the people of our state are
13 demanding 160 gallons per day and by the year 2015
14 A.D. this demand is projected to be 240 gallons
15 per day per person. Needless to say, the demand
16 for water further indicates the need for water to
17 provide the products that are essential to meet
18 the pace set by the increasing standard of living.
19 Pollution sources are varied in types ant
20 extent. The concern to control the pollution of
21 water for DOMESTIC use did not occur until the
22 ground and surface waters became a public health
23 problem. A major contribution to the pollution
24 problem was the advent of urbanization, which
25 created the need for more intensive collection and
-------
2320
! J. H. KENNAUGH
2 disposal of human wastes. Michigan communities
3 have developed lagoon systems, primary and secon-
4 dary treatment plants. But it is apparent longer
5 range plans need to be developed to meet the in-
6 creasing demands for quality treatment to preserve
7 our limited water resources. New products utiliz-
8 iag phosphate compounds is only one example of new
9 wastes that are not removed by the standard treat-
10 roent process. At the same time, our increasing
11 demand for existing products and our cultural
12 demand for new products is surpassing our present
13 ability to maintain the ecological balance of our
14 natural environment. Enlargement of existing
15 facilities and provision for tertiary treatment will
16 resolve many of these problems.
17 Disposal of INDUSTRIAL WASTES into Our
18 streams was once a practical solution to the
19 problem of balancing equities between our natural
20 resources and the economic stability of our coro-
21 rounities. The balancing of equities now lies
22 between preserving the limited natural resources
23 as against the demands of the increasing population
24 and the rapidly changing standard of living.
25 Industrial pollution once involved the disposal of
-------
2321
! J. H. KENNAUGH
2 relatively simple chemical wastes and the normal
3 domestic wastes. Increased production and develop-
4 ment of new processes has placed greater strain on
5 our waterways. Environmental control in modern
6 industrial plants has caused more intensive heat
7 exchange conditions in our streams and lakes and
3 further contributes to the damages on our
9 natural resources..
10 URBANIZATION around our major cities has
11 also taken a toll from our natural resources. In-
12 tensive development for industrial parks, shopping
13 plazas and residential areas has changed not only
14 the topography of the land but has placed new
15 values on the remaining natural resources. Lack
lg of adequate controls on area-wide improvements has
17 contributed to soil erosion problems. Increased
18 land values are influencing the potential develop-
19 ment of flood plains. Projections for surface
20 water recreation indicate the demandswill triple
21 by the turn of the century as compared to a doublir
22 of the population. Intensified use of chemical
23 products results in greater loadings of these waste
24 in our waterways. All of these factors have a
25 deleterious effect on the natural characteristics
-------
2322
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 of our streams and lakes.
3 AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT has been
4 emphasized for many years in order to save the
5 soi.l for agricultural use. Greater emphasis is
6 now required in order to protect the water courses
7 as well as the land. Deforestation, intensified
8 farming practices, utilization of marginal lands
9 and residential development of farming areas have
10 further contributed to the problem of runoff and
11 soil erosion. Better products and methods for
12 fertilizing have contributed significantly to the
13 eutrophication of our streams and lakes. Intensiv
14 use of herbicides and pesticides to satisfy the
15 agricultural and community needs on the one hand
16 has, on the other hand, disturbed the natural bal-
17 ance of our environment.
18
WATER POLLUTION CONTROLS
19
20 At one time THE INDIVIDUAL was respon-
21 sible for exercising his own controls on the use o
22 his water resources. For the most part this re-
23 quired budgeting his supplies to meet his needs.
24 Because of his nomadic habits, many of these needs
25 could be satisfied by moving about. Pollution
-------
2323
1 J. H. KENNAU6H
2 concerned him only as it disturbed his aesthetic
3 appreciation of his resources.
4 Communal living allowed greater exchange
5 of goods and capabilities, provided sustained
6 stability for the new society, enhanced the cul-
7 tural appreciation of the people, and created viable
8 opportunities to further establish the social
9 environment, community efforts and goals were
10 developed through various GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES
11 Community needs were satisfied through informal
12 and formal cooperative effort. intensified need
13 for the use of the natural resources resulted in
14 a further need to effectively manage the use of
15 these resources and to preserve the unused
16 resources. Communities were organized politically
17 . as townships, villages, cities and counties with
18 the authority from the state to affect health,
19 safety and welfare concerns of the community.
20 The goals of the community were generally satisfie^
21 until the needs and concerns were changed from a
22 local matter to regional, state and interstate
23 matters.
24 Problems that could not be solved
25 locally or problems that were a mutual concern of
-------
2324
I J. H. KENNAUGH
2 other municipalities became a matter for state
3 resolution. Water and air are the most common
4 elements of our environment. Unrestrained use of
5 these elements will have a direct or indirect
6 effect on others utilizing the same resources.
7 Standard controls for using these resources on
8 a regional basis has necessitated state interven-
9 tion to protect the safety, health and welfare
10 concerns for the people of the state.
11 Local pollution problems have become
12 regional, state, interstate, national and inter-
13 national problems, because all flowing water
14 relates the communities from the headwaters of
15 the local watershed all the way to the sea. water
16 salinity, anadromous fish, ocean tides, drought
17 and economic changes are no longer isolated
18 problems affecting just a local area but are parts
19 of a complex relationship between all people. FED
20 ERAL intervention becomes paramount in resolving
21 the far reaching problems beyond the limits of our
22 local communities and states. The state is pri-
23 marily responsible for protecting the health,
24 safety and welfare of the people? however, the
25 Federal Government is applying controls affecting
-------
2325
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 local conditions through the administration of
3 financial aid. Pollution control by the Federal
4 Government has been effected through the adminis-
5 tration of construction grants, award of research
6 grants, conducting enforcement proceedings, spon-
7 soring comprehensive planning, and encouraging the
8 establishment of water quality standards.
9 An essential concept that cannot be over
10 looked is that our country is organized under a
11 democratic form of government that has been create^
12 "of the people, by the people, for the people."
13 Our RESPONSIBILITY AS INDIVIDUALS has
14 enlarged from a local concern for our natural
15 resources to a regional and national responsibilit;
IQ While at one time we may have considered ourselves
17 conservationists because of our efforts to effec-
18 tively utilize our present resources, we now have
19 to regard ourselves as stewards, or trustees,
20 because we realize that none of these resources
21 can be considered our private property, but will,
22 at one time or another, become the property of
23 someone else.
24
25
-------
2326
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2
INVOLVEMENT OP GRASS ROOTS GOVERNMENT
3
4 The Michigan State Legislature dramati-
5 cally stepped forward in 1964 when it adopted
6 enabling legislation called the "Local River Manag
7 ment Act." The preamble states this is:
g "An act to enable local units of
government to cooperate in planning
9 and carrying out a coordinated
water management program in the
10 watershed which they share."
H According to the provisions of the
12 legislation, a Watershed Council may be formed to
13 represent the governmental units in a river basin.
14 The Council may then perform the following func-
15 tionss
16 "Conduct, or cause to be conducted,
studies of the water resources of
17 the watershed, including investiga-
tions of water uses, water quality
18 and the reliability of the water
resource.
19
"Prepare periodic reports concerning,
20 among other things, trends in water
use and availability, emerging water
21 problems and recommendations for
appropriate public policies and pro-
22 grams necessary to maintain adequate
water resources for the watershed area.
23
"Request the Michigan Water Resources
24 Commission to survey the watershed for
the purpose of determining minimum
25 levels of stream flow necessary for
-------
_ 2327
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 health, welfare and safety.
3 "Advise agencies of federal, state
and local governments as to the
council's view of the watershed's
problems and needs
Cooperate with federal, state and
ocal agencies in providing strea
auges, water quality sampling
stations, or other water resource
local agencies in providing stream
gauges, water quality sampling
data-gathering facilities or pro-
grams that aid the council in its
responsibility for studying and
reporting on water conditions.
"Establish special project funds
as needed to finance special studies
outside its annual budget capacity
and for this purpose the council may
accept gifts and grants from private
individuals, corporations, and local,
13
14 The MICHIGAN GRAND RIVER WATERSHED
15 COUNCIL was organized June 1966. The council
serves on behalf of fifty-nine governmental units
17 representing over one million people in an area
18 of over 5570 square miles. Membership by the
governmental units is voluntary, which presently
20 includes fifty-two members.
2i The WATERSHED COUNCIL is comprised of
22 representatives from the governmental units
23 according to population. The WATERSHED COUNCIL
24 elects its own Executive committee and adopts its
25 own program. Each representative is assigned to
-------
2328
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 one of the following committees: Administrative
3 control Committee, Finance control Committee,
4 water Quality control committee, water Quantity
5 Control Committee. Technical Advisory Committees
6 may be created to investigate and report on
7 specific projects.
8 The effectiveness of an organization
9 is recognized by the vitality of its members.
10 Action is the result of Planning and Impleroenta-
11 tion. The WATERSHED COUNCIL, through its Execu-
12 tive committee and subcommittees have been active-
13 ly involved leading to action programs, and I will
14 identify a few.
15
TYPE II COMPREHENSIVE WATER
16
RESOURCES PLANNING STUDY
17
18 The Grand River Basin was designated
19 in 1963 by the Federal Government for a Type II
20 study to be completed in 1969 at an estimated
21 cost of $2,000,000. At the time the organization-
22
al structure for the study was created, there was
23
no agency that could directly represent the local
nj
governmental units in the Grand River Basin.
25 Following the organization of the
-------
2329
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 MICHIGAN GRAND RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL, Governor
3 George Romney authorized this Council to advise
4 and consult the state of Michigan at the Federal
5 Coordinating Committee on behalf of the local
5 governmental units. The representatives of the
7 WATERSHED COUNCIL have actively participated in
8 planning process of the study. Periodic reports
9 have been prepared regarding the progress of the
10 program and the WATERSHED COUNCIL will actively
11 participate in relating the contents of the final
12 report to all governmental units, public agencies
13 and other organizations. The WATERSHED COUNCIL
14 also expects to serve a vital role in coordinating
15 the efforts of the governmental units to implement
16 the recommendations of the plan.
17
WEST MICHIGAN WATER SUPPLY STUDY
18
10 The WATERSHED COUNCIL considered the
20 need to determine the availability of additional
21 water supply for a twelve-county area on the west
22 side of Michigan. A technical advisory committee
23 was created to conduct a privately financed study
24 to determine the feasibility of supplying Lake
25 Michigan water to the twelve-county area.
-------
2330
l J. H. KENNAUGH
2
FLOOD PLAIN PROTECTION
3
4 Flood damages in the Grand River Basin
5 have been nominal to this date because of the
6 limited development in the flood plain area. The
7 trend in urbanization indicates the need to develo
8 adequate controls to safeguard against unnecessary
9 damages in the future and to assure minimal flood-
10 ing conditions. On behalf of the governmental
11 units, the WATERSHED COUNCIL has filed application^
12 for flood plain studies to be conducted by the
13 Corps of Engineers. The WATERSHED COUNCIL is
14 also formulating control measures that can be
15 incorporated by the municipalities in subdivision
16 control ordinances, zoning ordinances, comprehen-
17 sive plans and building control ordinances.
18
WATER QUALITY STREAM STANDARDS
19
20 The Water Resources commission has
21 adopted water quality stream standards to be
22 applied to the intrastate streams. The WATERSHED
23 COUNCIL has transmitted this information to all
24 the governmental units in the basin and sponsored
25 several informational meetings to assist public
-------
. : 2331
l IJ. H. KENNAUGH
2 officials to understand the program. Each govern-
0 mental unit has been requested to adopt a resolu-
o
. tion designating their preferred stream use.
• These resolutions will be presented at the water
5
quality hearing for advisory purposes to the
o
Water Resources Commission.
8 STREAM MONITORING PROGRAM
9
Essential to enforcing quality standards
n on the streams in the Grand River Basin, a monitorf
12 ing program will be required. To date there is
.. no systematic way for collecting, analyzing and
Id
14 storing data on the water conditions of our stream^
15 The WATERSHED COUNCIL is preparing plans to insti-
16 tute a program that will utilize the water techni-
17 cians from the water treatment plants across the
18 basin to collect, analyze and report the water
19 conditions according to standard procedures.
20 Reports have indicated that of the 2,700,000 Ibs.
2i of ortho phosphate (asp) entering Lake Michigan
22 from Michigan streams, 1,153,000 Ibs., over 42
23 percent is from the Grand River Basin. Other
24 parameters will also be identified to assure
25 effective control on stream quality according to
-------
2332
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 the adopted standards.
3
SOIL EROSION CONTROLS
4
5 Sedimentation in the Grand River Basin
6 streams is considered to be one of the major
7 pollution factors. The WATERSHED COUNCIL is
g preparing soil erosion control data that can be
9 used by property owners, developers and govern-
10 mental units to prevent the unnecessary erosion
11 of soil due to poor land management practices.
12 o o o
13 The WATERSHED COUNCIL programs have
14 revealed problem areas that exist in the Grand
15 River Basin. Evaluation of these problems has
16 required involvement by the members. Knowledge
17 of problems by concerned people is the foundation
18 for a planning process which determines desirable
19 solutions and methods of implementation. LOCAL
20 PARTICIPATION in the development of plans provides
21 strong assurances the plan can be implemented.
22 An essential step that can not be overlooked is
23 the educational process of the grass root forces
24 of the communities. Public acceptance is neces-
25 sary and it remains a vital privilege in our
-------
___ 2333
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 democratic government.
3 The MICHIGAN GRAND RIVER WATERSHED
4 COUNCIL is a statutory entity composed of and
5 representing the governmental units in the Grand
6 River Basin according to the "Local River Manage-
7 raent Act." It functions:
g "to enable local units of govern-
ment to cooperate in planning and
9 carrying out a coordinated water
management program in the watershed."
10
11 The WATERSHED COUNCIL is comprised of
12 the grass root elements of the communities and
13 provides them the opportunity to become involved
14 in the planning aspects of a water management
15 program and continue their involvement by carry-
16 ing out the program. This involvement allows
17 direct and personal relationships with state and
18 Federal officials in the development of regional
19 water management programs assuring that these
20 programs shall be "of the people, by the people,
21 for the people."
22 The MICHIGAN GRAND RIVER WATERSHED
23 COUNCIL recognizes the need for a united effort
24 to preserve our water resources. The program of
25 the WATERSHED COUNCIL has exemplified its concern
-------
l J. H. KENNAUGH
2 and demonstrated its ability to involve the
3 people in sharing in the responsibilities for
4 preserving these water resources. The MICHIGAN
5 GRAND RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL dedicates its
5 support to local, state and Federal agencies to
7 abate pollution in our streams, lakes and Lake
8 Michigan.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kennaugh.
11 Are there any comments or questions?
12 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman.
13 MR. STEIN: Yes.
14 MR. KLASSEN: I would just like to ask
15 a couple of questions, purely for information,
16 because this is a real interesting approach and
17 one that we have talked about and have come close
18 to in several respects in Illinois.
19 I would just like to ask the speaker
20 the following questions:
21 Do you have actually any authority to
22 implement your plans?
23 And secondly, what are your official
24 relationships, we'll say, with the Michigan Water
25 Resources council? Is it necessary that they
-------
: 2335
J. H. KENNAUGH
2 receive approval from your agency, for example,
3 on the additional 10 percent Federal grants and
this type of thing?
I'm for a grass root approach like this,
but being on a State level in Illinois, there is
always the question whether you are merely a
planning agency for cooperation or have some
official status in connection with your own State
government.
11 My second reason for asking this, I was
12 born and raised and spent a good share of my life
13 in thev Grand River Basin, so I have a personal
14 interest in it.
15 MR. KENNAUGH: Technically we are not
16 a planning agency, but were organized to assist
17 local communities in coordinating their planning
18 efforts, nor are we a regulatory agency. This is
19 a responsibility of the designated State agencies
20 But we serve in an advisory capacity
21 for them and for our local communities and for
22 Federal agencies, only on an advisory basis.
23 MR. KLASSEN: Good. Thank you.
24 MR. STEIN: Thank you
25 Are there any further comments or
-------
2336
1 J. H. KENNAUGH
2 questions?
3 (No response.)
4 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much,
5 sir.
6 Mr. Vogt.
7 MR. VOGT: Mr. chairman, I talked with
8 Mr. Klassen regarding Mr. Goodsell's statement,
9 and there is some question as to whether his
IQ statement was actually entered into the record
H by the state of Illinois.
12 Therefore, I should like to enter Mr.
13 ooodsell's statement on behalf of Michigan for the
14 record. Mr. Goodsell is the Executive Director
15 of the Great Lakes commission.
16 MR. STEIN: Without objection, this
17 statement will be entered as if read.
18 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I also want
19 to say, with headquarters at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
20 and this is why I felt that Michigan should have
21 the prerogative of introducing this.
22 MR. VOGT:' Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
OQ
STATEMENT OF LEONARD J. GOODSELL
24 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
25 GREAT LAKES COMMISSION
-------
2337
1 L. J. GOODSELL
2 MR. GOODSELL: Mr. Chairman, ladies and
3 gentlemen:
4 I am Leonard J. Goodsell, Executive
5 Director; Great Lakes commission, which is dedicated
6 to the service of the eight states which border on
7 the Great Lakes — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
8 Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
9 wisconsin--on water resources matters.
10 Preserving and enhancing the quality of
11 the waters of the Great Lakes basin has long been
12 the concern and interest of the Great Lakes
13 Commission. A few short years ago water quality
14 wasn't considered to be a major problem in the
15 Great Lakes. The lakes were considered by some to
16 be unpollutable. Since its establishment by the
17 states in 1955, the Great Lakes Commission has
18 worked toward instituting water quality management
19 programs. In 1964 we were successful in having
20 the problem of pollution control referred to the
21 International Joint commission for study and
22 surveillance. The gathering here today is indica-
23 tive that water quality management can no longer
24 be treated as an unwanted stepchild. It is admitt
25 edly a real and major problem and will require
-------
2338
1 L. J. GOODSELL
2 financial, educational, research and political
3 input to effect its solution. The Great Lakes
4 Commission believes we should continue to inarch,
5 in an orderly and business-like manner, to con-
6 serve the waters of the Nation.
7 Please let me review the Federal water
g Pollution control legislation:
9 Federal water Pollution Control Act
10 of 1948. PL 84-660 - This is the first
11 identifiable Federal program for water
12 pollution control. The Act was limited
13 in scope and was never implemented with
14 adequate appropriation. Government's
15 earlier role had been confined to the
16 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Public
17 Health Service Act of 1912, and Oil
18 Pollution Control Act of 1924.
19 1956 Amendments to the Federal Water
20 Pollution Control Act of 1948 - Araend-
21 ments established basic policy that
22 water pollution problems are best solved
23 at the local level; authorized grants to
24 the states and interstate agencies for
25 water pollution control agencies for
-------
2339
1 L. J. GOODSELL
2 water pollution control activities and
3 grants for waste treatment plant con-
4 struction; provided a system for Federal
5 control; and encouraged interstate com-
6 pacts for joint solution to common water
7 problems.
g Federal water Pollution Control Act
9 Amendments (1961), Pi 87-88 - Extended
10 Federal Pollution abatement authority
11 to all interstate and navigable waters;
12 increased construction grants and
13 encouraged research activities.
14 water Quality Act of 1965, PL 89-234 -
15 Provided for the adoption and enforce-
16 rnent of water quality standards for
17 interstate waters and portions thereof.
18 The Act set up a separate agency*
19 Federal water Pollution Control Adminis-
20 tration as part of D/HEW (since trans-
21 ferred to D/Interior); increased con-
22 struction grants and authorized research
23 and development grants to develop ways
24 of preventing the discharge of untreated
25 wastes from storm sewers or combined
-------
! L. J. GOODSELL
2 storm-sanitary sewers.
3 Clean Waters Restoration Act (1966),
4 PL 89-753 - Provided grants for coordi-
5 nated river basin planning, increased
6 research spending; extended grants for
7 construction beyond June 30, 1967; and
8 authorized appropriation for FY 68 of
9 $450 million, $700 million for PY 69,
10 $1.0 billion for PY 70, $1.25 billion
11 for PY 71; provided increases in the
12 percentage of Federal grants for neces-
13 sary treatment works with a maximum
14 Federal grant of 55 percent if a state
15 takes full advantage of Federal incen-
16 tives.
17 In compliance with the Water Quality Act
18 of 1965, each of the Great Lakes states had, prior
19 to June 30, 1967, adopted water quality criteria
20 applicable to interstate waters or portions there-
21 of within the state, and adopted plans for the
22 implementation and enforcement of the water qua lit
23 criteria adopted. These criteria and plans, when
24 approved by the secretary of the interior, then
25 becomes the water quality standards applicable to
-------
1 L. J. 60ODSELL
2 such interstate waters or portions thereof.
3 Section 10 (b) of the Act states "Con-
4 sistent with the policy of this Act,
5 State and interstate action to abate
6 pollution of interstate or navigable
7 waters shall be encouraged and shall not
g except as provided..., be displaced by
9 Federal enforcement action."
10 I raise these points for information,
11 because many of us believe that legislation deal-
12 ing with pollution control was intended, and
13 should be progressive in full ccraplianos with the
14 law when they adopted criteria and plans as
15 provided for in the water Quality Act of-1965,
16 section 10 (c).
17 The Notice of this Conference cites
18 section 10 (probably Subsection (d) ) as the basis
19 for calling this Conference.
20 Recent inquiry reveals that of the eight
21 Great Lakes states that adopted criteria and plans
22 in accordance with Section 10 (c) of the Act, as
23 amended, only two have had, through the approval
24 of the secretary, standards established.
25 Questions arise: Does this conference
-------
^___ ; 2342
! L. J. GOODSELL
2 indicate that the provisions of the Water Quality
3 Act of 1965 are not adequate to do the job? What
4 future actions and activities can we expect under
5 Subsections (c) and (d) of section 10 of the Act?
6 A Conference has been held on the
7 pollution of the waters in the calumet area and
g lower Lake Michigan* and control and abatement
9 actions are underway. possibly through this
10 conference we may be able to tie together and
H correlate the several actions now underway
12 incidental and pertinent to the water quality
13 management of Lake Michigan.
14 A second item, and I'm sure this is farai
15 iar, is, in accordance with Water Pollution Contro
16 Act, as amended, what can be expected in the way
17 of Federal support funds for the water quality
18 management program?
19 Previously, the authorization for appro-
20 priate amounts of money (under the clean waters
21 Restoration Act of 1966) were outlined—$450
22 million for FY 68, $700 million for FY 69. For
23 FY 68 Congress appropriated $203 million. The
24 authorized total of $3.55 billion for construction
25 of sewage treatment facilities spread over five
-------
! L. J. GOODSELL
2 years (FY 67 through FY 71) was considered to be
3 a minimum figure for Federal participation. As
4 of April 1967 it was estimated that 1,884 applied-
5 tions for construction grants were pending, with
6 a total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion.
7 If the Federal share amounts to 40 percent, the
g cost will be $5.2 billion; at 55 percent, the
9 cost will be $7.15 billion. The actual Federal
10 cost will be somewhere between these two figures.
11 Funding at the full authorization level is not
/
12 adequate to do the job.
13 A third item is the research effort to
14 support the water quality management effort. The
15 water Pollution control Act provides for sizable
16 sums to conduct research. in the summer of 1965 tine
17 Department of the Interior announced that, in its
18 experimentation to develop new uses of coal, it
19 had developed a process, then in pilot plant stage,
20 which uses coal as a filler material in sewage
21 treatment. It was reported that the two-stage
22 filter process would remove all suspended solids,
23 reduce BOD by 70 percent to 90 percent, remove
24 phosphates in excess of 70 percent, detergents by
25 90 percent. The process was described as being
-------
! L. J. GOODSELL
2 advantageous in that, in contrast to bio-oxidation
3 systems, it does not produce nitrates from nitrogeik
4 compounds. The total in-plant time for the process
5 was stated to be from two to four hours.
6 To my mind, if the facts I have are cor-
7 rect, here is one action directed primarily to the
g problem of making more use of coal (The coal used
9 as the filter medium is fully usable foi. fuel,
10 following its use in the filters), a constructive
11 action that may point the way for a real break-
12 through in the sewage treatment process.
13 I don't know to what extent this coal
/
14 filtration process has progressed, but a success-
15 £ul process of this type would save the rounicipali-
16 ties and industries of the lake region millions of
17 dollars and may do a job that we're apparrently
18 not doing too well now. Our research dollars
19 should be applied to research of this nature.
20 To summarize my three points:
21 (1) For information, how are actions
22 under Subsection (c) and (d), Section 10,
23 of the water Pollution Control Act, as
24 amended, to be correlated and follow-on
25 actions established?
-------
1 L. J. GOODSELL
2 (2) For information, what are the
3 dollar and tine schedules for the pedera
4 water treatment facilities program?
5 States, municipalities and private
6 entities will wish to set their schedule^
7 accordingly.
8 (3) For recommendation, guide the
9 research expenditures into developing
10 treatment and handling facilities which
11 will produce effluents of the quality
12 desired, avoid the "quick-fix" solutions
13 and which can be applied on an economical
14 ly sound basis.
15 In the final analysis, economic and
16 political considerations will dictate how well
17 we do in passing on clean waters to the generation
18 to come .
19
20
21 MR. VOGT: I should now like to call
22 Mr. James Rouman, on behalf of the Michigan United
23 Conservation Clubs.
24 Is Jim in the room?
25 (No response.)
-------
_ 23*16
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2 MR. VOGT: Apparently Mr. Rouman is not
3 here, Mr. Chairman. We do have a copy of his
4 statement. Therefore, I should like to enter it
5 just the same as if he had presented it.
6 MR. STEIN: Will he be here later?
7 MR. VOGT: There is some question. I
8 really don't know whether he will or not. Would
9 you suggest that we hold it temporarily?
10 MR. STEIN: Well, I tell you, let's go
11 off the record here.
12 (Off the record.)
13 MR. STEIN: If he comes, we will let him
14 read it.
15 MR. VOGT: I'm sure he would like to.
16 He was here last week.
17 - MR. STSIN: Right.
18 MR. VOGT: If he comes in later on
19 today, we will give him an opportunity to present
20 it.
21 MR. STEIN: without objection, this will
22 appear in the record as if read.
23 MR. VOGT: Thank you.
24
25
-------
23*17
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. ROUMAN
3
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4
MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS
5
6 I am James L. Rournan, Executive Director
7 of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, with
8 headquarters located in Lansing, Michigan.
9 MUCC is a statewide, non-profit, non-
10 government, non-partisan organization of Michigan
11 citizens. it is composed of about 350 sportsmen
12 and conservation-related clubs and individuals
13 throughout the state, with a total membership of
14 approximately 70,000.
15 We in MUCC have been greatly concerned
16 about the deteriorating quality of the waters in
17 the Great Lakes Basin and the need for careful
18 protection by high standards in the setting of
19 interstate water quality criteria; we have expressed
20 this concern in hearings which have been held in
21 our state.
22 We believe that the primary uses designit-
23 ed for these waters should be water-based recreation
24 and the production of fish for sport and hitman food.
25
While these uses do not preclude carefully controlled
-------
23^8
! J. L. ROUMAN
2 commercial uses, such as industrial cooling and
3 navigation, we believe that the following practices
4 create urgent problems and should be rapidly
5 discontinued:
6 Industrial discharge of solids and oil?
7 Disposal of wastes high in oxygen demand
and nutrients;
8
Accumulation of persistent poisons;
9
Pilling in marshy or shallow water areas
10 for "development."
11 For longer range consideration, we call
12 attention to two other areas:
13 Heat loading from manufacturing process
and generation of electric power.
14
Discharge or spill of oils and other
15 wastes from commercial vessels.
16
DISCUSSION
17
18 While all of these items apply to all
19 the Great Lakes, we believe the demand is most
20 urgent on Lake Michigan because of the rapid
21 growth of population and commerce in this water-
22 shed and the slow turnover of water in this
23 portion of the Great Lakes river system.
24 To abate or avoid these problems, we
25 urge that a policy be developed that would prohibi
-------
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2 the discharge of solids into the lake or any
3 tributaries along the lines indicated in the
4 announcement made in 1967 by the Engineering
5 Corps, Department of the Army, and that wherever
6 possible, the dredging necessary to maintain
7 harbor depths be done in such manner as to
8 minimize the adverse effects on the lake by
9 placing the spoils on shore; and further, that
10 each state take steps to minimize erosion from
11 construction of highways, housing and other develop
12 ments.
13 From the algae growths that are appear-
14 ing along the beaches and the tremendous increase
15 in the volume of forage fishes, it is obvious that
16 the nutrient levels in Lake Michigan are already
17 quite high. With the burgeoning population in the
18 Lake Michigan basin, much of which will be resident
19 on or near the shores, we believe it is especially
20 urgent that means of reducing oxygen demand and
21 the nutrient load be attacked vigorously now.
22 We have rather fragmentary information
23 on the quantities of persistent poisons now present.
24 in the lake. Available information indicates that
25 the persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides
-------
2 33Q
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2 have already reached levels that will produce pro-
3 found changes in the ecology of the lake. The
4 obvious effects on the reproductive capacities
5 of salmon and trout need no discussion. These
6 programs already command a great deal of general
7 interest. More important, we believe, will be the
8 effects on the basic food chain and on the bird
9 populations in the lake basin, which may be more
10 subtle but non the less devastating, some of these
11 more subtle effects are already apparent in colon*
12 ies of birds that nest in the Great Lakes basin
13 area,
14 The discharge of heat from power genera-
15 tion and other industrial uses has a potential
16 for markedly altering the character of the lake
17 and the climate around it. Any appreciable increa
18 in temperature of Lake Michigan combined with the
19 already plentiful supply of nutrients has a
20 potential for accelerating eutrophication and pro-
21 ducing more rapid degradation of water quality.
22 It seems to us that the differences between southern
23 and northern Lake'Michigan may now be due, in part
24 to the heat loading around the south end of the
25 lake.
-------
2351
I J. L. ROUMAN
2 The additions in heat loading resulting
3 from building of new steel plants and the ten
4 thermonuclear generators planned or building on
5 the lake could make a much more marked change in
6 the lake, we urge that industry be made respon-
7 sible for studies of the local effects of their
g heat load and that coordinated studies of the
9 overall effect of the total heat load be projected
10 for power generation and other industrial sources
11 to provide a basis for some forecast as to the
12 total effect of the temperature on the lake and
13 its resulting effect oh the climate.
14 In the past year, newspapers have re-
15 ported two discharges of oil into the lakes with
16 some reference to their adverse effects. One of
17 these was discharge of Oil from industrial sources
18 the other a spill or discharge from shipping, we
19 urge that a mechanism for continuous monitoring
20 of oil slicks be developed and put into practice
21 as rapidly as possible so that these oil discharge^
22 can be discovered early, the damage minimized and
23 the responsibility fixed on the offending party.
24 we feel we must comment on one other
25 facet of the proposals that have been made for
-------
2352
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2 water use in various parts of the country. The
3 concept of an industrial river, we believe, has
4 no application in the Great Lakes Basin. One
5 industrial river, discharging a maximum waste
6 load, would in time extend to the whole river
7 system. If we remind ourselves that Lake Michigan
8 is just a wide deep place in a river system, we
9 can see that any move to promote industrial rivers
10 will eventually result in making Lake Michigan an
11 industrial lake.
12 Finally, in the overall solution of
13 these and other problems, we hope that the obvious
14 solution will not be utilized. It would be r«la-
15 tively easy to divert the outfalls from many areas
16 on the periphery of Lake Michigan to other water-
17 sheds. This, we believe, would compound the
18 problems of the other watersheds and aggravate
10 the difficulties arising from withdrawals from
20 Lake Michigan by the reversing of river systems.
21
SUMMARY
22
23 We urge immediate consideration of the
24
following:
25 l. Abatement of the discharge of solids
-------
^ 2333
! J. L. ROUMAN
2 into the Lake Michigan system and fillinc
3 by erosion.
4 2. Reduction in disposal of wastes high
5 in oxygen demand and nutrients into Lake
6 Michigan and its tributaries.
7 3. Curtailment of the use of persistent
8 pesticides and the release of other
9 poisons in the Lake Michigan watershed.
10 4. Steps to halt filling of shallow
II areas of the lake.
12 5. Initiation of studies on the effects
13 of heat loading that will enable us to
14 forecast the effects of various levels
15 of heat loading on the waters and the
16 climate.
17 6. A monitoring system to detect and
18 trace discharge of oils.
19 7. Agreement on means to prohibit
20 industrial classification of waters in
21 the Lake Michigan watershed.
22
23
24 MR. VOGT: I would now like to call on
25 Mr. Keith Wilson, representing the National
-------
2354-
1 J. L. ROUMAN
2 Association of State Boating Law Administrators.
3 Mr. Wilson?
4 (No response.)
5 We might follow a similar procedure
6 with Keith Wilson's statement, Mr. Chairman, and
7 if he comes in later on today we will give him
8 an opportunity to present it. If not, I would
9 like to have it entered into the record as though
10 it was presented.
11 MR. STEIN: I think, by the way, this
12 is a very interesting statement, I have been
13 going through this, and this should be read kind
14 of carefully by the conferees.
15 MR. VOGTi I have a letter from the
16 Michigan Manufacturers' Association, and this is
17 directed to the Honorable Stewart L. Udall and
18 is signed by Mr. John C. McCurry, General Manager
19 of MMA. I would like to enter this letter in the
20 record.
21 MR. STEIN: This letter will be intro-
22 duced into the record without objection.
23 MICHIGAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
24 JOHN C. MC CURRY, GENERAL MANAGER
25 DETROIT, MICHIGAN
-------
2355
! J. C. MC CURRY
2
The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
3 secretary of the Interior
Conference on The Pollution of the
4 waters of Lake Michigan
c/o Sherman House
5 Randolph & Clark Streets
Chicago, Illinois
6
7 Dear Mr. secretary
8 L
On behalf of the Michigan Manufacturers Associatioiji
g
I appreciate the opportunity of submitting some
brief comments to you in connection with the
current conference on "The Pollution of the waters
12
of Lake Michigan and Its Tributary Basin". The
13
Association and its members recognize the impor-
14
tance of water, not only for industrial and com-
15
mercial purposes but also for such individual
16
purposes as home and recreational use. Michigan
17
manufacturers recognize their responsibility to
18
return their effluent in a condition and quality
19 I J
that does not cause injury to other users or impair
20
other uses; given present day technological knowl-
21
ed^e, developments, and processes. This recogni-
22
tion is attested to by the millions of dollars
23
.spent in recent years by Michigan industry volun-
24
tarily or to meet lawfully established criteria
25
-------
2356
l J. C. MC CURRY
2 and standards.
3 Michigan has had effective water pollu-
4 tion control laws for approximately forty years.
5 As conditions have changed and new problems .have
5 developed, these statutes have been updated, we
7 believe Michigan today has laws on the books that
3 effectively meet the challenge of the tiroes.
9 Next in importance to an adequate and
10 effective body of law is a calm, well-reasoned
11 administration of such law. We believe that the
12 Michigan agencies administering the state's water
13 laws have done, are doing, and will continue to do
14 an effective job in administration and enforcement
15 Administrative agencies have sought and, with few
16 exceptions so far as industry is concerned, have
17 secured voluntary cooperation and compliance. Mud
18 has been accomplished by this procedure. sometime^
19 it may seem to others that the process is cumber-
20 some and tine consuming. However, it has produced
21 and will continue to produce results and the pro-
22 gress has been orderly. Too frequently difficult
23 problems ares attacked with an element of hysteria.
24 Hysteria itself accomplishes little of lasting val^je
25 and is conducive to costly mistakes. A sound,
„.
-------
. 2357
1 J. C. MC CURRY
2 well-reasoned and logical approach offers the best
3 and most effective method of solving water pollu-
4 tion problems. This is the course Michigan is
5 following—and properly so.
6 Last June, the Michigan Water Resources
7 commission adopted, under the provisions of the
8 Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, water quality
9 standards and a plan of implementation and enforce
10 ment. Upon your approval of the plan, as submitted
11 Michigan, its citizens and its industries will
12 have guidelines and criteria to meet and follow.
13 As has been the case in the past, Michigan and its
14 job providers will meet their responsibilities.
15 I thank you for the privilege of express
16 ing by this means the opinions of Michigan Manu-
17 facturers1 Association.
18
very truly yours,
19
(Signed* J. C. McCurry
20
21 JOHN c. MCCURRY
General Manager
22
23 _ _ _
24
MR. VOGT: I would now like to call on
25
-------
2358
x GEORGE DLESK
2 Mr. George Dlesk, who will present a statement
3 on behalf of the Pulp and Paper Mills in the
4 Michigan.Portion of the Lake Michigan Basin.
5
GEORGE DLESK
6
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
7
PACKAGING CORPORATION OP AMERICA
8
9 MR. DLESK: Mr. Chairman, Members of
10 the Conference and other distinguished guests,
11 ladies and gentlemen:
12 I am George Dlesk, Senior Vice Presi-
13 dent, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Division, Packag-
14 ing Corporation of America. I have been asked to
15 present the following statement:
16 This statement expresses the views of
17 sixteen companies who have signed it. They are al
18 located in the Lake Michigan drainage basin, in
19 the State of Michigan. It is made in response to
20 an invitation by the water Resources Commission
21 of Michigan dated December 29, 1967. These com-
22 panies represent approximately 98 percent of the
23 5,300 tons of the daily pulp and paper production
24 in the Michigan portion of the basin. This is
25 equivalent to over ten million pounds per day of
-------
2339
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 paper or would be approximately two pounds per day
3 for the five and a half million people in the basin
4 area. The production represents a substantial
5 contribution to the economy of Michigan.
6 This Statement is presented by members
7 .of an industry whose very life blood depends on
8 sound conservation principles. Our primary raw
9 materials are trees and water. Their renewal and
10 enhancement are vital to our existence. And
11 speaking of conservation, our industry collects
12 and uses a tremendous amount of waste paper every
13 year. Ours was the first major industry to form
14 its own water improvement research organizations:
15 the Pulp Manufacturers Research League, founded
16 in 1938, and the National Council for Stream
17 Improvement, founded in 1943, twenty-five years
18 ago. As a result of our applied research and
19 process refinements, the organic pollutional load
20 per ton of production has been reduced some 70
21 percent over the last twenty years.
22 we urge that this Conferences
23 (1) Take into consideration that the
24 Michigan Water Resources Commission (WRC) has had
25 an increasingly effective pollution abatement
-------
2360
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 program over a period of many years. As a result
3 of this program, evidence clearly shows that the
4 basin rivers in the state of Michigan, such as the
5 Kalamazoo River, have better water quality today
g than ten years ago; and better ten years ago than
7 twenty years ago. The WRC has issued orders of
8 determination against any polluter whenever
9 technologically feasible methods of treatment
10 would measurably benefit the receiving waters.
11 The Water Quality Criteria, Enforcement and
12 Implementation Plans submitted by the WRC to the
13 PWPCA in accordance with the requirements of the
14 1965 Federal water Quality Act insures that the
15 WRC's policy of enhancement of Michigan water
16 quality will continue in the years ahead. In its
17 recommendations, the conference should rely
18 heavily on the technical advice of the state water
19 pollution control agencies in the Lake Michigan
20 Basin.
21 2. Make only those recommendations
22 which will produce a measurable improvement in
23 the water quality of Lake Michigan. Emotionally
24 or politically inspired recommendations by this
25 Conference are not likely to stand up under the
-------
2361
l GEORGE DLESK
2 hard realities of techological and economic
3 feasibility. The recommendations must be both
4 effective and realistic.
3. Limit its recommendations to inter-
6 state waters only. Based on the record of accom-
7 plishraent, and the water Quality Standards and
8 implementation plans now under development for
9 intrastate waters by the Michigan WRC and other
State agencies, the protection of these intra-
state waters can most effectively remain under
12 the exclusive authority of the individual states.
13 Respectfully submitted,
14
Michigan Carton Company - Battle Creek
15 Mead Corporation - Escanaba and Otsego
Allied Paper Corporation - Kalamazoo
Brown company - Kalamazoo
Hawthorne Paper company - Kalamazoo
Georgia Pacific Company - Kalamazoo
National Gypsum company - Kalamazoo
18 American Can Company - Menominee
S. D. Warren - Muskegon
19 French Paper company - Miles
Menasha corporation - Otsego
20 Hammermill Paper Company - Watervliet
Simpson Lee Paper company - vicksburg
21 Rockford Paper Mills - Rockford
Weyerhaeuser Company -
22 Plainwell and White Pigeon
Packaging Corporation of America -
23 Filer City and Grand Rapids
24 He w*«.t-' to thank you for the opportunity
25 to appear before you
-------
2362.
I GEORGE DLESK
•
2 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
3 Are there any comments or questions?
4 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
5 Mr. Dlesk, your third recommendation
6 relates to the suggestion that this conference
7 limit its recommendations to interstate waters
8 only and that the protection of these intrastate
9 waters can most effectively remain under the
10 , exclusive authority of the states.
11 The problem that perplexes me is whether
12 it is appropriate for the states to have different
13 standards applied according to a different tirae-
14 table with different degrees of water quality
I5 than those which apply to intrastate waters. In
lfi Wisconsin we have felt it appropriate to think
I7 in terms of intrastate standards that are strictly
18 comparable with those which we have suggested for
19 interstate waters.
OA
What is the advantage of leaving these
21 under the exclusive authority of the States?
22
MR. DLESK: Well, I agree that the fram£
23
work has been established and that we are probably
all working within the same relative arena. Prob-
25 ably the enforcement administration of the intra-
-------
2363
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 state waters is the key that we would care to consider
3 in this statement.
4 MR. STEIN: Maybe we can clarify this,
5 and I do this just in the interest, I hope, of
6 clarification, because I think the Congress has
7 already made a determination.
g A lot of these companies are old friends
9 I think we have met in other areas of the country.
10 I also thought we have dealt with them on a
11 reasonable basis looking for measurable improve-
12 roents, that we haven't had any emotionally or
13 politically inspired recommendations.
14 I might say that the notions of what
15 was reasonable and feasible have not always met
16 the -- at least our views of that have not always
17 had the unanimous agreement and enthusiastic support
18 of a lot of the companies mentioned here. But,
19 again, I would like to point out that I think we
20 have always been able to work out an agreement
21 and an accommodation in every case, whatever the
22 philosophy was, and by and large I think we get
23 along very well.
24 NOW, this notion &t intrastate waters
25 can most effectively remain under the exclusive
-------
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 authority of the individual States. Under the
3 present law we can come in on an intrastate problem
4 if it is a navigable stream (and most waters are)
5 on the request of the Governor.
6 Now, this has happened involving pulp
7 and paper mills in the past, we right now have—
8 and many of these companies are represented there—
9 one in Puget sound which we were called in by
10 Governor Rossellini of Washington. The question
11 here is if it is exclusively under intrastate water
12 systems and the state feels it is a big problem,
13 the Governor asks us in.
14 Now, we were also asked in on the Detroit
15 River by Governor Swainson of Michigan. You did
16 have and still do not one of the companies listed
17 herebut a pulp and paper company
18 in that area. That company has agreed to
19 a Michigan enforcement requirement to clean
20 up and is moving ahead with the other
21 industries.
22 So I do think that under the Federal
23 law this notion of anything being under the exclu-
24 sive authority of the individual States has been
25 changed; that that doesn't exist anymore, we do
-------
. 2365
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 need the Governor's request to come in, but we can
3 have Federal jurisdiction in an intrastate natter
4 and we have been called in several times in cases
5 involving pulp and paper mills.
6 Again, to point out to the audience,
7 as far as I can see, we have never gone to court
8 with a pulp and paper mill, and I agree with you,
9 the challenge is to keep them in business and not
10 put them out of business. As far as I know, the
11 record will show that they are still thriving and
12 in business after these pollution control cases.
13 MR. KGLKERi You may leave me even more
14 confused than I was.
15 MR. STEIN: Right.
16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. HOLMER: The recommendation is that
18 the recommendations from this Conference be limited
19 to interstate waters, and there are quite a number
20 of intrastate waters that are within the basin of
21 Lake Michigan. If these are adopted by -- or if
22 the Secretary after this conference is concluded
23 makes recommendations and they are not limited to
24 interstate waters, they would be Federally enforce
25 able without the request of the Governor, if I
-------
2366
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 understand the procedure.
3 MR. STEIN: The only way we can enforce
4 them is if discharge in an intrastate water affects
5 water quality in an interstate water, and the only
g way we can move to enforce under our own jurisdic-
7 tion, standards or no standards, is where the
8 pollution in one state endangers the health or
g welfare of persons in another state.
10 If neither of those situations apply,
11 we will need the request of the Governor of the
12 State before we go in. In other words, there must
13 be pollution of interstate waters and that pollu-
14 tion must endanger the health or welfare of per*
15 sons in another state. The likelihood of your
16 endangering health or welfare of persons in another
17 state without pollution of interstate waters is
18 not very likely except in that case where we can't
19 go in. This doesn't affect you as it would shell-
20 fish cases. But these four states need not worry
21 about that provision of the Federal law, I don't
22 believe.
23 MR. HOLMER: I an sure we don't worry
24 about the shellfish. But there has been consider-
25 able evidence in the report, in the pre-Conference
-------
, •__ 2367
1 GEORGE DLESK
2 report of the PWPCA, to demonstrate that pollution
3 in the tributary streams does affect the health
4 and welfare of all.
5 MR. STEIN: And in that case we would
6 have -- now, I am talking theoretically and not
7v in terms of a specific case. But I think the
8 Federal law is clear on this. If you have a dis-
9 charge from a tributary stream going into Lake
10 Michigan and this affects the welfare of all the
11 people around Lake Michigan and contributes to
12 the eutrophication of the lake, assuming this is
13 so, I would think there was no doubt that we
14 would have Federal jurisdiction to go in and
15 abate that pollution, no question.
16 Some people may argue that, but I think
17 they can just argue. They are not going to pre-
18 vail.
19 MR. HOLMER: Thank you.
20
| MR. STEIN8 Are there any further com-
21 raents?
22
(No response.)
23
MR. STEINt If not, Mr. Vogt„
24 MR. VOGTs The next appearance will be
25 by Mr. A. R. Balden, Chairman of the Natural
-------
2368
———_ .—g.
1 A. R. BALDEN
2 Resources Committee of the Michigan Chamber of
3 Commerce.
4 MR. STEIN: Thank you for coming up,
5 Mr. Balden. And I am going to depart here, because
6 here is an old friend.
7 Unless you think we just go out and
8 criticize people for lack of pollution control,
9 I am delighted that Mr. Balden is here because
10 the Chrysler Corporation, with which he has been
11 associated, in my experience has been one of the
12 most forthright corporations in the United States
13 in its pollution abatement program. They have not
14 waited for State, Federal or local officials to
15 come up and force them to do things, develop
16 standards, develop criteria. They have put in
17 the devices which they have believed on their own
18 would do the job, and in a good many cases they
19 have shown the way.
20 Tn that Detroit case, for example, that
21 i pointed out, that we went into awhile ago, when
22 we looked at the various polluters we found that
23 Chrysler was doing a good job; and while we had
24 recommendations to make about other cities and
25 some thirty-three industries in the area, we didn't
-------
. 2369
1 A. R. BALDEN
2 about Chrysler. They already were doing the job.
3 Mr. Balden, we are delighted to have
4 you here and delighted to have a company like
5 yours with a pollution policy such as you have
6 represented here. Thank you.
7 MR. BALDENs Thank you very much, Mr.
8 Stein.
9
STATEMENT OF A. R. BALDEN
10
CHAIRMAN, NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
11
MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
12
13 MR. BALDENi 'Conferees, Ladies and
14 Gentlemen:
15 My name is Al Balden and I am presently
16 the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee
17 of the Michigan State Chamber of Commerce. I have
18 been a member of this committee since its incep-
19 tion in 1962 and have been particularly gratified
20 to see the work of this fine organization in a
21 leadership role to protect the natural resources
22 of cur state of Michigan.
23 To assure the continuation of these
24 natural resources to the extent that they shall
25 always be maintained at their optimum, the Michigaik
-------
237.0
I A. R. BALDEN
2 State chamber of Commerce has placed water pollu-
3 tion control, the utilization of water resources,
4 the preservation of all of our resources, and air
5 pollution control high on its priorities list in
6 program planning.
7 In retrospect, looking back at the
8 initial goals set up in 1962, it is with pleasure
9 that we can count among our accomplishments the
lO enactment of a practical yet firm water pollution
H control law, an effective air pollution law, and
12 other laws that strengthen the state role in
13 guidin9 its own destiny.
14 I would like at this point to digress
15 from the script. There is another item that came
16 to my attention and that is that two or three
17 years ago when it became evident that the state
18 of Michigan, the water Resources Commission, was
19 going to have to accelerate its activities in
20 water pollution control and that in order to so
21 accelerate these activities it would need a great-
22 ly enlarged staff, our Chamber of Commerce Natural
23 Resources group took an active stand in helping
24 obtain these funds.
25 We believe we have placed Michigan in a
-------
2371
A. R. BALDEN
leadership role among states by demonstrating
that appropriate measures can be taken at a
state level. This deomonstrates clearly that
business and state government have common objec-
tives in meeting problems of this nature and 'that
they can and are working together harmoniously
in meeting a serious problem.
I would like to point out, however,
10 that it did take the leadership and initiative
n °* the state Chamber to bring all industry and
12 other segments of the economy together to assist
13 ^"s Water Resources Commission in taking the
14 appropriate steps.
15 Members of our committee and other
16 representatives of Michigan industry met many
17 times in many hearings before the water Resources
18 Commission to assist in formulating effective
19 criteria within the technical capability avail-
20 able to industry,
21 Thus, it was with considerable satisfac-
22 tion that eventually the proposed standards were
23 agreed to by all concerned and in June 1967 were
24 submitted to the secretary of the Interior for
25 his approval.
-------
2372
! A. R. BALDEN
•
2 Since that time, hearings have continued
3 and enforcement orders are being issued to hundreds;
4 of communities and scores of industries, particu-
5 larlY those who have critical sewage problems.
6 In a confidential survey conducted by
7 the state chamber, it was revealed that almost
8 every industry is engaged in some phase of
9 improvement of their industrial waste treatment
10 facilities, involving the expenditure of many
11 millions of dollars in the very near future.
12 Through all of this steady progress,
13 there is an understandable hesitancy on the part
14 of some to effect final control until the state-
15 adopted standards have the requisite approval of
16 the secretary of the interior.
17 We are very happy to represent the
18 industry of Michigan at this conference, we want
19 to take this opportunity to offer our full coopera
20 tion and to promise our continued interest in
21 correcting the pollution problems of Lake Michigan
22 The critical need at the moment is to
23 take away the atmosphere of uncertainty that
24 hovers over us. This can be accomplished by the
25 immediate Federal approval or disapproval (with
-------
2373
I A. R. BALDEN
2 reasons) of the submitted water quality standards.
3 We are pleased to note that while full
4 approval of the standards has not been accomplished],
5 conversations between the Federal Water Pollution
5 Control Agency and the various states have been
7 initiated. This conference will serve a positive
8 purpose if it accelerates action leading to full
9 agreement on the standards.
10 In the meantime, we are moving ahead
n on the establishment of intrastate standards in
12 our state. Last August the time table was announcejd
13 for hearings to assign water quality standards to
14 designated water uses for intrastate waters.
15 These hearings are to be completed in December.
16 The standards are substantially the same as those
17 involved in interstate waters and thus are affected
18 by the same uncertainty until the basic parameters
19 are approved by the secretary of the Interior.
20 In order to accelerate pollution control
21 in Michigan, Governor Romney has proposed a supple
22 mental appropriation to implement a $14.4 million
23 Federal-State-local pollution control program and
24 $335 million in general obligation bonds to help
25 finance long-range pollution control.
-------
237J*
1 A. R. BALDEN
2 Among the proposals called for by the
3 Governor are funds for sharing with Federal and
4 local units of Government the cost of the construe
5 tion of pollution treatment facilities.
6 I point this out to you to indicate that
7 we mean business in Michigan and are progressing as
8 rapidly as possible toward the timely elimination
9 of pollution to Lake Michigan.
10 We have much to gain by this step. I
11 should point out that the tremendous salmon and
12 trout propagation program that we now have going
13 for us depends on clean water. The fact that it
exists today in our waters should encourage all
15 of us to act promptly to assure that it continues
16 to grow and to prosper. I submit that the alarmisjt,
17 who would have us smothering in pollution within
18 the next few years, has not yet visited our clear
19 streams and the exciting waters of Lake Michigan.
20
I invite all of you to come up and go Co:
10
21 salmon fishing sometime.,
22 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Al.
23 Are there any comments or questions?
24 (No response.)
25
MR. STEIN* Thank you for a good statement
-------
2375
1 A. R. BALDEN
2 (Off the record.)
3 MR. STEIN: with that we plan to recess
4 for lunch, but let me give you the schedule. We
5 will start at 1:30, and we expect that Governor
6 Knowles will go on at 2:00. But we reserve the
7 privilege of interrupting the speaker who is
8 making his presentation when Governor Knowles
9 arrives to give Governor Knowles the opportunity
10 to stay with his schedule, and then we will take
11 up with that speaker later.
12 We stand in recess until 1:30.
13 (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., a luncheon
14 recess was taken.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2376
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2
AFTERNOON SESSION
3
(1:30 p.m.)
4
5 MR. STEINt May we reconvene?
B Mr. vogt?
^.
7 MR. VOGT: Mr. Chairman, at this point I
8 would like to call on Mr. Keith Chambers, represent-
9 ing the southern Lake Michigan Fishermen's co-Opera-
10 tive Association.
11 Keith Chambers.
12
STATEMENT OF KEITH CHAMBERS
13
SOUTHERN LAKE MICHIGAN FISHERMAN'S
14
CO-OP ASSOCIATION
15
SAUGATUCK. MICHIGAN
16
17 MR. CHAMBERS: I want to thank the chair-
18 man and this committee for allowing me to appear
19 here today.
20 In the fifties of this century, Lake
21 Michigan had alewives in alarmingly vast numbers.
22 in the winter of 1959 and the spring of 1960, the
23 alarmed few of us in the commercial fishing industry,
24 had laws changed to allow trawling for the taking of
25 these species.
-------
2377
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 All these changes that have taken place in
3 the Great Lakes are not news or history to us. As
4 I am the fifth generation in commercial fishing,
5 that we know of, these changes affect our livelihood
6 to the extent of how to operate, what type of equip-
7 nent and for what species to fish.
8 Last year (1967) between Wisconsin and
9 Michigan, trawlers have produced over 50 million
U> pounds of alewives. They are being utilized in
11 fish meal and the pet food industry. In the future,
12 they may be used as protein concentrate.
13 «P>»4 a inaa v • a a 1 <*«.»•{ ft* A 4 *»_/•»*« *4*»nll<> a 1 B «•«•»_
— •-••• J — —•• tm »-^.—••»••— o^— —•«» A^MWAAJf ««^««a>U>
14 ed the Great Lakes States of pollution, to the point
15 that we cannot turn away from the problem.N what
16 the public and other people cannot understand is
17 that about nine times the amount of dead alewives
18 washed on beaches, sank to the bottom of Lake
19 Michigan to add further to the already alarming
20 conditions of polluted Lake Michigan.
21 After this year's die-off of alewife, we
22 encountered five feet of decaying alewives on the
23 bottom of Lake Michigan in from sixty feet of water
24 to ninety feet of water. In miles from shore, this
25 would be about 2 miles to 3% miles from shore on
-------
2378
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 the Michigan State side of Lake Michigan. Each
3 state would vary as far as miles because of greater
4 or lesser slope of lake bottom near shore.
5 This committee already knows the impor-
6 tance of the effects that this amount of dead fish
7 can do to our fresh water basin. This depth of
8 water is very, very serious, as drinking water is
9 taken from this area. Spawning beds are ruined
10 for both sport and commercial species. Yachts and
11 small boat enthusiasts relax and utilize this area.
12 Fishery managers from soro<5 states believe
13 the coho salmon, which preys on alawivea, is ths
14 long-range solution for alewife control. This year,
15 the State of Michigan sold ovar 1 million pounds
16 of salmon that entered two rivers to spawn and die.
17 Next year's estimated run or die-off is near or over
18 4 million pounds.
19 When enough salmon are planted to control
20 the alewife, what figure will be projected to the
21 annual die-off salmon is not talked about or thought
22 about, but should be brought to your attention and
23 also to the attention of the public. Are some
24 people trying to trade one problem for another?
25 Ecological balance is needed and has to be a must;
-------
2379
I KEITH CHAMBERS
2 just as pollution control is a roust.
3 in August 1967, we offered a solution
4 for the floating dead alewives that would help
5 stop tons and tons of dead alewives front reaching
6 the beaches. This operation would use surface
7 trawls instead of bottom trawls, which are used to
8 catch live alewives. The surface trawls or seines
9 would skin the surface to a depth of about twenty
10 feet. This would skin the dead floating fish and
11 a portion of the sinking ninety percent that nobody
12 sees to a depth of twenty or more feet.
13 These past seven years we have been and
14 are constantly improving and developing skills,
15 knowledge, research, equipment, facilities, and
16 markets. The marketing is the major problem, as
17 the sales control the amount of alewives caught or
18 produced. All of this has been done by Lake Michigan
19 trawlers, Wisconsin and Michigan, at no cost to
20 state or Federal governments.
21 I have some figures here that I didn't
22 have entered here just to bring the point that this
23 is not an operation that is a six-week period as
24 some people have surmised, what I have done here,
25 Z have broken this down to a unit of effort. NOW,
-------
I 2380
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 this unit of effort that I am referring to is per
3 hour. This per hour is the actual time that this
4 net is being towed. This does not include time
5 going to the fishing grounds or back.
6 1966, January, hourly average in poundage
7 was 5,190 pounds per hour.
8 February was 2,120 pounds per hour.
9 March, 1,855 pounds per hour.
!0 April, 2,800 pounds per hour.
11 May, 27,576 pounds per hour of effort.
12 June, 13,160.
13 July, 1,440.
14 August, 1,212 pounds.
15 September, 2,455.
16 October, 1,300.
17 November, 2,160 pounds.
18 December, 1,860 pounds.
,19 I could go through. In '67 it has gone
20 up somewhat.
If the same cooperation were received by
22
the local commercial operators as is suggested to
no
foreign vessels, we believe we could expand the
fleet and catching ability to exceed the help which
25
these foreign vessels could give. in addition, this
-------
2381
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 would not require changes in the Federal Law.
3 I am also representing sixteen trawlers
4 from Wisconsin. They have sixteen trawlers and in
5 1965 -- I am speaking just of the Wisconsin Trawlers
6 at the moment—they produced 11 million pounds of
7 alewife; in '66, 24 million pounds; '67, 35 million
8 pounds. These figures are verified by the Wisconsin
9 Conservation Department.
10 In the figures that I gave for our
11 cooperative, this is just one vessel and these
12 will be verified by the Bureau of Commercial
13 Fisheries at Ann Arbcr.
14 In 1968 the projected figure of the
15 Wisconsin Trawlers is 45 million pounds. In fish
16 that would probably be about a million or more.
17 This year this is what they anticipate.
18 However, the fish meal plants have advised the
19 fishermen that they can only pay 15 dollars per ton
20 due to the low price of fish.meal caused by heavy
21 imports. At this price no Alewife will be caught
22
in 1968 because the trawlers cannot fish at this
23 price.
If no trawlers operate, there will be
25
another 45 or more million pounds of alewife left
-------
2382
I KEITH CHAMBERS
2 to die and pollute the waters of Lake Michigan
3 The trawlers listed in this booklet are
4 55-foot steel trawlers, modern in every respect,
5 equipped with the latest electronic equipment, such
6 as Fish Finders, Marine Radios, and Depth Sounders.
7 All but one are of the modern stern Ramp design.
8 This fleet is second to none in its size range on
9 the Great Lakes, the Gulf States or the coast
10 Trawlers.
11 The operators have from two to ten'years
12 experience and have the most efficient nets and
13 equipment available. No Canadian trawlers a re
14 _ _
needed.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2383
l
2
3
4
5 AND THE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 FACTS AND FIGURES
14 COMPILED BY WISCONSIN LICENSED TRAWLERS
15
16
17
18
AND SOME ANSWERS
19
20
21
January 1968
22
23
24
25
-------
2384
1
2
3
ROBERT ANGWALL
* 75 Bay Shore, Marinette Wisconsin
Telephone RE 2-2923
— representing the following Wisconsin Trawlers:
6
Hold Capacity
ART SWAER, Oconto, Wisconsin — 3 boats 25 tons each
g SUSIE Q FISH CO., Two Rivers, Wisconsin — 2 boats 25 tons each
RULEAU BROS., Cedar River, Michigan — 1 boat 25 tons
ROBERT ANGWALL, Marinette, Wisconsin — 1 boat 60 tons
10
OLE JOHNSON, Oconto, Wisconsin — 1 boat 25 tons
WILBUR REED, Oconto, Wisconsin — 1 boat 25 tons
12 FRANK LE CLAIR & SON, Two Rivers, Wisconsin 1 boat 25 tons
13
14
15 Facts and Figures
16
• In 1965 11 million pounds of Alewife were caught by Wisconsin
Trawlers.
17
• In 1966 24 million pounds of Alewife were caught by Wisconsin
18 Trawlers.
19 • In 1967 35 million pounds of Alewife were caught by Wisconsin
Trawlers.
20
The above figures can be verified at the Wisconsin Conservation
Department, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
21
• In 1968 it would be projected that the Wisconsin Trawlers could
22 produce 45 million pounds of Alewife or about 1 billion fish.
23
24
25
-------
2385
1
2
3
However the Fish Meal plants have advised the fishermen that they
can only pay $15.00 per ton due to the low price of fish meal caused by
heavy imports. At this price no Alewife will be caught in 1968 because
5 the trawlers cannot fish at this price.
g If no trawlers operate, there will be another 45 million pounds of Ale-
wife left to die and pollute the waters of Lake Michigan.
7
The trawlers listed in this booklet are 55 foot steel trawlers modern
in every respect, equipped with the latest electronic equipment such
as Fish Finders, Marine Radios, and Depth Sounders. All but one are
of the modern Stern Ramp design. The Fleet is second to none in its
size range on the Great Lakes, the Gulf States or the Coast Trawlers.
10 The operators have from 2 to 10 years experience and have the most
efficient nets and equipment available. No Canadian Trawlers are
•needed.
12
13
14 Answers to the Problems
15
Under the supervision and in coordination with the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries utilize the Wisconsin Trawlers to catch Alewife before
they die off and before they drift onto the beaches.
17
Enter into Lease Agreements with the individual trawlers for fixed
amounts. Items to be considered:
18
1. Disposal of fish caught.
19 2. Length of fishing day.
3. Areas to be fished.
4. Bottom trawling and surface skimming.
5. Dollar value of fixed amounts.
21
We have trucks available for each boat to transport these fish to
market or wherever we have to go to dispose of them.
23
24
25
-------
2386
! KEITH CHAMBERS
2 MR. CHAMBERS: I think that will be it,
3 unless there are any questions.
4 MR. STEIN: Let roe ask you, do you think
5 that you have the equipment to seine all the
6 alewives so we won't have a die-off if it could be
7 made economically feasible for you and worth your
8 while?
9 MR. CHAMBERS: This is really an unknown.
10 We can project or produce figures of live alewives.
11 The rate of floating or dying is another question.
12 we feel with eight to ten boats that we could take
13 care of a hundred mile strip or area, but this has
14 not been done.
15 MR. STEIN: Here is what I am getting
16 at. we had a tremendous alewife die-off on the
17 beaches last year. Do you have the physical
18 equipment to catch all these alewives, and let's
19 suppose you received a subsidy or some money to
20 help you with this, so they wouldn't be any
21 nuisance on the beaches?
22 MR. CHAMBERS: I would say close to that,
23 but there will be some nuisance. I wouldn't want
24 to stand here and say that we could guarantee it.
25 But if you produce another—now, not live ones, but
-------
2387
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 the dead ones floating off the lake, if you took
3 off 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 million pounds, this
4 definitely has got to be a tremendous improve-
5 nent.
6 MR. STEIN: Well, here, what I an doing
7 is looking for some way so we won't have that die-
8 off next year. Mow, you say no Canadian trawlers
9 are needed. If we get an estimate and we get the--
10 if you don't have the capacity and we have Canadian
11 trawlers, this may be a method of getting rid of
12 the alewives. wouldn't it?
13 MR. CHAMBERS: There are boats that
14 are not being utilized today. There is two,
15 there have been two, large trawlers in the
16 75-foot class area that hold 60 tons that
17 are not being used. These are owned by
18 people in the Great Lakes.
19 MR. STEIN: But that is just two. What
20 I am saying, do we have enough equipment to handle
21
the Lake Michigan problem on the American side?
22
Let us suppose money were no object; we
23 were to tell you to come up with a fair price
24 Could the American Trawler Fleet get enough boats
into Lake Michigan to be reasonably sure we wouldn't
-------
2388
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 have alewives littering the beaches this year?
3 MR. CHAMBERS: I believe there are other
4 ways of doing it than by importing Canadian boats.
5 MR. STEIN: Like what?
6 MR. CHAMBERS: I think there are vessels
7 in the United States Navy, for one example, that
8 could be utilized.
9 MR. STEIN: No, I don't think — let's look
10 at this. Here is what I am thinking. What I an
11 looking for is a reasonable method, and I am just
12 exploring this, that we in the states can get
13 together to get rid of these alewives so we won't
14 be faced with the nuisance problem next year. Now,
15 you have an American fishing fleet. I think we have
16 to look to private enterprise for that. The question
17 is--let me make this first assumption--with the boats
18 available both from the Canadian and the American
19 side you would have no doubt that we could seine
20
enough alewives so we wouldn't have the problem, is
21 that correct?
22
MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
23 MR. STEIN: All right. Now, if this is
4 the case, the question is, if we can't do it with
25
the American fleet alone we have to determine where
-------
2389
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 we can get it.
3 What would you think the cost would be to
4 augment your costs so this could be the kind of
5 enterprise—and I an not suggesting this, that we
6 are going to do this, but j; an exploring the
7 possibility. Supposing the states and we wanted to
8 get together and use the existing commercial fleets,
9 giving, preference, of course, to the American boats,
10 but augmenting this with Canadian boats, how much
11 would this cost us? HOW much would we have to put
19
up in Federal funds and Stats funds or public funds to
13 have you utilize this method so we wouldn't have
4 this alewife nuisance?
15 MR. CHAMBERS: well, this is a rather hard
16
question to answer for two reasons. One of them is
17
we do not know the number of days that this would be
18
needed. NOW, for an operation that these vessels
19
cruise, they would have to be contracted by the day,
20
not by the poundage, because we have no outlet for
21
the poundage, so what we feel is just is 550 dollars
22
a day. This is a vessel, the crew and the captain.
23
MR. STEINi How much of this would have to
24 A
come from public funds? For example, you are going
25
to get some money for the alewife catch, aren't you?
-------
2390
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 MR. CHAMBERS: If there is a place for
3 them. This is what controls our production now,
4 the ready markets that we have control the produc-
5 tion that we now have.
6 MR. STEIN: All right. Let me ask you,
7 a boat would cost 550 dollars a day to control
8 alewives?
9 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
10 MR. STEIN: All right. Now, how many boats
11 do you think we would need? I am trying for a ball-
12 park estimate here.
13 MR. CHAMBERS: There are twenty available—
14 MR. STEIN: No, how many boats do you
15 think we would need to control the whole problem?
16 Let's suppose I had all the money in the
1? world and I said to you, "Mr. Chambers, you get a
18 fleet of boats and seine those alewives as they come
19 up," how many boats would you think you would need?
20 MR. CHAMBERS: If you want roe to be perfect-
21 ly frank and honest --
22 MR. STEIN: Yes.
23 MR. CHAMBERS: '—I don't know.
24 MR. STEIN: Well, if we are going to come
25 up with this as a possible solution, and I think
-------
2391
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 this has some intriguing possibilities* it is much
3 better to seine those alewives, much better than bul!
4 dozing then off the beaches once they get on there,
5 If we are thinking in terras of this, — in terns
6 of an immediate public program to deal with this
7 and are going to utilize your boats — we are
8 going to have to come up with some kind of cost
9 estimates to see if this is feasible —-
10 MR. CHAMBERS: Right.
11 MR. STEIN* and if we have the
12 resources to do it. I think you have raised
13 a very, very interesting possibility. But I
14
do believe we are going to have to have you
15 people go home with our fishery experts and sharpen
16 your pencils and see if we can come up with an
17 estimate.
18 MR. CHAMBERS: Right. NOW, we are here
for a starting point. And this, I say, your twenty
vessels that you now have is a starting point. This
21
is what is going to prove your knowns and your un-
22
knowns, where at the moment I wouldn't say 40 would
do it, maybe 20 can do it, maybe 10 can do it. I
24 doubt it. I doubt it very much.
25
But I would say it is in the realm of 30
-------
2392
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 boats. I would say. But this is just a halfway
3 educated guess.
4 MR. STEIN: Thirty boats would amount to
5 what, about 15 thousand dollars a day? Right?
6 MR. CHAMBERS} In that realm, yes.
7 MR. STEINi How many days would you think
8 they would have to run to do the job?
9 MR. CHAMBERS: well, we found last year
10 it started when the run was tapering off, so that
11 would have been from the first part of July through
12 the middle of August—no, it wasn't. It was over by
13 August, actually, we had Federal meetings in Muskegor
14 August 3rd, and it was done. so it would be roughly
15 around a four or five week period.
16 MR. STEIN: In other words, you would
17 estimate that the clean-up program probably would
18 cost about a half million dollars?
13 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
20 MR. STEIN: All right.
21 Now, again, if this is an estimate, we can
22 come up with firm figures and put it to you with the
23 resources of the four States and the Federal
24 Government, and if we cannot have an alewife problem
25 here with about a half a million dollar expenditure
-------
I 2393
! KEITH CHAMBERS
2 from public funds, this nay be something very well
3 that the Conferees may very carefully consider.
4 But I think before we can entertain a proposition
5 like that, we pretty much have to have cost figures
6 and a kind of check from the Bureau of Commercial
7 Fisheries and your state fisheries groups that
8 this would reasonably do the job.
9 But it seems to me that what you are
10 presenting here may be an avenue that we would
11 seriously consider.
12 MR. HOLMER: It certainly so appears, Mr.
13 Chairman.
14 But I have a preliminary question.
15 The last paragraph of your statement, Mr.
16 Chambers, says, "If the same cooperation were
17 received by the local commercial operators as is
18 suggested to foreign vessels."
19 I wonder if you could elaborate a little
20 bit as to what you mean by the same cooperation?
21 MR. CHAMBERS: Well, the articles that we
22 have read within the past week, that the Government
23 was going to lease these Canadian vessels and man
24 them with American crews to get by this Federal
25 curtailment, well, being selfish, like all humans
-------
239^
KEITH CHAMBERS
2 are, I would like this kind of a deal. I would
3 rather lease my boat to the government and sit hone
4 and draw the same kind of money without endeavoring
5 to work it or to earn your keep, so to speak.
6 MR. HOLMERs But this is what you meant
7 by this statement?
8 MR. CHAMBERS: well, I mean I am just
9 bringing out a point here. This is, I think, a
10 better deal for the Canadians than what it is for
11 the Americans. This was the example I am using.
12 MR. STEIN: Before we get into it, I think
13 what we have to do, and I don't think there is any
14 question, at least I hope I am speaking for the
15 Conferees--
16 MR. CHAMBERS: could I interrupt here for
17 just a moment? what I am trying to emphasize or
18 bring out here is that when help is needed let's
19 take care of what we already have first.
20 MR. STEIN: Sure.
21 MR. CHAMBERS: And from there on, let's
22 See where we have to go.
23 MR. STEIN: I don't think there is any
24 question here, and I don't know that I speak for all
25 the conferees, that at least the people at this
-------
2395
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 table would prefer to use—after all. Lake Michigan
3 is an American lake--we would prefer to use American
4 equipment and American resources before we go some-
5 where else.
6 I think what we do need, though, is kind
7 of a hard-nosed nuts and bolts proposition where we
8 can determine what is needed and for how long to
9 rid Lake: Mich ig.an of -alewives or keep it
10 under control. secondly, how much it is going to
11 cost. And thirdly, how much American equipment and
12 American personnel we have available. And then if
13 we have to augment that by a foreign source, we
14 will do it.
15 But I think until we have those first
16 questions answered, it is going to be very hard for
17 the public agencies to mount the program if we are
18 going to use the fishing fleet as an instrument of
19 control this summer.
20 I do think, sir, we all have a lot of work
21 to do and this very well may prove to the benefit
22 of your group and the Governmental group if this
23
proves to be feasible. it is certainly an avenue
24 that we have to pursue.
25 MR. CHAMBERSs Right. I agree with you
-------
239$
I KEITH CHAMBERS
2 a hundred percent.
.3 But here are the questions that have been
4 asked me since these news releases came out. "Well,
5 this is fine, the Canadians are coining in to kill
6 off the alewife. what are you fellows going to do?"
7 This is what has been projected to the public.
8 So I would like to have the public read
9 some of this, possibly, to either counteract it or
10 get some true basic figures out.
11 DR. BORUFF: Mr. Chairman.
12 MR. STEIN: Yes, Dr. Boruff.
13 DR. BORUFF: Using your terminology, while
14 we are in this nuts and bolts consideration, we
15 should also consider the cost of drying these fish
16 to fish meal, which hasn't been in your discussion
> . " .
17 so far. This would also not be a small figure.
18 MR. STEIN: That's correct.
19 MR. CHAMBERS: This is a little bit out
20 of my realm. I think Mr. Angwall is here who can
21 probably—
22 MR. STEIN: Well, I think we have pursued
23 this as far as possibly we can go now, and I do
24 think this warrants a little technical workup so we
25 have something really specific to deal with, and I
-------
2397
1 KEITH CHAMBERS
2 would suggest that we might try to get the technical
3 staffs together to work this up.1 ,
4 MR. CHAMBERSi Fine.
5 MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
6 or questions?
7 If not, thank you very much, Mr. Chambers.
8 MR. CHAMBERSi Thank you.
9 (Applause.)
10 MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer.
11
WISCONSIN PRESENTATION
12 "
13 MR. HOLMERj Mr. Chairman, fellow Conferees
14 ladies and gentlemen.
15 It is a great privilege for me to present
16 to this audience the Governor of the state of
17 Wisconsin, the Honorable Warren P. Knowles.
18
STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE WARREN P., KNOWLES
19 GOVERNOR
STATE OR WISCONSIN:;
20
21 GOVERNOR KNOWLES: Mr. Stein, Conferees,
22 ladies and gentlemen.
23 I am very pleased to have the opportunity
24 to be here today, and I want to express my apprecia-
25 tion to Mr. Stein as Chairman and to the state of
-------
2398,
j GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 Michigan for interrupting their presentation that
3 I might have this occasion to present the Wisconsin
4 story.
5 I am happy to really have this opportunity
6 to join with those who share the Wisconsin interest
7 in the future of Lake Michigan and the enhancement
8 of America's great water resources.
g It is my purpose to preface the formal
10 introduction of Wisconsin's presentation with the
H firm assurance that the Badger State, to the extent
12 °f its resources, will give full and aggressive
13 support to the conference recommendations, which
14 are capable of accomplishment.
15 Having been a member of the Wisconsin
16 Legislature or Executive Branch of government for
17 a period of 24 out of the last 28 years, I am fully
18 cognizant of the history of Wisconsin's pollution
19 problems and the programs which have been enacted
20 into law. I myself have always been concerned as
21 a conservationist with the matter of preservation
22 of our water, our land, and our forests as our roost
23 precious natural resources. I, therefore, at this
24 time would like to briefly review the history of
25 the anti-pollution activities in the state of
- :-'r' ' '•
-------
2399
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 Wisconsin.
3 During the early days of my legislative
4 experience, from 1940 until 1948, there was very
5 little recognition given to the problem or the
6 effects of lake and stream pollution. In 1949,
7 however, Wisconsin did enact the water pollution
8 control law. This law created a committee on water
9 pollution and appropriated funds for the study of
10 pollution and the enforcement of abatement provisions,
H During the period again from 1950 to 1965,
12 while the water pollution committee was active, little,
13 if any. further attention was given tc legislation
14 concerning water pollution.
15 In early 1961, legislation was introduced
16 relative to detergents and also a boat toilet law
17 was passed. The detergent bill deferred the effec-
18 tive date of a prohibition against non-degradable
19 detergents until 1967. The boat toilet law was
20 vetoed.
21 In 1963, another unsuccessful attempt was
22 made at passage of legislation to restrict the use
23 of boat toilets.
24 Shortly after I took office in 1965 as
25 Governor, I created the Governor's Committee on water
-------
2400
l GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
Resources, composed of both citizen and legislative-
A -
. members. This special committee held hearings
4 throughout the state for an 8-month period and
_ developed a broad and comprehensive anti-pollution
6 control program for Wisconsin.
7 In June, 1966, at a resumed session of
8 our legislature, with bipartisan support we enacted
g a sweeping statewide anti-pollution program that
10 has won praise from both secretary of the interior
U Udall and from Administrator Quigley of PWPC.
12 Secretary Udall, speaking here in Chicago, said,
13 "It was the finest piece of legislation yet enacted
14 in the national fight to preserve clean water." It
15 became a model for legislation in other states.
16 Some of the provisions of the law are as
17 follows:
18 First, it consolidated the state water
19 responsibilities in one department.
20 Secondly, it organized water management
21 regions to utilize the technical staff in a most
22 efficient and effective manner.
23 Thirdly, it provided financial assistance
24 to accelerate construction of pollution prevention
25 and abatement facilities. A six million dollar
-------
2401
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 annual state program of grants for communities
3 will generate $300 million of pollution abatement
4 effort to supplement the approximately $2 million
5 annually which has been granted by the Federal
6 Government to Wisconsin communities. Tax
7 incentives are also provided to encourage industria
8 participation in our pollution abatement efforts.
9 Fourth, we planned water use management
10 and protection through the Department of Resources.
11 We established criteria to balance the
12 various uses of water.
13 Sixth, to control pollution by identify-
14 ing the sources of pollution, issuing orders to
15 correct that pollution and implementing control
16 through the enforcement wherever needed. And
17 this we are doing.
18 We enacted in this law also a provision
19 for shoreline and flood plain zoning. Every county
20 in Wisconsin is required to adopt zoning ordinances
21 to regulate the use within 1,000 feet of lakes
22 and 300 feet from streams. Most counties have
23 already accomplished this and others are going
24 to complete their work during 1968. These local
25 regulations include sanitary codes to protect all
-------
24-02
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KHOWLES
2 of our waters, including Lake Michigan.
3 The law further provided supervision and
4 proper operation of the sewerage facilities and
5 the installation of septic tanks by licensed
6 sewerage plant operators and the granting of
7 permits for septic tank installation.
8 The law further provided, as enacted in
9 1965, for a department designated as the water
10 Resources Center at the University of Wisconsin.
H It appropriated $600,000 for research at that
tine, which has been since supplemented and we
13 will continue our efforts to provide for new ways
14 of abating and preventing pollution in our lakes
and streams.
I6 And ten, it provided specifically to
1? regulate the water quality and water structures
18 to insure the proper development of necessary
19 means to solve them.
20
21
24
25
NOW, this legislation has been on the boo*
in Wisconsin for two years. Our Resource Developnen
22 Board and its regional counterparts are established
23 and are already functioning effectively
The water Policy Board has issued more tha
43 orders, and in addition more than 50 of the order
8
n
8
-------
2^03
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 issued earlier by the committee on Water pollution
3 have been referred to the Attorney General's office
4 for prosecution.
5 we are very proud of our Wisconsin program.
6 we are proud of the progress that is already being
7 made to deal with water pollution from all sources
8 within the State.
9 We are also determined--determined to
10 proceed at full speed with the execution of the
11 program. In December, for instance, we held hearings
12 on pollution on the Upper Fox River and the Root
— River and other streams in southeastern Wisconsin.
14 Last month we held two days of hearings on pollution
15 on the Lower Fox River, and now we are beginning a
16 series of separate hearings on the Milwaukee River
17 outside of Milwaukee County.
18 All of these hearings are necessary as a
19 prerequisite to new and more rigorous orders to
municipalities and industries who may be contaminating
21 or polluting these rivers. Abatement.orders will be
22
issued just as rapidly as possible and we intend to
23 enforce these orders strictly to require compliance
by both municipalities and industries wherever it is
25 possible to do so.
-------
2404
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 Wisconsin, too, has welcomed the decision
3 by Congress to require all States to adopt inter-
4 state water quality standards. Wisconsin not only
5 moved quickly to adopt these interstate standards,
6 but it is applying these to the inland waters as
7 well.
8 Giving strength to our anti-pollution
9 effort was the enactment last year of a sweeping
10 reorganization of our State Government, reducing
H the total number of agencies from 87 to 28. The
12 Reorganization Act brought most of our State
13 natural resource functions together under one
14 coordinate Department of Natural Resources. In
l5 addition, we gave the power to control air pollution
16 and solid wastes to the newly created Department of
17 Natural Resources.
18 The idea of separate agencies administer-
19 ing State responsibilities for fish and game and
20 water simply would not stand. Our land resources,
21 our fish and game, our forests, our lakes are so
intertwined that they have to be managed together
23 for proper environmental control. This was our goal,
24 This is what we have begun to do.
25 In addition, we have established a Natural
-------
2405
j GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 Resources Council of State Agencies to work as a
3 coordinating body to represent the natural resource
4 interests and activities of the various agencies of
5 State Government. I net with this group again
6 yesterday morning. It involves all of the agencies
7 that have anything to do with air, land, water,
8 education, highways and agriculture, soil and water,
9 and so forth.
10 And while we recognize that we do have a
11 serious pollution problem and note the intensity of
12 action that we are engaged in to combat pollution,
13 it is appropriate to emphasize that Wisconsin
/
14 waters have not reached a critical stage as they
15 have in many states. Fishing is good in the great
16 majority of our lakes and streams, and their use
17 for recreational facilities and tourist attraction
18 has not been diminished. Yet, we will not be
19 satisfied until we have insured the maintenance of
20 high water quality in all of Wisconsin's 8,500 lakes
21 and our 20,000 miles of rivers and streams.
22 But, thanks to the new anti-pollution
23 program, Wisconsin means business, we want action
24 to clean up our waters and we're getting that action.
25 Business and industries, municipalities
-------
2406.
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 are cooperating. The public is now concerned and,
3 too, with the various groups of conservation, women's
4 clubs and civic organizations throughout the state
5 they are becoming more and more participants and
6 involved in the problem of eradicating and eliminat-
7 ing contamination and pollution in the rivers and
8 streams of our state.
9 I would hope that the Federal Government
10 and Congress are equally interested in action.
11 Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly pointed out
12 during the course of this conference that the
13 Federal Government has seriously defaulted on its
14 commitment in the battle against pollution. The
15 Federal Government has failed to live up to either
16 the letter or the spirit of the financial commitment
17 under the Federal water Pollution Control Act of
18 1965.
19
I earnestly urge the members of Congress
from the four States represented at this Conference
21
to make every effort to redeem the commitment Con-
22
gress itself made to the states in the passage of the
23 Federal water Pollution Control Act.
24
The record is clear.
25
Congress authorized 450 million dollars for
-------
2407
j GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 pollution control in 1968. $204 million was
3 actually appropriated.
4 second, the 1969 authorization was
5 supposed to be $700 million, but only $225 million
6 has been requested in the President's budget.
7 instead of the $1 billion $150 million promised
8 for this two-year period, all states will now
g share only about $429 million or $""700 million
10 less than was promised.
H And third, an Interior Department Task
12 Force recommended immediate action to deal with
13 the alewife problem and called for a Federal
14 appropriation of $1.6 million for a concentrated
o
15 attack on this Lake Michigan blight. Yet, the
IS proposed 1969 budget would provide only $100,000
17 in new funds.
18 Obviously, the question confronting the
19 President and the congress in establishing the
20 Federal budget is one of priorities.
21 We in the four states of Illinois, Indiana
22 Michigan and Wisconsin are acutely aware of the agonj/
23 that accompanies the establishment of priorities for
24 government spending. Our State budgets require a
25 degree of very fine tuning far beyond the experience of
-------
2408
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 the Federal Government.
3 In Wisconsin, for example, our current
4 biennial budget of 1 billion 100 million dollars
5 was financed without a tax increase for the first
6 time in 14 years. The achievement was possible for
7 several reasons, but among the most important was
8 the willingness of our legislature and the Chief
) .
9 Executive to establish priorities of need and to
invest the state resources according to those
11 priorities.
12
We faced the fact that no government or
13 no family can do all the things that it would like
14 to do. we recognized that we had to decide, item
by item, what purpose would be achieved first, second
16 , ,
and last.
17
we made our choices and the battle against
18
air and water pollution is high on our list of
19
priorities. As a result, our State grants and
20
incentives to municipalities for treatment plants
21
and tax credits to private enterprise are fully
22
funded and the grants have been made In many
23
instances in the early part of January of this year.
24
All too often, Federal officials and
25
political spokesmen have publicly set every desirable
-------
2409
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 objective as a goal. They ignore the realities
3 of resource allocation and they have made every
4 promise, held out every hope, and kindled every
5 flame. In short, they have ignored priorities
6 and responsibilities while holding out false hopes
7 to the public. And believe me, we can no longer
8 afford, either at the state or the Federal level,
9 to operate on deficiency budgets to a point where
10 we are close to bankruptcy at the national level
11 at the present time.
12 As I indicated in my opening remarks,
Wisconsin is prepared to cooperate fully in the
14 support of the recommendations that are developed
by this Conference, we are unequivocally committed
16
to meet our responsibilities in the preservation of
17
Lake Michigan. It must be recognized, however, that
18
the Federal Government has established certain
19
obligations beyond the financial commitments under
20
the Federal Water Pollution control Act.
21
Let me mention a few specifically:
22
First, the Federal Government must
23
recognize and help the states deal with the grow-
24
ing threat to Lake Michigan which is created by
25
the menace of the alewife.
-------
2410
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 The alewife problem demands and deserves immediate
3 attention for several reasonst
4 First, tons of alewives that wash up
5 onto Lake Michigan shores pose a serious threat to
6 the tourist and recreation industry of the four
7 States and are an extremely unpleasant nuisance
8 to those who live near the lake, and certainly an
9 economic loss to all of the States who are involved
10 in the promotion of tourists, recreation and con-
11 servation activities.
12 Secondly, the Conferees here today are
13 acutely aware of the pollution problems caused by
14 the excessive nutrients.
15 Every schoolchild knows the story of
16 •
the Indians who, hundreds of years ago, placed
17
small fish beside his corn seeds as he planted
them. This early method of fertilization of the
19
soil may have been done for other reasons, but
20
certainly its effect as far as the fertilization
21
of the ground was a good one.
22
Just think of the tremendous fertilizing
23
effect on the bottom of Lake Michigan where skin
24
divers tell us that alewives are from three to
25
six feet deep on the bottom at some portions of
-------
2411
I GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 the lake. That huge amount of nutrients helps to
3 nourish all of the undesirable growth that we're
4 trying in other ways to reduce.
5 Thirdly, the publicity given to the
6 pollution of Lake Michigan has raised the expecta-
7 tions of the people to the extent that they are
8 looking for immediate and dramatic improvement in
9 the water quality. The elimination or the drastic
10 reduction in the number of alewives would provide
11 tangible results that the public anticipates and
12 expects.
-- Both Michigan and Wisconsin have under-
14 taken programs of stocking Lake Michigan and Lake
15 Superior with coho salmon. These, of course,
16 have had a phenomenal growth with their voracious
17 and enormous appetites for alewife. At the same
IP
time, the coho is generating a new enthusiasm among
19 sports fishermen and have the potential for boost-
ing the tourist industry along the shores of the
21
Great Lakes.
22
If the Federal Government were to
23 marshal its anti-pollution forces in the battle
24
against the alewives, we could make significant
25
gains within a short period of time and demonstrate
-------
2412
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 our determination to fight pollution in Lake
3 Michigan.
4 Other specific obligations, I think,
5 include:
6 First, the establishment of a feasible
7 and aggressive timetable for abatement of industria
8 and municipal pollution around the lake.
9 second, guideslines must be established
10 to eliminate the dumping of waste and sewage by
11 boats into the Great Lakes.
12 Third, dredging and the deposit of
10
polluted waste by the corps of Engineers must be
14
controlled while, at the same time, maintaining
adequate channels for commercial shipping.
16
I recognize, as everyone at this
17
Conference, that these problems are very difficult
18
and very complex. But like those challenges we
19
face within each state, they must be dealt with
20
and overcome.
21
I have often said that we do not have
22
a magic wand, those of us who are in legislative
23
or executive positions. There is not at the present
24
time a miracle pill that would dispose of pollution
25
wastes in one fell swoop. it is going to take
-------
2413
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 money, patience, understanding, and public support.
3 The problem is smelly and slimy and green, and
4 there is only one way we are going to really cope
5 with this problem and that is through the utiliza-
6 tion of our best efforts and talents and green-
7 backs as a means of solving the problem.
8 I want this conference to know that
9 under my administration, and with the cooperative
10 efforts of the Legislature, the state agencies and
11 our people, Wisconsin stands ready to do its part
12 in the fight against water pollution within our
13
State as well as in our border waters.
14 If the Federal Government will actively
15 fulfill its role, the role that it has created
16
for itself, I think we can make even more progress.
17
We are certainly willing to recognize and to cooper4te
18
with the Federal Government on a partnership basis
19
in treating these problems.
20
And so I urge the members of congress to
21
review the water pollution problems in the terms
22
of the nation's priorities of need. If they
23
determine that anti-pollution efforts are truly
24
a priority item, I hope they will secure adequate
25
Federal financing for the program. If the problems
-------
2414
1 GOVERNOR W. P. KNOWLES
2 related to water pollution are not so urgent as
3 to take the priority over all other national needs,
4 then let then tell us so, let then tell the Americai
5 people, so that the public will no longer antici-
6 pate the fast Federal action that has been so
7 long promised.
8 Our challenge is to reverse the trend
9 of more than 50 years of contamination, pollution,
10 eutrophication and netting in our lakes, streams
11 and rivers. I am here prepared to say to all of
12 you that Wisconsin is ready, willing and able to
13 do its part.
14 Thank you.
15 (Applause.)
16 MR. STEINt Thank you very much for a
17 very complete and inspiring speech, Governor.
18 I am sure it sets a pattern and a blueprint for
19 the State-Federal cooperative Program.
20 We will now return to the Michigan
21 presentation.
22 Mr. Vogt.
23
MICHIGAN PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
24
25 MR. VOGTi Mr. Chairman, I have several
-------
2415
JOHN VOGT
2 letters and communications which I would like at
3 this time to introduce into the record, and they
4 are being distributed now. we will not read them,
but I would like to just read the name of the
6 person who wrote the letter and the city or the
7 organization which he represents.
8 The first letter is from Mr. H. Wybenga,
9 the city Superintendent of the city of zeeland,
10 Michigan.
11 The second letter is from the City of
12 Charlevoix, dated January 15, and is signed by
13 Mr. James Taylor, City Superintendent.
14 The third letter is dated January 4th
15 from a firm of attorneys at Bridgman, Michigan.
16 The firm name is Lagoni & Davis, and the letter
17 is signed by Mr. William O. Lagoni, Chairman,
18 Park Committee, City of Bridgman.
19
The next communication is dated January 1!
from the Parke-Davis Company at Detroit, and it is
signed by Mr. Charles H. Kupsky, General Manager.
22
The next communication is from the Martin
Marietta corporation, and it is from Mr. Roy
24 Calvin, the Director of Public Relations for the
25
Corporation,
th
-------
2416
1 JOHN VOGT
2 Next is a statement prepared by Mr.
3 John Kinney and Mr. Charles B. Wurtz, consulting
4 Engineer and consulting Biologist, respectively,
5 for the Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Company, and
6 this is dated the 22nd of January, 1968.
7 The next communication with attachments
8 is from the Joseph B. Stinson Company, dated
9 January 31st, signed by Joseph B. Stinson.
10 The next is a communication from the
11 Michigan Society of Professional Engineers, dated
12 January 22nd, signed by Clair Aiken, Vice President
13 of the Society.
14 The next statement is from the Michigan
15 Society of Planning Officials, dated January 16,
16 signed by Mr. Bruce c. Brown, Executive Secretary.
17 The next is a statement by the Michigan
18 Pesticide Council, dated January 31, and it is signed
19 by Mr. Norman Spring, Chairman, Michigan Pesticide
20 council. Grand Haven.
21 The next statement is from the Michiana
22 Watershed, Inc., at Niles, dated January 26, 1968,
23 signed by Mr. S. R. Dunnuck, Jr., Secretary of
24 the Berrien County chapter.
25 Mr. Chairman, these communications were
-------
2417
! CITY OF ZEELAND
2 all addressed to Mr. L. F. Oeming, the Executive
3 Secretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commis-
4 sion as a result of the notification by him to
5 these people inviting statements either orally
6 or written. These written statements I would like
7 to have introduced into the record.
8 MR. STEIN: Without objection, they
9 will appear in the record as if read.
10 (Which said statements are as follows:)
11 CITY OF ZEELAND ZEELAND'S "1970" PLAN
Building for the Future
12
21 south Elm Street - Zealand, Michigan
13
14 January 8, 1969
15 Michigan Water Resources Commission
200 Mill Street
16 Lansing, Michigan 48926
17 Attention: Mr. Loring F. Oeming, Executive
Secretary
18
Dear Sirs
19
20 In answer to your letter dated December
21 29, 1967, and the instructions I received from
22 the City council at their January 2, 1968 meeting,
23 I would like to make the following statement on
24 the city's behalf:
25 The activated sludge plant which treats
-------
2418
1 CITY.OF ZEELAND
2 the city's waste materials was expanded two years
3 ago. At present we are at 50% plant capacity with
4 the' B.O.D. and suspended solids removal at 90%
5 or above. Our average B.O.D. in milligrams per
6 liter is 14 with the suspended solids at 28 mi 111-
7 grams per liter. This would place in the north
8 branch of the Black River a 30 pound average of
9 B.O.D. waste and a 83 pound average waste of
10 suspended solids per day. Our average flow is
11 just under one-half million gallons per 24 hours.
12 Therefore, I am sure that the city does not con-
13 tribute to the pollution of Lake Michigan which
14 is twelve miles from the city. I understand that
15 the change of water in Lake Macatawa is about a
16 two year cycle.
17 The City of Zeeland is interested in
18 the watershed and would do everything in its
19 power to retain or restore the lake to its original
condition.
21
Respectfully yours.
CITY OP ZEELAND, MICHIGAN
(Signed) Herb Wybenga
H. Wybenga, City Superintendent
23 HW/nt
ccs Mr. Donald Pierce, Michigan State Health Dept.
Mr. Carl Danielson, Zeeland Councilman
Mr. Leon Van Harn, Zeeland City clerk
Mr. Tom Hoogerhyde, Mich. State Health Dept.
-------
rCHARLEVOIX
2 •...-.
3 CITY OP CHARLEVOIX
PPPICE OP CITY SUPERINTENDENT
4 CHARLEVOIX, MICHIGAN
5
January 15, 1968
6
7 Mr. Loring P. Oening
Executive Secretary
8 water Resources Commission
200 Mill Street
9 Lansing, Michigan 48926
10
Dear Sirs
11
12 Subject* Federal conference on Pollution of Lake
Michigan and ita Tributary Basin
13 —:—
We are a Recreational community with a
14
winter population of 3000 and a summer population
lo
of 7000, located on the northerly part of Lake
16
Michigan. In fact, we are real water-minded, as
Lake Michigan is our west city boundary, connected
18
by a channel to 60-acre Round Lake, that forms
19
the center of the community. It is, in turn,
20
connected by a channel to Lake Charlevoix, which
21
is the third largest lake in Michigan. This
22
receives the flow from the drainage basin of two
23
small rivers; namely the Boyne River and the Jordan
25 River •
-------
2^20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF CHARLEVOEC
Located as we are., we see many places
where raw sewage is allowed to flow into the
rivers and lakes from industries, clubs, and
residences, plus the bilge water from many boats.
In view of this, we strongly recommend more
stringent laws and closer policing to correct
this problem.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OP CHARLEVOIX
(Signed) James Taylor
James Taylor
City Superintendent
JT/bg
Win. O. Lagoni
John E. Davis
LAGONI & DAVIS
Attorneys at Law
310 Red Arrow Highway
Bridgroan, Michigan 49106
Telephone
HOpkins 5-1111
January 4, 1968
Mr. Loring F. Oeming
Executive Secretary
Department of conservation
200 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan
Dear Mr. Oeroing: Re;
Federal conference on
Pollution of Lake Michigan
and its Tributary Basin
-------
• 2421
1 CITY; OF BRIDGMAN
2 At the request of the Mayor and the city
3 Council for the City of Bridgman, Michigan, I an
4 responding to your letter and invitation dated
5 December 29, 1967.
6 The city of Bridgman has a thirty acre paf k
7 located on the shores of Lake Michigan. Both the
8 residents of the city of Bridgman and Lake Township
9 use the beach extensively, as do others from all
10 over the United states.
11 The City is very concerned that unless
12 some action is taken immediately to control the
13 pollution of Lake Michigan one of our greatest
14 natural resources will be lost to the public. Z am
15 sure you are aware of the alewives problem, and the
16 money loss of revenue due to the campers and swimmeis
17 who stayed away from the Lake. Not only have we had
18 a serious loss of revenue, but have had to expend
19 considerable funds to clean the beach.
20 There is no question in our mind that
21 Lake Michigan is being polluted. You have only to
22 walk the beaches and look at the water to determine
23 this, we have been unable to obtain any assistance
24 in the abatement of any pollution in our area, ex-
25 cept by our own efforts through the city. The City
-------
2422
1 CITY OF BRIDQMAN
2 has spent a considerable amount of money cleaning
3 up the beaches in the City. Unless some immediate
4 action is taken by the Federal and State govern-
5 ment to assist the local communities the pollution
6 of Lake Michigan will occur faster than the local
7 efforts can be taken to control it.
8 It is our hope that immediate action will
9 be taken to control the pollution of Lake Michigan.
10 You may be assured of our enthusiastic support of
11 any measures taken to abate the pollution.
12
Sincerely,
13 (Signed) William O. Lagoni
William O-. Lagoni, Chairman
14 Park Committee, City of
Bridgman
15 WOL:jmh
16 CCs Clerk, City commission
17 .'---.
18 PARKE-DAVIS & COMPANY
19 Detroit, Michigan 48232 U.S.A.
Holland, Michigan
20 18,8 Howard Avenuu
21 January 12, 1968
22
Mr. Loring P. Oeming
23 Executive Secretary
Water Resources commission
24 200 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan 48926
25
-------
2^23
j PARKE-DAVIS & COMPANY
2
Dear Mr. Oeming:
3
4 I would like to thank you for your
5 letter of invitation to the Federal conference
6 on pollution of Lake Michigan and its tributary
7 basin scheduled for January 31. 1968.
8 It will be impossible for me to attend
9 this session; however, we, as a company, are
10 extremely interested in obtaining a transcript
11 of the information gathered at this meeting, we
12 feel this approach of having industry and state
13 governments assemble to discuss problems that are
14 of mutual concern is extremely necessary and
15 essential in order that we better understand each
16 others problems and concerns.
17 I would like to thank you again for the
18 invitation and would hope that it would be possible
19 for you to transmit any information obtained at
20 this meeting to us.
21
Respectfully yours,
22 (Signed) Charles H. Kupsky
Charles H. Kupsky
23 General Manager
24 jw
25 ' - - -
-------
2424
1 MARTIN MARIETTA
2
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION
3
4 Lake Michigan Pollution
5
Martin Marietta Corporation's policy
6
incorporates the basic concept that the environ-
7
ment adjoining its facilities will be protected
8
from pollution. continuing recognition is being
9
given to governmental policies and satisfaction
10
of legal requirements as they concern land reclama-
tion, control of atmospheric and water pollution.
12
In new construction or the modernization
13
of company installations, the corporation requires
14
that all relevant regulations pertaining to air
and water pollution are met.
16
In the interest of hastening an overall
17
solution, it is suggested that any legislation
18
considered for pollution abatement should include
19
I incentives that might encourage the entire indus-
20 | -
.6 trial community, rather than relying on solely
21
punitive legislation. The company encourages
zz
full participation of our staff in seeking solu-
23
tion of pollution problems and feels that Govern-
ment-industry teamwork is the best avenue for
25
-------
2425
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B, WURTZ
2 meaningful progress.
3
4
5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF
6 DREDGING, POLLUTION, AND THE GREAT LAKES
7
(Progress Report No. 1)
8
g Prepared by
10
John E. Kinney
11 Consulting Engineer
1910 Cambridge Road
12 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
13 and
14 Charles B. Wurtz
Consulting Biologist
15 Lasalle college
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19141
16
17 for
18 Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co
19 22 January 1968
20
21
22 As a result of the Federal water pollu-
23 tion control conference agreement of December 21,
24 1965,.against the disposal of "deleterious waste
25 solids" into Lake Michigan, representatives of
-------
2426
1 J. E.-KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 dredging companies met with Frank DiLuzio, then
3 Assistant secretary of Interior in charge of
4 water pollution, in Washington, D.C. In Mr.
5 DiLuzio's stated opinion such a prohibition with-
6 out determining alternatives and without a deter-
7 ruination of the evidence that such disposal was
8 in fact causing pollution was premature. He re-
9 ported that the Corps of Engineers and the Federal
10 Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA)
11 were arranging a joint study of various methods of
12 handling dredged material and that until the study
13 was completed, dredging and disposal would continue
14 as in the past.
15 The congress subsequently funded such a
16 joint study (§1 million) and later extended it by
17 a second appropriation (for a total of $6 million)
18 for the second year of research and analysis. Two
19
years was the original estimate of time required.
but it now appears this was too optimistic a fore-
21 cast.
22
Because of the vital significance of the
23
decisions on the dredging industry, representatives
24
of that industry decided to undertake a separate
25
and independent study. The industry felt that if
-------
2427
I J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 there are adverse effects from disposing of
3 dredged material in the lakes, a solution might
4 include changes in practice of haulage and/or
5 dumping. As the contractors in the activity
6 their knowledge of practicalities would be of
7 value. The dredging industry representatives
8 volunteered this assistance to Mr. DiLuzio when
9 he described the advisory committee being assembled
10 to coordinate and evaluate the study. He agreed
11 industry representation on the committee could
12 be helpful but an invitation was never extended.
13 One other factor motivated the dredging
14 industry's independent study. permits to dispose
15 of dredged material in Lake Erie were refused by
I6 the corps on the basis of a letter memorandum from
17 the PWPCA. This letter offered the opinion that th
18 material to be dredged "could" cause pollution
19 since it contained organic matter. Whether it woul
20 cause pollution and to what extent were not defined
2i The dredging representatives felt that a better
22 guideline was required.
23 In order to develop data from which sound
24 conclusions could be drawn Dunbar and Sullivan
25 Dredging Company retained two consultants, an
-------
2428-,
1 J. E. KIHNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 aquatic biologist and a sanitary engineer, to out-
3 line surveys in Lake Erie and Lake Michigan. The
4 analytical work was to be done by independent
5 laboratories, the Detroit Testing Laboratory, Inc.,
6 and the pollution Control Laboratories, Inc., in
7 Chicago. Appraisal of data and conclusions are
8 the responsibility of the consultants.
9 The surveys were designed to define;
10 1. whether the sampling procedure em-
11 ployed by the FWPCA at the site where
12 dredging is to be done accurately measure
13 the polluting potential of the material
14 to be dredged.
15 2. whether the water quality over the
16 authorized dumping sites varies from lake
17 quality at remote sites.
18 3. whether the water quality at the dis-
19 posal site varies at time of dumping, and
20 if so, for what period of time.
21 4. Whether there is an influence on
99
' water quality from disposal of dredged
23 material which extends beyond the dis-
24 posal area.
25 5. Whether there is a detrimental
-------
2429
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 physical or biological effect on the
3 lake bottom due to the dredged material.
4 6. Whether there is a detrimental
5 physical, biological or chemical effect
6 on the water quality in the lake due to
7 the disposal of dredged material.
8 Such answers are required to determine
9 whether lake disposal of dredged material should
10 cease. The importance of such a decision is
11 emphasized by consideration of the alternatives
12 for disposing of such material, either on shore
13 or within diked areas. Such approaches:
14 -- require specialized equipment and make
15 bottom dump scows obsolete. The economic
16 impact on dredging companies and on the
17 Corps of Engineers is highly significant
18 —increase the cost of disposal some
19 three hundred per cent (300%) . With 108
20 harbors on the Great Lakes the increased
21 cost would be so great as to cause a
22 large reduction in the number of harbors
23 maintained for navigation. This will
directly depress the local economy of
25 each city so affected.
-------
2430
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 -- fill in marsh land and this in turn
3 adversely affects the ecology of the
4 lakes. On-shore disposal would neces-
5 sarily utilize cheaper land and this woul
6 be the marshy bottoms so important as
7 water fowl habitat and sources of
8 biological nutrients, in addition,
9 these marsh lands act as a sponge which
10 controls the balance of a lake water
11 level and the inland water table through
12 its hydrostatic head. The effects of
13 filling the marsh lands along the east
l4 coast is now apparent in the salt water
15 intrusion.
l6 -- permit seepage over long periods of
17 time of the organic and mineral nutrients
18 which may be in the dredged material.
19 This occurs because rainwater, falls on
20 such sites and leaches the salts from
21 the fill. This does not occur when the
22 material is compacted in the bottom of
23 a lake, especially if covered by the
siltation resulting from bottom currents
25
Thus, with the constant leaching from
d
-------
2431
I J . E . KINNEY AN$ ;C. B. WURTZ
2 shore or dike disposal the overall
3 contribution of nutrient to the lake
4 would undoubtedly be greater. If the
5 material is deposited directly into the
6 lake the potential contaminants remain
7 contained and do not enter into chemical
8 or biological recycling.
9 -- are obviously limited by land avail-
10 ability. Since land wash, street wash,
11 reservoir drawdown and residual dis-
12 charges from treatment plants contain
13 organics, there will always be material
14 other than silt or sand in dredgings.
15 Hence this problem of disposal requires
16 a longer term solution than permitted by
17 land availability.
18
TEST SITE LOCATIONS
19
The two studies were in Lake Michigan
20
and Lake Erie.
21
The Lake Michigan disposal area is in
22
Indiana waters at the site authorized by the
23
Corps of Engineers. Dredged material came from the
24
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
25
-------
2432
1 J. E. KXNtfEY AND C, B. WURTZ
2 The disposal site is located 1.5 miles
3 northeast of the FIW Gong -- about 8 miles from
4 shore and about 12 miles from the City of Chicago
5 intake. Depth of water at the site is approxi-
6 roately 55 feet.
7 Sampling stations were arranged on a
8 grid with distances from 0.5 miles to 7.0 miles.
9 The latter was eastward of the disposal site and
10 considered to be the control point as representa-
11 tive of lake water quality. It is 14 miles from th|e
12 entrance of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Depth
13 of lake at that point is 72 feet.
l4 The Lake Erie site is downstream from
15 the Detroit River Light and west of the west outer
16 channel between Bouy No. 5 and Bouy No. 7. The
17 authorized disposal site extends for 9000 feet
18 adjacent to the west outer channel and for a dis-
19 tance of 5000 feet to the west. The site is about
20 2 miles from the Michigan shore. Sampling stations
21 were on a grid and varied from 1000 feet from the
disposal point to the extreme corners of the over-
23 all area. The lake depth in this area -r 15 to 18
24 feet.
The water quality analyses done on
-------
2433
1 J . E . KIHNBY AND C . B . WURTZ
2 samples drawn from the Indiana dumping grounds
3 in Lake Michigan include water quality measure-
4 ments at depths of five feet, thirty feet, and one
5 foot from the bottom. A series of 27 samples was
6 taken July 28, 1967, when no dumping was being
7 done. A second series, of 33 samples, was taken
8 October 15, 1967, at 15 to 20 hours after a dump
9 of 91,000 cubic yards of material dredged from
10 Indiana Harbor. Since the material dredged is
11 primarily solid, the most direct assessment of
12 dump effects on lake water would be the measurement
13 of total solids present in the water. These data,
14 among others, were collected by Pollution control
15 Laboratories, Inc. Some analyses of the data
16 follow*
17 Total solids in Water of Indiana Dumping Grounds
18 July 28, 1967
19 Depth 5 ft. 30 ft. Bottom
20 Range of Values 166-207 152-201 152-207
21
Standard Deviation (s) 14 14 19
22
Variance (S2) 216 202 369
Zd
Coefficient of
Variation (V) 7.7* 8.0% 10.7%
25
-------
2434
I J. E. KINNEY A»D C. B. WURTZ
2 Total solids in water of Indiana Dumping Grounds
3 October 15, 1967
4 Depth 5 ft. 30 ft. Bottom
5 Range of Values 139-192 137-204 140-176
or mg/1
B
Standard Deviation (s) 18 19 11
7
Variance (S2) 327 346 131
8
Coefficient of 10.8% 11.4% 6.9%
9 Variation (V)
10
It is apparent from the preceding data
11
that the lake water in the dumping ground is
12
fairly uniform with very little variation about
13
the mean at each stratum.
14
Although the various water strata appeare
to deviate little from each other, a further
16
analysis was done to determine whether or not
17
there was a correlation between dumping and total
18
solids present. Spearman's rank order correlation
19
coefficient was developed for this determination.
20
With one exception none of the derived
21
coefficients showed any correlation. The excep-
22
tion is the comparison between the five-and-thirty-
23
foot depths (T=0.855) on October 15th. A correla-
24
tion in these upper water strata is not surprising
25
-------
2435
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 within 24 hours of a dump, what is surprising is
3 the lack of correlation between 30 feet and the
4 bottom (T«0.391). It is obvious that some pro-
5 nounced horizontal shear effect was dispersing the
6 suspended solids in the deeper water on that day*
7 With the limited data to date no suggestion as
8 to the nature of this phenomenon can be offered
9 except that it probably relates to the internal
10 hydraulics of the lake.
11 The conclusions drawn from evalution of
12 data on solids are supported by other analytical
1- data. However, the concentrations reported for
14 BOD, oil and grease, suspended solids, turbidity
and bacteria were so low, similar appraisal is
16 not feasible.
The range of data from all stations,
18
including the station at the point of dumping,
19
demonstrates that the resultant water quality
20
after dumping is not significantly different
21
from the quality before dumping and definitely
22
not of impaired quality.
23
24
25
-------
2436
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
July 28
Before Dumping
PH
BOD ppm
Oil and grease ppm
Suspended solids ppm
Coliforms
(confirmed)/100 ml.
Fecal Enterococci
Turbidity JTU
PH
BOD ppm
Oil and grease ppm
Suspended solids ppm
Coliforms
(Confirmed)/100 ml. 8-94
Fecal Enterococci
Turbidity JTU
Dump
Site
8.0-8.
<5
0
0
0
2-9
Dump
Site
8.2
5
1
0
8-94
0
0-5
7 Area
Stations
3 8.0-8.3
<5
0
0
0
0-10
October 15
After Dumping
7 Area
Stations
8.2-8.3
5
1
0
4-172
0
0-10
Control
Stations
8.1-8.3
<5
0
0
0
4-6
Control
Station
8.3
5
1
0
14-130
0
2-9
-------
2437
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
The data show no difference between the
2 "
_ two dates for oil, suspended solids and turbidity
3
which confirms the conclusion drawn for solids.
5 Also there was no significant difference
6 in PH or BOD measurements.
7 The data on bacterial counts show an
8 increase in coliforms for the day sampled after
g dumping, but with no measurable fecal streptococci
10 However, it should be noted that the coliforms
n were relatively low (less than 200) and that the
12 control station seven miles to the east had con-
13 centrations in the same order of magnitude. The
14 highest values were surface samples with analyses
15 at lower depths showing lesser concentrations.
16 For example, the surface sample at the dump site
17 had a coliform count of 94 but at 5 feet the count
18 was 33, at 30 foot depth the count was 21, and one
19 foot from the bottom the count was 8. In similar
20 manner at the corresponding depths at the control
21 station the counts were 130 (surface), 33 (5 ft.),
22 21 (30 ft.) and 14 (bottom). This indicates not
23 only that the higher counts were prevalent in the
24 lake but were wind influenced.
25
-------
2438
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 Analysis of Material Dredged
3 There are two questions with respect
4 to material to be dredgeds
5 — does the Peterson dredge, which
6 actually measures only a surface layer
7 of the material, provide a representa-
8 tive sample of the material to *>«
9 dredged?
10 -- does the analysis of the material
11 dredged provide a true indication of
12 the effect of lake disposal of the
13
14
Considering the second question first,
the issue resolves itself into determination of
16
whether any material should be disposed of into
17
the lake if it is "polluted" by any proposed yard
18
stick or whether any material can be disposed of
19
in the lake if it does not cause pollution?
20
There is a big difference. According
21
to Federal law (Section 10 (c) (5) "the discharge
22
of matter into such interstate waters or portions
23
thereof; which reduces the quality of such waters
24
below the water quality standards .... is sub-
25
jeat to abatement." Clearly the test is whether
-------
2^39
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 it adversely affects water quality rather than
3 whether it may be classified as polluted per ae.
4 It is important to note that the eonfer-
5 ence recommendation did not propose exclusion of
6 dredged material but rather "deleterious waste
7 solids and other such material". To be deleterious
8 it must have an adverse effect. simply calling
9 material "polluted" does not demonstrate effect.
10 Analysis of the scow material as it
11 left Indiana Harbor Ship Canal showed a BOD of
12 167 rng/gr, a coliform MPN of 1100 per gr and
13 fecal enterococci counts of 0 to 4000 per gr.
14 This could be classified as polluted in terms of
15 bacterial content but it caused no measurable
16 effect on the lake quality.
17 The bottom sample studies completed to
18 date have been chiefly on materials intended for
19 disposal in the Lake Erie dumping ground. These
20 analyses were performed by the Detroit Testing
21 Laboratory. Of particular interest in this work
22
is the difference in results obtained by the use oi
23 different samples. One sampler, the petersen grab
24 sampler, is a small clam bucket that samples
25
bottom materials to a maximum depth of about four
-------
1 J. E. KINNEY A'ND C. B. WURTZ
2 inches. (This type sampler has been used by the
3 FWPCA.) A second sampler was a tube sampler that
4 took a core of bottom material to a depth of three
5 feet. The second sampler gathers material from
6 depths below the zone of recent deposition in
7 which contaminants are actively reacting with
8 overlying waters.
9 Pour sites within the Old Rouge-Detroit
10 River system were sampled. These were all taken
11 from undisturbed bottoms and included: (1) A site
12 in the Detroit River above the confluence with
13 the Old Rouge River, (2) A site in the mouth of
14 the Old Rouge River, (3) A site in a slip off the
15 Detroit River below the outfall of the Detroit
16 sewage effluent, and, (4) A site in the Detroit
l? River downstream from Site 3.
18 The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
19 test was one of several analyses done on this
20 bottom material. (Other analytical results have
21 not yet been critically reviewed.) The BOD data,
22 expressed as ppm, are tabulated below.
23
24
25
-------
2441
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2
Site Petersen Sample Tube sample
3
1 93.2 16.4
4
2 12.8 15.1
5
3 123.2 31.5
6
4 62.6 16.6
7
8 At Sites 1, 3 and 4 the petersen samples
9 showed significantly higher BOO values than did
10 the tube samples. No significant difference was
11 found at site 2, where the values were practically
12 the same. These data clearly demonstrate the
13 inadequacy of the Petersen grab sampler as a
14 device for measuring potential pollutional loadings
15 from bottom materials to be removed by dredging.
16 In this instance, for example, the sampling
17 technique showed four-fold increase over actual
i8 BOD loads present.
19
SUMMARY
20
21 An appraisal of the problem of disposal
22 of dredged material points up the fact that a
23 simple prohibition on the disposal of such material
24 into lakes does not solve the problem. In fact,
25 alternately proposed solutions such as on-shore
-------
2442
1 J. E. KINNEY AND C. B. WURTZ
2 or within diked area disposal will create even
3 greater adverse effects on the ecology of the
4 lake over a long period of time.
5 The study which is supposed to be
6 underway in Lake Michigan by the corps of
7 Engineers and the Federal Water Pollution Control
8 Administration jointly should be completed before
9 rash decisions are made.
10 The data from surveys in Lakes Erie and
Michigan financed by the dredging industry
12 demonstrates very clearlys
13 — that the sampling procedure employed
by the FWPCA does not measure the pol-
15 luting potential of material to be
16 dredged.
-- the water quality over the authorized
18 disposal sites indicates lake water
19 quality is not adversely affected by the
20 dumping.
21
--there is an indication of quality
22 change at the dumping site but it is very
23 transient (of short duration) and of
24 less than 24 hours.
25 The evaluation of all the data from thj.8
-------
2443
1 J. B. STINSON
2 study is not completed. These data plus those
3 which should be made available from the Federal
4 ' study will adequately answer the question as to
5 whether there are any physical, biological or
6 chemical adverse effects on lake water quality or
/
7 bottom materials.
8 However, until there are data which
9 indicate these conclusions are in error, it is
10 our opinion that the continuance of disposal of
11 dredged material in Lake Michigan is not detri-
12 mental and is in the public interest.
13
14
I5 THE JOSEPH B. STINSON GO.
I6 Designers and Builders of Automation Equipment
Area Code 419-332-8286
17 406 Justice St., Fremont, Ohio, 43420
18
January 31, 1968
19
20 Gentlemen:
21
Several weeks ago I met with a group of
22
boating officials and members of the press at a lodal
23
yacht club. It was decided at that meeting a
24
resolution would be presented at this conference.
-------
2444
! Jv (B* STINSON
2 I endeavored to impress upon these people the
3 injustice they would be doing to the boaters if
4 they were to settle for a partial pollution
5 control system.
6 I also noted at the meeting the Federal
7 water Pollution control Administration report
8 August 7, 1967, indicated a total of 25 states and
9 the Province of Ontario approve holding tanks,
10 or no discharge of sewage. Therefore, a holding
11 tank would be the best consideration because
12 there would be no limitations on your voyaging.
13 With this in mind it would be even more ridiculous
14 to settle for a partial treatment unit, which is
15 subject to human tampering, human failure, and
16 mechanical failure; especially since more than
17 35 states now do not approve of the disinfectant
18 devices. Chlorine can be dangerous if not proper*
19 ly handled or stored. Last Friday 15 persons in
20
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were overcome by leak-
21 •
ing chlorine gas. I also call your attention to
22
Hawaii, with all its surrounding water, calls for
23
sewage control and has approved the holding tank.
24
We now have a design criteria from both
25 .
the American Boat and Yacht Council and The National
-------
2445
I J. B. STINSON
2 Sanitation Foundation for holding tanks and stand-
3 ards for shore connections.
4 In my opinion no self-respecting boat-
5 man wants to add to the pollution problem, no
6 natter how infinitesimal. However, we must be
7 assured the lawmakers are equally as zealous in
8 cleaning up the major sources. How can we, as
9 boaters, ask others to stop polluting the waters
10 if we are willing to settle for partial measures,
11 or perhaps try to get out of it altogether.
12 The production of the coin—operated dock
13 mounted discharge pumps will give 24-hour availi-
14 bility for discharging. This leaves no reasonable
15 excuse to consider questionable quality of sewage
16 discharge into the water.
17 In conclusion, I have attached copies of
18
letters from water control boards from various
states, presently without water pollution laws,
stating their opinions and other pertinant infor-
21
mation for your contemplation.
22
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Joseph B. Stins^n
24
25
-------
1 J. :Bi STINSON
2
BOATING REGULATIONS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM*
3
AUGUST 1964
4
5 NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS
6
Water Sanitation - (1) No fish, offal,
7
bottles, cans, rubbish or other refuse shall be
8
discarded or otherwise disposed in the waters.
9
(2) All vessels operating on the waters
10
shall have a waste receptacle aboard in which all
11
rubbish and refuse shall be deposited. Receptacles
12
shall only be emptied in facilities provided at
13
docks or other specified places.
14
(3) No person shall discharge or other-
15
wise permit the disposal of toilet wastes into
16 .
the waters within One-half mile from the nearest
17
shore, unless such wastes are adequately treated
18
by an effective sewage disposal system, including
43
chemical or heat process, which results in dis-
20
posal of liquid and solid wastes without pollution
AL
00 of the waterss except, that no wastes of any kind
£A ' • .
_, may be disposed in the waters within one-half mile
23
2 of any watdr supply intake.
25 Inspections - The Superintendent or his
-------
2447
1 Jv B. STINSON
2 authorized representative may at any tine board
3 any vessel while afloat or underway to examine
4 documents, licenses, and/or permits relating to
5 operation of the. vessel and to inspect such vessel
6 to determine compliance with regulations.
7
NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
8
9 Water Sanitation - (1) No fish, offal,
10 bottles, cans, rubbish or other refuse shall be
11 discarded or otherwise disposed in the waters.
12 (2) All vessels operating on the waters
13 shall have a waste receptacle aboard in which all
14 rubbish and refuse shall be deposited. Receptacles
15 shall only be emptied in facilities provided at
16 docks or other specified places.
17 (3) No person shall discharge or other-
is wise permit the disposal of toilet wastes into the
19 waters within one mile from the nearest shore, un-
20 less such wastes are adequately treated by an
21 effective sewage disposal system, including chemi-
22 Cal or heat process, which results in disposal of
23 liquid and solid wastes without pollution of th.e
24 waterss except, that no wastes of any kind may be
25 disposed in the waters within one mile of any
-------
2448
! J. B. STINSON
2 water supply intake or within shadow Mountain
3 National Recreation Area.
4 Inspections - The Superintendent or his
5 authorized representative may at any tine board
6 any vessel while afloat or underway to examine
7 documents, licenses, and/or permits relating to
8 .operation of the vessel and to inspect such
9 vessel to determine compliance with regulations.
10
*Excerpts from National park Service Publication
11
(F.R.DOc. 64-6745)
12
13 - - -
14
ORSANCO ACTS TO CONTROL BOAT WASTES
15
16 The Ohio River Valley water Sanitation
17 Commission (ORSANCO) recently passed a resolution
18 aimed at controlling the discharge of wastes from
19 boats and floating facilities in its jurisdic-
20 tional area. The increased popularity of boats
21 and rising river water quality have demanded
22 this action. The resolution reads as followsi
23 "WHEREAS: The discharge of untreated
24 wastes from commercial and pleasure watercraft
25 and floating facilities operating within the
-------
244-9
J. B. STIMSON
1
Compact District may cause pollution contrary to
2
the language and intent of the Ohio River Valley
3 • •
Water Sanitation Compact: and
"WHEREAS: Substantial progress has been
5
made in eliminating discharges of untreated wastes
6
from municipalities, industries, and other on-
shore installations in the Districts
O
g "NOW THEREFORE! For purpose of safe-
.. guarding the waters of the District as specified
n in Article I of the compacti
12 "BE IT RESOLVED: That the following
measures are herebv adopted bv the commission to
Id — ~~ . •"• .
u be followed by the signatory states for the joint
15 cooperative control of waste discharges from
16 watercraft and floating facilities, such measures
17 x to become effective January 1, 1967:
18 "1. NO marine waste-disposal system on
j9 any watercraft or floating facility operated on
2Q waters within the District shall be so constructed
2i and operated as to discharge inadequately treated
22 wastes into these waters.
23 "2. All marine waste-disposal systems
24 shall be sealed or otherwise rendered inoperative
25 on waters where use of such systems is prohibited
-------
2450
i j. B; STINSON
2 federal, state or local regulations.
3 "3. On waters within the compact Dis-
4 trict where the operation of marine waste-disposal
5 systems is permitted, such systems on or within
6 any watercraft or floating facility shall include
7 a suitable operating treatment device for the
8 maceration and disinfection of wastes prior to
9 discharge. In lieu of treatment, wastes from
10 watercraft and floating facilities shall be
11 collected in holding tanks properly equipped so
12 that the wastes can be discharged to approved
13 shore-based installations.
14 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDi That the
15 Commission request that each of the signatory statejs
16 take steps to carry out the provisions of this
17 resolution; and
18 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Cora-
19 mission direct the Engineering Committee to pro-
20
vide a guideline memorandum for use in implementing
21 this resolution; and
22 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDi That, following
23 the effective date on this resolution, the U.S.
4 Cbast Guard and appropriate signatory state enforcej-
25
raent agencies, in connection with their routine
-------
2451
B. STINSON
2 licensing inspections of watercraft and floating
3 facilities operating within waters of the compact
4 District, be requested to report to the appropriat
5 state agency or to the Commission those water-
6 craft and floating facilities not complying with
7 this control measure."
8
9 HIGHLIGHTS, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION,
May 1965
10
11
12
RULES AND
13
REGULATIONS
14
COVERING
15
DISPOSAL OF
16
WASTES FROM
17
WATERCRAFT
18
19
.Adopted by the
20
Texas State Board of Health
21
June 13, 1966.
22
23
TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
24
25
-------
2452
1 J. B. STINSON
2
RULES AND REGULATIONS COVERING
3
DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT
4. '
5 1<0 PURPOSE
6 To prescribe methods and procedures for
7 the construction and operation of marine
8 toilet devices for use on watercraft.
9 Such rules and regulations are con-
10 sidered necessary to assure that the
11 water resources of this State can be
12 developed to provide maximum benefits,
i.e., water supply, recreation and other
14 beneficial uses influenced by quality
15 conditions.
16 2-° AUTHORITY FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS
17
2.1 The state Department of Health was
18 established by Article 4414af Titl«
19 71, 1925, Revised Civil Statutes of
20
Texas, to better protect and pro-
21
mote the health of the people of
22
Texas.
23 2.2 Article 4419, Title 71, 1925, Re-
24
vised Civil Statutes of Texas,
25
states that "The state Board of
-------
2^53
1 J. B* ST.rNSON
2 Health shall have general supervi-
3 sion and control of all matters
4 pertaining to the health of citizenii
5 of this state." By virtue of
6 Article 44183, Title 71, 1925,
7 Revised Civil statutes of Texas,
8 the Commissioner of Health has the
9 power, with the approval of the
10 State Board of Health, "to prescribe
11 and promulgate such administrative
12 rules and regulations not inconsis-
13 tent with any law of the state as
14 may be deemed necessary for the
15 effective performance of the duties
16 imposed upon the State Department
17 of Health and its several Officers
18 and Divisions."
19 2.3 Article 4477«1, Vernon's Texas
20 Civil statutes. Section 20. (b),
21 "The Texas state Department of
22 Health shall take all necessary
23 procedures essential to the protec-
24 tion of any spring, well, pond,
25
lake, reservoir, or other streams
-------
1 J. B. STINSON
2 in Texas, from any condition or
3 pollution resulting from sewage
4 that may endanger the public health
5 and shall have full authority to
6 enforce all the laws of this State
7 relating thereto."
8 2.4 These Rules and Regulations shall
9 constitute the policy of the state
10 Board of Health and shall be en- ,
H forced by the appropriate Local
12 Health Officer as set forth in
13 Articles 4427 and 4430, vernon's
14 Statutes of Texas.
15 3.0 DEFINITIONS
l6 3.1 These rules and regulations for
17 marine toilets have been adopted
18 by the Texas State Board of Health.
19 The following definitions shall
20 apply in the interpretation and
21 enforcement of these regulations.
99
3.2 Boat means any vessel or other
23 watercraft, whether moved by oars,
24 paddles, sails, or other power
25
mechanism, inboard or outboard, or
-------
J.> B. STINSON
2 any other vessel or structure
3 floating upon the waters of this
4 State, whether or not capable of
self -locomotion, including but not
6 limited to cabin cruisers, house-
7 boats, barges, marinas and similar
8 floating objects.
9 3.3 Marine Toilet means any toilet on
10 or within any boat.
11 3.4 Other Disposal Unit means any de-
12 vice on or within any boat, other
a ma fine toilet, which is in-
14 tended for use in the disposal of
15 human body wastes.
16 3.5 Sewage means all human body waste.
17 3.6 Holding Tank - a tank to be used
18 for receiving and retaining sewage.
19 3.7 waters of the state means all
20 streams, lakes, reservoirs, water
21 courses and all other bodies or
22 accumulations of water, natural or
23 artificial, which are contained witl
24 in or flow along the border of or
25 through the territorial jurisdictior
-------
2456
Bv STlfcSON
2 of the state.
3 3.8 Septic Action -Sewage undergoing
'4 putrefaction under anerobic condi-
5 tions.
6 4.0 SEWAGE DISPOSAL DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT
7 4.1 Any marine toilet located on or
8 within any boat operated on waters
9 of this State shall have securely
10 affixed to the discharge outlet a
11 holding tank located on the boat,
12 provided so as to meet the follow-
13 ing specifications;
14 4.1.1 The holding tank shall be so con-
15 structed as to prevent the rexnova
IB of the sewage held therein except
17 by pumping therefrom by onshore
18 facilities.
" A,
19 4.1.2 The holding tank shall be con-
20 structed of material which will
21 withstand the corrosion effects
22 of the sewage and the disinfecting
23 chemicals used. It shall be so
24 located as to minimize the possi-
25 bility of rupture.
'
-------
2^57
1 J.vTB. STINSON
I
2 4.1.3 The holding tank shall be pro-
3 perly vented to the outside of th
4 boat in such a manner as not to
S defile the interior of the boat
6 structure.
7 4.1.4 The contents of holding tanks
8 shall be discharged only to on-
9 shore facilities constructed,
10 operated, and maintained so as
11 to prevent possible entrance of
12 waste materials into the waters
13 of the state.
14 4.2 contents of other disposal units
15 shall be disposed onshore in such
16 a manner as not to create a public
17 health nuisance and to prevent pos-
18 sible entrance into the waters of
13 the state.
20 4.3 Refuse, including garbage, rubbish,
21 and litter, shall be deposited on-
22 shore in approved type receptacles,
23 which are maintained properly, with
24 ultimate disposal in such a manner
25 as to prevent the creation of a
-------
2^58
1 J.. B. . ST.XB.gON
2 public health nuisance as well as
3 prevent possible entrance into the
4 waters of the state.
5 5;0 MINIMUM STANDARDS
6 5.1 Compliance with these rules and
7 regulations will be considered as
8 meeting minimum standards.
9 5.2 Other devices for the control of
10 wastes, from watercraft may be con-
11 sidered as acceptable provided that
12 the local health authority assures
13 the state Department of Health in
writing that such devices are being
inspected and maintained in such a
16 manner as not to constitute a hazar|3
17 to health.
18 5.3 These rules and regulations are not
19
designed to supersede more restrict
20
rules and regulations or ordinances
21 adopted by local political subdivi-
22
sions of the state for the regula-
23
tion of marine toilets and waste frpn
24
watercraft in their area of juris-
diction.
ive
-------
2459
J. B. STINSON
2 ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
801 Bay street
3 Toronto
A. VANCE,LL.D. Telephone 365-1491 D. S. CAVERLY
Chairman General Manager
H.H. ROOT, M.P.P. W. S. MacDONNELL
Vice-chairman
November 27, 1967
AIRMAIL
7
Mr. Joseph B. Stinson,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
President
The Joseph B. Stinson Company Limited,
406 Justice Street
FREEMONT, Ohio 43420,
U.S.A.
Dear Mr. Stinson:
Re: Ontario Regulation 365/66
Thank you for your telephone call
today to our Mr. Murphy.
The above Regulation becomes effective
June 1, 1968. As of that date, all pleasure
craft in the Province of Ontario will be required
to have a device to hold sewage aboard for sub-
sequent disposal ashore, or a macerator chlorinator
which may be used with a temporary OWRC permit un-
til June 1, 1971.
While there is no doubt that this law wil
be enforced, we are looking to the Minister's
Office for a public statement to this effect to
1
-------
2^60
! J. B. STINSON
2 quell any rumours that the law will be changed.
3 Enclosed are two copies of application
4 form No. 1 which you should use to apply for
5 acceptance of your holding tanks. If you will
6 be kind enough to complete the applicable sec-
7 tions of the form and send one copy to us, it
8 will receive our prompt attention. We will also
g appreciate receiving a brief description of the
10 dockside sewage pump which you propose to market
11 in Ontario.
12 I trust that this is satisfactory.
13
Yours very truly,
14 (Signed) P. G. Spenst
P. G. Spenst, Supervisor.
15 Plumbing and Boating Branch,
Division of sanitary Engineering
16
17 - - -
18
ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
19
Toronto
20
21 December 5, 1967
22
The Joseph B. Stinson Company,
23 406 Justice Street,
FREEMONT, Ohio 43420,
24 U. S. A.
25 ATTENTION: Mr. Joseph B. Stinso
President
-------
2461
1 J. B. STINSON
2 Gentlemen:
3 Rej Acceptance of jonny Trap Holding Tanpc
4 The Jonny Trap holding tank system as
5 described in your application on Form No. 1 dated
B November 30, 1967 is accepted for use on pleasure
7 boats in the waters of the Province of Ontario.
8 This acceptance relates only to its use as a
9 device for the storage of human excrement for
10 subsequent disposal ashore in compliance with
11 Ontario Regulation 365/66 and does not constitute
12 an endorsement for the durability of its components
13 the operation of its associated parts or its suit-
14 ability^for any other purpose.
15 This acceptance is contingent upon this
16 system's being installed and arranged so that
17 sewage consisting of human excrement deposited
18 into it or into any toilet connected to it is
19 prevented from entering any water.
20 This acceptance is given on the under-
21 standing that persons owning boats on which this
22 system is installed are required to obtain OWRC
23 approvals to operate the devices on their boats.
24 Yours very truly,
(Signed) T. M. Murphy,
25 T. M. Murphy, Technician,
Plumbing and Boating Branch.
-------
2462
APPUCATIGM FOR APi'KOVAE. OS
S TREATMENT, S7OKA©S, ©?. DISPOSAL OF SGWA©S CONSISTING OF
HUMAN EXCREfclaN? IN A Pi.SA5i33S BOAT
Complete in duplicate, retain copy and forward original to:
Ontario Water Resources Commission,
Division of Sanitary Engineering,
Watercraft Pollution Control Program,
801 Bay Street, Toronto 5, Ontario.
This application shall be made by or on behalf of the owner (owner includes a lessee) of the boat and the device described herein.
A Tel. No.
(Name of Applicant—Please Print)
Age
(Permanent and temporary, if any,
address of Applicant — Please Print)
B. DESCRIPTION OF BOAT
"X
Model Name or Number Mfr.
Outboard •. Inboard Sailboat Other
Length Overall Ft. Beam (Max.) Ft. H.P
Hull Material: Wood Aluminum Fiberglass Other
type
No. of Berths (convertible or otherwise) Passenger Rating
Licence No • Registered No. (if applicable) Registered Name
C. TYPE OF DEVICE
1. Storage device requiring dockside pumping to remove contents
2. Storage device equipped with pump to empty contents
3. Portable container for manual emptying
4. Other
(Type)
5. Treatment device intended for overboard discharge
(Where a device mentioned in item 5 is to be used, a temporary permit that expires June 1, 1971 is required).
D. MODEL FEATURES
1. Model Name or Number
(Manufacturer)
2. Has Device been subjected to tests covering design, construction,
installation and operating characteristics?
Yes No
3. Name and Address of Testing Agency
4. Attach results of or information relating to such tests to application.
5. Is permanent placard with operating instructions provided with the device?
Yes ' No
6. Is a chemical additive used in the operation of the device?
Yes No
7. Name of chemical to be used
8. Is a tracer dye added in the operation of the device?
Yes No
9. Name of tracer dye to be used
10. Is device a self-contained recirculating type?
Yes No
-------
•2463
11. Is device recirculating with head and storage tank separate?
Yes No
12. Number of usages between recharge cycles
13. Initial charge Imp. Gal.
14. Total capacity Imp. Gal.
NOTE: Please attach specifications for device together with operating instructions.
E. HOLDING TANK
Holding tank material
2. Capacity Imp. Gal.
3. Diameter of inlet opening inches
4. Diameter of outlet opening •—inches
5. Diameter of piping from toilet to holding tank trade size inches
6. Diameter of piping from holding tank to pump-out connection trade size inches
7. Diameter of pump-out connection trade size inches
8. Material for piping
9. Is holding tank provided with sewage level indicator?
Yes No
10. What provision is made in the design of the holding tank for cleaning the tank and piping?
F. TREATMENT DEVICE FOR A PLEASURE BOAT FROM A
JURISDICTION OTHER THAN ONTARIO
If the owner of the pleasure boat is from a jurisdiction other than Ontario, please complete this section.
1. Address where applicant is ordinarily resident .-,,.,
Address in Ontario, if any
2. Does the device for the storage, treatment or disposal of sewage in your boat comply with the laws of the
jurisdiction in which the applicant is ordinarily resident?
Yes No
If the answer is yes, please enclose documentary evidence of the compliance referred to.
3. Is the pleasure boat registered or licensed in the jurisdiction in which
the applicant is ordinarily resident?
Yes No
4. Has approval of the device described herein in the jurisdiction in which the
applicant is ordinarily resident ever been refused, suspended or cancelled?
Yes No
5. Is the pleasure boat being or to be operated in Ontario water
and if so which water?
I certify that the information in this application is true, complete, and accurate.
Name of Applicant
(Please Print)
Signature of Applicant
or of
Authorized Officer
or Agent thereof
Name and Title of
Authorized Officer
or Agent
(Please Print)
Dated at this.'. day of 19.
AFFIX
CORPORATE
* SEAL
-------
1 J.vB. STINSOK
2
STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
3
47 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
4
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
5
6 December 15, 1967
7
Mr, Joseph B. Stinson
8 The Joseph B. Stinson Company
406 Justice street
9 Freemont, Ohio 43420
10
Dear Mr. Stinson:
11
12
In reply to your letter to Mr. R. S
13 Howard of December 13, the Georgia water Quality
14 Control Board acknowledges receipt of the plans
15 and literature for your "Jonny Trap" marine hold-
is
ing tank system and your coin operated pump.
17 After reviewing this literature it is
| A
my opinion that the abovementioned equipment will
meet the requirements of chapter 730-4 of the
20
Rules of the state water Quality control Board
21
when properly installed. However, the coin
22
operated pump should be installed only at those
23
locations with approved on-shore disposal facili-
ties.
25
The Georgia water Quality Control Board
-------
2465,
1 J. -B> 6TINSON
2 is pleased to see new equipment in the field of
3 marine sanitation. There is a need for such a
4 system as yours at present and this should in-
crease with greater demand to be placed on
6 Georgia's recreationa1 water in the future.
7
Sincerely,
8 (Signed) Marshall Gaddis
Marshall Gaddis
9 Marine Technologist
10
11
12 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
13 STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
14 P. O. BOX 11143 Richmond, Virginia (703) 707-2241
15
January 4, 1968
16
17 Mr. Joseph B. Stinson, President
The Joseph B. Stinson Designers
18 and Builders of Automation Equipment
406 Justice Street
19 Freeraont, Ohio 43420
20
Dear Mr. Stinson:
21
22
This will acknowledge your letter of December 13,
1967, requesting a statement of consent from our
24
office to permit the sale of your marine sewage
25
holding tank system in the state of Virginia. As
-------
2466
1 J.-B. STINSON
2 you are aware, we have no authority to approve
3 the selling of any manufactured equipment.
4 As you are also aware, we have no laws
5 in Virginia concerning control of pollution from
B individual boats and are in no position at the
7 present time to approve or disapprove any pollu-
8 tion abatement devices for boats. However, we
9 do not offer any objections to your selling
10 these devices in Virginia, and the staff would
11 recommend your system for approval by the Board,
12 should any law be passed that would make us the
13 responsible agency for approving such facilities.
14
Very truly yours,
15 (Signed) Charles E. Cooley
C. E. Cooley, Director
16 pollution Abatement Division
17 CEC/mjs
18
19 FLORIDA STATE BOARD OP HEALTH
20 Jacksonville
21
November 22, 1967
22
23 Waste - Marine Toilets / 47
24
25
-------
246?
1 J. B. STINSON
2
Mr. Joseph B. Stinson
3 President
Joseph B. Stinson Company
4 406 Justice street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
5
6 Dear Mr.Stinson:
7
Your inquiry of November 11, in regard your
8
products "Jonny Trap" and "COP" is acknowledged.
9
The Board of Health does not presently have
10
specific legal control or regulations on marine
toilets. state law and Board of Health regula-
12
tions do prohibit the pollution of surface waters
13
and any equipment or device which would adequately
14 •
prevent pollution from toilets on boats could be
15
sold and used without objections. we would be
16 J
most favorable to the principle of a holding tank
with discharge to marinas properly equipped for
18 • ; B s *^ - *—
that purpose.
19 f—*
The board does not endorse for sale or
20
/
advertising purposes any particular equipment,
21
but offers no objections to its use if adequately
22, ' "
designed for the purposes intended.
24 Yours very truly,
(Signed) Charles E. Cook
25 CEC:jb Charles E. Cook
-------
2468^
1 3'. B. STINSON
2
STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
3
East 77th and Court Avenue
4
Dea Moines, Iowa 50308
5
6 December 5, 1967
7
Joseph B. Stinson Company
8 406 Justice street,
Fremont, Ohio 43420
9
10 Dear sirs
11
In reference to your letter regarding
12
a sewage holding and discharge system.
13
It is against Iowa law to discharge
14
raw sewage in Iowa waters, we do not at this
15
time, however, have a law covering an approved
16
system on holding or disposal units. In any
17
future proposed legislative asking's I'm sure
18
we would be for holding tanks rather than a treat-
19
roent discharge type installation.
20
If we can be of further assistance
21
please feel free to call on us.
22
23 Very truly yours,
(Signed) Lewis M. Boers,
24 LEWIS M. MOERS, Supv.
Waters Section
25
-------
2469
J* "Bv STINSON
2 LMBscp
cci file
3
4
5
STATE OF KANSAS
6
FORESTRY, FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
7
BOX 1028
8
Pratt, Kanaaa- 67124
9
10 November 6, 1967
11
Mr. Joseph B. Stinson
12 President
The J«s«ph B. Stinson Co.
13 406 Justice street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
14
15 Dear Mr. Stinsons
16
In reply to your letter of October 31,
we are not in a position to approve or disapprove
18
yOur-product called the "jonny Trap". There is
19
no fish and game regulations concerning this matt
20
but the state Health Department does control the
21
type of sanitary facilities that can be used
22
around public waters, and the state Park Authorit
23
controls the type of apparatuses that are under
the jurisdiction of concessionnaires. In some
-------
2470
I Jv B. STINSON
2 cases these concessionnaires may be under the
3 supervision of the water controlling agency in
4 which case it is usually the corps of Engineers
5 or the Bureau of Reclamation.
6 In the few cases where concessionnaires
7 are located on Fish and Game Lakes, we do have
8 control but it would be up to the concessionnaire
9 to maintain and operate such facilities. Before
10 he can install additional facilities he must have
11 an approval from this Department giving us the
12 details along with specifications and so forth,
13 so that we can better judge its merit.
14 I would suggest that you contact the
15 State Department of Health, state Office Building
16 fifth floor, Topeka, 66612, regarding the feasibi
17 ity and the approvability of such equipment; and
18 I would also contact the State Park Authority,
19 801 Harrison, Topeka, 66612, regarding the instal
20
lation of such equipment on areas under their
21 jurisdiction.
22
Yours truly,
(Signed) Geo. C. Moore
GEORGE C. MOORE
Director
„ GMCses
-------
2471
1 J. B. STINSON
2 STATE PARK AMD RECREATION COMMISSION
3 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
November 14* 1967
5
6 Mr. Joseph B. Stinson, President
The Joseph B. Stinson Company
7 406 Justice Street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
8
9 Dear Mr. Stinson:
10
Thank you for your letter dated
11
October 31, 1967, regarding the marketing of
12
your products, the "jonny Trap" and "COP's"*
13
We are certainly happy to hear that
14
these systems are available to boaters. However,
15
New Mexico has not yet reached a decision regard-
16
ing the use of toilet facilities on boats. When
17
this problem is resolved and law is passed, we
18
would perhaps be in a position to approve or dis-
19
approve the installation of your product aboard
20
watercraft in New Mexico.
21
22
Sincerely,
JAMES L. DILLARD
23 DIRECTOR
24 BY I C. E. ROUGH
25 CER/lyw
(Signed) C. E. Rouch
3Yt C. E. ROUCH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
-------
24-72
1 Jii"B.* STINSON
2
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATION
3
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4
5 November 7, 1967
6
Mr. Joseph B. Stinson, President
7 The Joseph B. Stinson Co.
406 Justice street
8 Fremont, Ohio 43420
9
Dear Mr. Stinson:
10
11 Your letter of October 31, 1967, re-
12 garding the "Jonny Trap" and "COP's", to Mr. Charles
13 6. Bolwell, Chief, Division of Enforcement, has
14 been referred to this office.
15 we would be happy to receive any litera-
ls ture you have pertaining to your products; however,
17 we do not give approval for general use or endorse arjy
18 product. Any proposal to utilize this equipment at
19 a specific location would be reviewed and approved
20 only for that specific location if the facilities
21 were found to be adequate.
22
Yours very truly,
23 (Signed) Carleton A. Maine
Carleton A. Maine, Chief
24 Div. of water pollution Contjr
Department of Health
25
-------
2473
1 J> ,=-B> STINSON
CAMtnn
3
cci Charles O. Bolvell, Chief
4 Division of Enforcement
5
6
7 STATS OP WYOMING
8 OAMB AND FISH COMMISSION
g CHEYENNE 82001
10
November 3, 1967
11
12 Joseph B. Stineon, President
The Joseph B. Stinson Company
13
Fromont, Ohio 4343O
15 D«ar Mr. Stinson t
16
At th« pr«sont tine %r« do not have a
17
law demanding or prohibiting any facilities for
18
handling wastes on our boate.
19
We have not asked our legislature for
20
a "narine head" law, but we anticipate doing this
21
in conjunction with our State Department of Public
22
Health and this will be done when the criteria is
23
drawn up for the water quality standards for this
24
state . we do have waters that rest within National
25
Park boundaries that prohibit the discharge of any
-------
! Jv B. STIHSON
2 wastes into the waters,
3 Our legislature will not convene until
4 1969 and at that time we will have a law submitted
5 to them for their consideration.
6
Sincerely,
7 (Signed) William S. Kozas
William S. Kozas
8 Watercraft Officer
9 WSK/blw
10 - - -
11
MICHIGAN SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
12
533 South Washington
13
Lansing, Michigan 48933
14
15 Please address reply tos
16 Dow Chemical Company
Plant Engineering
17 464 Building
Midland, Michigan 48640
18
19 January 22, 1968
20
Mr. Loring F. Oeming,
21 Executive Secretary
Water Resources Commission
22 200 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan 48926
23
24 Dear Mr. Oemingt
25
-------
2M-75
MICHIGAN SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2
FEDERAL CONFERENCE ON POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
3 AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
4
In answer to your letter of December 29,
1967 to Mr. John J. Carey, President of the
6
Michigan Society of Professional Engineers, we
7
take this opportunity to thank you for request-
8
ing our participation in this Conference, it
9
is certainly a project which is worthy of iraroed-
10
iate action and which affects a wide area of
central United states. The statement which 1 am
12
attaching is the policy issued by the National
Society of Professional Engineers. This is also
14
the policy of the Michigan Society of Professiona
15
Engineers and we hope it will supply you with the
16
facts and views of the Michigan Society of Pro-
17
fessional Engineers.
18
Should you desire any further informa-
19
tion or comments, please feel free to call or con-
20
tact me.
21
22 Sincerely,
(Signed) Clair H. Aiken, P.
23 Clair H. Aiken, P.E.
Vice President, M.S.P.E.
24
Enc. (1)
25
-------
1 MICHIGAN SOCIETY DP PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2 cc: Mr. John J. Carey, President, M.S.P.E.
3486 woodland Road
3 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
4 ibe
5
6
7 MICHIGAN SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
8 533 South Washington
9 Lansing, Michigan 48933
10
January 22, 1968
11
12 NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
13 POLICY 46-B—WATER POLLUTION
14
The pollution of the streams, lakes
15
and other waters of the United States is a
16
serious problem which requires continuing atten-
17
tion. In accordance with the principle express-
18
ed by the National conference on Water Pollution
19
held in 1960, NSPE believes that the goal of
20
pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the
21
capacity of water resources to serve the widest
22
possible range of human needs. The society con-
23
siders that this goal can be realized most effec-
24
tively through a positive policy of providing the
25
-------
2477
1 MICHIGAN SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2 best possible water quality consistent with
3 engineering and economic factors and the public
4 interest.
5 The society recognizes that the pri-
6 mary responsibility for preventing and control-
7 ling water pollution rests with state and local
8 governments. The exercise of Federal responsi-
9 bility, with respect to international, inter-
10 state and navigable waters, should recognize
11 state rights regarding pollution control. Federa
12 aid, when necessary, should be designed to sup-
13 plement non-Federal efforts , and the programs
14 of Federal financial aid should be administered
15 through appropriate state and local agencies and
16 the existing facilities of Federal agencies with
17 responsibilities for water pollution prevention.
18 The society considers the current Feder
19 water pollution control laws to be consistent wit!
the foregoing policy. Any future revisions in
21
these laws should preserve the existing Federal-
State relationships.
23
The society considers that granting
24
authority to any Federal agency to establish and
25
promulgate water quality standards would be
-------
2^78
1 MICHIGAN SOCIETY ,OP PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2 contrary to the NSPE policy of preserving proper
3 Federal-state relationships. The Federal Govern-
4 ment should provide research and technical
assistance to facilitate the establishment of
6 water quality criteria by the states
7
8
9 MICHIGAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING OFFICIALS
10 1937 Cromwell Drive
11 Holt, Michigan 48842
12
January 16, 1968
13
14
15
16
17
Mr. Loring Oexning
Executive Secretary
Water Resources commission
200 Mill Street
Lansing Michigan
Dear Mr. Oeming,
lo
\
19 The Board of Director's of the Michigan
Society of Planning Officials, at its regular
21
meeting on January 12, 1968, went on record as
22
favoring in total any efforts to control water
23
pollution in Lake Michigan and its tributaries.
24
It regrets that it cannot send an official MSPO
25
Board member to voice its endorsement in person
-------
2*79
1 MICHIGAN SOCIETY OP .PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2 at your conference scheduled for January 31,
3 1968.
4 The Board also asked me to express to
5 you, on its behalf, their appreciation for keep-
6 ing them informed on the statue of programs
• • s
7 sponsored by the Water Resources commission.
8 The cooperative efforts made by the commission
9 are very much appreciated.
10
Sincerely,
11 (Signed) Bruce c. Brown
Bruce C. Brown
12 Executive Secretary
13
14
15 STATEMENT BY MICHIGAN PESTICIDE COUNCIL
16 FOR
17 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
18 CHICAGO, ILL., JAN. 31, 1968
19
The Michigan Pesticide Council has as
its purpose the taking of such action deemed
necessary to protect or restore the quality of
„ our environment through the control of pesticides
23
This council is composed of representatives of teju
25 organizations with a membership of over 65,000
-------
2480
1 MICHIGAN;PESTICIDE COUNCIL
2 citizens distributed over the entire state of
3 Michigan.
4 The application of the pesticides DDT,
5 dieldrin, and related chlorinated hydrocarbon
6 insecticides over and on the lands and waters
7 of the watershed of Lake Michigan during the
8 past two decades, and the subsequent movement
9 of these chemicals downstream into the lake,
10 have brought about a serious state of contamina-
11 tion of its waters. The success of a twenty
12 million dollar investment in establishment of
13 the coho and chinook salmon in Lake Michigan is
14 in jeopardy. The bald eagle, our national emblem
15 has virtually disappeared from its shores as a
16 nesting bird. Reproduction in colonies of herr-
17 ing and ring-billed gulls, essential scavengers
18 of the lake shore, has been impared.
19 We realize that pesticides are but one
20 of many forms of pollution with which Lake
21 Michigan is afflicted, we believe that all forms
22 of pollution are significant, and call upon duly
23 constituted authority to halt further pollution
24 of the waters of Lake Michigan with these per-
25 sistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides by
-------
2481
j KECHIGAN-: .PESTICIDE COUNCIL
2 ordering to cease and desist from the use of
3 the named pesticides, the following:
4 (1) all municipalities using DDT in
5 Dutch elm disease control programs,
6 (2) all municipalities and public
7 agencies using DDT in mosquito
8 . control programs, and
9 (3) all public agencies using dieldrin
10 and similar chemicals in wide-
11 spread insect control programs
12 such as for the Japanese beetle.
13 We highly approve the action now being
14 contemplated to clean up Lake Michigan, but con-
15 sider it long overdue, we urge immediate, prompt,
I6 and vigorous measures before it is too late.
17
(Signed) Norman Spring
18 Norman Spring, Chairman
MICHIGAN PESTICIDE COUNCIL
19 1416 Lake Avenue
Grand Haven, Michigan
20
21 . - _ '
22
MICHIANA WATERSHED, INC.
23
BERRIEN COUNTY CHAPTER
24
STATE OP MICHIGAN
25
-------
2482
1 MICHIANA. "WATERSHED, INC.
2 2010 Bond Road, Niles, Mich.
3
January 26, 1968.
4
5 Mr. Loring Oeming
Michigan Water Resources commission
6 Lansing, Michigan
7
Dear Mr. Oemingt
8
9 We are pleased to know that you will
10 represent the state of Michigan at the inter-
H state conference on water pollution of Lake
12 Michigan at Chicago on January 31.
13 As a priceless water resource of our
14 State, our organization is vitally interested
15 in preserving the purity of the waters of Lake
16 Michigan for the present and future generations
17 use and enjoyment, we ask that you accept this
18 letter as proxy vote for our membership of 186
19 persons on your behalf.
20 We hope particularly that in your presejn-
21 tation of the case for Michigan that you will
22
emphasize the need for the improvement of water
23 quality in the St. Joseph River which is one of
24 the contributors to the deteriorating condition
25
of Lake Michigan. Your files are amply supplied
-------
2483
1 MICHIANA-WATERSHED, INC.
2 with authenticated information previously gather-
3 ed by your own staff and Federal agencies and
4 presented at hearings over the past years at
5 Elkhart, Indianapolis and South Bend, Indiana,
6 and Niles, Michigan, and we believe that the only
7 point that needs to be made at this time is that
8 there has been no improvement in the situation.
9 As previously reported, the major source of
10 pollution of the St. Joseph River is the waste
11 water treatment plant of the City of south Bend,
12 Indiana, which although recently constructed, is
13 inadequate for the load imposed upon it.
14 As you know, South Bend has been order-
15 ed by the Indiana Stream Pollution Commission for
16 the past three years to construct the improvements
17 necessary to bring its waste water treatment plant
18 up to acceptable standards, and the City of South
19 Bend has completed engineering work and has plans
20 ready to complete this work, which would be of
21 great benefit to Michigan citizens and the citi-
22
zens of other states bordering Lake Michigan.
23 However, repeated applications for Federal funds
which are available to assist in this project and
are allocated by the Indiana Stream Pollution
-------
1 MICHIANA WATERSHED,.INC.
2 Board have been denied. As a result, no improve-
3 raent ha si been made and the water quality of the
4 St. Joseph River is as bad as when we first
5 brought the natter to your attention in 1963.
6 We hope that your testimony at the
7 forthcoming hearing, with proper emphasis, will
8 result in prompt action being taken to improve
9 the waters of the St. Joseph River.
10
Very truly yours,
11 (Signed) s. R. Dunnuck, Jr.
S. R. Dunnuck, Jr. Secy.
12 Berrien County Chapter
13
14
15 MR. VOGT: NOW, this morning, Mr.
16 Chairman, I made reference to a statement which
17 I had from Mr. Keith Wilson and which there was
18 some indication that Mr. Wilson would be present
19
to deliver this statement. Over the noon hour
20
I learned that Mr. Wilson will not be present and
21
that it is requested that this statement not be
22
incorporated into the record.
23
Therefore, I request that the recorder
24
not include this as a part of the record.
25
MR. STEINt That will be done. so
-------
2^85
! R. W. PURDY
2 ordered.
3 MR. VOGT: We are now at that point
4 in Michigan's Presentation where the State
$ Report will be presented. This will be presented
6 in two parts by Mr. Ralph Purdy, the Chief
7 Engineer of the Michigan Water Resources comrois-
8 sion, and by Mr. Donald Pierce, chief of the
g Waste water Section of the Michigan Department
10 of Health.
11 I will ask Mr. Purdy to begin the
12 presentation.
13
STATEMENT OF RALPH PURDY
14
CHIEF ENGINEER
15
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
16
17 MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
13 ladies and gentlemen.
19 Before entering directly into our
20 report -- this need not be on the record, this
21 part.
22 (Off the record.)
23 MR. PURDY: We are now ready to start
24 on our report.
25 We have presented this report to the
-------
2486
I R. W. PURDY
2 conferees and, Mr. Chairman, we would ask that
3 the entire report be considered as a part of the
4 record. We will not read it, needless to say,
5 in its entirety today.
6 I would like to turn directly to the
7 Preface, page xi.
8
9 PREFACE
10
11 This report contains information on
12 the municipal and industrial waste disposal
13 situation in the Michigan portion of the inter-
14 state waters of Lake Michigan and in the tribu-
15 taries to Lake Michigan in Michigan. It delineate
16 the statutes that provide the local units of goverfi
17 roent authority to build, own and Operate waste
18 treatment facilities. it delineates the state
19 statutes for control of water pollution. It
20 delineates the accomplishments that have been
21 made in controlling pollution and the measures
22 that are being taken to provide improved control.
23 it also describes the uses being made of these
24 waters and water quality conditions.
25 The report was prepared for presentation
-------
2487
1 R. W. PURDY
2 to the conferees at the Federal Conference called
3 by the secretary of the interior for their con-
4 sideration and appraisal in (1) arriving at con-
5 elusions as to whether waste discharges originat-
6 ing from Michigan sources are endangering the
7 health or welfare of persons in a state other
8 than that in which the discharge or discharges
9 originate, (2) determining the adequacy of
10 measures that have been taken for abatement of
11 pollution, and (3) determining the nature of
12 delays, if any, being encountered in abating
13 pollution.
14 The area encompassed by the report in-
15 eludes all of the Michigan portion of Lake
16 Michigan and its tributaries.
17 All sources of municipal sewage and
18 industrial waste discharges to surface waters
!9 are covered. The nature of waste treatment or
20 control measures in effect are described and the
21 state agency action to control pollution and
22 evaluate accomplishments is related.
23 The files and records of the Michigan
2* water Resources Commission and Michigan Depart-
25 ment of Public Health are the sources of
-------
2488
1 R. W. PURDY
2 information contained in the report. The
3 employed staffs of both agencies collaborated
4 in assembling the material and preparing the
5 report.
6 Now, under Statutory Authority, Part A,
7 we describe the authority for local units of
8 government to build, own, and operate waste
9 treatment facilities. Some nineteen statutes
10 are listed. I only wish to point out number
11 three, Act 342, Public Acts of 1939, which
12 authorized counties to establish and provide
connecting water, sewer and/or sewage disposal
improvements.
15 Act 245, Public Acts of 1947, an act
16
to regulate the ownership, extension, improvement
17
and operation of public water and sewage disposal
18
systems lying within two or more public corpora-
19 tions.
20
Act 185, Public Acts of 1957, an act
21
to authorize the establishment of a department
22
and board of public works in counties.
23 Act 320, Public Acts of 1927, and this
24
is a very important act in our pollution control
25
program. It is an act to authorize legislative
-------
2489
1 R. W. PURDY
2 bodies of municipalities to issue and sell bonds
3 necessary for the construction of sewage disposal
4 plants whenever a court of competent jurisdic-
5 tion shall have ordered same.
6 Act 373, Public Acts of 1925, is a
7 companion act just as important and this is an
8 act to authorize legislative bodies of municipali-
9 ties to issue and sell bonds necessary for the
10 construction of storm and sanitary sewers when*
11 ever a court of competent jurisdiction shall
12 have ordered same.
13 Under part B, the authority for the
14 control of water pollution, some twenty-one acts
15 listed. On page 4 I would like to call your
16 attention to number 8, Act 245, Public Acts of 19:
17 This is the act that created the Water Resources
1 A
Commission to protect and conserve the water re-
19 sources of the State, to have control over the
pollution of any waters of the State and the
21
Great Lakes, with power to make rules and regula-
22 •
tions governing the same and to provide penalties
23
for the violation of the act.
24 Number 10, Act 329, Public Acts of 1966,
25
an act to provide State grants for sewage treatmei t
-------
2^90
j R. W. PURDY
2 facilities and to provide for administration of
3 the grants by the water resources commission.
4 Number 12, Act 253, Public Acts of
5 1964, an act to enable local units of government
6 to cooperate in planning and carrying out a co-
7 ordinated water management program in the water-
8 shed. This is the act described to you by Mr.
9 John Kennaugh this morning of the Grand River
10 Watershed Group.
11 Number 13, Act 222, Public Acts of
12 1966, an act to provide for the exemption of
13 industrial water pollution control facilities
14 from certain taxes.
15 Act 98, Public Acts of 1913, an act
16 providing for the supervision and control by the
17 director of the department of public health over
18 sewerage systems, and providing penalties for
19 violations.
20 Number 17, Act 288, Public Acts of
21 1967, an act to regulate the subdivision of land;
22 and to promote the public health by providing
23 authority to the department of public health to
24 approve subdivisions not served by public sewers
25 on basis of suitability of soils.
-------
2491
1 R. W. PURDY
2 Under the statutes that we have cited,
3 we believe that it provides a basis for Michigan
4 communities to do whatever is required in the
5 way of abating pollution, and also the acts have
6 been provided to enable the state and other regu-
7 latory agencies to require the necessary pollu-
8 tion abatement facilities.
9 On page 5, starting in on the Legal
10 History, I will not go through all of this. To
11 brief it very quickly*
12 In 1929 the Michigan Legislature
13 enacted the stream Control Commission Act, Act
I4 245, establishing a 5-member commission consisting
15 of the Director of Conservation, the state Health
16 Commissioner, the Highway Commissioner, the com-
17 missioner of Agriculture and the Attorney General
18 This Commission issued many orders.
19 One in particular was appealed to the court and
20 the constitutionality and authority of the stream
21 Control commission to issue orders requiring the
22 abatement of pollution of the waters of the state
23 was reviewed in City of Niles versus stream Con-
24 trol commission. This was decided March 11, 1941
25
In the course of that decision the court made
-------
2492
1 R. W. PURDY
2 eoxne notable objections, among which is the
3 following:
4 "in order to stop pollution of the
5 river, it was necessary for the coro-
6 mission to take action against the
7 City of Niles, inasmuch as it was the
8 first city in the state on the course
9 of the river below the Indiana cities
10 and thus opened the way for suit to
11 compel the Indiana cities to stop pol-
12 lution of the waters of the river. It
13 is an instance where the state must
14 clean up its own dooryard before being
15 in a position to a sic or seek to compel
16 its neighbor to clean up. This was not
17 an arbitrary exercise of power by the
18 Commission but a practical movement
toward accomplishment of a most desir-
20 able end."
21
The most notable series of cases in-
volving the enforcement of an order of the cora-
23
mission was against the city of port Huron. This
was issued February 11, 1936. The city failed to
25
comply with this order and the Commission filed
-------
2493
1 R. W. PURDY
2 a bill of complaint on December 9, 1939, to en-
3 force it. The circuit Court denied the relief
4 sought by the commission and the matter was
5 appealed to the Supreme court.
6 The Supreme court reversed the decision
7 of the lower court and validated the order of
8 the Commission. The Supreme court referred to
9 the agreement made by the city that construction
10 of the sewage plant would not materially reduce
11 pollution in the river. In disposing of this
12 contention, the court stated:
13 "The record contains sufficient testi-
14 mony to substantiate the state's con-
15 tention that the present raw sewage
16 disposal method is a constant menace
17 to the health and well-being of the
18 down-river communities as well as to
19 tourists. This evidence clearly justi-
20 fies the Commission's order. Under
21 the authority of the City of Miles case
22 ,supra,
where similar arguments were advanced,
23 it is no defense to a statutory charge
24 of river-water pollution that others
25
have or are contributing to that
-------
1 R. W. PURDY
2 condition."
3 The City of port Huron failed to comply
4 with the order of the Supreme court, and conse-
5 quently the Attorney General filed a motion for
final process to enforce the decree. The court
7 stated that the injunctive relief sought by the
8 motion of the Attorney General will be granted
9 in October of 1950, but even this did not end
10 the controversy because the city of port Huron
11 experienced difficulty in selling the bonds to
12 raise the money for the construction of the
13 sewage treatment works
14 I pointed out to you Act 320, Public Acts
15 of 1927, under the statute section, that this
16 authorized the legislative bodies of municipalities
17 to issue and sell bonds necessary for the construc-
18 tion of sewage disposal plants "whenever a court of
19
competent jurisdiction in this State shall have
ordered the installation of a sewage or garbage
21
disposal system in any of the governmental
22
agencies ormunic ipalities here mentioned
23 and the plans therefore shall have been prepared
24
and approved by the state commission of Health."
25
After reviewing the various authorities, the
-------
2495
1 R. W. PURDY
2 court held that whenever a municipality finds it
3 necessary to raise money for the issuance of
4 bonds for the purposes of complying with a court
5 order involving the public health of the state,
6 no referendum of approval by the people is neces-
7 sary.
8 Another point raised by Port Huron .was
9 that the levy ing of the tax for the payment of
10 such bonds would exceed the tax limitations pro-
11 vided by the city charter. This, by the way, is
12 a contention which is usually made by muhicipali-
13 ties whenever they are faced with complying with
14 an order of the water Resources Commission. In
15 its opinion the court rejected this contention
16 by holding that there is ample authority to levy
17 taxes for the purposes mentioned in Act 320, and
18 that even though the tax limitations were exceed-
19 ed, such defense is not valid when the the city
20 is required to comply with a court order.
21 The series of cases referred to has
paved the way for enforcement of Water Resources
23 Commission orders and has enabled Michigan munici-
palities to finance construction of projects
25
necessary to comply with Commission orders. The
-------
L R. W. PURDY
2 water Resources Commission has secured court
3 orders directing 26 units of government in the
4 Lake Michigan Basin to abate pollution of the
5 waters of the state by the construction of sewage
6 treatment facilities and court action is now
7 underway against 4 units of government.
8 NOW, in addition, the Director of the
9 Department of Public Health, acting pursuant
10 to authority vested in him by Act 98, Public Acts
11 of 1913, and Act 219, Public Acts of 1949, has
12 prohibited the extension of municipal sewer
13 systems and additional connections to existing
14 systems where such is deemed necessary to control
15 pollution and protect public health. The authorif
16 of the Director to so act has been upheld by Mich:
17
gan court decisions.
18 Financial inability in the state of
19
Michigan is not a defense against the abatement
of a nuisance either by private citizens or by
21
a municipal entity.
22
On page 11, chapter IX, under Pollution
23
Control Program, and I will be following the text
24 ,
very closely here;
25
Administration of water pollution
-------
2497
1 R. W. PURDY
2
control functions in Michigan necessarily follows
3
the division of statutory responsibility set
forth in the previously cited statutes subject
5
to correlation, wherever possible, of member
6
department interest, and objectives with those
•7
of the water Resources Commission. The water
8
Resources commission and the Department of Public
9
Health and their respective staffs carry the
10
principal burden of water pollution control in
Michigan at the state level.
12
13
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
14
15
The goal and objective of the Michigan
16
Water Resources commission is to bring all exist-
17
ing unlawful pollution under continuing effective
18
control and prevent the development of unlawful
19
pollution from new sources, population growths,
20
or increased industrial expansion and, where such
21
incidents occur, limit their duration and inten-
22
sity to the fullest extent consistent with requir
23
ments of the water Resources Commission statute.
24
Under the Michigan statute (Appendix A) , it is
25
unlawful for any person directly or indirectly to
-------
2^-98
1 R. W. PURDY
2 discharge into the waters of the state any suo-
3 stance which is or may become injurious to the
4 public health, safety or welfare; or which is
5 or may become injurious to domestic, commercial,
6 industrial, agricultural, recreational or other
7 uses which are being or may be made of such
8 waters; or which is or may become injurious to
9 the value or utility of riparian lands; or which
10 is or may become injurious to livestock, wild
11 animals, birds, fish, aquatic life or plants or
12 the growth or propagation thereof be prevented
13 or injuriously affected; or whereby the value
14 of fish and game is or may be destroyed or
15 impaired. The discharge of any raw sewage of
16 human origin, directly or indirectly into any
17 waters of the state is prima facie evidence of
a violation of the statute unless such discharge
19 is permitted by an Order, rule or regulation of
the Water Resources Commission.
21
Where inadequacies in control of waste
22
discharges are determined to exist, an opportunit
23
is provided for establishment of voluntary cor-
24
rective action. When it appears to the Michigan
25
Water Resources Commission that a voluntary
-------
2^99
1 R. W. PURDY
2 program will not be successful or may not be
3 accomplished within a reasonable time period,
4 statutory procedures are initiated. Orders adopt
5 ed contain specific effluent restrictions and
6 specific dates for approval of construction plans
7 and specifications, awarding of construction
8 contracts and commencement of construction, and
9 the completion of construction and attainment of
10 pollution abatement as required by the Order.
11 Sewerage systems must be developed on
12 the basis of separate sewers for storm water and
13 sanitary waste water. When at all feasible,
14 separated sanitary wastewater systems shall not
15 be discharged into combined systems. If such
16 discharge does occur, control facilities roust be
17 developed on the combined system so as to protect
18 present and future water uses of the receiving
19 waters consistent with the requirements of the
20 Water Resources Commission statute. Problems
21 associated with the overflow of storm and sani-
22 tary waste from existing combined sewerage system
23 to public waters must be corrected.
24 Nutrient discharges, particularly with
25 respect to phosphates, to public waters must be
-------
2500
1 R. W. PUKDY
2 controlled. Persons proposing to make a new or
3 increased use of waters of the stat© for waste
4 disposal purposes are required, coincident with
5 the new or increased use, to utilize such techno-
6 l°gy &nd processes which are known for the re-
7 raoval of phosphorus compounds and as a long-term
8 objective, all existing waste discharges will be
9 required to provide facilities for the removal
10 of phosphorus compounds by June \, 1977.
H The discharge of sanitary waste from
12 recreational watercraft will be controlled by
13 rules and regulations to be adopted by the water
14 Resources commission. Proposed rules and regula-
15 tions (Appendix B) have been presented at a pub-
16 lie hearing and final action is scheduled prior
17 to June 1, 1968.
18 I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is
19 a very outside date and that final action will
20 be taken prior to that time.
21 The Michigan Water Resources Commission
22 will prevent the development of new problems by
23 continued implementation of Section 8 (b) of its
24 statute which requires the filing of a statement
25
of use by any person proposing to make a new or
-------
2501
1 R. W. PURDY
2 substantial increase in use of waters of the
3 state for waste disposal purposes. The Comrois-
4 sion, upon receipt of a statement, makes an Order
5 stating such minimum restrictions as may be
6 necessary to guard adequately against unlawful
7 uses of waters of the state.
8 Water quality standards for water uses
9 of all inter- (Appendix C) and intrastate
10 (Appendix D) waters have been adopted. Water
11 use designation, together with a plan of imple-
12 mentation and enforcement of the standards have
13 been adopted for the interstate waters. Public
14 hearings are now being held prior to the designa-
tion of waters uses for the intrastate waters.
All public hearings will be completed by November
1, 1968. Designation of all water uses to be
protected by the intrastate standards within the
19
state is scheduled to be completed by January 1,
20 1969.
21
On interstate waters, where noncoroplianfe
22
with the standards is determined to exist as the
23
result of a discharge from an existing municipal
24
wastewater treatment plant, treatment facilities
25
adequate for meeting established water quality
-------
2502
1 R. W. PURDY
2 standards must be provided no later than June 1,
3 1972. secondary treatment is required as a
4 minimum unless it can be demonstrated that a
5 lesser degree of treatment or control will pro-
6 vide for water quality enhancement commensurate
7 with present and future water uses. Exception
Q
to the requirement for at least secondary treat-
9 ment must be justified to the satisfaction of
the Michigan water Resources commission and the
11 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
12
Presently identified existing discharges of raw
13
sewage of human origin to public waters must be
14
corrected by June 1, 1972. Year-round disinfec-
tion of all final effluents from municipal sewage
16
treatment plants is required. Industrial waste
17
discharges must meet the same effluent require-
18
rnents as municipal waste effluents and industrial
19
waste problems identified in the interstate plan
20
reports must, no later than June 1, 1970, have
21
adequate treatment or control facilities. Prob-
22
lems associated with the overflow of storm and
23
sanitary waste from existing combined sewerage
24
systems must be corrected no later than June 1,
25
1977.
-------
2503
I R. W. PURDY
2 The water Resources Commission staff
3 .aspects each incipient pollution problem regu-
4 iarly. All Orders now adopted by the commission,
S to both industries and municipalities, require
6 routine analysis and reporting of the quality
7 of wastes discharged to public waters. in addi-
8 tion surface water quality and waste effluents
9 are monitored so as to identify the need for
10 corrective action to abate existing problems
11 and whenever possible so as to detect and
12 identify the approach of pollution conditions in
13 time to initiate appropriate corrective action
14 prior to the development of a statutory injury.
15 The water Resources Commission staff reviews and
16 approves or rejects plans for industrial waste
17 treatment or control facilities and counsels
18 with management on industrial waste treatment
19 or disposal problems, it develops appropriate
20 restrictions and time schedules for commission
21 approval to correct or prevent pollution problems
22 and participates in enforcement procedures
23 initiated by the Commission through statutory
24 hearings and enforcement of commission Orders in
25 court when voluntary compliance is not forthcomin
-------
2504
! R. W. PURDY
2 Mr. vbgt, I would like to interrupt
3 my part of this presentation at this time now
4 to have Mr. Pierce present the Department of
5 Public Health and Pollution Control.
6 MR. STEIN: Before Mr. Pierce appears,
7 we may take a recess.
8 I want to tell you about -.-that n ois-e
9 in the back. , I guess you were a backdrop
10 for a TV show. YOU are the first guy here I
11 know who could compete successfully with that
12 Corps of Engineers Map. I guess that is a
13 compliment.
14 (Laughter.)
«,
15 MR. PURDY* It ruined my ego to see
16 all the television cameras leave.
17 MR. STEIN: By the time they get to
18 you, you will be out of focus, though.
19 (Laughter.)
20 Maybe that guy who got lost in the
Loop will be able to distinguish you.
22
(Laughter.)
23 we will stand recessed for ten minutes
24 (Recess.)
25 MR. STEINi Mr. Vogt.
-------
2505
j D. M. PIERCE
2 MR. VOGT: Mr. Pierce, will you now
3 please carry on with the state Report.
4
STATEMENT OF DONALD M. PIERCE
5
CHIEF OF THE WASTE WATER SECTION
6
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
7
8 MR. PIERCE: Mr. Chairman and Conferees
g ladies and gentlemen.
10 I shall plan to follow rather closely
11 the prepared report except to supplement to
12 some extent for the purpose of amplifying or
13 illustrating a point.
14 The Department of Public Health, act-
IS ing through its Division of Engineering, exer-
16 cises supervisory control over all public sewer-
17 age systems. The Director of the Department is
18 required by statute. Act 98, Public Acts of 1913,
19 as amended, to "exercise due care to see that
20 all sewerage systems are properly planned, con-
21 structed and operated so as to prevent unlawful
22 pollution of the streams, lakes, and other water
23 resources of the state". The companion statute,
24 Act 245, Public Acts of 1929, as amended, defines
25 j unlawful pollution and authorizes the Water
-------
2506
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 Resources commission to "establish such pollu-
3 tion standards for lakes, rivers, streams, and
4 other waters of the state in relation to the
5 public use to which they are or may be put, as
6 it shall deem necessary". Such pollution stan-
7 dards and the water quality criteria relating
8 to the public uses, currently being promulgated
9 for both interstate and intrastate streams, pro-
vide the framework upon which decisions are made
and actions taken in relation to the planning,
12
design, construction and operation of all sewer
13
systems and treatment works. Elements of this
14
supervisory program include the planning and
15
approval of facilities, control of operation,
16
including the training and certification of
17
operators, and the review of required operation-
18
al reports from each plant.
19
Now, in the area of Facilities Planning
20
and Approval.
21
1. Review engineering reports establishing the
22
basis of design for projects involving col-
23
lection and treatment of waste water and
24
consult with the engineers and municipal
25
officials on elements of the proposed design
-------
2507
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 prior to development of plans and specifi-
3 cations for the project, require modifica-
4 tion of proposed design where appropriate
5 and, when found to be satisfactory, approve
6 same.
7 2. Review, approve or reject and secure changes
8 in plans and specifications submitted for
9 new municipal systems or for changes in
10 existing systems, both for collection and
11 treatment. No public sewerage system may
12 be built or altered without specific approva
by construction permit.
14 3. Conducts inspections to determine that con-
struction of public sewerage systems con-
forms to approved plans and specifications.
17 4. Require reduction of overflows from exist-
18
ing combined sewer systems. Adoption of
19
accelerated programs for effective control
20
of overflows from such systems is strongly
21
urged. Progress has been made in several
22
communities by sewer separation.
23
5. Require municipal rather than private owner-
24
ship of all sewerage systems serving the
25
public in the belief that more dependable
-------
2508
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 and effective operation and overall pollu-
3 tion control is thereby assured.
4 6. counsels with officials of municipalities
5 and their consulting engineer agents as to
6 the need and methods for collection and
7 treatment of waste water.
8 7. Strongly encourage and, where appropriate,
9 require the development of multi-community
10 area planning to provide effective services
11 and pollution control facilities utilizing
12 sound management principles. Many such
*3 areas are currently served by an integrated
14 system of sewers, interceptors, and treat-
15 ment works. Others are being so planned in
18 several areas. Examples are metropolitan
areas whose core cities are Battle Creek,
18 Benton Harbor, St. Joseph, Grand Rapids,
Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and Traverse
20 City.
21
I should point out here, parenthetical-
22
ly, that all of these communities lie within the
23
Lake Michigan water Basin, Watershed, and there
24
are many other examples one might cite for the
25
other major river basins.
-------
2509
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 8. Encourage the admission of industrial wastes
3 in municipal sewerage systems where such
4 wastes will not adversely affect the system
5 and its performance in relation to effective
6 pollution control.
7 9. Foster, encourage and assist communities in
8 the adoption of effective and practical
9 sewer use ordinances for the control of
10 industrial wastes to be admitted to the
11 sewerage system. In many instances, tech-
12 nical assistance and counsel is provided
13 in the location, analyses and evaluation
14 of wastes, particularly those toxic to
15 biological treatment processes and in the
16 development of effective corrective measures
17 and controls. Examples are metal plating
18 wastes at Cadillac, Ludington and Wyoming
19 brought under effective control within the
20 last year.
21 10. Encourage and, where appropriate, require
22
communities to conduct studies, pilot or
23 plant scale, to provide a dependable basis
24 of design for unusual combinations of
25
industrial and municipal wastes to be
-------
2510
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 treated where sufficient information is not
3 available for design purposes. Such studies
4 were made at Battle Creek for cereal pro-
5 ducts and paper mill wastes to be treated
6 at the municipal plant. Similarly, require
studies, either pilot or plant scale, to
develop a basis of design where an extrerae-
Q
ly high degree of treatment is required.
Such a study was completed last year at
Jackson.
12
11. Encourage and assist communities to conduct
13
studies to establish effective methods for
14
removal of phosphates from their wastes
15 ]
at existing treatment works. Such studies
16
were made at Lake Odessa and Whitehall last
17
year.
18
12. Require facilities for removal of phosphates
19
in the design of all new treatment works,
20
consistent with the adopted policy of the
21
Water Resources Commission, which has earlie
22
been stated in the record here today.
23
13. Require expansion and improvements of muni-
24
cipal facilities, both for collection and
25
treatment as present capacity is approached,
-------
2511
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 rather than wait until the facilities are
3 overloaded before taking action. Approval
4 of sewer extensions is withheld where
5 additional loadings would exceed the capa-
6 city of the system until an acceptable
7 program for relief is officially adopted.
8 "Sewer bans" have been imposed in several
9 such circumstances where approval of
10 extensions of sewers have been denied for
11 some time, up to a period of two years in
12 some cases. Authority for such action has
13 been tested and upheld in the courts.
14 14. Order changes in facilities or their opera-
IS tion when requirements of the statutes have
16 not been met. Alternatively, cases involv-
17 ing deficiency in facilities are referred
18 to the water Resources commission for
19 action.
20 15. As agent for the water Resources commission,
21 review, approve or reject plans submitted
22 for new sewer systems, other than municipal,
23 or for changes in existing ones.
24 16. Assist and encourage local health department^
25 to effectively direct and control the
-------
2512
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 installation of private sewage disposal
3 systems where public sewer systems are not
4 available for connection.
5 17. Require construction of separate sanitary
6
sewers for new community systems. And this
7
policy and action has been in effect for
8
some five years and in some cases longer
9 than this.
10
Facility Operation - Supervision, Visitation
12
1. Require the effective operation of all
13
treatment works, including pumping stations
14
and sewer system appurtenances. This
15
authority is directly conferred by statute.
16
2. Require all municipalities to submit re-
17
ports monthly on the operation of treat-
18
ment works. standard report forms are pro-
19
vided by the Department and each municipal-
20
ity is advised as to the minimum informa-
21
tion to be reported and the frequency
22
(number of days per week) of reporting.
23
Included are both physical data and labora-
24
tory analyses to establish loadings on the
25
plant, performance of plant units, and the
-------
2513
I D. M. PIERCE
2 volume and characteristics of the plant
3 effluent. Such information is used to
4 determine effectiveness of overall plant
5 performance, deficiencies of component
6 facilities, capacity reserves for additional
7 loadings, and operational problems and
8 shortcomings. Action is taken to assist
9 in corrective measures and to require
10 correction.
11 3. Supervise operation by on-site inspection,
12 instruction and consultation with plant
13 operating personnel. Adequate services of
/
14 this nature requires visitation once during
15 each three months on the average.
16
Operator Certification and Training
17
18 1. Require all municipalities to employ
•W operators whose competency, for the parti-
20 cular job,that is, has been certified by
21 the Department. By statute, it is raanda-
22 tory that the person in responsible charge
23 of the plant be so certified. Over 600 --
24 I will say parenthetically here that about
685 -- operators have been so certified on
-------
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 the basis of education, experience, and
3 written examinations. About 200 operators
4 with plant experience are examined each
5 year. A high percentage of applicants are
6 certified operators seeking to establish
7 qualifications for a higher plant classifi-
8 cation, of which there are four classifica-
9 tions.
10 2. Conduct formal group training sessions to
11 impart specific information related to
12 effective operational control, to provide
13 opportunity for exchange of information and
14 experience and to provide incentives for
15 self-study and development. Over 325
16 operators attend a 2-day meeting each year
17 conducted by Department engineers and
18 chemists. A series of four 5-day sessions
19 in laboratory procedures involving chemical
20 and bacteriological analyses are currently
21 being conducted by the Department staff.
22 Eighty operators who presently perform such
23 tests at their plants are registered. Even-
24 ing courses are held throughout the state
25 for a 12-week period each year in either
-------
2515
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 mathematics, chemistry, or hydraulics as
3 applied to wastewater works operation, in
4 a cooperative program with other agencies
and organizations. Special courses in pro-
6 cess control, safety and related areas are
7 sponsored with other groups.
8 3. Encourage operators to meet on a regular
9 schedule, usually about once monthly, on
10 their own initiative to exchange informa-
11 tion on plant operational problems and
12 experiences and to incite speakers to dis-
13 cuss selected subjects related to facilities
14 design and maintenance, laboratory equip-
15 ment, etc. About 10 such groups meet regu-
16 larly with about 200 operators participating,
17
Disinfection Policy and Practice
18
19
1. Require all municipalities to disinfect the
an
plant effluent before discharge to the sur-
face waters of the state. This policy was
22
adopted in January 1967.
I think, Mr. Chairman, with your per-
24
mission, it might be of interest to read this
25
policy statement, because there are a couple of
-------
2516
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 points that I should like to bring out.
3 Pardon me. I will leave the rostrum
4 to find the statement.
5 MR. STEIN: Yes.
6 Appendix E, in my copy we don't have
7 one either.
8 Here we are.
9 MR. PIERCE: The Department policy
10 letter on this matter was issued to all munici-
11 palities of the state on January 4. It reads as
12 follows:
13 "For many years most communities and
14 others operating sewage treatment plants have
15 chlorinated their treated wastewaters before
16 discharging them into our streams and lakes.
17 This practice has provided a large measure of
18 protection to the public health. Present trends
19 in public need for higher water quality to permit
20 increased use of our public waters for all forms
of aquatic recreation and other uses involving
22
intimate human contact require refinements in
23 present practices for bacteriological control of
treated sewage effluents and greater vigilance
25
by those responsible for the operation of the
-------
2517
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 facilities involved. Greater concentrations of
3 people living close to lakes and streams, coupled
4 with year-round recreation, including fishing in
5 late fall, winter and early spring, requires
6 continuous bacteriological control whenever sewage
7 is discharged to the public waters. seasonal
8 chlorination during the summer recreation season
9 no longer can be depended upon to provide a full
10 measure of protection to the public health.
11 "It, therefore, is the declared and
12 established policy that:
13 "All municipalities and others discharg-
14 ing treated sewage from sewage treatment plants
15 to the public waters of the state be required to
16 provide effective bacteriological control over
17 the effluent therefrom by the continuous applica-
18 tion each day of th6 year' -- and those words are
19 here underlined -- 'continuous application each
20 day of the year'of chlorine or other effective
21 chemicals in facilities approved by the state
22 Department of Public Health. Effective control
23 requires sufficient testing at approved points
24 of sample collection to assure the maintenance
25 of an adequate residual of chlorine or other
-------
2518
! D. M. PIERCE
2 disinfecting agents, supplemented by occasional
3 testing for organisms of the coliforxn group.
4 Adequate disinfection should reduce consistently
5 the concentration of coliform organisms to one
6 thousand or less per hundred mi Hi liters."
7 It is a source of great satisfaction
8 to those of us who work on problems of this
9 nature to be able to report to you today that
10 so far as we can determine there is 100 percent
11 conformity with this declared policy. Three weeks
12 ago, I knew of one town that was still holding
13 out and that was not chlorinating on a year-
14 round basis, and I believe that one town is now
15 in the bag and we are 100 percent.
16 MR. STEIN: Some of us, Don, have been
17 waiting twenty years for this day, and I am glad
18 to hear that Michigan is the first State to
19 announce that they have done it. This is wonder-
20 ful.
21 MR. PIERCE: Thank you. We are very
22 happy, too.
23 At this point I should like to read,
24 and to some extent discuss, studies made beginning
25 last summer on removal of phosphates from waste
-------
2519
! D. M. PIERCE
2 water at municipal treatment plants. I am going
3 on now with the script.
4 During the past year studies have been
5 made by several Michigan municipalities on removal
6 of phosphates from the waste water collected in
7 their community sewer systems. Two general
8 methods were utilized: One involving the addition
9 of iron salts either to the raw sewage or activate^
10 sludge with or without the addition of polymers;
11 the other involving management of the activated
12 sludge process without chemical additions. The
13 latter method is an extension and adaptation of
14 the work conducted at San Antonio and other
15 installations as reported by the Federal water
16 Pollution Control Administration. The central
17 objectives of these studies were:
18 1. To determine phosphate concentrations
19 and loadings at several municipal treat-
ment plants.
2. To determine the amenability of wastes
22
at various locations to phosphate re-
23 moval by one or more methods in rela-
tion to primary sedimentation, trickling
25
filters and activated sludge.
-------
2520 .
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 3. To explore the effect of chemical additions
3 for phosphate removal on the removal of BOD
4 and suspended matter at primary, trickling
5 filter and activated sludge installations.
6 4. To study the degree of compatibility of
.7 iron salts with biological and chemical
8 (polymer) treatment systems, when added for
9 phosphate removal.
10 5. To furnish information upon which design of
11 facilities for phosphate removal may reason*
12 ably be predicated.
13 Studies of this nature were prompted by:
14 1. The acute and pressing need to develop base
15 line data for the design and management of
16 facilities at several existing wastewater
17 treatment plants for removal of a high per-
18 centage of phosphates from the plant effluentu
19 2. Preliminary studies by the DOW chemical Com-
20 pany at the Midland, Michigan wastewater
21 treatment plant in February 1967 -- that is
a municipal plant there -- indicating that
23
iron salts held promise for effective phos-
4 phate removal in both primary and biological
25
treatment systems.
-------
2521
I D. M. PIERCE
2 3. The need to apply the principles developed
3 in the san Antonio, Texas,studies to indivi-
4 dual, peculiar circumstances in order to
5 determine how such principles might be
6 applied effectively in the design of bioiogi-
7 cal treatment facilities with a high degree
8 of phosphate removal for such circumstances.
9 A variety of study methods and procedure
10 were followed. some involved bench studies only,
11 using jar tests on the wastes undergoing treat-
12 ment at the plant; others included full-scale
13 plant operation applying the knowledge acquired
14 in the bench work; and others were conducted at
15 pilot plants built to establish a basis Of design
16 for facilities to be added.
17 The first of these studies was conducted
18 at Grayling, a resort community of less than 2,000
19 resident population (Appendix P), and the second
20 at Lake Odessa, the trickling filter plants.
21 These two plants, selected for full plant scale
22 study, were not selected on the basis of the
23 excellence of the facilities for removal of phos-
24 phates by chemical methods. On. the contrary, the
25 facilities and the wastes to be treated were far
-------
2522
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 from ideal, as detailed in the report in the
3 Appendix. The plants were grossly overloaded
4 for significant periods during the study and no
5 formal facilities were available for the feeding
6 and mixing of the chemicals with the wastes to be
7 treated. Actually, these plants were selected
8 for study because of the urgency for exploring
9 methods for removal of phosphates from these
10 particular wastes where phosphate build-up in
11 the receiving waters are at critical levels today,
12 •'
one a major trout stream of national reputation
13
and the other a small recreational lake.
14 Bench studies at Grayling indicated that
90 percent or more of total phosphates could be
16
removed from the raw wastes by plain sedimentation
17 with the addition of about 20 milligrams per liter
18
of ferrous chloride, about 40 milligrams per liter
19
your text says an equal amount, and this is in-
20
correct; it is about 40 milligrams per liter --
21
of sodium hydroxide as calcium carbonate alkalinit
22
and about 0.5 milligrams per liter of an anionic
23
polymer. It was indicated that the caustic could
24
be added a few seconds following quick mix of the
25
iron salt with the raw sewage and that a selected
-------
2523
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 polymer, if added following an interval of about
3 5 minutes, would form a good floe after a short
4 period of about ten to fifteen minutes of slow
5 flocculation and would effectively remove the
6 phosphates. A very low order of removal of
7 total phosphates was experienced when no polymer
8 was added. These principles were applied to
9 full-plant scale operation within the limitations
10 of the facilities. The iron and caustic were adde
11 to the sewage at the lift station with no formal
12 mixing facilities and the polymer was added at the
13 entrance to the settling tank with crude and
14 temporarily rigged mixing equipment.
15 I might say here by way of explanation that
16 the ferrous chloride was introduced as the sewage
17 entered the lift station at the discharge of the
ip
incoming sewer. Then as it flowed across this
19 '
small lift station and was pumped in a force main
20
to the treatment plant, the caustic was added
21
through a plastic tube into the force main. The
22
force main had a contact time averaging about six
23
minutes, actually varying from about four to eight
24
minutes, and then the polymer was added in a
25
rising box before discharge over three weirs into
-------
2524
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 three separate settling tanks. The mixers were
3 installed near the inlet end of the tanks. These
4 were jerry rigged without actually any real pro-
5 vision for the slow flocculation that was deter-
6 mined by the bench studies to be necessary.
7 During much of the period of plant
8 scale application, which was from June 20 to
9 September 14, as detailed in the appendix, the
plant was grossly overloaded hydraulically by
11 reason of seasonal influx of tourists and a
12 National Guard encampment,connected to the
13 community sewer system. Actually, the overflow
14
rates in the settling tank ranged from about five
15 gallons per square foot per day to some 2500,
16 representing an overload at maximum flows of
17 some three tiroes. in spite of these adverse
circumstances total phosphate removal ranged
19
between 60 percent and 80 percent with a most
probable mean value of 72 percent. Correspond-
21
ingly, suspended solids removal ranged from 60
22
percent to 87 percent with a mean value of 78
23
percent representing an increase of about 27 per-
24
cent compared with performance when chemicals were
25
not added. Removal of 5-day BOD increased from a
-------
2525
D. M. PIERCE
2 mean value of about 40 percent before and after
3 the study to about 56 percent during the study.
4 It should be noted here that the raw sludge was
5 hauled to a land disposal site. Actually, this
6 plant has a digester and ordinarily supernatant
7 would have been returned, but they had some
8 difficulty with the heating coils and it was
g necessary to abandon the digester some months
10 before this study commenced. so these studies
11 are without benefit of supernatant return.
12 Ths cictsiil for all. of the "^oints for
13 all of the test data are shown in figure ill A,
14 figure IV A and figure v A, should you wish to
15 refer to this,on pages 86, 88 and 90.
16 Work of a similar nature, both in bench
17 studies with jar tests and full-scale plant opera-
18 tion, was performed at the Village of Lake Odessa
19 (Appendix G), and this report begins on page 95 of
20 the appendix. Here the municipal treatment facili-
21 ties include trickling filters and sludge diges-
22 tion facilities. The same chemicals were applied
23 to the raw sewage as at Grayling in about the
24 same concentration except that the dosage rates
25 of the ferrous chloride were less effectively
-------
2526
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 controlled, resulting in rather widely fluctuating
3 dosage rates, ranging from daily averages of about
4 15 mg/1 to 60 mg/1. Actually the ferrous chloride
5 was introduced at a constant rate and the rates of
6 flow of the incoming sewage varied widely, about
7 four to one. NO mixing or flocculation equipment
8 was installed. Wastes varied widely from day to
9 day and week to week in strength and quantities
10 by reason of changing admixtures of wastes from
11 a food processing plant. Total period of the
12 plant scale study both with and without chemical
13 treatment was 87 days including 33 days when valid
14 operating data were obtained under controlled
15 chemical feeding conditions. These data generally
16 confirmed Grayling observations although removal
17 of total phosphates, 5-day BOD and suspended
18 solids by primary sedimentation was somewhat lower
19 It was further indicated that:
1. Trickling filter performance is enhanced
21
as measured by 5-day BOD and suspended
22
solids removal, by this regime of chemi-
23 cal additions to the raw sewage. Most
24
probable mean values for overall plant
25
suspended solids removal increased from
-------
2527
! D. M. PIERCE
2 about 78 percent without chemical addi-
3 tives to about 89 percent with chemicals
4 Correspondingly, BOD removal increased
5 from about 60 percent to about 80 per-
6 cent.
7 2. Overall plant reduction of total phos-
8 phates was quite stable with values
9 generally between 75 percent and 92
10 percent removal and a mean value of
11 82 percent.
12 3. Total phosphates in the digester super-
13 natant were quite low with most values
14 below 75 mg/1. This appears to confirm
1s the findings of E. A. Thomas as reported
I6 in his published work conducted at the
17 treatment plant for the community of
18 Uster in Zurich, Switzerland.
19 Other work involving use of ferrous
20 chloride and polymers was performed last summer
21 at the village of Whitehall and the city of
22 Traverse city. The studies thus far have been
23 bench scale, employing jar tests similar to those
24 at Grayling and Lake Odessa. Results have general
25
ly confirmed the earlier findings at the other two
-------
2528
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 plants. At Traverse City it is planned to explore
3 further, by pilot plant studies, how to most
4 effectively remove phosphates from their peculiar
5 wastes in a biological treatment process requiring
6 a high order of removal of BOD and suspended
7 matter. The municipal sewage includes substan-
8 tial quantities of wastes from cherry processing
9 operations.
10 Rather extensive studies of phosphate
11 removal by metallic ion precipitation in a biologi
12 cal system were commenced last September at the
13 municipal activated sludge plant of the City of
14 Warren. A pilot plant was installed as the first
15 step in a study to eatablish a basis of design
16 for extending the present capabilities of the
17 plant to meet an effluent requirement of 8 mg/1
18 20-day BOD and 80 percent removal of total phos-
19 phates. Pilot plant components consist of acti-
vated sludge units followed by rapid sand filters.
21 Ferrous chloride or aluminum sulfate were fed into
22
the aeration tanks near their point of overflow
23
end of the first three months of daily operation
at about 15 mg/1. No polymers were added. At the
24
25
and testing seven days a week of composite samples,
-------
2529
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 it was established that)
3 1. Total phosphates precipitated by metal-
4 lie ions were removed by activated
5 sludge in the order of 70 percent or "
6 higher consistently and an additional
7 10 percent or more was removed by the
8 rapid sand filters.
9 2. The addition of iron or aluminum direct-
10 ly in the mixed liquor for phosphate
11 removal is compatible with the activated
12 sludge process when operated for high
13 degree BOD removal.
14 Other work of a pilot plant nature is
15 being conducted by the cities of Detroit and
16
Trenton under demonstration grants from the
17 Federal water Pollution Control Administration.
18
Both projects utilize activated sludge. Data
19'
obtained will be used, hopefully, for the design
20
of formal facilities to be added to the existing
21
primary plants for improved treatment, including
22
phosphate removal. The pilot plant at Detroit has
23
a nominal capacity in excess of 100 gpm and is
24
very flexible and adaptable to a wide variety of
25
control patterns and methods. Both plants have
-------
2530
I D. M. PIERCE
2 been operating for about four months. Biologic
3 methods utilized to date for phosphate removal
4 conform generally with the San Antonio procedures.
5 Although results thus far have not demonstrated
6 a consistent high order of removal of phosphates,
7 they are at this point inconclusive and indicate
8 that much more work will be required to establish
9 predictable patterns of phosphate removal by these
10 methods on these wastes.
11 In addition to the specific installation)
12 which we have discussed here, there are many treat-
13 ment plants in Michigan where tests have been
14 performed to establish the level of phosphates
15 in the municipal wastes, their variations and some
16 of their specific characteristics. In some of
17 these plants, jar tests have been made in the
18 laboratory using chemical additives to determine
19 amenability of the wastes and dosage rates require 1
20 for phosphate removal. In others, preliminary jar
21 test studies have been made on activated sludge
22 without chemical additives. Similar studies are
planned at several plants involving a wide variety
24
of conditions, methods, procedures and objectives.
25
As each study progresses it will add in
-------
2531
j D. M. PIERCE
2 some way to our knowledge of the mechanisms by
3 which phosphates may be effectively and economical
4 ly removed as a companion process to meet the over
5 all treatment objectives now being established.
6 I should like to go back for a moment,
7 Mr. Chairman, and comment on the indication of
8 costs gleaned from the studies at Grayling and
9 Lake Odessa, full plant scale studies.
10 In those particular circumstances where
11 the total phosphates in the raw wastes were quite
12 high, ranging at Grayling from 40 to 60 milligrams
13 per liter and in Lake Odessa in the area of 30 to
14 50 milligrams per liter, these particular chemical|s
15 resulted in a cost of approximately, in the case
16 of Grayling, three cents per thousand gallons,
17 30 dollars a million gallons; in the case of Lake
18 Odessa, a little bit more than this, perhaps
19 three and a half cents per thousand gallons.
20 This completes my portion of the report.
21 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Pierce.
22 At the request of the Michigan Conferees
23 Mr. Pierce has to get a plane soon, and I think
24 that they have asked us to change their original
25 requirement and ask that questions or comments on
-------
2532
1 D. M. PIERCE
2
Mr. Pierce's portion of the presentation be made
3
now and withhold your comments or questions on
the one made by Ralph Purdy. Mr. Purdy will
5
return for an additional presentation.
6
MR. PIERCE: Thank you, sir.
7
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or
8
questions to Mr. Pierce?
9
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Pierce, you say three
10
and a half cents per thousand gallons for chemi-
11
cals?
12
MR. PIERCE: Yes.
13
MR. HOLMER: This does not include
14
the cost of operation nor the removal of sludge?
15
It is strictly the chemical costs?
16
MR. PIERCE: yes, sir, strictly.
17
MR. HOLMER: I have one other that
18
doesn't relate to this subject but to the certi-
19
fication of plant operators, we admire your
20
system and have adopted it ourselves.
21
We do not certify industrial treatment
22
plant operators. I noticed, or thought I did,
23
in something Indiana said yesterday to the effect
24
that they were in the business of certifying
25
industrial plant operators. Is Michigan in that
-------
2533
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 business too?
3 MR. PIERCE: No. No. Actually, one
4 of the fundamental reasons for this is that under
5 the statute requiring certification, this deals
6 only with the public sewerage systems and does
7 not relate to industrial establishments where
8 they discharge directly to the stream. That
9 statute is the water Resources commission Statute
10 differentiated from the Health Department statute
11 and this does not contain such a specific provi-
12 sion.
*3 I might say here, parenthetically,
14 with Ralph Purdy's permission, that consideration
15 is being given now by the water Resources coro-
16 mission to the establishment of such a system
17 with respect to discharge of industrial wastes
18 to the stream.
19 MR. HOLMER: With respect to the
nutrient removal again, we note in the tables
21
attached to, or that are a part of this record,
22
differentiation between 9-hour sampling and 24-
23
hour sampling. Is this a significant distinction
24
that ought properly to lead us to some conclusion
25
with respect to phosphorus rich versus less rich
-------
253^
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 influent?
3 MR. PIERCE: I doubt it. Actually,
4 we reported here for your benefit the actual
5 period of the sampling. In our analysis of
6 the difference in the raw waste in the perform-
7 ance during periods of full-day sampling as
8 compared to 9-hour sampling, we were unable to
9 identify any specific variations in the capabilit
10 of chemical treatment for removal of phosphates,
11 although there was a difference, obviously, in
12 both rates of flow, average rates of flow during
13 the period, and of phosphate concentrations.
14 But the percent removal seemed to be independent
1s of this, and this was observed also throughout
16 the period as flow rates changed, as concentra-
17 tions changed. But even though it was impossible
18 here to regulate chemical additions in relation
19 to phosphate concentration, there did not seem
20 to be much difference in the percent of phosphate
21
removal under any of these circumstances.
22 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
23 questions?
24 MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Chairman.
25
Mr. Pierce, on page 85 in your report,
-------
2535
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 with reference to the grayling situation,
3 Appendix F, I guess. Yes, that is in Appendix
4 F, page 85 .,
5 MR. PIERCE: I will depend again on
•
6 my good friend Ralph here to find the page.
7 Yes.
8 MR. WISNIEWSKI: A glance at the
9 percent removal of the total phosphates indicates
10 that on the 24-hour sampling your results were
H consistently lower than they were on the 9-hour
12 sampling and that they were in the range of
13 possibly 60 to 70 percent, with most of them
14 near the 60 range.
15 MR. PIERCE: yes. You will notice
I6 here, however, that there is a great difference
17 in the rate of flow during this period.
18 MR. WISNIEWSKI: Rate of flow was sub-
19 stantially lower during the 24-hour periods than
*° during the 9-hour periods.
21 MR. PIERCE: Yes, correct.
22 MR. WISNIEWSKI: So you should have
23 gotten better results.
24 MR. PIERCE: Well, actually, you will
25
note that during the 24-rhour sampling period
-------
2536
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 that there was quite a variation. There were
3 both low and high removals. And we thought
4 that the extent of the data here, that the
S . number of days of sampling was not sufficient
6 to demonstrate conclusively one way or the
7 other that there was a significant difference.
8 Had all of the figures been low or all had been
9 high, it would have indicated a clearer trend.
10 MR. WISNIEWSKI: The only thing I am
11 pointing to here is that the 24-hour tests
12 indicate that you never reached the 80 percent
13 everybody talks about on the practical operation
14 if you will draw a straight line through there,
15 it will hit at about 75 percent and you will
16 find that there are one, two, three, four, five,
17 six, below the 75 percent line.
W MR. PIERCE: well, this is correct.
19 And also if you will look at the 9-hour sampling
20 days, there are many of those days that were in
21 the area of 60, 70 percent removal. But when
22 you look at the total pattern of phosphate re-
23 rooval, taking all of those figures and treating
24 them as a whole, on page 86, Figure ill A, you
25 will note here that the mean -- or the most
-------
2537
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 probable or centering value for all of the data
3 is 71.5 percent removal, ranging generally from
4 about 65 to 80. That is four days when the
5 removal was less than 60 percent, between 55
6 and 60, one day when it was better than 80.
7 Now, I should like to point out again
8 here that in the Grayling circumstance that
9 the plant was grossly overloaded during this
10 period, that there were no normal and us ual
11 facilities for the feeding or mixing or the
12
flocculation of the chemicals, and as a matter
13
of fact, everything was working against the
14 removal of phosphates, and that here, in spite--
the point that we are making here, very factually
16
is that in spite of almost insurmountable obsta-
17
cles in the removal of phosphates by this
18
method, the mean value of removal of total
19
phosphates was 71.5 percent.
20
MR. WISNIEWSKI: No, I think the times
21
when you had the very high concentrations of the
22
order of 74 to 79 milligrams per liter in the
23
raw wastes were the times when you were getting
24
these higher percentage removals of 30 percent,
25
let's say, but this meant that you had left in
-------
2538
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 your effluent at least 20 milligrams per liter
3 of total phosphorus which you were discharging
4 to the stream, when your concentrations were
5 30 milligrams per liter or under, your efficiency
6 ran in the 50 to 60 percent range.
7 MR. PIERCE: We only had four days,
8 as I just pointed out, that were under 70 percent
9 removal.
10 MR. WISNIEWSKI: There is one other
11 factor we note in the narrative, you indicate
12 that there is a substantial increase in soluble
13 iron in the effluent.
14 MR. PIERCE: This is correct.
15 MR. WISNIEWSKIi Did you notice any
16 deposits of iron below the outfall from this
17 treatment plant, any deposits in the stream at
18 any point?
19 MR. PIERCE: No. No. But --
20 MR. WISNIEWSKI: Was there any increase
21
in the cloudiness of the water?
22 MR. PIERCE: No. But this does not
23
mean that this would not occur. Actually, there
24
is a good deal of flow here with a fairly high
25
velocity at this point. There is a great deal
-------
2539
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 or quite a bit of turbidity in the effluent which
3 would mask an appearance of this kind for such a
4 short period.
5 MR. WiSNIEnoKli But the iron content
6 was around 8 milligrams per liter, which is quite
7 high.
8 MR. PIERCE: Averaged, I believe, about
9 six, from about four to about eight.
10 MR. WISNIEWSKI: We don't like to talk
11 in averages in Wisconsin, we like to take the
12 worst condition and correct for that.
13 MR. PIERCE: Touch* *
14 MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole.
15 MR. POOLE: I want to pursue this a
16
little with Don. I was having a private conver-
17
sation here, but did I hear you say that phos-
18
phates at Grayling were 48 parts per million or
19 better?
20
MR. PIERCE: They went from 40 to 60
21
quite frequently.
22
MR. POOLE: How much did they run at
23
the other place?
24
MR. PIERCE: Somewhere normally between
25
30 and 40 with departures from those values.
-------
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 MR. POOLE: We must be accomplishing
3 this removal without doing anything, then. I
4 don't have any phosphates on our raw sewage,
but I am looking at them here for"East Chicago
6 and Gary and Michigan City and Mishawaka and
7 South Bend, and in the effluents they are running
8 6 to 8 parts per million, and I don't know what
9 the raw sewage is. But the point I am trying
10 to make, I had assumed that we were getting
11 very little phosphate reduction through these
12 just ordinary activated sludge plants. East
13 Chicago uses some alum and they have been averag-
14 ing three and a half parts in their effluent, whi^h
I suspect on the basis of what I have heard in
16 the last few days is the benefit from the chemi-
17 cal.
18
But if our plants are not removing any
19 substantial portion of phosphates, our fellows
are either making a mistake in their detormina-
21 tion of the effluents or we are talking about a
22
much lower range of phosphates than you are.
23 And so I think I am prepared to follow
24
along with Ted in that I am questioning now
25
whether you have any justification for saying
-------
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 you can remove 80 percent of the phosphates on
3 the basis of this work.
4 MR. PIERCE: well, Mr. Poole, we have
^ observed, in the studies we have made thus far
6 in a number of places, that phosphate concentra-
7 tions vary widely and often unpredictably from
8 sewage to sewage. in Detroit,,for example, the
9 phosphate concentration is more on the order of
10 10, sometimes 15, sometimes lower than 10. At
11 some other places we have found it at 15 or 20.
12 This particular situation at Grayling is a resort
13 community with an unbalanced number of iaundro-
14 mats, a great deal of detergents, and I can't
15 explain what the reasons were at Lake Odessa.
16 . It may have had something to do with cleaning
17 operations in connection with the canneries.
18 But this we haven't got into.
19 Actually, here in our studies we have
made these as preliminary investigations without
21 selecting the places for the purpose of making
22
an academic study, but rather for the purposes of
23
solving a problem that existed.
24
These installations may not be at all
25
typical. And 1 can't say whether the — I can't
-------
25^2
j D. M. PIERCE
2 predict whether we would have the same experience
3 with other wastes under a wide variety of condi-
4 tions, some with low phosphate concentrations,
5 some with high and some with other constituents
6 which might interfere with this. All we have
7 to offer you today is the experience that we
8 have presented here on these particular installa-
9 tions.
10 MR. POOLE: This has been most helpful
11 and I am not going to turn this into a technical
12 session, but I think you well appreciate, as do
13 many of the rest of us, that you can start out
14 with a BOD of a thousand or with a suspended
15 solids content of a thousand and it is no trick
16 at all to get a 90 percent reduction. But if
17 you start out with a BOD of a hundred or a hundrejl
18 twenty-five, then when you commence talking about
19 a 90 percent reduction, why, it is a horse of
20 a different color.
21 The only thing I am saying here now is
22 that what I am interested in is a phosphate
23 removal process that will take these sewages
24 that apparently have 10, 12, 15 parts per
25 million in the raw sewage and will give us the
-------
25^3
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 80 percent reduction on that, because, as I
3 indicated here, these are all preliminary
4 figures and not over too long a period of time,
^ but the highest result I have for the averages
6 on any of them was eight and a half parts per
7 million for one plant and it ran from three and
8 a half up to eight and a half. so, I would
9 assume that their raw sewage phosphates couldn't
10 be over 12 to 15 or else the activated sludge
11 process all along has been removing more phos-
12 phates than we have been giving them credit for.
13 MR. PIERCE: May I just say, Mr. Chair-
14 man, that thus far all of the studies that we
15 have made, both in bench scale, and in plant
16 scale, have shown great promise of effective
17 phosphate removal in connection with various
18 processes, certainly a great deal, or more
19
studies needs to be made, and we plan to make
such studies at a number of places in Michigan
with a wide variety of conditions, and I would
22
hope that if each of the four states would make
23
equal studies and equal explanations that we
24
might soon have a variety of conditions with
25
experience that could be used as the basis for
-------
l D. M. PIERCE
2 judgment.
3 MR. STEIN: Is there any other comment?
4 Mr. Klassen?
S MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, just two
S questions for information.
7 Don, we recognize that Michigan has
8 probably had as much if not more actual experienc
9 in the chlorination of sewage than any of the
10 other states. This is the reason for my asking
11 you these two questions.
12 Have you made any studies, are you
13 concerned with, the possibility that in chlorinat
14 ing our sewage from our modern industrial coro-
15 munities that we may be chlorinating hydrocarbons
16 so we are ending up with chlorinated hydrocarbons
17 that could be toxic in the stream? That is one.
18 The second one is along the same line
*9 in a little different areas That we may be
20 building up a chlorine immunity to the patho-
21 genie organisms in the sewage which later, if
22 that same water is picked up and used for water
23 supply, that chlorination of the water supply
24 would not be bacterially effective.
25 And ray reason for raising these two
-------
25^5
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 questions, because I think there are two countrie
3 Germany and England, do not chlorinate sewage
4 based on these two reasons. I wondered what your
5 experience has been in Michigan.
6 MR. PIERCE: Actually, I am afraid
7 that I can't throw any light on those questions,
8 as you might suspect. we don't have a good deal
9 of apprehension about this, however.
10 We have no evidence to indicate that
11 chlorinated hydrocarbons are creating problems
12 in the stream, the receiving stream, but this
13 doesn't mean that there may not be isolated
14
23
problems. I think this is deserving of study.
15 And the other question, I think, is
1 a speculative one and one that we can only con-
17 jecture about at this point
* And while I can appreciate the grounds
19
for your question, I am afraid I can't help you.
20 MR. STEIN: I think we had some other
21
comments. Unless you do. Do you want to ask
something?
MR. VOGT: I would like to go back to
24
Mr. Poole's comment about the phosphates in the
25
effluent, say, at South Bend, where, Blucher,
-------
25^6
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 you mentioned that, as I recall it, south Bend
3 does use some alum, or one of the plants.
4 .MR. POOLSt East Chicago uses alum.
5 Their average is three and a half against an
6 average of the other plants, I would say, of abou
7 seven.
8 MR. VOGT: Don, didn't the work over
9 at warren indicate that alum did prove rather
10 effective in removing or did help in removing
11 phosphates in the pilot study that they conduct-
12 ed over there, that most of the time was spent on
13 the use of the iron salts, but as I recall they
14 also used alum for a short time and did find
15 fairly good results with the use of alum, which
IB
would indicate that perhaps East Chicago, by
17 the use of alum, is, in effect, helping the biologi
18
cal process in the reduction of the total phos-
19 phates?
MR. PIERCE: Yes, this is correct.
21
They used alum for a short period, which they
22
expect to explore further, and had about the
23
same dosage rates and about the same results.
24
And there at warren, incidentally,
25
the phosphates ranged from about 15 to about 35
-------
2547
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 total phosphates.
3 MR. KLASSEN: I had one other question.
4 MR. STEIN: Yes.
5 MR. KLASSEN: Dp you chlorinate the
6 effluent from lagoons? And one of the staff
7 here said that we noted that Texas exempts
8 lagoons from chlorination. Apparently that was
9 approved by the Department of the interior.
10 Do you chlorinate lagoon effluents in
11 Michigan, require it? we do in Illinois, and I
12 just wondered whether you do.
13 MR. PIERCE: You always get to the
14 bottom of it, don't you?
(
15 MR. KLASSEN: Lagoon is really pretty
16 much at the bottom of it.
17 MR. PIERCE: No, actually, Mr. Klassen,
18 we haven't chlorinated the effluent from lagoons
19 as yet. we are exploring methods for this,
20 recognizing that we have a special problem,
21 particularly where we have a high concentration
22 of algae.
23 But our lagoon operations in Michigan
MJ
are strictly on a seasonal discharge basis for
very, very short periods of time, we discharge
-------
2548
! D. M. PIERCE
2 only for about two weeks in late fail and two
3 weeks after the ice has come off in the spring,
4 so while this is less hazardous, perhaps, less
5 reason for chlorination than a continuous dis-
6 charge, it is something that we want to get to*
7 And we are looking to the Federal Government,
8 to the researchers and anybody else that can
9 shed light on how to manage a lagoon effluent
10 with effective disinfection.
11 We haven't swept it under the rug,
12 but we haven't found a good way to do this for
13 those two short periods of high rate discharge.
14 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
15 questions or comments?
16 DR. BORUFFs Mr. Chairman, as a
17 chemist, or maybe modified as an ex-chemist,
18 the speaker's tables are in terms of phosphate
19 P04?
20 MR. PIERCEs Yes, sir.
21 DR. BORUFF: Others, I believe,Dr.
22 weih-berger talked about parts per million of
23 phosphorus. As a chemist I want to call atten-
24 tion that 30 parts per million of phosphate woul
25 "
be about 10 parts per million of phosphorus, so
.
-------
25^9
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
D. M. PIERCE
you have got to divide by about three, in case
there is some confusion here regarding the
methods of reporting.
MR. PIERCE: Correct. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Boruff.
Mr. poole.
MR. POOLE: I was talking about phos-
phates and I assumed that was what Don was talk-
ing about. Am I correct?
MR. PIERCE: That's correct.
MR. POOLE: I had a question of Mr.
Purdy, if we are discussing that part of it now.
MR. STEIN: No, no. we have to wait.
We are just discussing Mr. Pierce's part.
MR. POOLEj All right.
MR. STEINs Do we have any further
comments or questions?
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: I would like to ask Mr.
Pierce if there were designed mixing facilities
and facilities to add chemicals in the regularly
the plant designed to mix and receive chemicals
and settle them out, wouldn't you expect
appreciably better results than you got at
-------
2550
! D. M. PIERCE
2 Grayling and Odessa?
3 MR. PIERCE: Yes. Yes, indeed. This
4 is discussed briefly in the appendix in the
5 reports.
6 We hope that within the year we may
7 have some experience that will throw some light
8 on this.
9 We have one chemical precipitation
10 plant in Michigan in this basin, at petoskey, whi
11 has good formal facilities and which they use
12 during the summer months, adding chemicals for
13 regular chemical precipitation plant, we want
14 to do some work at Petoskey on the use of iron
15 salts and on various other chemicals for the
16 removal of phosphates, and we plan to go in
17 there in March and to get a good month, month
18 and a half of sound information on background
19 without chemical feed, and then to go on with
this for two or three or four months or perhaps
longer, and explore what can be done with good
22 formal facilities, with the addition of chemicals
for phosphate removal.
24
This would give us a much better feel
25
on what can be done and hopefully we will have
-------
I 2551
1 D. M. PIERCE
2 a waste that is lower in phosphates.
3 MR. POSTON: That is all I have.
4 MR. STEIN: Do we have any more coxn-
5 rnents or questions? you had better ask Mr.
6 Pierce now; he is going to leave.
7 (No response.?
8 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Don,
9 for a very illuminating statement. we enjoyed
10 it.
11 MR. PIERCE: Thank you, sir.
12 MR. STEIN: I think at this point we
13 will call on Mr. Holraer again to accommodate
14 someone from Wisconsin who asked to make a
15 statement.
16 Mr. Holmer.
17
18 WISCONSIN PRESENTATION
19
20 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Stein, I appreciate
21
the tolerance of the delegation from Michigan
22
in allowing us twice to do this in the same
23
afternoon.
24
We have been treated over the last
25 "
several days to appearances by patient women from
-------
2552
HOLMER
2 other states. The roll of women in the fight
3 on pollution in which we are all engaged is a
4 very important and significant one. The roll
5 of The Izaak Walton League in our respective
6 states in keeping the public awareness of the
7 problem and helping us toward solutions is also
8 well known.
9 We have from Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Mrs. Eugene Dahi, who fills in both capacities an
who has been very helpful to the State of Wiscon-
12
sin and to the Division of Resource Development
13
in our water pollution effort. She is present-
14
ing a statement this afternoon on behalf of the
Wiscbfisin Izaak Walton League, and it is a
16
privilege for me to present to this audience
17
arid to my fellow Conferees, Mrs. Dahl.
18
ig STATEMENT Op MIRIAM DAHL
2Q CHAIRMAN OF THE POLLUTION PROGRAM
21 WISCONSIN STATE DIVISION
22 IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
23
MRS. DAHL: Thank you, Mr. Holmer.
24
And thank you for your very generous indulgence
25
in allowing me to do this at this time.
-------
2553
1 MIRIAM DA HI,
2 Mr. Williams has the copies for every-
3 one. I don't know where they are.
4 May I say at this point, while we are
5 waiting to see if we have got the copies, that
6 our approach to this problem has been on specifi-
7 cation. We don't think that we are in the field
8 of experts, we think that we are in the field
9 of generalities and specification in the area
10 of the goals which we want to reach.
I would like to say, too, that our
12 goals are based on very definite specification,
13 which if there is time and if you wish to hear
them I would be glad to explain later, or if
there are questions I will be glad to answer
16 them.
17 Shall I begin?
18 MR. HOLMER: Yes.
19
MRS. DAHL: There should be copies
20
coming.
21
Mr. Chairman and members of the
22
committee, ladies and gentlemen, fellow conserva-
23
tionists.
24
The Wisconsin Division of the izaak
25
Walton League of America represents some 1500
-------
2554
MIRIAM DAHL
2 members in 24 chapters situated throughout the
3 state of Wisconsin. It is a democratically
4 organized group of citizens who are sincerely
interested in conservation and outdoor recreation
and whose individual proposals when adopted are
7 included in the conservation Policies of the
8 Izaak Walton League. This explanation is cited
9 to show that the positions here taken are from th<>
10 membership body and thus comprise a truly repre-
11 sentative voice from concerned conservationists.
12 The long history of persistent and
13 arduous work of conservationists cooperating
14
with government and others has brought some
15 gratifying results in good laws, concentrated
16 research and a program of correction which is
17 commendable. This is a good start.
18 We have the laws to do the job, but
19
apathy remains firmly existent, wasting more of
the too brief remaining time estimated necessary
21
by our experts to do the job. we need to acceler-
22
ate the implementation of corrections on a more
23
rapid schedule. This is the reason we are here
24
today, we believe a larger more closely coordi-
25
nated effort is needed NOW.
-------
2555
1 MIRIAM DAHL
2 We suggest that a working group repre-
3 senting government, industry, municipalities,
4 che general public (who are now largely excluded)
and conservationists from the Lake Basin area
6 should meet with only ONE purpose -- to work on
7 the problems of the LAKES area. ALL research
data on the lake, including the lowest to the
9 highest forms of life ought to be considered with
10 regard exclusively for the best possible condi-
11 tion of the waters. This new approach could,
12 with imagination, (the hidden ingredient of
13 invention), reveal some new techniques in solu-
14 tions of problems which have not previously been
15 considered in the routine processes of attempted
16
corrections. It could also offer real solutions
17 instead of partial and "make-do" measures. The
comparative economic value of full correction now
19 instead of creating a need for more costly changes
to meet the anticipated increase of existing
21
problems in the future is evident to'any thinking
22
business executive or to any politician concerned
23
with the tax structure.
24
The members of the Wisconsin Division
25
of IWLA are not interested in a debate with
-------
2556
! MIRIAM DAHL
2 industry nor with government, we do not wish
3 to become involved with personalities or posi-
4 tions. We approach the problem (a huge one,
5 we realize) of returning this priceless resource
6 into a fine workable asset which will produce
7 economically while also fulfilling the functions
8 of life-giving beauty and recreation. All of
9 these goals can be accomplished with full use
10 of all our expertise coupled with common sense
H and with a singleness of purpose not divided by
12 personal or partisan problems which has, accord-
13 ing to history, lost many causes and nations.
14 we would hope to benefit from the lessons it
15 teaches, for without the Lake resources -- imagine
I6 if you can, the results on our lives.
17 The above proposal is a NEW approach.
18 This new overlook can reveal different ideas.
19 Possible new solutions will .come from such perti-
20 nent questions as "is this necessary?" "What are
21 the alternatives?" "What is the very lowest scal
-------
2557
i MIRIAM DAHL
2 and wise use, or of a selfish, short-sighted
3 purpose made to look benevolent?"
4 Let us not forget that we who comprise
5 a very minute population of the world, are
6 privileged to enjoy this magnificient gift. So
i
many of us do not recognize or realize its magni-
a
tude and rarity because of the over-exposure of
daily association. We have become callous toward
this tremendous resource.
11 The Wisconsin Division of the IWLA
12
urges an end to inaction and a firm move into
13
an active program of implementing the laws which
14
make it possible to reclaim our Great Lakes Basin
15
area, we strongly urge further that this hearing
16
be the catalyst for a strong active pollution
17
elimination program beginning now. We have the
18
authority. We have the technological ability.
19
We have the research data necessary. There is
20
nothing to stop us except our own indecisiveness.
21
In the face of the rapidly increasing tempo of
22
destruction, we cannot begin too soon to stop
23
this despoilage and to reach our mutual objective
24
of a Great Lakes Basin wisely used and wisely
25
preserved.
-------
2558
1 MIRIAM DAHL
2 The Wisconsin Division of The izaak
3 Walton League of America to the last member is
4 ready and willing to help, we urge that action
5 begin today.
6 Thank you.
7 And it is signed J. Michael Borden,
8 who is President of the Wisconsin State Division
9 of the izaak Walton League of America. And I
10 am the chairman on that level of the pollution
11 programs.
12 MR. STEIN* Thank you, Mrs. Dahl.
13 (Applause.)
14 MR. STEIN: Are there any comments
15 or questions?
16 (No response.)
17 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very
18
much.
19
MRS. DAHLs There are no questions?
20
MR. STEIN: There are none. Thank
21
you very much.
22
Mr. Vogt, may we push on, please?
23
24 MICHIGAN PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
25
MR. VOGTs We will return now to Mr.
-------
2559
^ R. W. PURDY
2 Purdy, who will continue with the state of
3 Michigan Report.
4
STATEMENT OF RALPH PURDY
5
CHIEF ENGINEER
6
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
7
(CONTINUED)
8
9 MR. PURDYs Picking up on page 20:
1Q CHAPTER III
DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS
11
12 INDUSTRIES
13
The Water Resources Commission staff
14
has under surveillance 231 industries which dis-
15
charge treated or untreated waste water to public
16
waters in the Lake Michigan Basin. The 231
17
industries that discharge waste effluents to
18
- surface waters are listed in Appendix H, and
for just a moment I would like to turn to that
20
to show the information that has been included
21
in this.
22
We first show the industrial discharges
23
to Lake Michigan, some 16 are listed, the company
•4
name, the product, its location, the treatment
-------
2560
j R. W. PURDY
2 that is provided, the waste flow data where such
3 is available, pounds of BOD per day, suspended
4 solids pounds per day, the pollution status rating,
5 which I will explain in a few moments, whether an
6 order has been adopted and, if so, when, and cer-
7 tain other remarks that might be pertinent to
8 that plant.
9 The pollution status ratings are updated
10 annually and represent the water Resources comrois-
H sion staff's effort to fairly appraise each
12 incipient pollution problem as indicated by a
13 review of operating reports, observations, inspec-
14 tions or surveys during the preceding calendar
15 year. The ratings are by letter code as follows:
16 A. Control adequate
17 B. Control provided - adequacy not
established
18 C. No control - need not establish
19 D. Control provided - protection un-
reliable
20 E. Control inadequate
21 c - construction underway
22 p - plans being prepared
2* s - studies underway
24 Table 1 summarizes the pollution status
2S ratings of the 16 industries which have effluent
discharges directly to Lake Michigan:
-------
Pollution
Status
Rating
A
B
B - Studies in progress
C
D
D - Construction in
progress
E
No rating given
Table 1
Type of Industry
Electric pood and
Chemicals Power Packing Minerals paper
2 3 2 2
1
1
1
1
11 1
Total
9
1
1
1
1
3
Total
2 4 532
16
As shown by the table, only 2 of the 16 have D or E pollution
status ratings.
ro
ui
a\
-------
2563
1 R. W. PURDY
2 In addition to the 16 industries which
3 have effluent discharges directly to Lake Michigan,
4 215 have effluent discharges to inland surface
5 waters tributary to Lake Michigan. The pollution
6 status ratings for these industries are summarized
7 by tributary river basins in Table 2, 56 have D
8 or E pollution status ratings.
9
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS
10
11 The 193 governmental units that dis-
12 charge waste effluents to public waters are
13 listed in Appendix I, together with the type of
14 treatment provided, waste effluent data where
1s such is available, abatement action taken and
16 present status. And we have done this again for
17 all of the discharges in the Lake Michigan Basin.
18 The data was obtained from records of the Michigan
19 Department of Public Health and the files of the
/
" Michigan Water Resources Commission. The waste
21 effluent data reflects the average for the month
22 of August 1967. Only 6 discharge their waste
23 effluent directly to Lake Michigan. The remainder
(188) discharge to various tributaries, some within
25
a short distance from the lake and others several
-------
Table 2
Summary of Industrial Surface' Water Discharges
in the Lake Michigan Basin
April 1, 1967
"**—»^^^
Pollution" -^___River Basin
Status Rating, " ~~~^^___^
April 1, 1967 . ^~~~~~-^-~^_
A
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
B
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
C
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
D
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
E
'C Construction ' in progress
? Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
No Rating Given ' '
. Total
0)
(!) Q*
t, ^
0 io
.:,
'1
1
4
?s. Lo o- which have dual i-3tir.::~.
to
VJJ
0\
ro
-------
2564,
l
2
3
4
S
9
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
R. W. PURDY
hundred miles inland.
The 6 with a discharge to Lake Michigan
are:
Governmental Unit
Gladstone
Harbor Pointe
Harbor Springs
Petoskey
Suttons Bay
wequetonsing
Population
5,400 Primary
800
1,430
Treatment
Primary (septic tank)
Primary (fine screen)
6,400 Primary (chemical
precipitation)
420 Secondary (lagoons)
1,000 Primary (Irahoff tank)
You will note that they are all rather small,
the largest with a population of 6,400. Approxi*
roately 2.3 million people live in the Michigan
portion of the Lake Michigan Basin. A large
percentage (43%) live in rural areas where collec-
tion and treatment of waste water by a central
system is not necessary or feasible at the present
time. They, in the roost part, are served by
individual systems, such as a septic tank followed
by a subsurface percolation field. All but 4 per-
cent of the population readily accessible to centra
systems are served by formal collection and treat-
ment systems with approximately 72 percent of the
-------
2565
4 R. W. PURDY
2 population serviced receiving treatment by secon-
3 dary biological processes. Fifty-three govern-
4 mental units have been identified as permitting,
5 allowing or suffering the discharge of raw sewage
6 of human origin to public waters and in all in-
7 stances the water Resources Commission has, as
A
a minimum, held an initial informal conference
with the responsible governmental unit to discuss
10 and encourage an appropriate water pollution
abatement program. This initial action has been
12
followed in 22 instances by formal statutory enforqe
13
ment proceedings. The others are currently pro-
14
grossing satisfactorily but remain under continuing
review.
16
In Chapter 4 we have described the Lake
17
Michigan Basin and the water uses in the basin.
18
I will not go through this in the interest of
19
saving time this afternoon. I woo Id like to
20
point out, though, that some 650,000 people in
21
Michigan use this as a water supply and that
22
recreational use of our shoreline of 1,660 miles
23
is very important to the economy of Michigan.
24
I would like to skip over now to page 32.
25
-------
2566
j R. W. PURDY
CHAPTER V
2 PART I
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAKE MICHIGAN
3
ALEWIFE DIE-OFF AND RESULTING WATER QUALITY
4
5
Observations of depressed water quality
B
conditions and increased bacteria counts concur-
7
rent with the annual alewife die-off along the
8
Michigan shoreline of Lake Michigan led to a
9
laboratory study of the problem (Appendix J).
10
Six tubs, three containing Lake Michigan water
and three containing Lansing tap water, were
12
placed in an open area exposed to sunlight. Two
13
of the tubs containing Lake Michigan water and
14
two containing Lansing tap water each received
15
one-freshly dead 6-inch alewife. chemical, bac-
16
teriological, and algal changes were monitored
17
over the next 23 days, from August 16 to September
18
8, 1967. The dead fish provided an environment
19
which allowed a population explosion of coliforro
20
bacteria. Decomposition of the fish tissues
21
resulted in a nutrient release which in turn
22
enabled a dense algal bloom to develop, coliform
23
and fecal coliforro bacteria populations as high
24
as 1,500,000/100 ml and 3,500/100 ml, respectively,
25 .
developed in the tubs containing a dead alewife.
-------
2567
1 R. W. PURDY
2 Abnormally high coliform bacteria
3 populations developed along Lake Michigan beaches
4 during the summer of 1967. The presence of dead
5 alewives was probably a major reason for this
6 abnormality. The high counts partially negate
7 the value of beach bacteria sampling as an indica-
8 tion of sewage contamination.
9 Phosphate released from the decomposing
10 fish in the tubs was rapid. Each single dead
11 alewife in approximately 6.8 gallons of water
12 released more than 2.0 mg/1 soluble orthophosphate
13 as PO4 within two days. soluble orthophosphate
I4 in these tests reached concentrations as high as
15 6.3 mg/1. The total phosphate released from
16 these four fish during the test ranged from a low
17 of 113 mg to a high of 201 mg P(>4 per fish.
18 In the tubs containing alewives, blooms
19 of small single-celled, green algae developed
20 shortly after nutrient release. In 1 case the
21 algae population grew from less than 100 cells/ml
22 to a maximum of 3,187,800/ml. These exploding
23 populations utilized the available soluble
24 orthophosphate. concentrations of this phosphorus
25
fraction dropped while total phosphate continued
-------
256^
1 R. W. PURDY
2 to increase.
3 One agency has estimated that a few
4 hundred million pounds of alewives died in Lake
5 Michigan during 1967. For the purpose of this
6 report we will use 300 million pounds. Analytical
7 work by the u. S. Bureau of commercial Fisheries
8 on several groups of alewives has shown that
9 alewives about 6-inches long contain approximately
2.23 grams of phosphorus per pound of fish. Thus,
300 million pounds of dead alewives could release
12 2,300 tons of phosphates into Lake Michigan. The
13
concentration of soluble orthophosphate as PO4
commonly claimed sufficient to create nuisance
algae conditions in water is 0.03 mg/1. If two-
16
thirds of the released phosphorus was in the form
17
of soluble orthophosphate the potential from this
18
source alone exists to bring approximately 11 cubic
19
miles of phosphorus-free water to the point nuisanc
20
algae blooms could occur.
21
It is generally acknowledged that during
22
the summer the water mass along Michigan's west
23
coast from Benton Harbor-St. Joseph to Little
24
Point Sable is discrete and moves northward unless
25
broken up by strong winds. The U. S. Bureau of
-------
2569
I R. W. PURDY
tt
2 Commercial Fisheries aerial survey showed that
3 most of the dead alewives were concentrated in the
4 southern tip of Lake Michigan and in a band along
5 both shores in the southern two-thirds of the
6 lake, windrows of dead alewives collect in the
7 shallow water beach zone. Nutrients from the
8 decomposing fish were released into this discrete,
9 surface water mass which is already enriched by
10 the tributary rivers draining urban and agricul-
11 tural areas. There are 2,240,000 acre feet of
12 water in Lake Michigan along the shoreline out
13 to the 30-foot depth contour from the Indiana-
i
14 Michigan state line to the tip of the Leelanau
15 Peninsula. Assuming two-thirds of the phosphorus
16 released during alewife decomposition is available
17 for uptake then only 18,700,000 pounds of decompos-
18 ing alewives would be necessary to bring that
19 amount of phosphorus-free water to the critical
2° nuisance-algal-producing level. This stretch of
21 shore comprises approximately 20 percent of the
22 total Lake Michigan coastline. Twenty percent of
23
the estimated alewife die-off of 300 million
24
probable that more than the 18,700,000 pounds
pounds is 60 million pounds. It seems highly
25
-------
2570
1 R. W. PURDY
2 needed to bring the nutrient concentration to
3 nuisance-potential levels would accumulate in
4 this area.
5 Growing alewives concentrate phosphorus
6 already present in the lake, it is normal for
7 phosphorus to be recycled upon their death, but
8 because of their unusually high population and
9 habit of dying during a short period of the
year in the alongshore waters, the phosphorus is
11 released in a relatively small volume of water.
12
It is concluded that phosphate released from de-
13 '
composing alewives in the alongshore water mass
14
of Lake Michigan is a significant factor in the
production of algae. Nuisances which can develop
16
with increases in algal populations include a
17
reduction in transparency, reduction in length
18
of filter runs at water plants, possible taste and
19
odor problems in drinking water, interference with
20
swimming, and deposition of filamentous algae on
21
beaches.
22
Departing a moment from the text, the
23
presentation made by the commercial fisher it an
24
on the number of pounds of alewives that they
25
could harvest from the lake to represent a meana
-------
2571
1 R. W. PURDY
2 of harvesting a substantial portion of the amount
3 of phosphates in the lake. I am not arguing that
4 we shouldn't stop the discharge of phosphates
into the lake, but another benefit that would be
6 derived would be that you would remove and harvest
7 phosphates that are already present in the lake.
9 CHAPTER V
PART 2
9 INVESTIGATION OF NUISANCE ALGAE CONDITIONS
10 ALONG LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE
11
12
In early August of 1966 the water
13
0 Resources Commission received complaints indicat-
ing that several Lake Michigan beaches around
Muskegon and Grand Haven had unusually high
16
concentrations of algae in the inshore waters.
17
The subsequent Water Resources Commission survey,
18
and it is shown in detail in Appendix K, showed
19
that approximately 32 miles of Lake Michigan shore
20
line had nuisance accumulations of Spirogyra and
21
Cladophora in August of 1966. This problem was
22
first observed 6.5 miles south of Muskegon at
23
Norton Township Park and extended intermittently
24
to Benona, 25 miles north of Muskegon. At some
25
beaches in this area the accumulations were not
-------
2572 :
1 R. W. PURDY
2 sufficient to cause nuisance conditions.
3 Sixty miles of shoreline from South
4 Haven to pentwater (excluding the area described
5 in the above paragraph) had noticeable accumula-
6 tions of Cladophora but little or no Spirogyra.
7 In most areas the Cladophora was lying on the
8 bottom in windrows and was not as objectionable
9 as was the Spirogyra in suspension. Personnel
10 in charge of these beaches voiced only moderate
11 complaints concerning the necessity to rake up
12 the algae once a week or so. In the area where
13 Spirogyra was a problem, park managers received
14 complaints of green-stained bathing suits and
15 conditions unfit for swimming. The presence of
16 Spirogyra could not be traced to the tributaries
17 since it was not found in any of the river samples
18 Based on algal species composition of the
19 8 areas studied, Holland and Manistee could be
20 described as being the least indicative of enrich-
21 ment. Populations found at Benona, Muskegon and
22 St. Joseph were the most indicative of enrichment.
23 There were striking differences in the quantity
24 and quality in the insore phytoplankton and that
25 found beyond 600 feet. Benona is the best example
-------
2573
i R. W. PURDY
2 of this where the inshore plankton was dominated
3 by eutrophic species of oligotrophic waters.
4 This suggests that during the summer of 1966
5 the water masses inshore and offshore from 600
6 feet out remained separate for long enough periods
7 to support radically different algal populations.
8 On the basis of this short-term survey
9 there is an apparent relationship between the
10 areas in which nuisance algae occur along the
11 Michigan coastline of Lake Michigan and the proxi-
12 mity of sources of plant nutrients contributed
13 via major tributaries draining urban and agricul-
14 tural areas. Assuming future weather and current
15 patterns similar to those experienced in 1966,
16 coupled with continued contributions of present
17 water quality from tributary streams and the
18 existing water quality of Lake Michigan we may
19
expect reoccurrences of nuisance algae conditions.
20 CHAPTER V
PAR? 3
21 BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING OP WATERS
22 ALONG LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE
23
24 •
The Michigan Water Resources Commission
25
maintains an annual summer sampling program of
-------
2574
j R. W. PURDY
2 Michigan's Great Lakes coastline surface waters.
3 Bacteriological data presented in Appendix L
4 were obtained in 1966 and 1967. Only the minimum,
S maximum, and geometric mean values for each sarapl-
6 ing location are expressed in this report (Appen-
7 dix L, Table 1, Figure 1) however results for all
8 samples collected and referred to are on file in
9 the Lansing office of the Water Resources Commis-
10 sion.
11 Of the 47 locations in the Lower Penin-
12 sula for which there is 1966 and 1967 data avail-
13 able, 36 had geometric mean values over 1,000
14 organisms per 100 ml in 1967, while in 1966 there
15 were only 4 such locations (Appendix L, Figure 1),
16 in 1967 the total number of sampling locations in
17 the Lower Peninsula was expanded to 69 and of these
18 49 had geometric mean values over 1,000 organisms
W per 100 ml.
20 The 1967 data when examined in detail
21 reveals a definite rise to peak coliform concentra-
22 tions and then a decline for each location during
23 the sampling period of June through August. In
24 the extreme southern Lower Peninsula locations,
25 the peak concentrations occurred in the latter
-------
I 2575
! R. W. PURDY
2 half of June whereas in the northern portion
3 of the Lower Peninsula they appeared in early
4 August. Peak concentrations for locations between
5 these 2 areas followed a gradual time progression
6 from south to north within these limits.
7 Studies have shown that dead and decay-
8 ing alewives contribute coliforxn organisms to the
9 surrounding waters and apparently provide a suit-
W able nutrient enriched environment for bacterial
11 growth and propagation. The bacteriological peaks
12 coincide with the time of appearance of large
13 concentrations of dead alewives. The highest
14 alewife concentrations occurred in the area from
*5 st. Joseph to Frankfort (Appendix L, Map 1).
16 The few sampling locations which did not
17 follow this pattern are located in the northern
18 portion of the Lower peninsula above Frankfort
19 where lower concentrations of dead alewives were
20 observed and where industrial waste discharges
21 from fruit canning operations contribute coliform
22
to surface waters in the Traverse City area.
23 From this information, a correlation
44
appears to exist between the high total coliform
25
concentrations and the elevated alewife mortality
-------
2576
1 R. W. PURDY
2 of 1967. Therefore, until the alewife situation
3 is corrected the assessment of the safety of
4 these waters for full body contact requires the
5 utilization of the sanitary survey and data other
6 than that obtained during the alewife die-off.
7 All of the public beaches in Michigan along the
8 Lake Michigan shoreline are considered to be of
9 satisfactory sanitary quality for full body con-
10 tact.
11 Data from the Upper Peninsula's portion
12 of Lake Michigan coastline is limited at this
13 time. However, a tabulation of the available
14 data has been included in Appendix L, Table 2.
15 The next few sections will relate to
16 waste surveys and studies that have been made in
17 Lake Michigan where large discharges of industrial
18 waste are being made to these waters.
19 CHAPTER V
PART 4
20 BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS
IN THE VICINITY OP THE E. I. DU PONT DIS-
21 CHARGE TO LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR MONTAGUE
22
23
Four investigations of water quality and
24 aquatic fauna have been conducted since 1957 in
25
the immediate vicinity of the E. I. DuPont submarine
-------
2577
I R. W. PURDY
2 discharge to Lake Michigan at Montague. The most
3 recent investigation took place in September 1967
4 (Appendix M) .
5 The studies of the bottom animals have
6 not demonstrated any apparent injury even in the
7 immediate vicinity of the outfall. Scuds and
8 midges have been the dominant-animals. Minnows
9 and alewives have been observed swimming normally
10 in the discharge as it bubbles to the surface.
H The bottom material is fine, clean sand with no
12 deposit.
13 Water samples taken directly over the
14 discharge in September 1967 contained 0.65 mg/1
15 ammonia. NO ammonia was detected 100 feet in any
16 direction from the discharge. Other water quality
17 parameters showed little variation at all sampling
18 locations.'
19 CHAPTER V
PART 5
20 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY IN THE VICINITY OP THE
21 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY BRINE DISCHARGE TO
22 LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR LUDINGTON
23
24 On August 10, 1967, a reconnaissance
survey of the water quality and benthic macroin-
-------
2578
j R. W. PURDY
2 vertebrate populations was conducted in Lake
3 Michigan in the vicinity of the Dow Chemical
4 company discharge near Big sable Point (Appendix
5 N) .
6 The discharge containing waste brines
7 moved north with the alongshore current in the
8 valley between the third and fourth sand bars.
9 Conductivity remained very high, 40,000 micromhos,
10 as far as 1/2 mile northeast. At this point the
11 brine mass commenced to become significantly di-
12 luted and lost its identity, although traces could
13 be detected 21/2 miles distant.
14 Several bottom samples were visually
15 examined in the field to judge roughly if the
16 brine mass was grossly affecting the benthic
17 fauna. Five samples were analyzed in the labora-
18 tory. Conclusions were that the benthic fauna in
19 the immediate vicinity of the discharge was vir-
20 tually eliminated, but that the effect was local.
21 Populations commenced recovering 100 feet from
22
the discharge and returned to near normal within
23 200 yards, depending on direction from discharge
24 point.
25
Rough water prevented detailed sampling
-------
2579
1 R. W. PURDY
2 at this tine. Further investigations are schedule:
3 to more clearly identify the affected area.
4 CHAPTER V
PART 6
BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF
6 THE PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S DIS-
7 CHARGE TO LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR MANISTEE
8
9 Macroinvertebrate surveys of the Lake
10 Michigan bottom in the vicinity of Packaging
H Corporation of America (PCA) discharge have been
12 made in 1957 before the operation started, in
13 1958, and in 1962. The bottom animal populations
14 in the vicinity of the discharge were indicative
15 of a clean water environment. However, the
effluent tended to "float" to the lake surface
and complaints of undesirable odors and unnatural
18 colors increased. In 1966 PCA added brine from
19 the discharge of a nearby chemical company to thei
20 effluent. Effectively preventing the undesirable
21 "floating."
22 Investigation in 1967 (Appendix O)
23 revealed chloride concentration on the lake bottom
24
at the discharge was 248 mg/1. The effluent was
apparently flowing offshore at this time as
-------
2580
1 R. W. PURDY
2 concentrations of 130 mg/1 were found 4,000 and
3 8,000 feet west northwest. Alongshore parallel
4 to the discharge concentrations were generally
less than 20 mg/1.
6 No objectionable bottom deposits could
7 be found in the vicinity of the PCA discharge
8 during any of the surveys. The bottom animal
9 populations sampled a mile north and south of
10 the discharge were typical of a clean water enviro
11 rnent. Species diversity of the bottom fauna
12 community was lower in the discharge zone, 3.5
13 species/square foot, than in the zones to the
14 north and south, 6 species/square foot.
is CHAPTER v
PART 1
16 AQUATIC BIOTA INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY
17 OP THE BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR REACTOR
18
IQ
Beginning in 1960, collections (usually
biannual) of aquatic plants and animals have been
21
made in the vicinity of the Big Rock Point Reactor
22
radiological analysis. Background radiation
23
levels (gross beta) were established prior to
24
September 1962 when the Big Rock Point Reactor
25
went critical.
for
-------
258l
I R. W. PURDY
2 Plankton, filamentous algae, periphyton,
3 crayfish, and minnows have been collected from
4 the Lake Michigan shore zone in the vicinity of
the cooling water discharge and at 2 control sta-
6 tions, one three miles east and the other three
7 miles west of the reactor. The radioactivity of
8 plankton has not varied between these stations
9 on a given date. The seasonal and annual changes
10 noted are apparently related to fallout and
11 natural background.
12 However, since going critical, radio-
13 activity counts of other biota collected in the
14' Big Rock Point vicinity have been generally high-
15 er than at the 2 control stations. During this
16 period background radiation levels throughout the
17 state have been decreasing. Although levels in
18
the Big Rock point biota are higher than the
19 biota controls, they are similar in magnitude to
20
the levels found before criticality (Appendix P)
21 CHAPTER V
PART 8
22 OTHER TRIBUTARY AND LAKE MICHIGAN
23 MONITORING PROGRAMS
24
25
Water quality monitoring of Great Lakes
-------
2582
R. W. PURDY
2 tributary streams was.initiated by the Water
3 Resources Commission in May of 1955 to obtain
4 background radioactivity information. In 1963,
5 the program was expanded to include a variety of
6 water quality data. The specific objectives of
7 this program were to determine long-term trends
8 in the chemical, physical and bacteriological
9 characteristics of tributary streams to the Great
10 Lakes in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
11 Initially 1 sampling station was estab-
12 lished on each of 28 drainage basins in the Lower
13 Peninsula, 12 of which are located on tributaries
14 discharging to Lake Michigan. This provided
15 coverage of all the major basins as well as those
16 known to be receiving significant discharges of
17 industrial or domestic wastes. The 12 tributary
18
basins contain approximately 63 percent of Michiga
19 total land area in the Michigan basin and discharg
approximately 60 percent of the total flow contri-
buted to Lake Michigan from Michigan tributaries
22
Approximately 87 percent of the total population
23
in the Michigan portion of the Lake Michigan Basin
24
reside in the monitored basins.
II
25
The monitoring stations (Appendix Q,
8
-------
2583
1 R. W. PURDY
2 Table 1) are located as close as possible to the
3 mouths of the basins and, with 1 exception, below
4 all Known sources of waste. The exception is the
5 station on the Kalamazoo River near Saugatuck
6 where the effluent from the Saugatuck sewage
7 treatment plant discharges downstream from the
8 sampling point. In this instance, the volume of
9 effluent is small in relation to volume of river
10 flow and sampling below the outfall was not
11 justified due to difficulty of collection.
12 Samples are collected every 2 weeks and
13 analyzed by the Commission's laboratory in Lansing
14 The collection, storage, preservation and analyses
of all samples are in accordance with methods and
16 procedures prescribed by Standard Methods for the
17
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Twelfth Editi
18 A summary of data collected for this
program in 1965 and 1966 is presented in Tables
20
2, 3 and Figure 1 of Appendix Q. The monitored
21
tributaries and their drainage areas are shown
22
on Map 1. In addition, the data from individual
23
stations for selected parameters has been graphi-
24
cally presented in Figures 2 through 13 for the
25
years 1965 and 1966, illustrating any seasonal or
n,
-------
I 2584
1 R. W. PURDY
2 short-term fluctuations in water quality.
3 in addition to the regular monitoring
4 of Lake Michigan tributaries, the commission staff
5 has inaugurated a program of sampling of raw
6 water from Lake Michigan. This is done at various
7 water treatment plants around the perimeter of
8 the lake. The intent of the program is to estab-
9 lish existing water quality at the various intakes
10 and indicate any trends which occur in the quality
11 The samples are collected prior to any
12 treatment by the plants and are handled in the
13 manner described for tributary samples. These
14 samples are currently collected annually. The'
15 first series was collected in 1967 and the results
16 are shown in Table 4 of Appendix Q. sampling loca-
17 tions are outlined on Map 2.
18 In addition to the program conducted by
19 the Water Resources Commission the Michigan
20
Department of Public Health requires that each
21 water treatment plant submit monthly operating
22 :
reports which contain results of physical, chemica
23 and bacteriological tests which are made on the
24
raw water supply. Data submitted in 1966 is
25
summarized in Table 5 of Appendix O. The 2 programs
-------
2585
I R. W. PURDY
2 supplement each other and furnish fairly complete
3 documentation of water quality at water intakes
4 in Lake Michigan.
S The staff of the water Resources Conunis-
6 sion conducts various surveys throughout the state
7 in accordance with its programs of pollution pre-
8 vention and abatement. Table 6, Appendix Q, con-
9 tains data from several such surveys which were
10 conducted in the Lake Michigan Basin. The stations
11 shown on Map 3 are ones which were located closest
12 to Lake Michigan (most downstream) and are indica-
13 tive of tributary water quality at the time of
14 the surveys. This information is presented to
15 cover areas of the basin not included under long-
I6 range monitoring. Samples in some cases were
17 collected over 24-hour periods while others were
18 single grab samples.
19 Routine sampling of the state surface
20 waters for obtaining background radioactivity
21 data was initiated in 1955 with the establishment
22 of 4 sampling stations on 2 eastern Michigan
23 streams. In 1956 the number of stations was in-
24
creased to 11, of which 8 were on 5 different stret
25 and 3 were at municipal water supply intakes on
ms
-------
2586
l R. W. PURDY
2 the Great JLakes.
3 In 1958 the number of sampling stations
4 was increased to 26, in 1960 the sampling network
5 was expanded to 31 stations and in 1963 to 38.
6 These include 13 stations on Great Lakes waters
7 and 25 on interior rivers or streams. Twelve
8 stations are at municipal water supply intakes.
9 Map 4, Appendix Q, locates the sampling stations.
10 The data obtained by this program is
11 published yearly as part of the report, "State
12 of Michigan, Water Quality Monitoring Program,
13 water Quality Records", and is available in the
14 files of the water Resources commission.
15 Five water quality .parameters were
16 selected as being indicative of the chemical water
17 quality of the Lake Michigan tributaries; dissolve<
18 oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, chlorides,
19 phosphates, and nitrate nitrogen. Table 2,
20 Appendix Q, is a summary of these 5 parameters by
21 river basin.
22
Dissolved Oxygen
23
24 The 2-year average of the DO values for
25 the monitored streams ranges from 8.6 mg/1 to
-------
2587
1 R. W. PURDY
2 11.4 rag/1. The lowest recorded single value was
3 6.0 mg/1 which was found in the Pine River at
4 Charlevoix and the Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck.
The Kalamazoo exhibits the lowest 2-year average
6 while the Pine and the St. Joseph rivers exhibit
7 the highest 2-year averages.
8 The individual Figures 2-13, Appendix
9 Q, illustrate the seasonal variations which
10 occur in the DO levels, with the higher values
present in the winter months and the lower values
12
found in late summer and early fall.
13
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
14
15
24
25
The 2-year averages of BOD values range
from a low of 1.7 mg/1 in the Manistee River to
17
a high of 5.5 rag/1 in the Grand River. Only 3 of
18
the rivers, the St. Joseph, the Grand, and the
19
Kalamazoo have BOD's above 3.0 mg/1.
20
The individual graphs illustrate fairly
21
steady BOD values throughout the 2-year period
22
with little indication of seasonal or other trends
23
Chlorides
The 2-year averages of chloride values
-------
2588
1 R. W. PURDY
2 range from a low of 3 rag/I tn the Boardman River
3 at Traverse City to a high of 71 rag/1 in the
4 Manistee River at Manistee. Three rivers have
5 values below 10 rag/1 as an average.
6 The individual graphs indicate no parti-
7 cular trend through the 2-year period.
8
Phosphates - PO4
9 •"•"••" ' • ••.•-•-•-.-i_ i
The 2-year averages of phosphate values
range from a low of 0.008 mg/1 in the Manistee
12 River to a high of 0.57 rog/1 in the Black River at
13
South Haven. In general the higher values are
14
found in the southern part of the state which
15
is the most densely populated with the exception
16
of the Boardman River at Traverse City which
17
exhibits a high value.
18
The individual graphs indicate a seasona
19
trend .in phosphate values with the high readings
20 ,
occurring in the winter months.
21
To find the total amount of phosphorus
22
(P) being contributed to Lake Michigan from
23
Michigan tributaries, calculations were made using
24
drainage area and flow data from U. S. Geological
25
Survey records and PO4 data from the tributary
-------
2589
1 R. W. PURDY
2 monitoring program. Prom the calculations (Appen-
3 dix R) , the estimated annual average amount of
4 total phosphorus (p) discharged is 2,700,000
5 pounds per 1,350 tons.
6
Nitrate Nitrogen NO^-N
7
8 The 2-year averages of nitrogen values
9 range from a low of 0.188 mg/1 in the White River
10 to a high of 1.029rog/l in the Grand River. The
11 highest values are again found in the southern
12 part of the state.
13 The individual graphs indicate a seasonapL
14 fluctuation in nitrogen values with high readings
15 in the winter months and low readings during the
summer.
17 CEhJ'JUR V
PART 9
18 VESSEL POLLUTION - OIL AND RUBBISH
19
20
The number of incidents of oil pollution
21
from vessels engaged in commercial navigation
22
reported to the water Resources Commission has
23
increased markedly in recent years. These inci-
24
dents have ranged from the most serious--a sinking
25
of an oil barge on the Lake Michigan coast, and
-------
2590
j R. W. PURDY
2 the subsequent massive fouling of stretches of
3 beaches for over 200 miles; to the nearly con-
4 tinuous summertime complaints of swimmers smeared
$ by heavy fuel oils.
6 The increasing number of complaints
7 has, in general, corresponded with the increase
8 of vessels on the Great Lakes using oil as fuel.
9 These have been vessels solely engaged in lake
10 commerce as well as the growing number of vessels
11 engaged in ocean commerce. Nearly all vessels
12 inbound into the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
13 seaway use oil as fuel.
14 An attendant problem associated with
15 Great Lakes commercial navigation is the indiscrim
16 nate overboard disposal of garbage/ dunnage, and
17 trash. The effects of this problem grow increas-
18 ingly worse with the use of plastics and other
19 non-destructible containers. There is an increas-
20 ing public and private cost in the removal of this
21 debris from Great Lakes beaches. The aesthetic
22 damage is even more serious.
23 CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
24
25
The citizens and government of Michigan
-------
2591
! R. W. PURDY
2 are very keenly aware of the value of clean
3 water, both in Lake Michigan and in inland lakes
4 and streams. The people have supported, and
5 State government has developed, broad-scale and
6 fast moving programs of pollution control.
7 Michigan law provides a full and effec-
8 tive statutory basis for preventing and control-
9 ling pollution. The state Legislature has repeat-
ID edly shown its willingness to enact additional
11 laws as the need for them emerges.
12 Through its Water Resources commission,
13 its Department of Public Health and its Geologi-
14 cal Survey, Michigan has an aggressive, effective
15 and large-scale program of water pollution control
*6 in1 active operation. The Michigan plan for
17 effectuating this program in 1967-68 has been
18 fully approved by the Secretary of the interior.
19 The state has an ongoing and appropriate
20 ly expanding program of waste disposal surveil-
21 lance and water quality monitoring which is fully
22 responsive to the needs for detecting and identify
23 ing its pollution problems.
24 The water Resources Commission and
25 Department of Public Health have amply demonstrated
-------
2592
I
! R. W. PURDY
2 that when pollution problems are identified they
3 can and do take proper corrective action.
4 The state Legislature has responded
5 generously to Executive requests for successive
6 increases in State expenditures for pollution
. 7 control.
8 The Water Resources Commission has
9 adopted water' quality standards for all waters
10 together with a plan for implementation and en-
11 forcement of the interstate waters within a time
12 period that is fully consistent with the objec-
13 tives set forth in the Federal report, "Water
I4 Pollution Problems 6f Lake Michigan and Tributar-
15 ies".
16 The Michigan agencies recognize the
17 pollution problems on waters tributary to Lake
18 Michigan and have in operation aggressive programs
19 for their full and timely correction. The present
20 deficiencies in waste treatment at inland loca-
21 tions do not contribute to pollutional conditions
in Lake Michigan except as a residual phosphate
23 loading carries on down to the lake.
The water Resources Commission recognize
25
the phosphate problem in accelerating stream and
-------
2593
1 R. W. PURDY
2 lake water enrichment, and has adopted a state-
3 wide policy and comprehensive program for phos-
4 phate removal from waste discharges, with schedul-
5 ed early completion dates.
6 The recently accelerating algae problem
7 in Lake Michigan along its Michigan shore appears
8 to derive significantly from phosphate concentra-
9 tions in alewives and its deposition in near-
10 shore waters from the decomposition of these
H fish following their increasingly massive seasonal
12 die-off. The control of alewife populations
13 appears to be an essential element of algae
14 control.
15 Oxygen deficiency problems in the
16 Michigan waters of Lake Michigan are not disclose
17 by data collected by the Michigan Water Resources
18 Commission. The absence of such problems is sub-
19 stantiated by findings of the u. S. Department of
20 Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health
21 service studies under the Great Lakes-Illinois
22 River Basin Project.
23 These findings, which were cited by
24 Special Master Albert E. Maris in his report to
25
the u. S. Supreme court on the Chicago diversion
-------
259^
! R. W. PURDY
2 litigation among the lake states, further show
3 no open-lake pollutional concentrations of
4 ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, phosphates,
5 ABS, toxic metals, or other physical parameters.
6 NO Lake Michigan bathing beaches in
7 Michigan have been closed or considered for
8 closing due to water pollution. Bacteria counts
9 at all such beaches, attributable to human sewage
10 are well within the limits recommended in the
11 Federal report for this conference.
12 The discharge of sewage, garbage, trash
13 and oils from interstate carriers, and the loss
14 of oils and other pollutional cargo from such
15 carriers resulting from shipwrecks, are of deep
16 concern to the people and government of Michigan
17 because of their serious injury and threat of
18 injury to recreational water use. Early and full
19 answers are heeded as to where the responsibility
20 lies for coping with this problem, as is the
21 establishment of procedures for effective enforce-
22 roent and for the prompt effectuation of emergency
23 measures to prevent and control accidental pollu-
24 tional losses from such carriers.
25 The implementation of Michigan's plan
-------
2595
1 R. W. PURDY
2 and achievement of the improvements in water
3 quality in Lake Michigan will be'greatly enhanced
4 by the earliest possible approval of the Michigan
5 standards by the secretary of the interior.
6 Accomplishment of the Michigan pollu-
7 tion control program is dependent largely upon
8 the availability of funds to build the necessary
9 municipal waste treatment facilities. Full
10 funding of the Federal grants authorized for
11 this purpose in the Clean waters Restoration
12 Act of 1966 is urgently necessary. A massive
13 state bonding proposal providing for full state
partnership in financing has been recommended by
Governor Romney to the 1968 Legislature.
16 In addition to the information that
I have presented in this report, along with the
18
appendices, I would like to mention some informa-
19 tion on water filtration facilities.
20
We have some eight water treatment
21 facilities on Lake Michigan. Six of the eight
22
discharge their filter backwash to Lake Michigan
23
without treatment. The two most recently built
24
plants, one is by far the largest of all of those
25
on the Lake in the Michigan section, have provided
-------
2596
R. W. PURDY
2 settling facilities to remove these solids before
3 the discharge of the backwash water to Lake
4 Michigan.
S In addition to that, a new water
6 treatment plant at New Buffalo is being required
7 to build facilities to hold the solids from
8 filter backwash as a part of the initial plant
g construction.
10 Earlier in this conference, information
11 was presented that indicated dissolved oxygen
12 deficiency in the st. Joseph River and the
13 Menominee River.
14 Mr. Courchaine, do you have this
IS information to present to the conferees?
16 As a part of the surveillance program
17 established in our plan of implementation which
18 was submitted in June, we immediately started on
19 our surveillance activities, we are presenting
20 data collected as a part of this activity in July
21 of 1967. The one report deals with the inter-
22 state water quality monitoring, section 1, Lower
23 Portion of Menominee River Basin, Chemical and
24 Physical Measurements on Grab Samples Sampled on
25 July 24-25, 1967. You will note that these
-------
2597
1 R. W. PURDY
2 samples were obtained throughout the day so that
3 it represents both night and day conditions.
4 (Which said report is as follows:)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Interstate Water Quality Monitoring
Section I
Lower Portion of Menominee River Basin
Chemical and Physical Measurements on Grab Samples
Sampled on July 24-25, 196?
2598
Sampling Location
Menominee River. 1st Street Bridge
in Menominee
Menomjnee River. U.S. 4I Bridge in
Menominee
Menominee River. Dam above M-180 Bridge,
in Menominee
Menominee River. Wallace & McAllister
Bridge
LJ ttje Cedar River, Co. Rd. Bridge
just west of Ingalls
Date
7/24
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/24
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
Time
2340
0215
0600
0943
1320
1710
1947
Average
2400
0224
0605
1005
1330
1720
1955
Average
0010
0232
0620
1025
1415
1735
2002
Average
0045
0300
0715
1055
1450
1800
2030
Average
0105
0315
0735
1113
1500
1815
2042
Average
Temp.
QC
24
25
22
23
24
25
26
24.1
24
24
23
24
24
25
26
24.3
24
23
23
24
24
25
25
24
23
23
23
24
24
25
2J5
23.9
22
22
21
24
25
26
22
23.9
D.O.
mq/1
6.2
6.4
6.4
5.6
6.1
6.0
6.4
6.2
7.0
6.2
6.6
2.8
6.8
6.4
7.4
6.2
5.4
4.8
5-0
3.0
5.0
7.2
6.6
5-3
7.2
7.0
6.4
6.0
7.4
7.8
7-4
7.0
7.2
7.2
5.8
6.2
8.0
10.4
9.6
7.8
-------
2599
Sampling Location
Henominee .River. Co. Rd. Bridge S.E.
of Koss
Menominee River. Chalk Hill
Bridge five miles west of
Banat
Menominee River, Co. Road 374
Bridge four miles west of Nathan
Henpminee Ri ve r, Railroad Bridge
1.5 miles S.W. of Faithorn
Sturgeon River. U.S. 2 Bridge
3/4 mile west of Loretto
V/hi te Creek. Co. Road 1st Bridge above
mouth, two miles south of Norway
Date
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
T ime
•0120
0330
0750
1148
1510
1830
2052
Average
0200
0400
0820
1221
1535
1900
2115
Average
0230
0420
0845
1240
1555
1940
2130
Average
0305
0445
0920
1307
1620
2010
2200
Average
0330
0510
0950
1342
1635
2110
2219
Average
0345
0520
1000
1430
1645
2205
2232
Temp
°C
22
23
22
23
25
25
25
23.6
23
22
23
24
24
24
24
23.4
22
23
23
23
24
24
25
23.4
21
22
22
24
24
24
23^i
22.9
20
22
21
24
25
24
24
22.9
12
14
13
18
19
16
16
D.O.
mq/ 1
6 8
6.8
6.6
,8
,0
7.4
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.6
5.9
6.8
6.6
6.6
7.0
7.4
7.0
6.8
7.6
7.9
7.3
6.2
6.0
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.8
6.5
6.8
7.0
8.4
7.8
7.6
7.2
Average 15.4
7.4
7.2
7.4
8.4
7.2
6.2
6.4
JL_0.
7.0"
-------
Sampling Location
Henominee River. U.S. 8 Bridge S.
or Norwav
Menominee River. U. S. 4l Bridge
S.E. of Iron Mountain
Menom?nee R ive r, M-95 Bridge S,
Klngsford
of
2600
Date
7/25
-7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/25
Tjme
0355
0530
1015
1405
1655
2225
2241
Average
0410
0545
1035
1450
1705
2245
2255
Ave rage
0450
0600
1100
1505
1725
2205
2210
Average
Temp
°C
22
20
22
24
23
23
2%
22.4
22
22
22
24
23
22
23
22.6
21
21
23
24
23
21
2^
22.3
D.O.
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.4
7,2
7.3
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.9
6.8
6.0
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.6
7.0
6.8
7.4
7.2
7.0
-------
Interstate Water Quality Monitoring
Section II
Upper Portion of Menominee River and the Brule River Basins
Chemical and Physical Measurements on Grab Samples
Sampled on July 26, 1967
2601
Samp ling Loca t i on
Menominee River. U.S. 2 Bridge
N. oi Iron Mountain
Paint River. U.S. 1^1 Bridge N. of
Crystal Falls
Brule River, End of Wise Co. Road at
U.S.G.S. Gage
Brule River. U.S. 2 and lUl Bridge,
S. of Crystal FalIs
Brule River. Co. Rd. Bridge W. of
Pen toga
Brule River. Co. Rd. Bridge just
below mouth of Iron River
Brule River, M^l89 Bridge
Date
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
Tempi
Time °C
0925 22
1335 22.5
)9**0 23
Average 22.5
0050 21
0200 22
0750 19
1126 20
l*t*45 23
1615 23.5
Average 21.4
0905 19
1313 20.5
1 9/45 23
Average 21 .k
08*45 18
1255 20
1920 22
Average 20.3
0010 19
03*+5 18
0705 17
.1050 17.5
1650 22
1800 23
Average 19-^
23*40 18
0320 18
06*45 1 7
1021 17
1630 22
1735 22
Average 19
2315 19
0250 19
0615 16
09^*3 1 7
15^5 23
1715 2*4
Average 19-7
D.O.
-------
-2-
2602
Sampling Location
1f6n Kiver, Co. Rd. #137
Da te
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/26
Time
2250
0230
0550
0924
1520
1635
Average
Temp.
°C
19
19
19
15
20
21
18.8
0.0.
mq/1
7.4
7.4
6.9
7.0
8.2
9.0
7.7
-------
ro
ON
o
U)
-------
2604
R. W. PURDY
2 MR. PURDY: If we look at the averages
3 you will note that these are all above 6 milli-
4 grams per liter from the standpoint of dissolved
5 oxygen
6 If we should look at the worst condi-
7 tion on the Menominee River, you would note that
8 this would be at the dam above M-180 Bridge in
9 Menominee, where at one period it fell to 3
10 milligrams per liter, and the Menominee River
H at the U.S. 41 Bridge in Menominee, where one
12 sample of the seven obtained showed a value of
13 2.8 milligrams per liter.
14 The second report is the Interstate
15 Water Quality Monitoring, St. Joseph River Basin,
I6 Chemical and Physical Measurements on Grab
17 Samples Sampled on July 17-20, 1967.
18 (Which said report is as follows:)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2605
Interstate Water Quality Monitoring
St. Joseph River Basin
Chemical and Physical Measurements on Grab Samples
Sampled on July 17-20, 196?
Sampling Locat ion
St. Joseph River at Griswold
St. in Hi 1Isdale, Hi 1Isdale
Co.
St. Joseph River at Moore
Rd., HM Isdale Co.
St. Joseph River at Rainey
Rd. , Hi IIsdale Co.
St. Joseph River at
Moshervi1le Rd., Hi 1 Isdale
Co.
St. Joseph River at 1 4
Mile Rd. ,. Calhoun Co.
Date
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
Time
0937
1356
1630
2100
0140
0315
0745
Average
0955
1428
1640
2110
0155
0345
0800
Average
1017
1444
1653
2130
0210
0410
0840
Average
1037
1458
1708
2145
0225
0430
0855
Average
1 107
1526
1735
2235
0315
0500
0920
Average
Temp.
°C
17
19.5
21
18
17
18
JJ
18.5
17
19
19
19
18
19
j_2
18.6
16.5
20.5
22
20
18
18
18
19-0
17.5
21.5
22
20
19
19
18
19-6
18.5
21.5
21
20
19
19
j2
19.7
D.
0.
mq/ 1
0
3
6
2
0
0
0_
1
1
3
4
2
0
0
_0
1
7
10
10
8
6
6
_z
8
8
11
11
.7
6
6
7
8
8
10
9
6
5
5
7_
7
.6
.5
.2
.6
.0
.7
i°-
.9
.6
.4
.0
.8
.0
.7
J-2
.9
.8
.4
.6
.3
.7
.8
. i
.2
.6
.4
.2
.7
_q
.5
. ]
•k
.8
.3
.8
.2
.3
. 7
.0
'.7
BOD5
rr,o/i
7
-
3
-
10
-
12
8
5
-
2
-
2
-
3
1'
-
2
-
1
-
I
~
i
-
i
-
0
-
i
1
i
-
i
-
r
-•
i
i
.3
-
.4
-
.5
-
.iA
.5
.7
-
.8
-
.4
- •
_jj
.5
.7
-
.0
-
.7
-
. 7 '
.8
.9
-
.8
-
.9
-
.4
.5
.6
-
.4
.2
j_
.4
pH
7.4
--
7.4
--
7.2
—
Isi
7.3
7.6
.--
7.6
--
7.5
--
7.5
7.6
8.1
--
8!4
. --
8.1
--
8.0
8.2
8.2
--
8.7
—
8.2
--
8.1
8.3
8.2
--
8.3
--
8.0
--
8.1
8.2
Remarks
Patches of oiI fi1m.
Water at this station was
barely moving. The
surface was covered with
duckweed and other
vegetation. Water had a
brown color.
Downstream from Hi 1Isdale
S.T.P. - Abundant attached
vegetation and scr^s sl'jdgs.
Water was clear.
Downstream from Jor.esvi ! !e.
Downstream fron Liichfield.
Abundant attaches vegetation.
Downstream f,-c"< Tekc----r.a.
Water was slightly curtiid.
-------
.2606
Sampling Location
Coldwater River at Gower Rd.
Branch Cc .
St. Joseph River at
Arborgast Rd., Branch Co.
_St. Joseph River at S towel 1
Rd., St. Joseph Co.
Big Sv.'an Creek 3'. Burr Oak
Rd. , Branch Co.
St. Joseph River at Far rand
Rd. , St. Joseph Co.
Date
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
Time
1127
1544
1750
2255
0335
0520.
0935
Average
1142
1558
1804
2305
0345
0535
0950
Average
1232
1640
1855
2350
0435
0630
1030
Average
1211
1624
1830
2330
0415
0610
1015
Average
1252
1653
1908
0000
0445
0640
1045
Average
Temp.
°C
19
22
21
19
!9
20
20
20.0
19
21
20
20
19
19
20
19.7
21
23
22
21
20
21
20
21.1
22
25
22
20
18.5
19
20
20.9
22.5
24
23
21
20
21
21
21.8
P.O.
8.
10.
8.
6.
6.
6.
7.
8.
9.
9.
8.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
8.
7.
6.
8.
10.
10.
8.
6.
5.
6.
8.
7.
11.
12.
12.
10.
8.
8.
y ' ,
10.
7
0
8
6
2
2
I
7
0
4
6
1
2
0
I
1
2
8
6
4
1
8
4
2
0
6
6
1
9
0
2
9
8
2
0
9
9
5
6
6
BODg
mq/l _jj
1
1
-
1
-
|
1
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
1
4
-
4
-
3
-
.9
.5
-
.0
-
.5
.0
-
.6
-
.3
-
.4
.6
.2
-
.6
-
.7
-
8.
8.
-
7.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
iH
I
2
•-
9
• -
i
1
1
•-
2
'-
1
-
1
1
2
-
3
-
3
-
Remarks
Abundant attached vegetation
Water was clear. Rain on
the 3rd sampling run.
People were observed
fishing and swimming at
this station.
Downstream fron Union City.
Water was slightly turbid.
Rain on the 3rd sampling
run.
Water s 1 ight ly turbid.
Green color.
Rain on the 3rd sampling
run.
_3_.4 3.3
4
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
2
8
-
6
-
4
-
_i
6
.0
.2
-
. I
-
.8
-
.6
.2
.2
-
.8
-
.9
-
i°_
.2
8.
8.
-
8.
• -
7.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
3
2
-
2
-
9
-
1
1
4
-
5
-
4
-
4
4
•Downstream from Bronson
S.T.P. Water was clear
and moving rapidly.
Downstream from outlet
of Sturgeon Lake. Water
was slightly turbid with
a green color.
-2-
-------
2607
Sampling Location
St. Joseph River at Sixth
St. in Three Rivers, St.
Joseph Co.
Gourdneck Creek at VW Ave.
in Vicksburg, Kalamazoo Co.
Gourdneck Creek at W Ave.
in Vicksburg, Kalamazoo Co.
Portage Creek at 22nd St.,
Kalamazoo Co.
Portage River at Fifth St.
in Three Rivers, St. Joseph
Co.
Reeky River at W. Michigan
in Three Rivers, St. Joseph
Co.
Date
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
Tjme
.1050
1540
1730
2136
0145
0350
0835
Average
0930
1430
Average
1630
2055
0055
0300
0805
Average
0945
1445
1644
2103
Oi05
0307
0812
Average
1020
1520
1711
2125
0130
0355
0840
Average
1040
1530
1718
2130
0135
0400
0845
Average
Temp.
°C
21
21
22.5
23
21
21
21
21.5
21
22
21.5
24
24.5
24
23
22
23.5
20
23
23
23.5
21.5
22
21
22.0
20
21
22
22
21
19
18
20.4
19
21
22
21
20
18
J8
19.9
0.0.
mq/l
9.
10.
10.
10.
9.
9.
8.
9.
9.
11.
10.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
7.
10.
9.
9.
8.
8.
8.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
7.
8.
0
0
2
0
4
4
2
5
8
6
7
7
8
4
0
4
5
6
2
5
4
2
4
4
7
4
8
8
0
6
4
0
0
2
8
8
4
8
2
8
3
BOD5
mq/ 1 pH
4.
--
5.
—
6.
--
2.
4.
1.
4
9
2
4
7
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
.4
--
.4
—
.4
--
.6
.5
.3
Remarks
Rai n
sampl
Rocky
Water
stopped on 1st
ing run.
, sand bottom.
clear. Rain on
the
2nd sampl ina run.
1.
20
--
14
--
12
15.
5.
--
6.
—
>8.
—
6.
>6.
1.
1
3
8
6
2
6
8
9
8
7
7
8
7
8
3
8
8
8
8
.3
.6
—
.7
—
.1
.8
.1
—
.2
—
.1
—
B 1
.2
.0
Downstream from Simpson-Lee
Paper
turb i
color
Bass
this.
Co. Water was
very
d with a green-gray
.
& b luegi 1 1 seen
station. Heavy
at
attached vegetation.
Heavy
sampl i
Very
fog on the last
ing run.
fast current. Water
was clear. Rain .on the
1.
—
1.
—
1.
1.
1.
--
1.
--
1.
--
9
4
2
6
6
8
9
JLi
2.
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
. 1 2nd sampl ing run.
—
.0
—
.2
.1
.2
--
.4
__
.2
--
J*
.3
Rain on the first three
sampl
1 ight
ing runs. Water
green color.
was
-------
2608
Sampling Location
Prairie River at Three Rivers
Rd. , St. Joseph Co.
St. Joseph River at
Constantine Road, St. Joseph
Co.
Fawn River at Big Hill Rd.,
St. Joseph Co.
Fawn River at Stubey Rd.,
St. Joseph Co.
Fawn River at Three Rivers
Rd., in Constantine, St.
Joseph Co.
Date
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/191
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
Time
1115
1555
1743
2035
0030
0340
0730
Average
1130
1610
1758
2148
0155
0415
0925
Average
1345
1800
1955
2332
0410
0620
1100
Average
1330
1745
1942
2314
0350
0605
1040
Average
1145
1625
•1814
2158
0205
0425
.0935
Average
Temp.
°C
19
20
21
21
20
19
18
19.7
21
22
21
22.5
22
21
20
21.4
20
21
22.5
21
20
19
19.5
20.4
21
21
23
21
20
19
|g
20.6
22
21
20.5
21
20
19.5
15
20.4
D.O.
mq/ 1
8.
9.
8.
7.
6.
6.
7.
9.
9.
9.
9-
8.
8.
• / »
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
6.
6.
7.
8.
7.
7.
5-
6.
6.
6.
6.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
8.
S.
2
0
2
4
4
4
_0
5
0
4
2
4
4
2
2
7
4
6
2
0
2
2
2
4
6
6
0
2
6
4.
8
9
2
4
2
0
8
0
0
1
80D5
mq/l
1
-
1
-
1
-
I
1
3
-
3
-
4
-
_i
3
1
-
1
-
0
-
1
. 1
5
-
>7
-
3
-
6
*5
1
-
1
-
0
-
_2_
1
.5
-
.7
-
.5
-
.2
.5
.8
-
.7
-
.2
-
.0
.7
.6
-
.3
-
.8
-
. l
.2
. 1
-
-
.0
-
.6
•*»
.1
-
.2
-
.9
-
.5
PH
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
sT
8.
-
8.
-
8'.
-
s7
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
0
•-
1
•-
0
•-
2
1
3
-
3
-
4
-
.5
4
2
-
3
-
3
-
1
3
2
-
1
-
3
-
^
?
0
-
1
-
0
-
2
1
Remarks
Downstream from Centreville.
Rain on the 2nd sanpling
run.
Downstream from Three
Rivers S.T.P. Water was
siightly turbid wi th a
green color.
Rain the 2nd sampling run.
Downstream from Sturgis
S.T.P. Rsin on the first 2
sampling runs. Water was
clear.
-k-
-------
2609
Sampling Location
St. Joseph River at Washington 7/18
St. (U.S.-131) in Constantine, 7/18
St. Joseph Co.
Whi te Piqeon River at Sevison 7/18
Rd. , St. Joseph Co.
White Piqeon River at Blue
School Rd., St. Joseph Co.
White Piqeon River at M-103,
St. Joseph Co.
St. Joseph River at Elkhart
Co. Rd. 25 in Bristol,
Indiana
Date
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
T ime
1155
1630
1821
2203
0215
0435
0938
Average
1315
1735
1930
2300
0330
0550
1030
Average
1250
1720
1915
2246
0300
0535
1015
Average
1215
1695
1848
2218
0230
0450
0950
Average
1230
1700
1858
2227
0240
0505
1000
Average
Temp.
°C
20
21
22
21.5
21
20
21
20.9
20
20
23
21
19
19
19
20.1
21
21
22
22
21
20
20
21.0
21
20
21
21
20.5
19
19
20.2
20
20
22
21
21
19
19
20.3
D.O.
6005
mq/ 1 rug/ 1
8
10
1 fl-
IC
10
9
_i
9
.8
.2
.2
.2
.0
.6
. 2
77
2
-
4
-
3
-
_i
3
.8
-
.4
-
.7
-
.6
.6
7.8 1.1
7
7
6
6
o
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
8
8
7
6
6
6
7
10
12
1 1
9
7
7
_z
s
.2
.0
.4
.0
.2
.0
.7
.6
.8
.0
.0
.2
.2
.8
.5
.6
.6
.2
.4
.4
.2 .
.2
.2
.6
.2
.4
.8
.6
.0
.2
.4
-
1
-
1
-
-
.7
-
.3
-
_PH
8.
-
8.
8.
-
8.
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
3
-
3
-
4
-
6
4
2
-
2
-
3
-
_0.7 8.1
1
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
1
4
-
5
-
2
-
_2
3
.2
.4
-
.0
-
.6
-
.4
.9
.2
-•
.2
-
.0
-
.2
.2
.1
-
.0
-
.6
-
.6
8.
7.
-
7.
-
7.
-
8.
7.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
3
9
-
8
-
9
-
1
9
1
-
2
-
1
-
8J
8.
8.
-
8.
-
8.
-
8.
8.
2
4
-
5
-
3
-
4
4
Remarks
Rain on the 2nd sampling run.
Water was slightly turbid
with a green color.
Rain on the 2nd sampling run.
Dov/nstream from White Pigeon
and the Weyerhaeuser Co.
Water v/as very turbid •.-.•i.th a
gray-green color. Heavy
vegetation. Rain on the
2nd sampling run.
Rain on the 2nd sampling run.
Water v/as slightly turbid
with a green color.
Rain on the 2nd sampling run.
Water v/as slightly turbid
wi th a green color.
-5-
-------
2610
Sampling Location
Christiann Creek at
Redfield Rd. , Cass Co.
St. Joseph River at Bertrand
Rd. ,. Berrien Co.
St. Joseph River I/1* mile N.of
Miles, just upstream from
confluence wi th
Dowagiac River, Berrien Co.
Oowaqiac River at M-62, 2.5
miles west of Dowagiac,
Cass Co.
Dowaqiae Creek at M-62, 2
miles west of Dowagiac,
Cass Co.
Dowaaiac River at Front St.
(U.S. 31-33) , Berrien Co.
Date
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
Time
•1030
1715
00^*5
0335
0730
Average
1100
1 M*3
17^5
2115
0115
OU10
0755
Average
1207
1530
1835
2215
0200
0**55
0815
Average
11*1*5
211(0
0530
1020
Average
11*1*0
2130
0525
1015
Average
1125
1506
1815
2155
011*5
01*30
0840
Average
Temp.
°C
21.5
25
23
22
21
22.5
23
21*
25
23
23
21
21
22.9
22
21*
25
23
22
22
2J
22.7
25
20
18
18
20.3
21*
22
19
20
21.3
19
20.5
22
22
20
17
D.
0.
mq/ 1
7
9
6
6
6
7
6
10
12
11
8
6
6
8
7
10
11
9
9
9
8
9
8
8
7
8
8
8
5
i*
_z
6
8
8
9
7
8
7
.1*
.0
.6
.6
BOD5
mg/l 2
1
2
1
-
.6
.0
.6
-
8
8
8
H_ Remarks
.3
.5
.5
--
.'t 1.3 3.J
.2
.8
.2
.6
.2
.2
.8
.^
.9
.8
.0
.0
.8
.6
.2
.0
.3
.2
.0
.6
.0
.0
.2
.7
.6
.k
.5
.8
.8
.6
.6
.0
.6
1
6
-
9
-
7
-
6
7
>7
-
10
-
8
-
_ __f.
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
2
3
I
"-
2
-
1
-
.6
A
-
.5
-
.0
-
.0
.2
8
8
8
8
8
8
.1*
.2 Downstream from South Bend,
Indiana S.T.P. Water was
.6 slightly turbid.
--
.5
--
.1*
.1+
.8 8.3 Just downstream from Miles
-
.0
-
.2
-
o
•5
.2
.7
.it
.1*
.7
.0
.2
.8
.8
.7
.7
-
,i)
-
.9
-
8
8
S.T.-P. Water /.-as' turbid
.6 with a brown color.
--
.6
—
8.5
3
8
8
S
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
.5
.3
.1*
--
--
.1+
.3 Downstream fro
-------
2611
Samjling Locati on
St. Joseph River at Bear
Cave Campsite, Berrien Co.
Farmers Creek at Hipp Hollow
Rd., Berrien Co.
Love Creek at Hipp Ho 11ow
Rd. , Berrien Co.
St. Joseph River at Berrien
County Sportsman Park,
Berrien Co.
Pipestone Creek at River Rd.
Berrien Co.
Hickory Creek at U.S. 33,
Berrien County
Date
7/19
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
T i ma
1251
\6Qk
1930
22**5
0230
0530
0900
Average
1500
2150
05^5
lO^iO
Average
1510
2200
OSOO
1055
Average
1312
1623
IS-liO
2305
0250
0550
0920
Average
1530
2215
0612
1105
Average
1335
1623
2005
2325
03'-0
06-0
03H3.
Aversce
Temp.
°C
23
2i*
2k
23
22
21
21
22.6
20
19
16
16
17.8
22
21
18
18.5
19.9"
23
24.5
2k
22
21
20
2J
22.2
22.5
19.5
17.5
D.
0.
mg/J
11
13
12
11
9
8
_a
10
8
6
6
_z
6
8
8
7
6
7
13
15
15
11
7
6
_2
ll
10
7
7
.0
.0
.8
.2
.k
.2
77
.0
.0
.6
.0
.9
.0
.7
.6
.6
.7
.6
.i*
.2
.2
.8
.8
• 0
TI
.0
.8
.8
BODs
ma/1
8.
--
9.
--
7.
--
6.
7.
2.
if.
2.
k.
3.
3.
3.
3.
_j.
i.
10.
--
10.
--
6.
-T
T.
2.
1.
1.
_L2_ 9.0 1 .
19.6
20.5
23
2k
20
18
17
17
19.9
8
8
9
8
6
7
6
JL
7
.7
.8
.8
.6
.it
.0
.8
i!
.9
1.
2.
--
2.
--
1.
—
1.
2.
5
5
2
1
9
5
6
6
8
6
1
1
k
2
3
0
T
8
0
5
2
2
2
2
5
2
it
5
2
0
£H
8
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
g
fl
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
3
8
's
.7
—
.8
--
.5
--
_.6
77
—
.2
.2
• 3.
.2
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
.7
--
.7
--
.5
--
• O
7s'
.7
.6
--
.6
.6
.3
—
.k
--
.3
._
J.
. i
Remarks
Downstream from Buchanan
S.T.P. SIight oi1 fiIm
in pUces.
Downstream from Eau Claire.
Downstream from Flamm
Pickle Co.
Downstream from Berrien
Springs S.T.P. Very
turb'd.
Downstream from Sodus
Fru i t Exchange
Downstream from Stevensvi 1 le.
Floating clur.ips of sluciga .
Fungi abundant. Wacsr '/<.?s
very curbid.
-7-
-------
Samp Ii nq Loca t i on
St. Joseph River at C & 0
Railroad bridge in St.
Joseph, Berrien Co.
Date Time
Temp.
°C
7/19
7/19 '
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
13*49
1700
2015
2350
0320
0625
1000
23
2*4
2*4
23
22
21
22
12. *4
1*4.2
1*4.2
1*4.2
1*4. *4
13.2
1*4. *4
2612
D.O.
mq/I mq/l pH
Remarks
10.3 8.5 Downstream from St. Joseph
and Benton Harbor S.T.P s.
10.6 8,8
9.0 8.6
Average 22.7 13-9
-8-
-------
261
1 R. W. PURDY
2 MR. PURDY: Again the samples are
3 collected throughout the day so that we have a
4 representation of both night and day conditions.
5 The only place where we show a serious dissolved
6 oxygen deficiency is in the very headwaters of
j
7 the St. Joseph River in Rillsdale county, --; one
8 above Hillsdale where there is very little, if any
9 flow; the second location just below Hillsdale
10 and below, the effluent from the Hillsdale sewage
11 treatment plant, and there the average value is
12 1.9 and we do have some zero values.
13 But I believe if you will look through
14 that data that it indicates that the remainder
15 of the St. Joseph River in particular has quite
18 satisfactory dissolved oxygen levels.
17 That completes my presentation, Mr.
18 Stein.
19 MR. STEINi Thank you, Mr. Purdy.
Do we have any comments or questions?
21 MR. POOLE: I have one question going
22
way back.
23 MR. STEIN i Yes.
24 MR. POOLE: My question is back earlier
25
in the afternoon, Ralph, where you were referring
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
j .2614
R. W. PURDY
to these court orders you obtained in Michigan.
The question is, how long does it take
from the time that you initiate proceedings until
you get a court order, approximately?
MR. PURDY: In some instances this
may be in as short a period as two months. In
other cases it has extended up through two, to ;two
and a half years.
But in general I would say that within
a period of three to six months that we have
obtained a court decree.
I am not suggesting --•
MR. STEIN: May I make a comment on
the question, on the Michigan problem?
This procedure of this court order
bond, as you know, developed in Michigan during
the 1920's before we had this revenue bond
financing, and a city wasn't restricted by its
statutory debt limit as if they had a court
order. Michigan always comes up with these
ingenious devices to handle something, and they
.love to litigate'up there.
And I suspect that a lot of these suits
unless I an wrong, are kind of friendly ones.
-------
2615
I R. W. PURDY
2 There is really no argument.
3 MR. PURDY: In some instances they are
4 really quite friendly.
$ I would not recommend this as a way to
6 accomplish pollution control on an expedient
7 basis, though, because when we do go into court
8 we lose time.
9 MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
10 or questions?
11 MR. HOLMER: I have one, Mr. Chairman.
12 MR. STEIN: Yes.
13 MR. HOLMER: The section on alewife
14 overlaps, of course, what Mr. Pierce was telling
15 us about phosphate removal policy, which is
16 reiterated in the conclusions you have read.
17 i can understand from what Mr. Pierce said that
18 where you have got a lake or a stream that you're
19 wanting to protect against phosphorus, the policy
20 makes pretty good sense.
21 If I understand what you are saying
22 about the alewife concentration on inshore waters,
23 as far as discharges to those waters are concerned
24 in terms of preventing algal growth, you are sug-
25 gesting that such a policy would not be useful,
-------
2616!i
1 R. W. PURDY
2 since there is enough phosphorus there already.
3 MR. PURDY: I am saying that we have
4 to attack both problems if we are to correct the
5 nuisance algal problems that we have on our Lake
6 Michigan beaches. This is the bridge that our
7 commission has crossed, we feel that we need
8 to control the phosphate discharges from our
9 point sources, we feel for this program to be
10 fully effective that the alewife problem must
11 also be solved.
12 The alewife does not in itself place
13 the phosphate in the lake. it only serves to
14 collect it from throughout the lake and reconcen-
15 trate it in our inshore waters.
16 MR. MITCHELL* Mr. Purdy, you stated
I7 that a massive state bonding program has been
18 pro po&e.d by Governor Romney. Can you describe
19 the proposal?
«A " -
23 MR. PURDY: This proposal was described
21 by Lieutenant Governor Milliken on the first day.
22 It includes 285 million dollars to pay Michigan's
23 25 percent share in the Federal program. In addi-
24 tion to that, it would pre-finance the 75 percent
25 share so that this program would not be fully
-------
2617
1 R^. W. PURDY
2 dependent upon the full funding of the Federal
3 program at this time.
4 Throughout the period between now and
5 1980 we are hopeful that the Federal Government
6 will, at least by that time, commit as much money
7 as is presently authorized in the Federal Bill,
8 and this money is essential;to the program through-
9 out the full period of time.
10 In addition to that, 50 million dollars
has been proposed to help small municipalities
12
build collection sewers. This would not be a
13
grant, but it would be a loan. It would also
14 serve to place the full faith and credit of the
State behind the issuance of bonds for this pur-
pose .
17 MR. STEIN: Yes, Mr. Poston?
18
MR. POSTON: Mr. Purdy, you say that the
19
Water Resources commission recognizes the phos-
20
phate problem in accelerating stream and lake
21
water enrichment and has adopted a statewide
22
policy and comprehensive program for phosphate
23
removal from waste discharges along with scheduled
24
early completion dates.
25
Would you care to elaborate a little on
-------
2618
1 R. W. PURDY
2 the proposals for phosphate removal and also the
3 scheduled completion dates that your commission
4 has in mind?
5 MR. PURDY: Right at the moment, we
6 concur with Dr. Weinberger in that chemical pre-
7 cipitation, whether it be by the metallic ion
8 or some other chemical as mentioned by Dr. Wein-
9 berger, should- be the approach that we use
10 immediately.
11 We have adopted the policy that any
12 new or increased use of waters of the state shall
13 incorporate phosphate removal as a part of the
14
design of the facility, so if this facility were
15 scheduled to go in operation a year from today,
16 that would be the day that we would ask for
17
phosphate removal.
In addition to this, Lake Odessa, one
19
of the communities reported by Mr. Pierce, lying
within the Lake Michigan Basin, is under an order
21
of the Commission to have phosphate removal as a
22
part of its treatment operations, I believe by
23
1970. I would have to check that in the report
24
The city of Traverse City has entered
25
into a voluntary treatment with the Commission to
-------
2619
R. W. PURDY
2 provide phosphate removal by 1971, if memory
3 serves me correctly.
4 MR. HOLMER: Have you adopted a standard
5 a parameter of some kind?
6 MR. PURDYt We are asking the people
7 to shoot at and attain an 80 percent removal of
8 total phosphates at the present time. Our Coromis-
g sion first established this as a goal for Detroit
10 in another enforcement matter some two years ago.
11 At that time it was not certain that we could read
12 this level. However, rather than place in a
13 maximizing phosphate removal as an objective, we
14 felt that we should give our consulting engineers
15 a specific goal to scramble for and they have
16 been doing a pretty good job of scrambling, we
17 may not reach this in all instances, we may go
18 above it.
19 MR. STEIN: Are there any further ques-
20 tions or comments?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. STEIN: I notice that you have a
23 pretty good DO level on the Menominee River,
24 better than when we were up there.
25 MR. PURDYt Yes, sir.
-------
2620
j R. W. PURDY
2 MR. STEIN: That is one way to clean
3 up pollution, for the pulp and paper mills to
4 stop pulping operations, but I don't recommend
5 that generally.
6 MR. PURDY: That particular plant was
7 not in Michigan.
8 MR. STEIN: I know.
9 MR. MITCHELL: I was curious to know a
10 little bit more about your state financing. If,
11 then, your Legislature agrees with your Governor
12 and accepts the bond issue, is it required to go
13 before a referendum?
14 MR. PURDY: That will have to go before
15 the people and be supported.
16 MR. MITCHELL: And what time might that
17 come about?
18 MR. PURDY: Hopefully, if the legisla-
18 tion clears through the Legislature in this ses-
20 sion, it could be placed before the people in
21 November.
22 MR. MITCHELL: The same time that
23 Illinois might have theirs -- will youri -beu-
24 put "before the people? •
25 MR. PURDY: If Illinois is scheduled
-------
2621
l R. W. PURDY
2 for November, it would be the sane time.
3 MR. STEIN: Mr. Prangos.
4 MR. FRANCOS: With reference to the
5 proposed rules for control of watercraft pollu-
6 tion, is it correct, is my reading correct, that
7 the rules as you propose them would not preclude
8 devices that would result in discharges to the
9 water courses directly?
10 MR. PURDY: will you restate that?
11 MR. FRANGOS: Well, in Section 2(b)iii--
12 MR. STEIN: Why don't you point to the
13 page in his report?
14 MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
15 MR. PURDY: I have it.
16 MR. STEIN: What page is that, Ralph?
17 MR. PURDY: Page 56.
18 MR. STEIN: All right.
19 MR. PURDY: Where we could approve the
20 discharge --
21 MR. FRANCOS: My question is, you do
22 not rule out the use of devices that would in
23 effect result in a discharge to any water.course
24 on which this boat may be traveling at the time?
25 MR. PURDY: That's correct. However,
-------
2622
1 . R. W. PURDY
2 in our public hearings we have made it very clear
3 that at the present time we of the staff do not
4 know of a macerator chlorinator device which we
5 could recommend to the Commission that it would
6 approve.
7 MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments'
8 (No response.)
9 MR. STEIN: This is a funny way of read-
10 ing this. I don't know, I don't see your lawyers
11 here; I guess they all went home.
12 MR. PURDY: We have worn out a lot of
13 people.
14 MR. STEIN: Yes.
15 The way I read this, this may or may not
16 permit a discharge depending upon your circumstances
17 It is clear one or two don't permit a discharge.
18 Now, unless you say that the sewage
19 discharge is non-pollutional, then they can't
20 get iii and there is nothing to indicate that
21 you are going to have a discharge overboard that
22 is going to meet that. As a matter of fact, so
23 far you haven't.
24 MR. PURDY: Well, as you know, this is
25 a very controversial issue. in the public
-------
2623
j R. W. PURDY
2 hearings our commission did make it very clear
3 that at the present time the only devices that
4 they could approve would be under items i and ii.
5 This does not preclude that at some later date
6 that some ingenious person may come forward with
7 a device which could be approved.
8 MR. STEIN) I am not sure that that
9 phrase that we are talking about in the Chicago
10 Ordinance did not leave the same kind of escape
11 hatch. But I think the question, as far as I
12 see, is developing in the states of not approving
13 a device at the present time as a practical matter
14 which discharges wastes from the boats,
15
16 MR. PURDY: Yes.
17 MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
18 or questions?
19 (No response.)
20 MR. STEIN: If. there are not, thank you
21 very much for a very complete presentation.
22 Mr. Purdy, did you want this entire re-
23 port included in the record?
24 MR. VOGT: Yes, sir, we do, Mr. Chair-
25 man.
-------
2624
I R. W. PURDY
2 MR. STEIN: Without objection, this
3 will be entered in its entirety as if read.
4 (The report referred to is as followss)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2625
REPORT
on
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
in the
ON
BUTARIES
HIGAN PO
GAN BASIN
Prepared aim Published
by (the
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT >OF CONSERVATION
and
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLKTHEALTH
State of Michigan
January 31, 1968
-------
2626
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
George F. Liddle, Chairman, Representing Municipal Groups
John E. Vogt, Vice Chairman, Representing Director, Department of Public Health
B. Dale Ball, Director, Department of Agriculture
Gerald E. Eddy, Representing Director, Department of Conservation
James Murray, Representing State Highway Commission
Lynn F. Baldwin, Representing Conservation Groups
Jim Gilmore, Representing Industrial Groups
Loring F. Oeming, Executive Secretary
Ralph W. Purdy, Chief Engineer
Michigan Department of Public Health, Dr. R. G. Rice, M.D., Acting Director
John E. Vogt, Chief. Division of Engineering
-------
2627
^enort
on
V'at°r Pollution Control
in the
Michigan Portion
of the
Lake Michinan 3asin anH its Tributaries
PreoareH for Presentation on Behalf of the
Michioan Water Resources Commission
of the
Henartnent of Conservation
Michiqan Oenartment of Public Health
at the
Conference Called hy the
Secretary of the Interior
on
Pollution of the Waters of Lake Michigan
and
Its Tributary Basin
(Illinois-Indiana-Michiqan-wisconsin)
January 31 , 1968
-------
2628
CONTENTS
LIST OF-ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . v
PREFACE xi
I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY .... 1
Michigan Law Relating to Water Pollution Control ......... 1
A. Authority for local units of government to build,
own, and operate waste treatment facilities 1
B. Authority for the control of water pollution 3
Legal History. . 5
II. POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 11
Water Resources Commission Pollution Control Program . 11
Department of Public Health Pollution Control Program 13
Facilities Planning and Approval. ....... 13
Facilities Operation. . . . ; 15
Operator Certification and Training . 15
Disinfection Policy and Practice. . . . . . 1.6
Studies on Removal of Phosphates from Waste Water at
Municipal Treatment Plants 16
III. DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS. . . .............. 20
Industries . . . 20
Governmental Units .......... 22
IV.. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN DESCRIPTION AMD WTER USES. ...-.';- 23
Basin Description. . 23
Water Uses 27
•V. 1. The Relationship Between the Lake Michigan Alewife Die^off and
Resulting Water Quality ..... 32
2. Investigation of Nuisance Algae Conditions Along Lake Michigan
Shoreline . 3H
3. Bacteriological Monitoring of Waters Along Lake Michigan
Shoreline 35
4. Biological and Water Quality Investigations in the Vicinity of
the.E. I. duPont Discharge to Lake Michigan at Montague . ... 36
5. Reconnaissance Survey in the Vicinity of the Dow Chemical Company
Brine Discharge to Lake .Michigan near Ludington ...;.... 37
6. Biological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Packaging
Corporation of America's Discharge to Lake Michigan near
Manistee. .: 38
111
-------
2629
7. Aquatic Biota Investigations in the Vicinity of the Big Rock
Point Nuclear Reactor 39
8. Other Tributary and Lake Michigan Monitoring Programs. ...... 40
9. Vessel Pollution - Oil and Rubbish . . , . . 43
VI. CONCLUSIONS 44
APPENDIX A - Act 245, Public Acts of 1929, as amended. ........... 47
APPENDIX B - Control of Watercraft Pollution . 53
APPENDIX C - Michigan's Interstate Water Quality Standards ......... 57
APPENDIX D - Michigan's Intrastate Water Quality Standards ......... 63
APPENDIX E - Chlorination Policy . . ............;. 69
APPENDIX F - Studies on Removal of Phosphates at Grayling., Michigan 73
APPENDIX G - Studies on Removal of Phosphates at Lake Odessa, Michigan ... 93
APPENDIX H - Industrial Surface Water Discharges in the Lake Michigan
Basin. 113
APPENDIX I - Municipal Waste Water Discharges in the Lake Michigan
Basin 131
APPENDIX J - Possible Effects of the Alewife Die-Off on Lake Michigan
Water Quality. ;........... . 145
APPENDIX K ~ Preliminary Survey of Algae Problems - Lake Michigan
Beaches and Phytoplankton Survey - Michigan Inshore
Waters of South-Central Lake Michigan. ... ........ 163
flPPENDIX L - Summary of Bacteriological Data for Lake Michigan Waters. . . . 177
APPENDIX M - Biological Surveys in the Vicinity of the E. I. duPont
de Nemours and Company Discharge to Lake Michigan. .... 183
APPENDIX N - Reconnaissance Survey of the Dow Chemical Company Brine
Discharge to Lake Michigan . 199
APPENDIX 0 - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study - Lake Michigan at Manistee
in the Vicinity of Packaging Corporation of America's
Waste Disposal Pipeline 209
APPENDIX P - Radiological Investigations of Aquatic Biota in the.Vicinity
of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Reactor. . 221
APPENDIX Q - Tributary Monitoring Data and Special Surveys 233
APPENDIX R - Phosphorus Input to Lake Michigan . '. . 259
iv
-------
2630
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
MAPS
Title _________ Page
K-l Areas in S.E. Lake Michigan affected by nuisance algae ...... . . . 166
K-la Location of plankton sampling stations. . ...... ......... 170
K-3 Plankton concentrations 75* offshore and 1 mile offshore ........ 173
L-l Lake Michigan beach sampling locations. .......... ...... 179
M-l Combined chemical and bottom fauna sampling stations - vicinity
of duPont discharge. Montague, Michigan, September 10, 1957 ..... 189
M-2 Combined chemical and bottom fauna sampling stations - vicinity
of duPont discharge, Montague, Michigan, September 6, 1967 ..... 190
N-l Water quality sampling locations in the vicinity of the Dow
Chemical Company discharge, .Big Sable Point. . . . . . . ...... 206
N-2 Benthic macro invertebrate sampling stations in the vicinity of the
Dow Chemical Company discharge off Big Sable Point ........ . 207
0-1 Sampling stations in the vicinity of Packaging Corporation of.
America's pipeline, Manistee, Michigan ...... ......... 216
0-2 Sampling stations in the vicinity of Packaging Corporation of
America's pipeline, Manistee, Michigan ............... 219
P-l. Lpcation map, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Reactor. .... ..... . 225
Q-l .Basins in water quality monitoring program. . .............. 236
Q-2 Raw water intakes ............. .............. 252
Q-3 Special surveys ....... ...... ..... ..... ..... 255
Q-4 Radioactivity sampling locations .................. ... 257
-------
2631
TABLES
No. _ Title _ _ Page
1 Direct industrial discharge to Lake Michigan. .... .......... 20
2 Summary of industrial discharges in the Lake Michigan Basin ....... 21
3 Direct municipal discharges to Lake Michigan ............ . . 22
G-l BOD removal - Lake Odessa, Michigan .... ........ ...... 105
G-2 Sludge digestion data - Lake Odessa, Michigan ..... ........ 109
H-l Direct industrial discharges to Lake Michigan ............ .. 115
H-2 Industrial surface water discharges in the Lake Michigan Basin. .... 116
1-1 Municipal waste water discharge inventory in the Lake Michigan Basin. . 133
J-l Lake Michigan water quality off Frankfort ........... ; . . . 153
J-2 Coliform and fecal coliform bacteria populations ............ 154
J-3 Water quality in tubs during decomposition of alewives. ........ 156
J-4 Algae cell counts, experimental tubs. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 159
K-l Phytoplankton dominants from the mouths of seven tributaries and
eight locations near shore in southcentral Lake Michigan ..... . 172
K-2 Algal conditions of selected Lake Michigan beaches.
K-3 Soluble orthophosphate concentrations as PO^ in mg/1 along the
southeast -central Lake Michigan shoreline and in nearby
tributaries. ........... .................. 175
K-U Plankton composition from the mouths of seven tributaries and
eight locations near shore in southcentral Lake Michigan ..... .176
L-l Summary of bacteriological data for Lake Michigan waters. ....... 181
L-2 Upper Peninsula bacteriological data tabulation. .... ........ 182
M-l Quantitative survey of benthic macroinvertebrates, vicinity of
duPont discharge near Montague, September 10, 1967 ..... .... 191
M-2 Quantitative survey of benthic macroipvertebrates , vicinity of
duPont discharge .near Montague, September 6, 1967 ...... ; . . . 192
M-3 Lake Michigan surface water quality, vicinity of E. I. duPont
discharge, September 10, 1957. . . . ........ ........ . . . 193
vi
-------
2632
TABLES CONTINUED
No. . Title . Page
M-4 Lake Michigan surface water quality, vicinity of E. I. duPont
discharge, September 6, 1967 .' 194
M-5 Amphipods, oligochaets and midges in benthos samples from
Lake Michigan 187
N-l Water quality, Lake.Michigan, in the vicinity.of the Dow Chemical
Company discharge, Big Sable. Point . . 204
N-2 Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms per square foot in the vicinity
of the Dow Chemical Company discharge, Big Sable Point . 205
0-1 Sampling locations, chemical and benthic macroinvertebrate study,
vicinity of Packaging Corporation of America's pipeline,
Manistee, Michigan 212
0-2 Results of survey in the vicinity of Packaging Corporation of
America's pipeline, Manistee, Michigan 217
0-3 Tabulation of chemical and physical data, vicinity of Packaging
Corporation of America's pipeline, Manistee, Michigan .. 218
Q-l Tributary water quality station description ... 235
Q-2 Summary of selected water quality parameters. 238
Q-3 Coliform data - tributaries -....- 251
Q-4 Sample results - domestic water intakes 253
Q-5 Sample results - domestic water intakes-. ... 254
Q-6 Data from special surveys 256
R-l Flow data - tributaries 262
R-2 Phosphorus contributed to Lake Michigan 263
Vll
-------
2633
FIGURES
No. Title
F-l No chemical treatment - suspended solids - Grayling, Michigan ...... 83
F-2 No chemical treatment - BOD - Grayling, Michigan. ............ 84
F-3 Chemical treatment - total phosphate - Grayling, Michigan ....... 85
F-3a T-P04 removal- Grayling, Michigan ...... .... ......... 86
F-H Chemical treatment - suspended solids - Grayling, Michigan ....... 87
F-4a Suspended solids removal - Grayling, Michigan ....... ........ 88
F-5 Chemical treatment - BOD - Grayling, Michigan ............. 89
F-5a BOD removal- Grayling, Michigan . ... ................ . . 90
G-l Suspended solids removal - Lake Odessa, Michigan ...... ...... 101
G-2 Suspended solids - Lake Odessa, Michigan ....... ......... 102
G-3 BOD removal - Lake Odessa, Michigan ................ ...... 103
G-4 BOD - Lake Odessa, Michigan ............ .......... 106
G-5 Phosphate removal - Lake Odessa, Michigan ... ............ 107
G-6 Total phosphates - Lake Odessa, Michigan ................ 108
J-l Coliform and fecal coliform bacteria populations in experimental
tubs ... .............. ... , ..... ........ 155
J-2 DO, BOD, and pH concentrations in experimental tubs with decomposing
alewives ............ ...... ....... ..... 157
J-3 Ammonia, soluble orthophosphate , and total phosphate concentrations
in experimental tubs containing decomposing alewives ........ 158
J^4 Relationship between coliform bacteria, total phosphate,, soluble
orthophosphate and plankton algae - control tubs . . ... . . '• . . 160
J-5 Relationship between coliform bacteria, total phosphate, soluble
orthophosphate and plankton algae - test tubs ............ 161
J-6 Relationships between potential total phosphate release as PO^ from
dead alewives and. volume of phosphorus -free water, ....... ... 162
K-2 Total phytoplankton count at each location compared to the inshore
beach tow - Lake Michigan. ........... ......... . 171
Vlll
-------
2634
FIGURES CONTINUED
Title _______ . _______ Page
L-l Bacteriological data for Lake Michigan waters ............. 180
M-3 Number of species of bottom animals per square foot and their
tolerance status, duPont survey, Lake Michigan, 1957 ..... ... 195
M-4- Number of species of bottom animals per square foot and their
tolerance status, duPont survey, Lake Michigan, 1967 ........ 196
M-5 Relationship between water depth and tolerance status of benthic
fauna, E. I. duPont survey, Lake Michigan, September 1957 ...... 197
M-6 Relationship between water depth and tolerance status of benthic
fauna, E. I. duPont survey, Lake Michigan, September 1967 ...... 198
N-3 Benthic macroinvertebrate species per square foot and their
tolerance status, vicinity of Dow Chemical Company discharge,
Big Sable Point .......... ................. 208
0-3 Number of bottom dwelling macroinvertebrates and their tolerance
status, vicinity of Packaging Corporation of America's pipeline,
Manistee, Michigan .......... . . . ............ 220
. P-2 Annual radiological concentration averages in the vicinity of Big
Rock Point Nuclear Reactor ......... . ........... 226
P-3 Plankton radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor ........... 227
P-4- . Periphyton radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor .......... 228
P-5 Filamentous algae radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor ...... 229
P-6 Crayfish radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor ........... 230.
P-7 Shore minnow radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor ......... 231
Q-l Summary of selected water quality parameters - tributaries ...... . 237
Q-2-13 Water 'quality of Lake Michigan tributaries, 1965 and 1966 ....... 239-250
ix
-------
2635
Preface
This report contains information on the municipal and industrial waste disposal
situation in the Michigan portion of the interstate waters of Lake Michigan and in
the tributaries to Lake Michigan in Michigan. It delineates the statutes that
provide the local units of government authority to build, own and operate waste
treatment facilities. It delineates the State statutes for control of water
pollution. It delineates the accomplishments that'have been made in controlling
pollution and the measures that are being taken to provide improved control. It
also describes the uses being made of these waters and water quality conditions.
The report was prepared for presentation to the conferees at the Federal
conference called by the Secretary of the Interior for their consideration and
appraisal in (1) arriving at conclusions as to whether waste discharges originating
from Michigan sources are endangering the health or welfare of persons in a state
other than that in which the discharge or discharges originate, (2) determining
the adequacy of measures that have been taken for abatement of pollution, and (3)
determining the nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating pollution.
The area encompassed by the report includes all of the Michigan portion of Lake
Michigan and its tributaries.
All sources of municipal sewage and industrial waste discharges to surface
waters are covered. The nature of waste treatment or control measures in effect
are described and the state agency action to control pollution and evaluate
accomplishments is related.
The files and records of the"Michigan Water Resources Commission and Michigan
Department of Public Health are-the sources of information contained in the report.
The employed staffs of both agencies collaborated in assembling the material and
preparing the report.
XI
-------
2636
CHAPTER I
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
MICHIGAN LAW RELATING TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
A. Authority for local 'units of government. to build, own., and operate waste treatment
facilities:
1. Act 107, Public Acts of 1941 L An act to authorize township water
supply and sewage disposal systems, and the issuance of revenue
bonds or notes therefor.
2. Act 116, Public Acts of 1923 - An act to authorize townships to
establish and maintain garbage systems or plants for the
collection and disposal of ^garbage or contracting therefor,
constructing .or acquiring and maintaining sanitary sewers
and sewage disposal plants: to provide for making, levying
and collecting of special assessment bonds.
3. Act 342, Public Acts of "1939 - An act to authorize counties to
establish and provide connecting water, sewer and/or sewage
disposal improvements and services within or between cities,
villages, townships and.township improvement districts
including disposal facilities and services and to provide
methods for obtaining money for the aforesaid purposes.
4. Act 3, Public Acts of 1895 - An act to provide for the
incorporation of villages and to define their powers and
duties.
5.' Act 215. Public Acts of 1895 - An act to provide for the
incorporation of cities-of the fourth class and to define
the powers and duties of such cities.
6. Act 279, Public Acts of 1909 - An act to provide for the
incorporation of cities and for revising and amending
their charters.
7. Act 312, Public Acts of 192-9 - An act to provide for the
incorporation by any two or more cities, villages or
townships, or any combination or parts of same for
• supplying sewage disposal.
8. Act 245, Public Acts of 1947 - An act to regulate the ownership,
extension, improvement and operation-of public water and
sewage disposal systems lying within two or more public
corporations; and to provide for the payment and security
•of revenue bonds issued for the construction, acquisition,
extension and improvement of such systems.
-------
2637
9. Act 82, Public Acts of 1955 - An act to provide for the acquirement
by a city of the water' supply system and/or sewage disposal
system of a metropolitan district and to permit such a city to
own., maintain, operate, improve, enlarge and extend such systems
either within or without its limits.
10. Act 76, Public Acts of 1965 - An act to authorize counties, townships,
villages, cities and any other governmental unit to construct waste
disposal systems by agreements or contracts with governmental units
or agencies of another state.
11. Act 185, Public Acts of 1957 - An act to authorize the establishment
of a department and board of public works in counties; to
authorize the issuance and payment of bonds ; and to prescribe
a procedure for special assessments 'and condemnation.
12. Act 233, Public Acts of 1955 - An act to provide for the
incorporation of certain municipal authorities to acquire,
own, extend, improve and operate sewage disposal systems and
to provide.for the issuance of bonds to acquire, construct,
extend or improve sewage disposal systems.
13. Act 320, Public Acts of 1927 - An act to authorize legislative
bodies of municipalities to issue and sell bonds necessary for
the construction of sewage disposal plants whenever a court of
competent jurisdiction shall have ordered same.
.14. Act 373, Public Acts of 1925 - An act to authorize legislative
bodies of municipalities to issue and sell bonds necessary - for
the construction of storm and sanitary sewers whenever a court
of competent jurisdiction shall have ordered same.
15. Act 94, Public Acts of 1933 - An act to authorize public corporations
to purchase, acquire, construct, improve, enlarge, extend or
repair public improvements within or' without their corporate
limits, and to own, operate and maintain the same; to provide
for the issuance of bonds and refunding bonds payable solely
from the revenues of public improvements; to provide for the
imposition of special assessments against properties
benefited by such public improvements, and for the issuing
of special assessment bonds for the purpose of refunding-
outstanding revenue bonds.
16. Act 278, Public Acts of 1909 - An act to provide for the
incorporation of villages and for changing their boundaries; to
provide for acquiring by purchase, land without its corporate
limits necessary for the disposal of sewage and garbage. . .
-------
2638
17. Act 188, Public Acts of 1951- An act to provide for the making of
certain public improvements by townships: to provide for
assessing the whole or a part of the cost thereof against
property benefited; and to provide for the issuance of bonds
in anticipation of the collection of such special assessments,
and for the obligation of the township thereon.
t
Improvements which can be made under this act include
construction and maintenance of sewers.
18. Act 359, Public Acts of 1917 - An act to authorize the incorporation
of charter townships; to provide a municipal charter therefor;
and to prescribe the powers and functions thereof including the
installation of garbage disposal systems, the laying of storm
and sanitary sewers and the installation of water systems.
19. Act 202, Public Acts of 1943 - An act relative to the borrowing of
money by municipalities, and the issuance of bonds, notes and
certificates of indebtedness; to provide for tax levies and
sinking funds; to create the municipal finance commission; and
to prescribe its powers and duties.
B. Authority for the control of water pollution:
1. Act 28, Public Acts of 1955 - Great Lakes Basin Compact. An act
providing for cooperation of agencies of the state with the
great lakes commission.
2. Act 243, Public Acts of 1959 - An act to regulate trailer coach
parks; to prescribe the powers and duties of the director of
the department of public health; and to provide remedies and
penalties for violations.
3. Act M-0, Public Acts of 1956 - An a.ct to codify the laws relating
to drains, and such structures and mechanical devices as will
properly purify the flow of such drains; and to provide for
the assessment and collection of taxes.
4. Act 20, Public Acts of 1964 - An act to regulate the impoundment
and utilization of surplus water and to prescribe certain
powers and duties of the water resources commission.
5. Act 291, Public Acts of 1965 - An act to protect riparian rights
and of the public trust in navigable inland lakes and streams;
to regulate the uses thereof including dredging and placing
spoil on bottom lands; and to prescribe the duties and powers
of the department of conservation.
-------
2639
6. Act 17, Public Acts of 1921 - An act to provide for the protection and
conservation of the natural resources- of the state and to create a
department of-conservation.
7. Act 247,'Public Acts of 1955 - An act to authorize the department of
conservation to regulate the filling in of submerged patented lands.
8. Act 245, Public Acts of 1929 - An act to create a water resources
commission to protect and conserve the water resources of.the state,
to have control over the pollution of any waters of the state and
the great lakes, with power to make rules and regulations governing
the same and to provide penalties for the violation of the act.
9. Act 222, Public Acts of 1949 - An act to authorize public corporations
to accept grants"and other aid from the U.S. Government and from
industries for the construction of pollution abatement facilities;
and to authorize public corporations to enter into contracts with
industries for the use of disposal facilities.
10.' Act 329, Public Acts of 1966 - An act to provide state grants for
sewage treatment facilities and to provide for administration of
the grants -by the water resources commission.
11. Act 211, Public Acts of 1956 - An act to prescribe certain powers
and duties of the water resources commission in making studies
and investigations in the establishment of sewage disposal
districts.
12. Act 253, Public Acts of 1964 - An act to enable local units of •
government to cooperate in planning and carrying out a coordinated
water management program in a watershed, and to prescribe certain
powers and duties of the water resources commission.
13. Act 222, Public Acts of 1966 - An act to procide for the exemption of
industrial water pollution control facilities from certain taxes.
14. Act 98, Public Acts of 1913 - An act providing for the supervision
and control by the director of the department of public health
over sewerage systems, and providing penalties for violations.
15. Act 87, Public Acts of 1965 - An act to license and regulate garbage
and refuse disposal and to provide penalties for violation.
16. Act 196, Public Acts of 1963 - An act to control and prohibit the
littering of public and private property and waters.
17. Act 288, Public Acts of 1967 - An act to regulate the subdivision
of land; and to promote the public health by providing authority
to the department of public health to approve subdivisions not
served by public sewers, on basis of suitability of soils.
-------
2640
18. Act 218, Public Acts of 1967 - An act to protect the public health
by providing for the supervision and control of bathing beaches
open to the public; and to prescribe' the functions of health
agencies.
19. Act 61, Public Acts of 1939 - An act to provide for a supervisor'of
wells; to provide for the prevention of waste and for the control
over- certain matters, persons and things relating to the
conservation of oil and gas. and for the making and promulgation
of rules, regulations and orders relative therefor; to provide
for the plugging of wells and for the entry on private property
for-that purpose; to provide for the enforcement of such rules,
regulations and orders and of the provisions of this act and to
'provide penalties for the violations thereof; to prevent damage
to or destruction of fresh water supplies and valuable brines by
oil, gas, or other wastes; to require the disposal of salt water
and brines and oily wastes produced incidental to oil and gas
operations, in such a manner and by such methods and means that
no unnecessary damage or danger to or destruction of surface or .
underground resources shall result.
2.0. Act 3'06, Public Acts of 1927 - An act'to provide for county and:
district health departments; to prescribe their powers and
duties; to provide for the apportioning of funds appropriated
by the state, for aid to city, county and district health
departments.
21. Act 350, Public Acts of 1865 - An act to protect fish and to
preserve the fisheries by preventing the unlawful dumping into
the waters of certain materials.
Legal History
Prior to 1929 authority of the State of Michigan to abate pollution rested upon
a basis of .common law. In 1913 the Michigan Supreme Court held in Attorney General
ex rel Township of Wyoming vs. City of Grand Rapids, 175 Mich. 503, that the state
Attorney General acting under his broad common law powers had the authority to file
suits on behalf of the State of Michigan to compel the City of Grand Rapids to abate
the public nuisance that it was making in the wafers of the Grand River by discharging
raw sewage therein. In its decree the- Supreme Court ordered that the City con.«=-*-"'ir:t
such works as were necessary to abate the pollution within one year.
In 1929 the Michigan Legislature enacted the Stream Control Commission Act
(Act 245, Public Acts of 1929) establishing a 5-member Commission consisting of the.
Director of Conservation, the State Health Commissioner, the: Highway Commissioner,
the Commissioner of Agriculture and the.Attorney General. • This Act defined unlawful
pollution as the discharge to the waters of the state of "any waste or pollution of
any kind that will tend to destroy fish life or be injurious to public health1'. The
law further provided the Stream Control Commission with authority to ascertain arid
take appropriate action where existing conditions in any lake, river, stream or other.
waters of the state were deemed by the Commission to be unreasonable and against public
interest. In order to insure compliance with Stream Control Commission_Orders, the
statute provided for a formal notic.3, hearing and Order procedure.
-------
2641
The constitutionality and authority of the Stream Control Commission to issue
Orders requiring the abatement of.pollution of the waters of. the state was reviewed
in City of Miles vs. Stream Control Commission, 296 Mich. 650, decided March 11,
1941. In that case the City of Niles appealed from an Order of the Stream Control
Commission directing the City to begin construction of a sewage treatment plant for
the purpose of preventing the discharge of raw sewage into the St. Joseph River.
The Supreme Court sustained the authority of the Commission, validated this Order
and compelled the City of Niles to comply.
In the course of that decision the court made some notable observations, .among
which is the following:
"In order to stop pollution of the river, it was necessary for
the Commission to take action against the City of Niles, inasmuch
as it was the first city in the state on the course of. the river
below the Indiana cities and thus opened the way for suit to compel
the Indiana cities to stop pollution of the waters of the river.
It is an instance where the state must clean up its own dooryard
before being in a position to ask or seek to compel its neighbor
to clean up. This was not an arbitrary exercise of power by the •
Commission but a practical movement toward accomplishment of a
most desirable end." (Quoted on p. .157, 305 Mich. Rep.)
However, the most notable series of cases involved the enforcement of the Order
which was issued by the Stream Control Commission against the City of Port Huron.
On February 11, 1936, .the Commission issued an Order against the City of Port Huron
requiring it "to proceed to the construction of a sewage treatment plant and the
necessary collecting and intercepting sewers, pumping stations, force mains and
other appurtenances in connection therewith, all when and as approved by the
Michigan Department of health to permit treatment for the sewage of the City before
'its discharge to state waters". The City failed to comply with this Order and the
Commission filed a bill of complaint on December 9, 1939, to enforce it. ' After an
extended trial the Circuit Court denied the relief sought by the Commission and the
matter was appealed to the Supreme Court. In the course of its opinion (Stream
Control Commission VS. Port Huron, 305, Mich. 1953), reversing the decision of the
lower court and validating the Order of the Commission, the Supreme Court referred
to the agreement made by the City that construction of the sewage plant would not
materially reduce pollution in the river and that its present method of sewage
disposal did not create a public nuisance to the people residing along the river,
as well as those in the cities of Marysville, St. Clair, Marine City and Algonac
situated within 30 miles below Port Huron. In disposing of this contention, the
court stated (p. 157):
"The record contains- sufficient testimony to substantiate the
ttate's contention that the present raw sewage disposal method
is a constant menace to the health and well-being of the down-
- river communities as well as to tourists. This evidence clearly
justifies the Commission's order. Under the authority of the
City of Niles case, supra, where similar arguments were advanced,
it is no defense to a statutory charge .of river-water pollution
f-hdt others have or are contributing to that condition. "
-------
2642
A contention made by the City consisted of invoking the doctrines 'of
"balancing of equities" and "comparative injury". These doctrines are always
invoked when a number of municipalities or industries contribute to the pollution
of a body of water, each one claiming that it should not be required to abate its
contribution to the pollution until the others are required to do 'likewise. In
disposing of this contention the Supreme Court said (p. 157-158):
"Even if we should concur with the trial judge in his
conclusion that a 'balancing of equities' favors the city,
this is not a proper case for the application of that
doctrine. The doctrine of 'comparative injury' should be
confined to those situations where the plaintiff can be
substantially compensated. This principle is distinguished
in City of larrisonville vs. W. £. Dickey Clay Manufacturing
Company,, 289 U. £. 334, 337 (53 tup. Ct. 602, 77 L. Ed. 1208)."'
"The doctrine of 'comparative -injurv ' should not be invoked
to justify the continuance of an act. that tends' to impair
public health. "
Another contention made by the City of Port Huron was its financial inability
to comply with the Order. In disposing of this issue against the City, the court
stated (p. 159):
"The act creating the Commission was under the police power
vested in the state, and the order in question was not
arbitrary to unreasonable but became necessary .by reason
of the previous refusal of the City of Port fLron to. stop
pollution of the £t. Clair and Black rivers. The evidence
justified the order of the Commission., and the decree
entered below must, be vacated.
"We are not unmindful of the situation caused by war conditions
and the fact that the city of Port luron will have difficulty
in complying with, the Commission ' s order due to necessary
materials now required for war purposes. This however, does
not, and should not, prevent the city from immediately taking
those steps necessary to insure the carrying out of the mandate
of the Commission, but a reasonable time should be allowed for
completion of the project. We apprehend that the State and
city can agree upon the time that is necessary, and if .they
cannot, this is a matter which can be determined by the. trial
judge upon proper proofs . "
The City of Port Huron, however, failed to comply with the order of the Supreme
Court and consequently the Attorney General filed a motion for final process to
enforce the decree. The court rendered its opinion in People ex rel Stream Control
Commission VS. City Of Port Huron,. 323 Mich. 541. In a per curium opinion reviewing
the events that had occurred including reference to war conditions that had made it
impossible for the City to procure necessary materials for construction and that
time was required for this purpose, and pointing out that the City had authorized
the issuance of bonds totalling $1,600,000 for construction of .the sewage disposal
plant j the court stated :
-------
2643
"This phase of the situation presents a matter for practical
consideration. The problem is one that cannot be solved other
than by the construction of proper facilities necessary for
the treatment of the raw sewage. .. . The condition existing
is one, as indicated in the prior opinion of this court, that
should be remedied as soon as possible. If the course the .city
commission claims it is pursuing is followed with reasonable
diligence, it seems clear that the desired result can be
accomplished in the not far distant future. . . It seems
expedient now that a definite date should be fixed prior to
which the sewage disposal plant, the intercepting. sewers and
other necessary appurtenances shall be completed so that the
existing situation may be ended.
"The injunctive relief sought by the motion of the attorney
general will be granted effective as of October I, 1950."
Even this, however, did not end the controversy because the City of Port Huron
experienced difficulty in selling the bonds to raise the money for construction of
the works. Apparently the bonding houses wanted a decision from the State Supreme
Court validating the proposed -bonds. Consequently, upon the city treasurer's
refusal to countersign the bonds, mandamus proceedings were initiated and the
matter was decided by the Supreme Court in Port Huron Mayor vs. Treasurer, 328 Mich.
99. In its opinion the court reviewed the prior proceedings, the various resolutions
and the ordinances adopted-by the City for the issuance of the bonds. The court
pinpointed the critical issue as follows (p. 106):
"The most important question raised by the pleadings is whether
the issuance of the general obligation bonds of $1,600,000 must
be approved by a 3/5 majority of the qualified electors of the
city of Port huron after due notice has been given to them in
the same manner and to the extent that is required for issuance
of other general obligation bonds issued under the charter of
the city of Port huron and by the home rule act."
The bonds had not been submitted to the electors for approval and thus tue court
was faced with the responsibility of deciding whether its previous Orders could be
complied with without reference to a referendum for the issuance of the bonds.
Act 320, Public Acts of 1927, authorized the legislative bodies of municipalities
to issue and sell bonds necessary for the construction of sewage disposal plants
"whenever a court of competent jurisdiction in this State shall have ordered the
installation of a sewage or garbage disposal system in any of the governmental
agencies or municipalities herein mentioned and the plans therefore shall have been
prepared and approved by the state-commissioner of health.- . ."
Another statute known as the Municipal Finance Act, namely Act 373, Public Acts
of'1925, contained the same provision with reference to the construction of
"necessary storm and sanitary sewers".
-------
2644
After reviewing, the various authorities, the court held that whenever a
municipality finds it necessary to raise money for the issuance of bonds for the
purpose of complying with a'court order involving the public health of the State,
no referendum of approval by the people is necessary. Its opinion on this point
stated:
"The action of the plaintiffs was in strict accord with our
pre-emptory order for the installation of a sewage treatment
system in Port I.uron. The'proposed bond issue was not to
raise money for- ordinary municipal purposes or improvements,
but to carry out the order of- this Court, and prevent.
defendant from further polluting public streams and
endangering the health and comfort not only of its own
inhabitants but also of all others in any way affected .
by the pollution of the waters by the filth from the Port
Luron sewers. This no longer created solely a problem of
Port f.uron but one of the State and this may have been the
reason for enactment of Act No. 320., supra, sections of
which we have quoted. The order was for the protection
of the people of the State of, Michigan. It transcended
local purposes.
"Claims of defendant that notice and a vote of the electors
of Port I.uron were necessary are fully answered by sections 7
and 8 of P.A. 1927, No. 320. supra. The city of Port I.uron
was bound to carry out the ord.er of this court3 which confirmed
the previous order of the Stream Control Commission. There was
neither necessity. occasion., nor any reason to publish the
resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds, nor, as
previously stated, did it require the vote of 3/5 of the
electors." (Emphasis supplied.)
Another point raised was that the levying of the tax for the payment of such
bonds' would exceed the tax limitations provided by the city charter. This is a
contention which is usually made by municipalities whenever they are faced with
complying with an Order of the Water Resources Commission. In its opinion the
court rejected this contention by holding that there is ample authority in Act 320,
Public Acts of 1927, to levy taxes for the purposes mentioned in that statute; and
that even though the tax limitations were exceeded, such defense is not valid when
the City is required to comply with a court order.
*
1 >
The Supreme Court thereupon issued its writ of'mandamus ordering the city
treasurer to countersign the bonds and in due time the sewage' disposal system of
the City of Port Huron was built and is now in operation.-
The series of cases referred to has paved the way for enforcement of Water
Resources Commission Orders and has enabled Michigan municipalities to finance
construction of projects necessary to comply with Commission Orders. The Water
Resources Commission has secured court orders directing 26 units of government in
the Lake Michigan Basin to abate pollution of the waters of the state by the .
construction of sewage treatment facilities and court action is now underway against
4 units of government..
-------
2645
In addition, the Director of the Department of Public Health, acting pursuant to
authority vested in him by Act 98, Public Acts of 1913 and Act 219, Public Acts of
1949, has prohibited the extension-of municipal sewer systems and additional
connections to existing systems where such is deemed necessary to control pollution
and protect public health. The authority of the Director to so act has been upheld
by Michigan court decisions.
Financial inability in the State of Michigan is not a defense against the
abatement of a nuisance either by private citizens or by a municipal entity.
10
-------
2646
CHAPTER II
Pollution Control Program
Administration of water pollution control 'functions in Michigan necessarily
follows the division of statutory responsibility set forth in the previously cited
statutes subject to correlation, wherever possible, of member department interest
and objectives with those of the Water Resources Commission. The Water Resources
Commission and the Department of Public Health and their respective staffs carry the
principal burden of water pollution control in Michigan at the state level.
Water Resources Commission Pollution Control Program
The goal and objective of the Michigan Water Resources Commission is to bring
all existing unlawful pollution under continuing effective control and prevent the
development of unlawful pollution from new sources, population growths, or increased
industrial expansion and, where such incidents occur, limit their duration and.
intensity to the fullest extent consistent with requirements of the Water Resources
Commission statute. Under the Michigan statute (Appendix A), it is unlawful for any
person directly or .indirectly to discharge into the waters of the state any substance
which is or may become injurious to the public health,- safety or welfare; or which is
or may become injurious to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational
or other uses which are being or may be- made of such waters; or which is or may become
injurious to the value or utility of riparian lands: or which is or may become
injurious to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life or plants or the
growth or propagation thereof be prevented or injuriously affected: or whereby the
value of fish and game is or may be destroyed or impaired. The discharge of any raw
sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly into any waters of the state is prima
facie evidence of a violation of the statute unless such discharge is permitted by an
Order, rule or regulation of the Water Resources Commission.
Where inadequacies in control of waste discharges are determined to exist, an
opportunity is provided for establishment of voluntary corrective action. When it
appears to the Michigan Water Resources Commission that a voluntary program will not
be successful or may not be accomplished within a reasonable time period, statutory
procedures are initiated. Orders adopted contain specific effluent restrictions and
specific dates for approval of construction plans and specifications, awarding of
construction contracts and commencement of construction, and the completion-of
construction and attainment of pollution abatement as required by the Order.
Sewerage systems must be developed on the basis of separate sewers for storm
water and sanitary waste water. When at all feasible, separated sanitary wastewater
systems shall not be discharged into combined systems. If such discharge does occur,
control facilities must be developed on the combined system so.as to protect present
and future water uses of the receiving waters consistent with the requirements of the
Water Resources Commission statute. Problems associated with the overflow of storm
and sanitary- waste from existing combined sewerage systems to public waters must be
corrected..
11
-------
264?
Nutrient discharges, particularly with respect to phosphates, to public waters
must be controlled. Persons proposing to make a new or increased use of waters of
the state for waste disposal purposes are required, coincident with the new or
increased use, to utilize such technology and processes which are known for the
removal of phosphorus compounds and as a long-term objective, all existing waste
dischargers will be required to provide facilities for the removal of phosnhor^.o
compounds by June 1, 1S77.
The discharge of sanitary waste from recreational- watercraft will be controlled
by rules and 'regulations to be adopted by the Water Resources Commission. Proposed
rules and regulations (Appendix B) have been presented at a public hearing and final
action is scheduled prior to June 1, 1968.
The Michigan Water Resources Commission will prevent the development of new
problems by continued implementation of Section 8 (b) of its statute which requires
the filing of a statement of use by any person proposing to make a new or substantial
increase in use of waters of the state for waste disposal purposes. The Commission,
upon receipt of a statement,makes an Order stating such minimum restrictions as may
be necessary to guard adequately against unlawful uses of waters of the state.
Water quality standards for water uses of all inter-(Appendix C) and intrastate
(Appendix D) waters have been adopted. Water use designation, together with-a plan
of implementation and enforcement of the standards have been adopted for the interstate
waters. Public hearings are now being held prior to the designation of waters uses for
the intrastate waters. All public hearings will be completed by November 1, 1968.
Designation of all water uses to be protected by the intrastate standards within the
state is scheduled to be completed by January 1, 1969.
On interstate waters, where noncompliance with the standards is determined to
exist as the result of a discharge from an existing municipal wastewater treatment
'plant, treatment facilities adequate for meeting established water quality standards
must be provided no later than June 1,'1972. Secondary treatment is required as a
minimum unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser degree of treatment or control
will provide for water quality enhancement commensurate with present and future water
uses. Exception to the requirement for at least secondary treatment must be justified .
to the satisfaction of the Michigan Water Resources Commission and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. Presently identified existing discharges of raw
sewage of human origin to public waters must be corrected by June 1, 1972. Year-round
disinfection of all final effluents from municipal sewage treatment .plants is required.
Industrial waste discharges must meet the same effluent requirements as municipal
waste effluents and industrial waste problems identified in the interstate-plan
reports-must, no later than June 1, 1970, have adequate treatment or control
facilities. Problems associated with the overflow of storm and sanitary waste from '
existing combined sewerage systems.must be corrected no later than June 1, 1977.
The Water Resources Commission staff inspects each incipient pollution problem
regularly. All Orders "now adopted by the Commission, to both industries and
municipalities, require routine analysis .and reporting of the quality of wastes
discharged to public waters. In addition surface water quality and waste effluents
are monitored so as to identify the need for corrective action to abate existing
problems and whenever possible so as to detect and identify the approach of pollution
conditions in time to initiate appropriate corrective acti~- rn-ior to the development
12
-------
2648
of a statutory 'injury. The Water Resourc.es Commission staff reviews and approves
or rejects plans for industrial waste treatment or control facilities and counsels
with management on industrial waste treatment or disposal problems. It develops
appropriate restrictions and time, schedules for Commission approval to corr.ect or
prevent pollution problems and participates- in enforcement procedures initiated by
the Commission through statutory hearings and enforcement of Commission Orders in
court when voluntary compliance is riot forthcoming.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
The Department of Public Health, acting through.its Division of Engineering,
exercises supervisory control over all public sewerage systems. The Director of
the Department is required by statute, Act 98, Public Acts of 1913, as amended, to
"exercise due care to see that all sewerage systems are properly planned, constructed
and operated so as to prevent unlawful pollution of the streams, lakes, and other
water resources of the state'!. The companion statute, Act 245, Public Acts of 1929,
as amended, defines unlawful pollution and authorizes the. Water Resources Commission
to "establish such pollution standards for lakes, rivers, streams,, and other waters
of the state in relation to the public use to which they are or may be put, as it
shall deem necessary". Such pollution standards and the water quality criteria
relating to the public uses, currently being promulgated for both interstate and
intrastate streams, provide the framework upon which decisions are made and actions
taken in relation to the planning, design, construction and operation of all sewer
systems and treatment works. Elements of this supervisory program include the
following:
Facilities Planning and Approval
i
1. Review engineering reports establishing the basis of design for projects
involving collection and treatment of waste water and consult with the engineers
and municipal officials on elements of the proposed design prior to development
of plans and specifications for the project; require modification of proposed
design where appropriate and, when found to be satisfactory, approve same.
2. Review, approve or reject and secure changes in plans and specifications submitted
for new municipal systems or for changes in existing systems, both for collection
and treatment. No public sewerage system may be built or altered without specific
approval by construction permit.
3. Conducts inspections -to determine that construction of public sewerage.systems.
conforms to approved plans and specifications..
4. Require reduction of overflows from existing combined sewer systems. Adoption
of accelerated programs for effective control of overflows from such systems is
strongly urged. Progress has been made in several communities by sewer .
separation
5. Require municipal rather than private ownership of all sewerage systems serving
the public in the.belief that more dependable and effective operation and over-
all pollution control is thereby assured.
13
-------
26*1-9
&. Counsels with officials of municipalities and their consulting engineer agents
as to the need and methods for collection and treatment of waste water.
7. Strongly encourage and, where appropriate, require the development of multi-
community area planning to provide effective services and pollution control
facilities utilizing sound management principles. Many such areas are currently
served by an integrated system of sewers, interceptors, and treatment works.
Others are being so planned in several areas. Examples are metropolitan areas
whose core cities' are Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, St. Joseph, Grand Rapids,
Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and Traverse City.
8. Encourage the admission of. industrial wastes in municipal sewerage systems where
such wastes will not adversely affect the system and its performance in relation
to effective pollution control.
9. Foster, encourage and assist communities in the adoption of effective and
practical sewer use ordinances for the control of industrial wastes to be
admitted to the sewerage system. In many instances, technical assistance and
counsel is provided in the location, analyses and evaluation of wastes,
particularly those toxic to biological treatment processes and in the
development of-effective corrective measures and controls. Examples are
.metal plating wastes at Cadillac, Ludington and Wyoming brought under effective
control within the last year.
10. Encourage and, where appropriate, require communities to conduct studies, pilot
or plant scale, to provide a dependable basis of design for unusual combinations
of industrial and municipal wastes to be treated where sufficient information is
not available for design purposes. Such studies were made at Battle Creek for
cereal products and paper mill wastes to be treated at the municipal plant.
Similarly, require studies, either pilot or plant scale, to develop a basis
of design where an extremely high degree of treatment is required. Such a
study was completed last year at Jackson.
11. Encourage and assist communities to conduct studies to establish effective
methods for removal of phosphates from their wastes at existing treatment works.
Such studies were made at Lake Odessa and Whitehall last year.
12.' Require facilities for removal of phosphates in the design of new treatment
works, consistent with the adopted policy of the Water Resources Commission.
13. Require expansion and improvements of municipal facilities, both for collection
and treatment as present capacity is approached, rather than wait-until the
facilities are overloaded before taking action. Approval of sewer extensions
is withheld where additional loadings would exceed the capacity of the. system
until an acceptable program for relief is officially adopted. "Sewer bans"
.have been imposed in several such circumstances. Authority for such action
has been tested and upheld in the courts.
14. Order changes in facilities or their operation when requirements of the statutes
have not been met. Alternatively, cases involving deficiency in facilities are
referred to the Water Resources Commission for action.
-------
2650
15. As agent for the Water Resources.Commission, review, approve or reject plans
submitted for new sewer systems, other than municipal, or for changes in
existing ones.
16. Assist and"encourage local health departments to effectively direct and control
the installation of private sewage disposal systems where public sewer systems
are not available for connection.
17. Require construction of separate sanitary sewers for new community systems.
Facility Operation - Supervision, Visitation
1. Require the effective operation of all treatment works, including pumping
stations and sewer system appurtenances.
2. Require all municipalities to submit reports monthly on the operation of
treatment works. Standard report forms are provided by the Department and
each municipality is advised as to the minimum information to be reported and
the frequency (number of days per week) of reporting. Included are both
physical data and laboratory analyses to establish loadings On the plant,
performance of plant units, and the volume and characteristics of the plant
effluent. Such information is used to determine effectiveness of overall plant
performance, deficiencies of component facilities, capacity reserves for
additional loadings, and operational problems and shortcomings. Action is
taken to assist in corrective measures and to require correction.
3. Supervise operation by on-site inspection, instruct-ion and consultation'with
plant operating personnel. Adequate services of this nature requires 'visitation
once during each 3 months on the average.
Operator Certification and Training
1 Require all municipalities to employ operators whose competency has been certified
by the Department. By statute., it is mandatory that the person in charge of the
plant be so certified. Over 600 operators•have been so certified on the basis
of education, experience, and written examinations. About 200 operators with
plant experience are examined each year. A high percentage of applicants are
certified operators seeking to establish qualifications for a higher plant
classification.
2. Conduct formal group training sessions to impart specific information related to
effective operational control-, to provide opportunity for exchange of information
and experience and to provide incentives for self-study and development. Over
325 operators attend a 2-day meeting each year conducted by Department engineers
and chemists. A series of four 5-day sessions in laboratory procedures involving
chemical and bacteriological analyses are currently being conducted by the
Department staff. Eighty operators who presently perform.such tests at their
plants are registered. Evening courses are held throughout the state for a-
12-week period in mathematics, chemistry, or hydraulics as applied to wastewater
works operation, in a cooperative program with other agencies and organizations.
Special courses in process control, safety and related .areas are sponsored with
other groups.
15
-------
2651
3. Encourage operators to meet on a. regular schedule, usually about once monthly,
on their own•initiative to exchange information on plant operational problems
and experiences and to invite speakers to discuss selected subjects related to
facilities design and maintenance, laboratory equipment, etc. About 10 such
groups meet regularly with about 200 operators participating'.
Disinfection Policy and Practice
1. Require'all municipalities to disinfect the plant effluent before discharge to
the surface waters of the state. This policy was adopted in January 1967,
(Appendix E). Virtually all communities in the state are conforming to this
policy.
2. Require the provision of adequate facilities and their operation, monitoring
and testing in such a manner as to assure continuous effective disinfection.
3. Require regular reporting on forms furnished by the Department of chlorine used
daily, results of chlorine residual readings, and related information. Over 60
communities are performing bacteriological analyses on the chlorinated effluent
as a check on the chlorine dosage and chlorine residual regimens. Many other
small communities are currently planning-to apply additional refinements in
control this year.
STUDIES ON REMOVAL OF PHOSPHATES FROM
WASTE WATER AT MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS
During the past year studies have been made by several Michigan municipalities
on removal of phosphates from the waste water collected in their community sewer
systems. Two general methods were utilized: One involving the addition of iron
salts either to the raw sewage or activated sludge with or without the addition of
polymers; the other involving management of the activated sludge process without
chemical additions. The latter method is an extension and adaptation of the work
conducted at San Antonio and other installations as reported by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. The central objectives of these studies were:
1. To determine phosphate concentrations and loadings at several
municipal treatment plants.
2. To determine the amenability of wastes at various locations to
phosphate removal by one or more methods in relation to primary
sedimentation, trickling -filters and activated sludge.
3. To explore the effect of chemical additions for phosphate icuioval
on the removal of BOD and suspended matter at primary, trickling
filter and activated sludge installations.
4. To study the degree of compatibility of iron salts with biological
and chemical (polymer) treatment systems, when added for phosphate
removal.
16
-------
2652
5.. To furnish information upon which design of facilities for phosphate
removal may reasonably b.e predicated.
Studies of this nature were prompted by:
1. The acute and pressing need to develop base line data for the
design and management of' facilities at several existing wastewafer
treatment plants for removal of a high percentage of phosphates
from the plant effluents.
2. Preliminary studies by the Dow Chemical Company at the Midland,
Michigan wastewater treatment plant in February 1967 indicating
that iron salts held promise for effective.phosphate removal in
both primary and biological treatment systems.
3. The need to apply the principles developed in the San Antonio,
Texas studies to individual, peculiar circumstances in order to
determine how such principales might be applied effectively in
the design of biological treatment facilities with a high degree
of phosphate removal for such circumstances.
A variety of study methods and procedures were followed. Some involved bench
studies only, using jar tests on the wastes undergoing treatment at the plant; others
included full-scale plant operation applying the knowledge acquired in the bench.work;
and .others were conducted at pilot plants built to establish a basis of design for
facilities to be added.
The first of these studies was conducted at Grayling, a resort community of less
than 2,000 resident population (Appendix F). Bench studies indicated that 90% or
more of total phosphates could be removed from the raw wastes by plain"sedimentation
with the addition of about 20 mg/1 of ferrous chloride as iron, an equal amount of
sodium hydroxide and about 0.5 mg/1 of an anionic polymer. It was indicated that
the caustic could be added a few seconds following quick mix of the iron salt with
the raw sewage and that a selected polymer, if added following an interval of about
5 minutes, would form a good floe after a short period, of slow flocculation and
would effectively remove the phosphates. A very low order of removal of total
phosphates was experienced when no polymer was added. These principles were applied.
to full-plant scale operation within the limitations of the facilities. The iron -and
caustic were added to the sewage at the lift station with no formal mixing facilities
and the polymer was added at the entrance to the settling tank with crude and
temporarily rigged mixing equipment. During the period of plant scale application
the plant was grossly overloaded hydraulically by reason of seasonal'influx of tourists
and National Guard encampment. In spite of these adverse, circumstances total phosphate
removal ranged between 60% and 80% .with a most probable mean value of 72%.
Correspondingly, suspended solids removal ranged from 60% to 87% with a mean value
of 78% representing an increase of about 27% compared with performance when chemicals
were not added. Removal of 5-day BOD increased from a mean value of about 40% before.
and after the study to about 58% during the study. It should be noted here that the
raw sludge was hauled-to a land disposal site.
17
-------
2653
Work of a similar nature, both in bench studies with jar tests and full-scale
plant operation, was performed at the Village of Lake Odessa•(Appendix-G). Here the
municipal treatment facilities include trickling filters and sludge digestion
facilities. The same chemicals were applied to the raw sewage as at Grayling in
about the same concentration except that the dosage rates of the ferrous chloride
were less effectively controlled, resulting in rather widely fluctuating dosage rates,
ranging from daily averages of about 15 mg/1 to 60 mg/1. No mixing or flocculation
equipment was installed. Wastes varied widely from day to day and week to week in
strength and quantities by reason of changing admixtures of wastes from a food
processing plant. Total period of the plant scale study both with and-without
chemical treatment was 87 days including 33 days when valid operating data were
obtained under controlled chemical feeding conditions. These data generally confirmed
Grayling observations although removal of total phosphates. 5-day BOD and suspended
solids by primary sedimentation was somewhat lower. It was further indicated that:
1. Trickling filter performance is enhanced, as measured by 5-day
BOD and suspended solids removal, by this regime of chemical
additions to the raw sewage. Most probable mean values for
overall plant suspended solids removal, increased from about
78% without chemical additives to about 89% with chemicals;
Correspondingly, BOD'removal increased from about 60% to
about
2. Overall plant .reduction of total phosphates was quite stable
with values generally between 75% and 92% removal and a mean
value of
3. Total phosphates in the digester supernatant were quite low
with most values below 75 mg/1. This appears to confirm the.
findings of E. A. Thomas as reported in his published work
conducted at the treatment plant for the community of Uster
in Zurich, Switzerland.
Other work involving use of ferrous chloride and polymers was performed last
summer at the Village of Whitehall and the City of Traverse City. The studies thus
far have been bench scale, employing jar tests similar to those at Grayling and Lake
Odessa. Results have generally confirmed the earlier findings at the other 2 plants.
At Traverse City it is planned to explore further, by pilot plant studies, how to most
effectively remove phosphates from their peculiar wastes in a biological treatment
process requiring a high order of removal .of BOD and suspended matter. The municipal
sewage includes substantial quantities of wastes from cherry processing operations.
Rather extensive studies of phosphate removal by meiralli0 ion precipitation in
a biological system were commenced last September at the municipal activated sludge
plant of the City of Warren. A pilot plant was installed as the first step in a
study to establish a basis of design for extending the present capabilities of the
plant to meet an effluent requirement of 8 mg/1 20-day BOD and 80% removal of total
phosphates. Pilot plant components consist of activated sludge units followed by
rapid sand filters. Ferrous chloride or aluminum sulfate were fed into the aeration
tanks near their point of overflow-at about 15 mg/1. No polymers were added. At
the end of the first 3 months of daily operation and testing it was established that:
18
-------
2654
1. Total phosphates precipitated by metallic ions were removed by
activated sludge in the order of 70% or higher consistently and
an additional 10% or more was removed by the rapid sand filters.
2. The addition of iron or aluminum directly in the mixed liquor
for phosphate removal is compatible with the activated sludge
process when operated for high degree BOD removal.
Other work of a pilot plant nature is being conducted by the cities of Detroit
and Trenton under demonstration grants from the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Both projects utilize activated sludge. Data obtained will be used,
hopefully, for the design of formal facilities to be added to the existing primary
plants for improved treatment, including phosphate removal. The pilot plant at
Detroit has a nominal capacity in excess of 100 gpm and is very flexible and
adaptable to a wide variety of control patterns and . methods. Both plants have
been operating for about 4 months.. Biologic methods utilized to date for phosphate
removal conform generally with the San Antonio procedures. Although results thus
far have not demonstrated a consistent high order of removal of phosphates, they are
at this point inconclusive and indicate that much more work will be required to
establish predictable patterns of phosphate removal by these methods on these wastes.
In addition to the specific installations which we have discussed here, there
are many treatment plants in Michigan where tests have been performed to establish the
level of phosphates in the municipal wastes, their variations and some of their specific
characteristics. In some of these plants, jar tests have been made in the laboratory
using chemical additives to determine amenability of the wastes and dosage rates
required for phosphate removal. In others, preliminary jar test studies have been
made on activated sludge without chemical additives. Similar studies are planned at
several plants involving a wide variety of conditions, methods, procedures and
objectives.
As each study progresses it will add in some way to our knowledge of the mechanisms
by which phosphates may be effectively and economically removed as a companion process
to meet the overall treatment objectives now being established.
19
-------
2655
CHAPTER III
DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS
Industries
The Water Resources Commission staff has" under surveillance 231 industries which
discharge treated or untreated waste water to public waters in the Lake Michigan Basin.
The 231 industries that discharge waste effluents to surface waters are listed in
Appendix H, together'with their pollution status rating, type of treatment provided,
waste effluent data where such is available and formal abatement action taken by the
Commission. The pollution status ratings are updated annually and represent the
Water Resources Commission staff's effort to fairly appraise each incipient pollution
problem as indicated by a review of operating reports, observations, inspections or
surveys during the preceding calendar year. The ratings are by letter code as
follows: • -
A. Control adequate
B. Control provided - adequacy not established
C. No control - need not established "
D. Control provided - protection unreliable
E. Control inadequate
c - construction underway
p - plans being prepared
s - studies underway
Table 1 summarizes the pollution status ratings of the 16 industries which have
effluent discharges directly to Lake Michigan:
Table 1
Pollution ' Type of
Status
Rating
A
B
B - studies in progress
C
D
D - construction in
progress
E
No rating given
Total
Industry
Electric Food and
Chemicals Power Packing
2 32.
1
1
1 1
2 i+ 5
Minerals Paper Total •
2 9
1
1 ' 1
1 . 1
1
1 3
3 2-16
As shown -by the table, only 2.of the 16 have D or E pollution status ratings.
In addition to the 16 industries which have effluent discharges directly to Lake
Michigan, 215 have effluent discharges to inland surface waters tributary to Lake
Michigan. The pollution status ratings for these industries are summarized by
tributary river basins in Table 2; 56 have D ,or E pollution status ratings.
20
-------
Table 2
Summary of Industrial Surface Water Discharges
in the Lake Michigan Basin
April 1, 1967
^~---~^_^^
Pollution •—— ~^^River Basin
Status. Rat ing, • ~~~~^^^^^
April 1, 1967 ' ^~""-- — ^_
A
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
B
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
C
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
D
C Construction in progress
P Plans being prepared
S Studies underway
E .
C Construction in progress
? Plans being 'prepared
S Studies underway. .
' No Rating Given
Total ...
0)
O
S ^
6
1
1
8
A '
10 --^
C •
10 CL,
•«33
i
i
•0-"^
o. •
•S-3
i
' i
01
c
•H
CLi
. 1
2
3
H
U
2
1
1
4
to
•o
b
g
03 ..
1
1
2
4
01
• H •
«
4J
0)
03
1
1
1
3
a>
4->
ra
• H "
C
to
E
1
1
1
3
6
01
0)
•a
Q) O*
OT fb
CL, E
2
1
1
4
0),
4-i
•H
.C.
3
i
i
i
3
o
bO
01
. 3
E
7
3
1
1 .
' 1
1
2
4
20
•a
I
o
19
15
2
2
7
2
1
1
1
1
11
62
•a
B
^ ro
0 ^H
10 H
rH O
m x
2
3
1
1
. 1 '
1 '
1
3
13
o
N
fO
m
r-\
ro
X
17
7
-.3
• 1
-.1
1
•1
. 7
1
2
1
4
46
c
V
X 10
0 X
to
CQ U)
2
1
3
3
$
IX
3
to-
a,
7
4
1
1
1
14
a
w
o
to
8
1
2
.2
1
1
4
1
1
1'
r.
28
DO
10
b C I/I
O -H 10
C fO 0)
•H t. t,
E Q <
3
1
1
5
rH
10
J I-1
3 O
01 :-
78
0
1
2
39
7
2
4''
14
0
0
0
14
7
2
2
17
2
7
5
35
_1
•3
o
31
52
4
25
31
35
228*
"'•'Ate - The 22B status ratings summarized in this table reflect the ratings for 215 industries, 13 of which have '.iual ratir.,-.<.
(O
-------
2657
Governmental Units
The 193 governmental units that discharge waste effluents to public waters are
listed in Appendix I, together with the type of treatment provided, waste effluent
data where such is available, abatement action taken and present status. The data
was obtained from records of the Michigan Department of Public Health and the files
of the Michigan Water Resources Commission. The waste effluent data reflects the
average for the month of August 1967. Only 6 discharge'their waste effluent directly
to Lake Michigan. The remainder (188) discharge to various tributaries, some within
a short distance from the lake and others several hundred miles inland.
The 6 with a discharge to Lake Michigan are:
Governmental Unit Population Treatment
Gladstone 5,400 Primary
.Harbor Pointe 800 . Primary (septic tank)
Harbor Springs 1,430 Primary (fine screen)
Petoskey 6,400 Primary (chemical precipitation)
Buttons Bay 420 Secondary (lagoons)
Wequetonsing 1,000 Primary (Imhoff tank)
'Approximately 2.3 million people live in the Michigan portion of the Lake
Michigan Basin. A large percentage (43%) live in rural areas where collection and
treatment of waste water by a central system is not necessary or feasible at the
present time. They, in the most part, are served by individual systems, such as
a septic tank followed by a subsurface percolation field. All but 4% of the
population readily accessible to central systems are served by formal collection
and treatment systems with approximately 72% of the population serviced receiving
treatment by secondary biological processes. Fifty-three governmental units have
been identified as permitting, allowing or suffering the discharge of raw sewage
of human origin to public waters and in all instances the Water Resources Commission
has, as a minimum, held an initial informal conference with the responsible
governmental unit to discuss and encourage an appropriate water pollution abatement
program. This initial action has been followed in 22 instances by formal statutory .
enforcement proceedings. The others are currently progressing satisfactorily but
remain under continuing review.
22
-------
2658
CHAPTER IV
LAKE MICHIGAN' BASIN DESCRIPTION AND WATER USES
BASIN DESCRIPTION
Introduction
Lake Michigan is the sixth largest fresh water lake on earth, with an area of
22,400 square miles and a volume of 1,116 cubic miles. The lake surface elevation
averages about 580 feet above sea level, common with Lake Huron. It is divided into
2 deep-water basins, by a submerged ridge running roughly from Grand Haven to
Milwaukee. The average depth of the ridge is approximately 232 feet. 'The maximum
depth of the lake, 923 feet, is in the northern basin. The.land drainage area is
45,460 square miles, 64% of which is in Michigan. The lake surface accounts for
over 31% of the total drainage area. Discharge of Lake Michigan occurs through the
broad, deep Straits of Mackinac (no measurable gradient) into Lake Huron, and by
diversion into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 'and subsequently into the
Mississippi River system. The latter discharge is approximately 3,100 to 3,200 cfs
(combined direct diversion'and domestic pumpage). The normal outward flow into Lake
Huron has not been precisely determined. It is estimated to be between approximately
40,000 and 55,000 cfs. .
Lake Michigan occupies a great valley in the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks which
lap onto the southern edge of the Pre-Cambrian Canadian Shield. This valley
'originated in pre-glacial times and in rock least, resistant to erosion. Jack L.
Hough in his Geology of the Great Lakes (1958) suggests that the existence and
orientation of this feature exerted a strong influence on subsequent glacial ice
movement which was responsible for the final shaping of the .Lake Michigan Basin. .
The existing Great Lakes are of comparatively recent origin, the present levels
having been reached only about 2,500 years ago.
The coastline of Lake Michigan, with the exception of Green Bay, Little Traverse
Bay and Grand Traverse Bay is quite regular. Lake Michigan is characterized by'few
natural good harbors; however, the outlets of drowned estuary lakes in the mouths of
several Michigan rivers have been improved and. protected to provide excellent facilities
- Some of the Nation's finest beaches are found along the east coast of Lake Michigan
The 1,058 miles of Michigan shoreline are comprised of relatively.limited areas of
sedimentary rock outcrops and shingle beaches; some areas of till and clay bluff, and
many hundreds of miles of sand. 'Sands are either piled high in the great dunes or low
and undulating in the beach ridges. Sands that slope gradually into deeper waters,
provide an excellent swimming facility.
23
-------
2659
Lake Levels
Knowledge of the hydrology of Lake Michigan is essential for the solution of
most practical problems pertaining to this body of water. The United States Lake
Survey has recorded water levels for over 100 years, and has made detailed surveys
of the bottom topography. The Great .Lakes Research Institute began a continuing
program of fundamental investigations in 195U.
The principal natural factors which affect the longer-period fluctuations of
the level of -Lake Michigan are precipitation and evaporation. Precipitation falling
directly on the lake surface raises the surface immediately. Precipitation falling
on the land surface of the drainage area has a delayed and variable effect. Average
annual precipitation varies from about 28 inches on the northern part of the lake to
about 32 inches on the southern part. Evaporation from the lake surface has been
estimated as being approximately equal to precipitation upon it.
The levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron for 105 years (1860-1965) have ranged
between 583.68 feet (1886) and 577.09 feet (196H), a range of 6.59 feet. The highest
modern level occurred in 1952, 582.69 feet. The level of Lakes Michigan and Huron is
affected by the diversion at Chicago of 3,100 cfs (withdrawal) and the diversion into
Lake Superior of 5,000 cfs via the. Long Lake and Ogoli projects. The net effect of
both diversions is to raise the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron about 0.1U foot
above what it would be without withdrawals and additions.
Levels follow a seasonal pattern with highs generally occurring in summer and
lows in winter or early spring. With any single year, variations average about 1.1
foot.
Lake Currents
Surface currents are produced mainly by wind action and differences in barometric
pressure over different parts of the lake. Brief windstorms may create surface waves
which cause strong local currents of short duration. Strong winds of longer duration
will produce a transfer of water toward the leeward shore and a temporary circulation
which is affected by the shape and topography of the lake basin. Close to shore in •
shallow water the alongshore drift produced by moderate waves approaching at an
oblique angle may reach velocities of 1 or 2 miles per hour. Such water movements
are of a temporary nature. In addition, there appears to be patterns of permanent,
or at least seasonal, circulation involving a slow drift of the water.
There is a southward drift along the western side of the lake which continues
around the south end and turns northward on the eastern ..side, where it becomes more
pronounced. Around the Beaver Island group in the north and in the major southern
basin there are counter-clock-wise swirls. Between these swirls the surface water
tends to move eastward along lines which are curved with their convex sides to the
south.
The prevailing westerly winds, coupled with the flow toward the outlet, are
considered the cause of the above flow patterns. Some authorities dispute the
counter-clock-wise swirls described above. Northeasterly winds can alter normal flow
patterns. At times the flow through the Straits of Mackinac is temporarily reversed.
24
-------
2660
Population
There were more than 2,250,000 people in the Michigan portion of the Lake .
Michigan Basin in 1960. The population varied from the densely settled metropolitan
areas of Grand Rapids and Lansing to the virtually uninhabited State and Federal
forests in the Upper Peninsula. • The area can be divided into the 3/traditional zones
of Michigan: the relatively densely settled and intensely developed souther Lower
Peninsula had 26% of the land area and 83% of the 1960 population, while the moderately
populated northern' Lower Peninsula had 21% of the land, and 11% of the population, and
the sparsely -settled Upper Peninsula had 17% of the land and only 6% of the 1960
population. The 1960 population densities were below 17 people.per square mile for
the Upper Peninsula, nearly 27 people per square mile for the northern Lower Peninsula
and over 150 people per square mile for the southern Lower. Peninsula. Based upon past
history, the population will be approximately 2,800,000 in this.area in 1980, with the
bulk of this increase in the southern Lower Peninsula.
Economy
Bogue and Beales1 Economic Areas of the United States (1961) categorizes the
''Western Michigan Lake Shoreline" as a "siibregion", the "Upper Peninsula - Eastern"
and the "Lower Peninsula - Northwestern" as "areas". Following is a summary of the
general economy of these units:
Western Michigan Lake Shoreline
1960 population 976,000 change 1950-1960 24%
Land area 6,662 square'miles
The early economy was largely timber oriented. As the great timber resources
iwere cut, the logs were floated to the sawmills located at the mouth of all principal
rivers. Around these mills and the docking facilities required to transport the sawn
timber, there developed many of the cities of western Michigan-^Grand Haven, Muskegon,
Manistee, Ludington, Traverse City. With the end of the timber harvest, the sawmill
towns were able to convert their economies to a general manufacturing and wholesale
and retail trade base. This transition was made possible in a large measure by the
existing lake port'transportation facilities. There are 2 metropolitan areas in the
subregion—Grand Rapids and Muskegon. Grand Rapids made a rather natural transition
in its economy—:from sawmills to furniture to a modern industrial city, manufacturing
a wide range of fabricated metal products, automobile parts, machinery, etc. Muskegon.
once one of the world's leading producers of lumber, has .become a manufacturing center
of engines, automobile parts, foundry products, etc. The smaller cit5es of the sub- .
region are also manufacturing oriented. Food processing, canning =rid marketing are a
significant segment of the economy, .Western Michigan is one of the Nation's leading
fruit arid vegetable growing regions. This is made possible by the climatic influence
of Lake Michigan. Apples, cherries, peaches and pears are the leading tree fruits.
Truck farming and small fruit producing are also major agricultural enterprises.
The ientire west coast of Michigan-is used intensively for recreation. Tourism and
summer residences furnish a substantial income to non-agricultural workers in rural
areas.
25
-------
2661
Upper Peninsula - Eastern Area
1960 population 128,521 change 1950-1960 3.6%
Land area 7,832 square miles
The general unsuitability of much of the area to agriculture (both climate and
soils), the lack of mineral wealth, and its remoteness to population centers are
reflected by the sparse population of the eastern Upper Peninsula. Nearly a third
of the population is centered in the cities of Escanaba, Menominee and Sault Ste.
Marie. All 3 are important ports on the Great Lakes. The past economy of the.area
was natural resource oriented (timber, fish., recreation). The current economy is
based on wood-using industries (pulp, paper,, wood products), light manufacturing
and recreational facilities, resorts and summer homes. Although farming has declined
in general, that remaining is more efficient and more profitable.
Lower Peninsula - Northwestern Area
1960 population 141,019 change 1950-1960 2.6%
Land area 6,147 square miles
The economic history of this area was once timber—the northern Lower Peninsula
of Michigan together with areas in other states bordering the Great Lakes was the
site of the world's greatest white and red pine forest. This vast region was logged
off in the last 4 decades of the 19th Century, During the logging, and for a
considerable period afterwards, the most extensive forest fires in this Nation's
history ravaged these pine lands, often burning over the same area several times.
Not only were the few'remaining trees destroyed, but of even more significance was
the destruction of the soil. The meager humus and organic matter on the northern
sandy soils were .consumed. For over a generation the burned lands remained bare
and stark. Gradually the burns were re-forested, but not with the original species.-
'The great pine stands were replaced by aspen, oak, pin cherry and jack pine. So
great an amount of land was re-forested by these rapid growing, hearty species that
they became a valuable resource. Once again wood products utilization is an important
aspect of the economy. The great wooded stretches are gaining in economic importance
with recent development of an expanding wood using industry (particle board, pulp and
paper). Farming is an important part of the economy, providing employment for nearly
1/3 of the population. The trade, services, construction and employment by the
recreation industry is increasing yearly.
Agriculture
Of the 48 counties which lie wholly or partially in the Lake Michigan Basin,
dairying is the most important type of agricultural activity in 25 of them. Field
crop production is the most important in 13 of the counties, fruit production in 8
of the counties and poultry production and livestock production in 1 of the counties
each.
26
-------
2662
Land Use
'The land use of the Lake Michigan basin ranges from the intensive use of the
metropolitan areas of the southern Lower Peninsula to the extensive use of the forests
in the northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula. The dominant land use in the
southern Lower Peninsula is farmland, with over 80% of some counties devoted to
agricultural use. The percentage-of forest land ranges from below9% in Clinton
County in the southern Lower Peninsula to over 90% in Roscommon County in the northern
Lower Peninsula and in. several .counties in the Upper Peninsula. The value and use of
the land is reflected in the fact that the percentage of publicly-owned land ranges
from a low of 0.01% for VanBuren County in the southern Lower Peninsula to a high of
nearly 61% for Schoolcraft County in the Upper Peninsula.
WATER USES
The waters of the Lake Michigan Basin serve a multiplicity of uses. They are
used for public water supply, temperature control, waste assimilation, recreation,
commercial fishing, commercial navigation and agricultural irrigation.
Public Water Supply
One of the most important uses is for public water supply. The waters of Lake
Michigan are of excellent quality for this purpose, being moderate in hardness, very
low in turbidity and chlorides, and showing little change from year to year. Twenty
three municipalities, with a 1960 population of. nearly 650,000 people, use Lake
Michigan as a raw water supply. These municipalities withdrew over 90 million
gallons a day in 1966.
Cooling Water
There are 6 steam generation plants using Lake Michigan water for cooling purposes,
1 of them utilizing nuclear energy. Three of these plants are owned by municipalities
and 3 are privately owned.
Recreation
Water has always been- a major focal point for outdoor activities. People seek.
water in which to swim, fish, hunt, boat and water.ski. They seek water beside which
to camp, hike, picnic and drive. In addition, .they seek water just to look at for .
aesthetic enjoyment. The Great Lakes Region comprises the largest source of fresh
water in the world and has been traditionally utilized for water-oriented recreation.
Lake Michigan is the second largest of these lakes and the only one which lies entirely
within the boundaries of the United .States. It has a total shoreline of 1,661 miles
(1,058 in Michigan) about 1,300 miles of which are suitable for recreation. Although
806 of these recreational miles are located in the State of Michigan, only 40 miles
27
-------
2663
or 5% is in public ownership. Lake Michigan's shoreline receives extensive
recreational use, especially in the southern Lower Peninsula. Michigan's recreational
shoreline supports a full range of'recreational activities. Its 806 miles contain
115 miles of beaches and 691 miles of bluffs and sand dunes. There are 14 state.
parks and thousands of acres of other publicly-owned land adjacent to Lake Michigan.
It is estimated that there may be as many as 50,000 seasonal dwellings in the Michigan
portion of the Lake Michigan basin, many of which are located along the shore of Lake
Michigan.
coating
Pleasure boating has changed from the luxurious cruise vessels of the early -
1900's to the many thousands of recreational watercraft of today. The State of
Michigan had a total of 399,000 motor-powered craft registered in 1965. In addition,
non-motor-powered craft were estimated at 50^000. There are a considerable number of
boats registered in other states that use Michigan waters.
In order to serve the vast flotilla of watercraft using Lake Michigan waters,
there are 108 marinas equipped with boat slips, either on or contiguous to Lake
Michigan. In addition, there are harbors of refuge located at no more than 30-mile
intervals along the established cruising lanes of Lake Michigan.
Sport Fishing
Fall waterfowl hunting and year-round sport fishing activities are popular uses
of the waters of Lake Michigan. Many of the offshore islands and Waugoshance Point
are famous for their waterfowl shooting. The Lake Michigan sport fishery is supported
by the great variety of fish listed below:
Lake Sturgeon Cisco Yellow Perch
Rainbow Trout American Smelt Rock Bass
Brown Trout Smallmouth Bass Walleye
Brook Trout Largemouth Bass Carp
Northern Pike Black Crappie Suckers
Muskellunge Bluegill Bullheads
Lake Trout • Coho Salmon
Fishing for yellow perch is by far the most popular use of the fishery. Thousands
of anglers line the many navigation piers to take advantage of the abundance of these
high value food fish during the year-round open season. Other species of particular
importance in the sport fishery are echo salmon, walleyes, smallmouth bass and
northern pike. Sport fishermen are fortunate in that the.lake provides "deep sea"
fishing for such highly valued fish as the lake trout, muskellunge and steelhead.
Ice fishing for perch and walleyes is a popular winter pastime on the many bays of
Lake Michigan.
Commercial Fishing
The Lake Michigan commercial fishery had its beginning with the Indians and early
employees of the fur trading companies. As the land area was settled early in the
19th Century the demand for fishery products increased and new types of-gear evolved.
28
-------
2664
Production reached a peak of 47,356,000 pounds in 1908. Although there have
been high peak years., average annual production has not fluctuated widely from
26 million pounds. In recent years, the fishery resource has been marked by changes
in the composition of the catch with fish of lower value.replacing those of higher
value. These changes are generally attributed to predation of the sea lamprey>
introduction of exotic species, and in certain instances, over-fishing.
Catches of sturgeon, lake trout, lake herring, and•suckers from Lake Michigan
have reached all-time lows in recent years. Chubs and. yellow perch have maintained
or increased -their abundance while the exotic species, carp, smelt, and alewife, have
increased sharply. . It is generally agreed that these changes have been due to
biological and economic changes'rather than changes in water quality.
The decline of commercial fishing on the Great Lakes is closely associated with
what has happened to the lake trout and whitefish. These 2 high-valued fish once
represented a bounteous resource.- In 1885, 6,431,000 pounds of lake trout were
caught in Lake Michigan. Production rose.to higher levels in many years and was up
to 11,749.000 for Lake Michigan in 192.1. This picture changed with the invasion of
the Great Lakes by the sea lamprey. The catch of lake trout started to drop rapidly
in Lake Michigan around 1947. By 1963, lake trout catches were down—partly because
of fishing restrictions—26,000 pounds in Lake Michigan.
Whitefish production has followed a somewhat similar trend. Some 8,653.000
pounds were caught in Lake Michigan in 1885. By 1963 production was down to 298,000
pounds in Lake Michigan.
The situation of the industry brightened to a degree in 1964 and 1965, particularly
with regard to the valuable whitefish. Over 846,000 pounds of whitefish were taken from
Lake Michigan in 1965. In 1959 only 11,000 pounds were taken from that lake.
The following illustrates the depth distribution of the major, species:
Inshore and shallow: Carp, sturgeon, suckers, yellow perch
and walleyes
Shallow to intermediate: Lake herring, lake whitefish and smelt
Deep water: Chubs, lake trout (young are shallow to intermediate)
All depths: Alewife
The productivity of shallow areas is high when compared to deep-water productivit-
The shallow waters of Green Bay and of the narrow band around the shoreline-are the
most important in relation to the fishery resources. These shallow areas are also
important to the life cycles and movements of some of the deep-water species.
For a detailed analysis of the commercial fishery of Green Bay see Michigan Water
Resources Commission staff report: Commercial Fishing in the Michigan Waters'of
Green Bay, October 30., 1963.
29
-------
2665
Commercial Navigation
Commercial navigation is of great significance to the past, present and the
future economy of the Great Lakes region. In the past, settlement patterns and the
locations of cities and industrial complexes were either determined by proximity to
lake commerce or strongly influenced by it. Much of today's commercial and industrial
activity of the Great Lakes region is geared to lake shipments. The potential of the
St. Lawrence Seaway is being fulfilled and promises to provide even closer links
between the Great Lakes and world markets. With each passing season there are
increases in .direct foreign shipments, both to and from lake ports.
Although there were few adequate natural harbors in Lake Michigan, improvement
of navigation facilities paralleled that of the development of the commercial
capabilities. In early times, only canoes, Mackinaw boats and other small sailing
vessels used the harbors provided by western Michigan border lakes (Muskegon, White,-
Pere Marquette, etc.) and these were not greatly hindered by the always present sand
bars which partially-blocked the entrances to these lakes. But as commerce increased
and larger vessels began using Lake Michigan and the developing ports, navigation
improvements became a necessity. At first, local citizens assumed the responsibility
for these improvements. Sand bars were cut through and lined with cribs or wood piles.
This was followed shortly thereafter by the first breakwaters--stout timber cribs,
sunk to the lake bottom, filled with rocks and timber-decked. Some of these early
efforts remain as a part of the substructure of the existing breakwaters. At South
Haven (.1868), Holland (1860), and Grand Haven (1857) these early structures have
passed or are near the century mark.
As more elaborate improvements became necessary, the cost.s and engineering
capabilities soared beyond the abilities of local citizens. At the direction of
Congress, the U. .S. Army Corps of Engineers assumed responsiblity for harbor and
channel improvements. A Federal assistance project was authorized for Holland as
.early as 1852. To date 22 Federal projects have been authorized in Michigan on Lake
Michigan. Expenditures for these projects have been substantial—over $44,000,000.
These costs have been incurred from new work (over $13,000,000), maintenance
($24,447,000) and rehabilitation ($6,b7b,467). The relatively high figure for
maintenance results from annual dredging required at many of the harbors. Littoral
movement of shore sediments is a process which is continually filling artificially
deepened harbor entrances.
Current freight movements on Lake Michigan are based on intrastate, interstate
and international commerce. In 1964, 22,422,595 tons of freight were moved at
Michigan ports on Lake Michigan.
An 'important segment of this movement is uy railroad car ferry.' Since .Lake
Michigan provides a geographical interruption to cross-continental rail routes, the
ferry service is an essential link in the rail transportation system. Three railroads
operate ferry service across Lake Michigan:
The Grand Tunk-Western Railroad, Muskegon to: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, Ludington to: Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Manitowoc, Wisconsin and Kewaunee, Wisconsin
The Ann Arbor Railroad, Frankfort to: Manitowoc, Wisconsin; Kewaunee,
Wisconsin and Menominee and Manistique, Michigan
30
-------
2666
Agricultural Irrigation
The use of Lake Michigan waters for agricultural irrigation is of little
significance in the total water use picture. Less than 400 acres are presently
known to depend upon Lake .Michigan as a source of irrigation water. ..The greatest
amount of this irrigated acreage, approximately 300 acres, is located in Leelanau
and Grand Traverse counties.
31
-------
266?
CHAPTER V
Part 1
THF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAKE MICHIGAN
ALEHIFE DIE-OFF AND RESULTING l-'ATER QUALITY
Observations of depressed water quality conditions and increased Dacuci-xa counts
concurrent with the annual alewife die-off, alone; the Michigan shoreline of Lake
Michigan led to a laboratory study of the problem (Appendix J). Six tubs, 3 containing
Lake Michigan water and three containing Lansing tap water< were placed in an open
area exposed to sunlight. Two of the tubs-containing Lake Michigan water and 2
containing Lansing tap water each received 1'freshly dead 6-inch alewife. Chemical,
bacteriological, and algal changes were monitored over the next 23 days, from
August 16 to September 8, 1967. The dead fish provided an environment which allowed
a population explosion of coliform bacteria. Decomposition of the fish tissues
resulted in a nutrient release which in turn enabled a dense algal bloom to develop.
Coliform and fecal coliform'bacteria populations as high as 1,500,000/100 ml and
3,500/100 ml, respectively, developed in the tubs containing a dead alewife.
Abnormally high coliform bacteria populations developed along Lake Michigan
beaches.during the summer of 1967. The presence of dead alewives was probably a
major reason for this abnormality. The high counts partially negate the value of
beach bacteria sampling as an indication of sewage contamination.
Phosphate released from the decomposing fish in the tubs was_rapid. Each single
dead alewife in approximately 6.8 gallons of water released more than 2.0 mg/1 soluble
orthophosphate as POij within 2 days. Soluble orthophosphate in these .tests reached
concentrations as high as 6.3 mg/1. The total phosphate released.from these 4 fish
'during the test ranged from a low of 113 mg to a high of.201 mg P04 per fish.
In the tubs containing alewives, blooms of small single-celled, green algae
developed shorf/ly after nutrient release. In 1 case the algae population grew from
less than 100 cells/ml to a maximum of 3,187,800/ml. :These exploding populations
utilized the available soluble orthophosphate. Concentrations of this phosphorus
fraction dropped while total phosphate continued to increase.
One agency has estimated that a few hundred million pounds of alewives died in
Lake Michigan during 1967. For the purpose of this report we will use 300 million
pounds. Analytical work by the U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries on several
groups of alewives has shown that alewives about 6-inches long contain approximately
2.23-grams of phosphorus per pound of fish. - Thus, 300 million pounds of dead alewives
could release 2,300 tons of phosphates into Lake Michigan.' The concentration of
soluble orthophosphate as PO^ commonly claimed sufficient to create nuisance algae
conditions in water is 0.03 mg/1.' If two-thirds of the released phosphorus was in
the form of soluble orthophosphate the potential from this source alone exists, to
bring approximately 11 cubic miles of phosphorus-free water to the point nuisance
algae blooms could occur.
32
-------
2668
It is generally acknowledged that during the summer the water mass along Michigan's
west coast from Benton Harbor-St.'Joseph to Little Point Sable is discrete and moves
northward unless broken up by strong winds. The U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries'
aerial survey showed that most of the dead alewives were concentrated in the southern
tip of Lake Michigan and in a band along both shores in the southern two-thirds of
the lake. Windrows of dead alewives collect in the shallow water beach zone.
Nutrients from the decomposing fish were released into this discrete, surface water
mass which is already enriched by the tributary rivers draining urban and agricultural
areas. There are 2,240,000 acre feet of water in. Lake Michigan along the shoreline
out to the 30-foot depth contour from the Indiana-Michigan state line to the tip of
the Leelanau Peninsula. Assuming two-thirds of the phosphorus released during alewife
decomposition is available for uptake then only 18,700,000 pounds of decomposing
alewives would be necessary to bring that amount of phosphorus-free water to the
critical nuisance-algae-producing level. This stretch of shore comprises approximately
20% of the total Lake Michigan coastline. Twenty percent of the estimated alewife
die-off of 300 million pounds is 60 million pounds. It seems highly probable that
more than the 18,700,000 pounds needed to bring the nutrient concentration to
nuisance-potential levels would accumulate in this area.
Growing alewives concentrate phosphorus already present in the lake. It is
normal for phosphorus to be recycled upon their death, but because of their unusually
high population and habit of dying during a short period of the year in the alongshore
waters, the phosphorus is released in a relatively small volume of water. It is
concluded that phosphate released from decomposing alewives in the alongshore water
mass of Lake Michigan is a significant factor in the production of algae. Nuisances
which can develop with increases in algal populations include a reduction in
transparency, reduction in length of filter runs at water plants, possible taste
and odor problems in drinking water, interference with swimming, and deposition of
filamentous algae on beaches.
33
-------
2669
CHAPTER V
Part 2
INVESTIGATION OF NUISANCE ALSAE CONDITIONS ALONG
LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE
In early August of 1965 the Water Resources Commission received complaints
indicating that several Lake Michigan beaches around Muskegon and Grand Haven had
unusually high concentrations of algae in the inshore waters. The subsequent Water
Resources Commission survey (Appendix K) showed that approximately 32 miles of Lake
Michigan shoreline had nuisance accumulations of Spirogyra and Cladophora in August
of 1966. This problem was first observed 6.5 miles south of Muskegon at Norton
Township Park and extended intermittently to Benona, 25 miles north of Muskegon.
At some beaches in this area the accumulations were not sufficient to cause nuisance
conditions.
Sixty miles of shoreline from South Haven to Pentwater (excluding the area
described in the above paragraph) had noticeable accumulations of Cladophora but
little or no Spirogyra. In most areas the Cladophora was lying on the bottom in
windrows and was not as objectionable as was the Spirogyra in suspension. Personnel
in charge of these beaches voiced only moderate complaints concerning the necessity
to rake up the algae once a week or so. In the area where Spirogyra was a problem,
park managers received complaints of green-stained bathing suits and conditions unfit
for swimming. The presence of Spirogyra could not be traced to the tributaries since
it was not found in any of the river samples.
Based on algal species composition of the 8 areas studied, Holland and Manistee
could be described as being the least indicative of enrichment. Populations found
at Benona. Muskegon and St. Joseph were the most indicative of enrichment. There
were striking differences in the quantity and quality in the inshore phytoplankton
and that found beyond 600 feet. Benona is the best example of this where the inshore
plankton was dominated by eutrophic species of oligotrophic waters. This suggests
that during the summer of 1966 the water masses inshore and offshore from 600 feet
out remained separate for long enough periods to support radically different algal
populations.
On the basis of this short-term survey there is an apparent relationship between
the areas in which nuisance algae occur along the Michigan coastline- of Lake Michigan
and the proximity of sources of plant nutrients contributed via major tributaries
draining urban and agricultural areas. Assuming future weather and current patterns
similar to those experienced in 1966, coupled with continued contributions of present
water quality from tributary streams and the existing water quality of Lake Michigan
we may expect reoccurrences of nuisance algae conditions.
-------
2670
CHAPTER V
Part 3
BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF WATERS
ALONG LAKE MICHIGAN,SHORELINE
The Michigan Water Resources Commission maintains an annual summer sampling
program of Michigan's Great Lakes coastline surface waters. Bacteriological data
presented in Appendix L were obtained in 1966 and 1967. Only the minimum, maximum,
and geometric mean values for each sampling location are expressed in this report
(Appendix L, Table 1, Figure 1) however results for all samples collected and referred
to are on file in the Lansing office of the Water Resources Commission.
Of the 47 locations in the Lower Peninsula for which there is 1966 and 1967 data
available, 36 had geometric mean values over 1,000 organisms per 100 ml in 1967, while
in 1966 there were only 4 such locations (Appendix L, Figure 1). In 1967 the total
number of sampling locations in the Lower Peninsula was expanded to 69 and of these
49 had geometric mean values over 1,000 organisms per 100 ml.
The 1967 data when examined in detail reveals a definite rise to peak coliform
concentrations and then a decline for each location during the sampling period of
June through August. In the extreme southern Lower Peninsula locations, the peak
concentrations occurred in the latter half of June whereas in the northern portion
of the Lower Peninsula they appeared in early August. Peak concentrations for
locations between these 2 areas followed a gradual time progression from south to
north within these limits.
Studies have shown that dead and decaying alewives contribute coliform organisms
to the surrounding waters and apparently provide a suitable nutrient enriched
environment for bacterial growth and propagation. The bacteriological peaks coincide
with the time of appearance of large concentrations of dead alewives. The highest
alewife concentrations occurred in the area from St. Joseph to Frankfort (Appendix L,
Map 1).
The few sampling locations which did not follow this pattern are located in the
northern portion of the Lower Peninsula above Frankfort where lower concentrations of
dead alewives were observed and where industrial waste discharges from fruit canning
operations contribute coliform to surface waters in the Traverse City area.
From this information, a correlation appears to exist between the high total
coliform concentrations and the elevated alewife mortality of 1967. Therefore,
until the alewife situation is corrected the assessment of the safety of these waters
for full body contact requires the utilization of the sanitary survey and data other
than that obtained during the alewife die-off. All of the public beaches in Michigan
along the Lake Michigan shoreline are considered to be of satisfactory sanitary
quality for full body contact.
Data from the Upper Peninsula's portion of Lake Michigan's coastline is limited
at this time. However, a tabulation of the available data has been included in
Appendix L, Table 2.
35
-------
2671
CHAPTER
Part 4
BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS IN
THF VICINITY OF THE E. I. DU PONT DISCHARGE TO
LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR MONTAGUE
Four investigations of water quality and aquatic fauna have been conducted
since 1957 in'the immediate vicinity of the .E. I. duPont submarine discharge to
Lake Michigan at Montague. The most recent investigation took place in September
1967 (Appendix M).
The studies of the bottom animals have riot demonstrat'ed any apparent injury even
in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Scuds and midges have been the dominant
animals. Minnows and alewives have been observed swimming normally in the discharge
as it bubbles to the surface. The bottom material is fine, clean sand with no
deposit.
Water samples taken directly over the discharge in September 1967 contained
0.65 mg/1 ammonia. No ammonia was detected 100 feet in any direction from the
discharge. Other water quali-ty parameters showed little variation at all sampling
locations.
36
-------
2672
CHAPTER V
Part 5
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY IN THE VICINITY OF THE
HOW CHEMICAL COMPANY BRINE DISCHARGE TO
LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR LUDINGTON
On August 10, 1967, a reconnaissance survey of the water quality and benthic
macroinvertebrate populations was conducted in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the
Pow Chemical Company discharge near Big Sable Point (Appendix N).
The discharge containing waste brines moved north with the alongshore current
in the valley between the third and fourth sand bars. Conductivity remained very high,
40,000 tnicromhos, as far as 1/2 mile northeast. At this point the brine mass commenced
to become significantly diluted and lost its identify, although traces could be
detected 2 1/2 miles distant.
Several bottom samples were visually examined in the field to judge roughly if
the brine mass was grossly affecting the benthic fauna. Five samples were analyzed
in the laboratory. Conclusions were that the benthic fauna in the immediate vicinity
of the discharge.was virtually eliminated,, but that the effect was local. Populations
commenced recovering 100 feet from the discharge and returned to near normal within
200 yards, depending on direction from discharge point.
Rough water prevented detailed sampling at this time. Further investigations are
scheduled to more clearly- identify the affected area.
37
-------
2673
CHAPTER V
Part 6
Bini_nr,icAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE
PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S DISCHARGE TO
LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR MANISTEE
Macroinvertebra'te surveys of the Lake Michigan bottom in the vicinity of
Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) discharge have been made in 1957 before the
operation started, in 1958, and in 1962. The bottom animal populations in the
vicinity of-the discharge were indicative of a clean water environment. However,
the effluent tended to "float': to' the lake surface and complaints of undesirable
odors and unnatural colors increased. In 1966 PCA added brine from the discharge
of a nearby chemical company to their effluent.' Effectively preventing the
undesirable "floating".
Investigation in 1967 (Appendix 0) revealed chloride concentration on the lake
bottom at the discharge was 248 ing/I. The effluent was apparently.flowing offshore
at this time as concentrations of 130 mg/1 were found 4,000 and 8,000 feet west
northwest. Alongshore parallel to the discharge concentrations were generally less
than 20 mg/1.
No objectionable bottom deposits could be found in the vicinity of the PCA
discharge during any of the surveys. The bottom animal populations sampled a mile
north and south of the discharge were typical of a clean water environment. Species
diversity of the bottom fauna community was lower in the discharge zone, 3.5
species/square foot, than in the zones to the north and south, 6 species/square foot.
38
-------
2674
CHAPTER V
Part 7
AQUATIC BIOTA INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE
BIR ROCK POINT NUCLEAR REACTOR .
Beginning in 1.960, collections (usually biannual) of aquatic plants and animals
have been made in the vicinity of the Big Rock Point Reactor for radiological analysis.
Background radiation levels (gross beta) were established prior to September 1962 when
the Big Rock Point Reactor went critical.
Plankton, filamentous algae, -periphyton, crayfish, and minnows have been collected
from the Lake Michigan shore zone in the vicinity of the cooling water discharge and
at 2 control stations, one 3 miles east and the other 3 miles west of the reactor.
The radioactivity of plankton has not varied between these stations on a given date.
The seasonal and annual changes noted are apparently related to fallout and natural
background.
However, since going critical, radioactivity counts of other biota collected in
the Big Rock Point vicinity have been generally higher than at the 2 control stations.
During this period background radiation levels throughout the state have been
decreasing. Although levels in the Big Rock Point biota are higher than the biota
controls, they are similar in magnitude to the levels found before criticality
(Appendix P).
39
-------
2675
CHAPTER V
Part 8
OTHER TRIBUTARY AND LAKE MICHIGAN
MONITORING PROGRAMS
Water quality monitoring of Great Lakes tributary streams was initiated by the
Water Resources Commission in May of 1955 to obtain background radioactivity
information. In 1963, the program was expanded to include a variety of water
quality data. The specific objectives of this program were to determine long-term
trends in the chemical, physical and bacteriological characteristics of tributary
streams to the Great Lakes in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
Initially 1 sampling station was established on.each of 28 drainage basins in
the Lower Peninsula, 12 of which are located on tributaries discharging to Lake
Michigan. This provided coverage of all the major basins as well as those
known to be receiving significant discharges of industrial or domestic wastes. The
12 tributary basins contain approximately 63% of Michigan's total land area in
the Michigan basin and discharge approximately 60% of the total flow contributed
to Lake Michigan from-Michigan tributaries. Approximately 87% of the total
population in the Michigan portion of the Lake Michigan Basin reside in the monitored
basins.
The monitoring stations (Appendix Q, Table 1) are located as close as possible
to the mouths of the basins and, with 1 exception, below all known sources of waste.
The exception is the station on the Kalamazoo River near Saugatuck where the effluent
from the Saugatuck sewage treatment plant discharges downstream from the sampling
point. In this instance, the volume of effluent is small in relation to volume of
river flow and sampling below the outfall was not justified due to difficulty of
collection.
Samples are collected every 2 weeks and analyzed by the Commission's laboratory
in Lansing. The collection, storage, preservation and analyses of all samples are
in accordance with methods and procedures prescribed by Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Twelfth Edition.
A summary of data collected for this program in 1965 and 1966 is presented in
Tables 2, 3 and Figure 1 of Appendix Q. The monitored tributaries and their drainage
areas are shown on Map 1. In addition, the data from individual stations for selected
parameters has been graphically presented in Figures 2 through 13 for the years 1965
and 1966, illustrating any seasonal or short-term fluctuations in.water quality.
In addition to the regular monitoring of .Lake Michigan tributaries, the Commission
staff has inaugurated a program of sampling of raw water from Lake Michigan. This is
done'at various water treatment plants around the perimeter of the lake. The intent of
the program is to establish exisitng water quality at the various intakes and indicate
any trends which occur in the quality.
-------
26?6
The samples are collected prior to any treatment by the plants and are handled
in the manner described for tributary samples. These samples are currently collected
annually. The first series was collected in 1967 and the results are shown in Table 4
of Appendix Q. Sampling locations are outlined on Map 2.
In addition to the program conducted by the Water Resources Commission the
Michigan Department of Public Health requires that each water treatment plant submit
monthly operating reports which contain results of-physical, chemical and bacteriological
tests which are made on the raw water supply. Data submitted in 1966 is summarized in
Table 5 of Appendix 0. The 2 programs supplement each other and furnish fairly complete
documentation of water quality at water intakes in Lake Michigan.
The staff of the Water Resources Commission conducts various surveys throughout
the state in accordance with its programs of pollution prevention and abatement.
Table 6, Appendix Q, contains data from several such surveys which were conducted in
the Lake Michigan Basin. The stations shown on Map 3 are ones which were located
closest to Lake Michigan (most downstream) and are indicative of tributary water quality
at the time of the surveys. This .information is presented to cover areas of the basin
not included under long-range monitoring. Samples in some cases were collected over
21-hour periods while others were single grab samples.
Routine sampling of the state's surface waters for obtaining background
radioactivity data was initiated in 1955 with the establishment of 4 sampling stations
on 2 eastern Michigan streams. In 1956 the number of stations was increased to 11,.of
which 8 were on 5 different streams and 3 were at municipal water supply intakes, on
the Great Lakes.
In 1958 the number of sampling stations was increased to 26, in 1960 the sampling
network was expanded to 31 stations and in 1963 to 38. These include 13 stations on.
Great Lakes waters and 25 on interior rivers or streams. Twelve stations are at
municipal water supply intakes. Map 4, Appendix Q, locates the sampling stations.
The data obtained by this program, is published yearly as part of the report,
"State of Michigan, Water Quality Monitoring Program, Water Quality Records", and
is available in the files of the Water Resources Commission.
Five water quality parameters were selected as being indicative of the chemical
water quality of the Lake Michigan tributaries; dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen
demand, chlorides, phosphates, and nitrate nitrogen. Table 2, Appendix Q, is a
summary of these 5 parameters by river basin.
Dissolved Oxygen
The 2-year average of the.DO values for the monitored streams ranges from 8.6 m'g/1
to 11.4 mg/1. The lowest recorded single value was 6.0 mg/1 which was found in the
Pine River at Charlevoix and the Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck. The Kalamazoo exhibits
the lowest 2-year average while the Pine and the St. Joseph rivers exhibit the highest
2-year averages.
The individual Figures 2-13, Appendix Q, illustrate the seasonal variations
which occur in the DO levels, with-the higher values present in the winter months
and the lower values found in late summer and early fall.
-------
2677
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
The 2-year averages of BOD values range from a low of 1.7 mg/1 in the Manistee.
River to a high of 5.5 mg/1 in the Grand River. Only 3 of the rivers, the St.
Joseph, the Grand, and the Kalamazoo have BOD's above 3.0 mg/1.
The individual graphs illustrate fairly steady BOD values throughout the 2-year
period with little indication of seasonal or other trends.
Chlorides
The 2-year averages of chloride values, range from a low of 3 mg/1 in the
Boardman River at Traverse City to a high of 71 mg/1 in the 'Manistee River at
Manistee. Three rivers have values below 10 mg/1 as an average.
The individual graphs indicate no particular trend through the 2-year period.
Phosphates - P0t+
The 2-year averages of phosphate values range from a low of 0.008 mg/1 in the
Manistee River to a high of 0.57 mg/1 in the Black River at South Haven. In general
the higher values are found in the southern part of the state which is the most
densely populated with the-exception of the Boardman River at Traverse City which
exhibits a high value.
The individual graphs indicate a seasonal trend, in phosphate values with the
high readings occurring in the winter months.
To find the total amount of phosphorus (P) being contributed to Lake Michigan
from Michigan tributaries, calculations were made using drainage area and flow
data from U. S. Geological Survey records and PO^ data from the tributary
monitoring program. From the calculations (Appendix R), the estimated annual
average amount of total phosphorus (P) discharged is 2,700,000 pounds per l.,350 tons.
Nitrate Nitrogen N03-N
The 2-year averages of nitrogen values range from a low of 0.188 mg/1 in the
White River to a high of 1.029 mg/1 in the Grand River. The highest values are
again found in the southern part of the state.
The individual graphs indicate a seasonal fluctuation in nitrogen values with
high readings in the winter months and low readings during the summer.
-------
2678
CHAPTFR V
Part 9
VESSEL POLLUTION - OIL AMD RUBBISH
The number.of incidents of oil pollution from vessels engaged in commercial
•navigation reported to the Water Resources Commission has increased markedly in
recent years. These incidents have ranged from the most serious—a sinking of an
oil barge on the Lake Michigan coast, and the subsequent massive fouling of stretches
of beaches for over 200 miles; to the nearly continuous summertime complaints of
swimmers smeared by heavy fuel oils.
The increasing number of complaints has, in general, corresponded with the
increase of vessels on the Great Lakes using oil as fuel. These have been vessels
solely engaged in lake commerce as well as the growing number of vessels engaged in
ocean commerce. Nearly all vessels inbound into the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
Seaway use oil as fuel.
An attendant problem associated with Great Lakes commercial navigation is the
indiscriminate overboard disposal of garbage,•dunnage, and trash. The effects of
this problem grow increasingly worse with the use of plastics and other
non-destructible containers. There is an increasing public and private cost
in the removal of this debris from Great Lakes beaches. The aesthetic damage
is even more serious.
-------
2679
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
The citizens and government of Michigan are very keenly aware of the value of
clean water, both in Lake Michigan and in inland lakes.and streams. The people have
supported, and State government has developed, broad-rscale and fast moving programs
of pollution control.
Michigan law provides a full and effective statutory basis for preventing and
controlling pollution. The State Legislature has repeatedly shown its willingness
to enact additional laws as. the need for them emerges.
Through its Water Resources Commission, its Department of Public Health and its
Geological Survey, Michigan has an aggressive, effective and large-scale program of
water pollution control in active operation. The Michigan plan for effectuating this
program in 1967-68 has been fully approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
The State has an ongoing and appropriately expanding program of waste disposal
surveillance and water quality monitoring which is fully responsive to rthe needs for
detecting and identifying its pollution problems.
The Water Resources Commission and Department of Public Health have amply
demonstrated that when pollution problems are identified they can and do take
proper corrective action.
The State Legislature has responded generously to Executive requests for
successive increases in State expenditures for pollution control.
The Water Resources Commission has adopted water quality standards for all waters
together with a plan for implementation and enforcement of the' interstate waters within
a time period that is fully consistent with the objectives set forth in the Federal
report, 1'Water Pollution Problems of Lake Michigan and Tributaries".
The Michigan agencies recognize the pollution problems on waters tributary- to
Lake Michigan and have in operation aggressive programs for their full and timely
correction. The present deficiencies in waste treatment at inland locations do not
contribute to pollutional conditions in Lake Michigan except as a residual phosphate
loading carries on down to the lake.
The Water Resources Commission recognizes the phosphate problem in accelerating
stream and lake water enrichment, and has adopted a state-wide policy and comprehensive
program for phosphate removal from waste discharges, with scheduled early completion
dates.
The recently accelerating algae problem in Lake Michigan along its Michigan shore
appears to derive significantly from phosphate concentrations in alewives and its.
deposition in near-shore waters from the decomposition of these fish following their
increasingly massive seasonal die-off. The control of alewife populations appears
to be an essential element of algae control.
-------
2680
Oxygen deficiency problems in the Michigan waters of Lake Michigan are not
disclosed by data collected by the Michigan Water Resources Commission. The absence
of such problems is substantiated by findings of the U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare's Public Health Service studies under the Great Lakes-Illinois
River Basin's Project.
These findings, which were cited by Special Master Albert E. Maris in his report
to the U. S. Supreme Court on the Chicago diversion litigation among the lake states,'
further show no open-lake pollutional concentrations of ammonia nitrogen, nitrate
nitrogen, phosphates, ABS, toxic metals, or other physical parameters.
No Lake Michigan bathing beaches in Michigan have been closed or considered for
closing due to water pollution. Bacteria counts at all such beaches, attributable
to human sewage, are well within the limits recommended in the Federal report for
this conference.
The discharge of sewage, garbage, trash and oils from interstate carriers, and
the loss of oils and other pollutional cargo from such carriers resulting from ship-
wrecks, are of deep concern to the people and government of Michigan because of their
serious injury and threat of injury to recreational water use. Early and full answers
are needed as to where the responsibility lies for coping with this problem, as is the
establishment of procedures for effective enforcement and for the prompt effectuation
of emergency measures to prevent and control accidental pollutional losses from such
carriers.
The implementation of Michigan's plan and achievement of the improvements in
water quality in Lake Michigan will be greatly enhanced by the earliest possible
approval of the Michigan standards by the Secretary of the Interior.
Accomplishment of the Michigan pollution control program is dependent largely
upon the availability of funds to build the necessary municipal waste treatment
facilities. Full funding of the Federal grants authorized for this purpose in the
Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 is urgently necessary. A massive state bonding
proposal providing for full state partnership in financing has been recommended by
Governor Romney to the 1968 Legislature.
-------
2681
APPENDIX A
Act 245, Public Acts of 1929, as amended
-------
2682
State of Michigan
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
Act 2^5, Public Acts of 1929, as amended *
An act to create a water resources commission to protect and conserve the water resources
of the state, to have control over the pollution of any waters of the state and the great
lakes, with power to make rules and regulations governing the same, and to prescribe the powers
and duties of such commission; to prohibit the pollution of any waters of the state and the
great lakes; to designate the commission as the state agency to cooperate and negotiate with
other governments and agencies in matters concerning the water resources of the state; and to
provide penalties for the violation of this act.
Sec. 1. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act there is hereby
created a water resources commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission, which shall
consist of the director of conservation, the commissioner of health, the highway commissioner,
the director of agriculture, and 3 citizens of the state to be appointed by the governor, by
and with the advice and consent of the senate, 1 from groups representative of industrial
management, 1 from groups representative of municipalities, and 1 from groups representative of
conservation associations or interests,' for terms of 3 years each except that of the members
first appointed, 1 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, 1 for a term of 2 years, and 1 for
a term of 3 years. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as
original appointments. Members of the commission shall be entitled to actual and necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. It shall be the duty of the department
of administration to provide suitable office facilities for the use of the commission.
Each of the aforesaid state officers is hereby . authorized to designate a representative
from his department to serve in his stead as a member of the commission for 1 or more meetings.
Sec. 2. The commission shall organize and make its own rules and regulations and pro-
cedure and shall meet at least" once each month and shall keep a record of its proceedings. The
commission shall protect and conserve the water resources of the state and shall have control
of the pollution of surface or underground waters of the state of Michigan and the great lakes,
which are or may be affected by waste disposal of municipalities, industries, public or private
corporations, individuals, partnership associations, or any other entity. The commission is
empowered to make or cause to be made surveys, studies and investigations of the uses of waters
of the state, both surface and underground, and to cooperate with other governments, govern-
mental units and agencies thereof in making such surveys, studies and investigations. The
commission shall assist in an advisory capacity any flood control district which may be author-
ized by the legislature of this state. The commission in the public interest shall have the
right and duty to appear and present evidence, reports and other testimony during the hearings
involving the creation and organization of flood control districts. It shall also be the duty
and responsibility of the commission to advise and consult with the legislature on the obliga-
tion of the state to participate in the costs of construction .and maintenance as provided for
in the official plans of any flood control district or intercounty drainage district. The
commission shall have authority to, and shall enforce the provisions of this act and shall make
and promulgate such rules and regulations as shall be deemed necessary to carry out the pro-
visions of this act. The rules and regulations of the commission shall be promulgated in con-
formity with the provisions of Act No. 88 of the Public Acts of 19^3, as amended, being
sections 2^.71 to 2^.82, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948.
. Sec. 2a. The water resources commission is hereby designated the state agency to cooperate
and negotiate .with other governments, governmental units and agencies thereof in matters
concerning the water resources of the state, including but not limited to flood control and
beach erosion control. The commission is further authorized to take such steps as may be
Amended by Act 11?, P.A..19^9, effective May 18, 19^9; Act 165, P.A. 1963, effective
September 6, 1963; and Act ^05, P.A. 1965, effective October 29, 1965.
-------
2683
necessary to take advantage of any act of congress heretofore or hereafter enacted which may be
of assistance in carrying out the purposes of this act.
The commission shall report to the governor and to the legislature at least once in each
year any plans or projects being carried on or considered and shall include in such report re-
quests for any legislation needed to carry out any proposed projects or agreements made neces-
sary thereby, together with any requests for appropriations.
Sec. 3. The commission shall be authorized to bring any appropriate action in the name of
the people of the state of Michigan, either at law or in chancery as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of this act, and to enforce any and all laws relating to the pollution of
the waters of this state. Whenever the attorney general deems it necessary, he shall take
charge of and prosecute all criminal cases arising under the provisions of this act.
Sec. 4. The commission or any agent duly appointed by it shall have the right to enter at
all reasonable times in or upon any private or public property for the purpose of inspecting
and investigating conditions relating to the pollution of any waters of this state. The commis-
sion shall have the right to call upon any officer, board, department, school, university or
other state institution and the officers or employees thereof for any assistance deemed neces-
sary to the carrying out of this act.
Sec. 5. The commissipn shall establish such pollution standards for lakes, rivers,
streams and other waters of the state in relation to the public use to which they are or may be
put, as it. shall deem necessary. It shall have the authority to ascertain and determine for
record and in making its order what volume of water actually flows in all streams, and the high
and low water marks of lakes and other waters of the state, affected by the waste disposal or
pollution of municipalities, industries, public and private corporations, individuals, partner-
ship associations, or any other entity. It shall have authority; to make regulations and orders
restricting the polluting content of any waste material or polluting substance discharged or
sought to be discharged into any lake, river, stream, or other waters of the state. It shall
have the authority to take all appropriate steps to prevent any pollution which is deemed by
the commission to be unreasonable and against public interest in view of the existing condi-
tions in any lake, river, stream, or other waters of the state.
Sec. 6. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly to discharge into
the waters of the state any substance which is or may become injurious to the public health,
safety or welfare; or which is or may become injurious to domestic, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, recreational or other uses which are being or may be made of such waters; or
which is or may become injurious to the value or utility of riparian lands; or which is or may
become injurious to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life or plants or the growth
or propagation thereof be prevented or injuriously affected; or whereby the value of fish and
game is or may be destroyed or impaired.
(b) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly into any of
the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of the violation of section
6 (a) of this act unless, said discharge shall have been permitted by an order, rule or regula-
tion of the commission. Any city, village or township which permits, allows or suffers the
discharge of such raw sewage of human origin into any of the waters of the state by any of its
inhabitants or persons occupying lands from which said raw sewage originates, shall be subject
only to the remedies provided for in section 7 of this act.
(c) Whenever a court of competent jurisdiction in this state shall have, ordered the in-
stallation of a sewage disposal system in any township, and the plans therefor shall have been
prepared, and approved by the state .health commissioner,, the township shall have authority to
issue and sell the necessary bonds for the.construction and installation thereof, including the
disposal plant and such intercepting and other. sewers as may be necessary to permit the effec-
tive operation of such system. Such bonds shall be issued in the same manner as provided for in
Act No. 320 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 123.2W to 123.253 of the Compiled Laws
of 1948, or any other act providing for the issuance of bonds in townships.
(d) Any violation of any provision of section 6 shall be prima facie evidence of the
existence of a public nuisance and in addition to the remedies provided for in this act may be
abated according to law in an action brought by the attorney general in a court of competent
jurisdiction..
-------
268^
•Sec. 7. Whenever in the opinion of the commission any person shall violate or is about to
violate the provisions of this act, or fails to control the polluting content or substance dis-
charged or to be discharged into any waters of the state, the commission may notify the alleged
offender of such determination by the commission. Said notice shall contain in addition to a
statement of the specific violation which the commission believes to exist, a proposed form of
order or other action which it deems appropriate to assure correction of said problem within a
reasonable period of time and shall set a date for a hearing on the facts and proposed action
involved, said hearing to be scheduled not less than 4 weeks or more than 8 weeks from the date
of said notice of determination. Extensions of the date, of hearing may be granted by the com-
mission or on request. At such hearing any interested party may appear, present witnesses and
submit evidence. Following such hearing, the final order of determination of the commission
upon such matter shall be conclusive, unless reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
administrative procedures of Act No. 19? of the Public Acts of 1952, as amended, being sections
24.101 to 24.110 of the Compiled Laws of 19*4-8, or any amendment thereto in the circuit court
for the county of Ingham, in or for the county in which such person resides, or for the county
in which the violation occurred, upon petition therefor filed within 15 days after the service
upon said person of the final order of determination. '
Sec. 8. (a) Whenever any person shall feel himself aggrieved by the restriction of pol-
luting content, waste or pollution, or any other order of the commission, .he shall have a right
to file a sworn petition with the commission, setting forth the grounds and reasons for his
complaint and asking for a hearing of the matter involved. The commission shall thereupon fix
the time and place for' such'hearing and shall notify the petitioner thereof. At such hearing
the petitioner and any other interested party may appear, present witnesses and submit evidence.
Following such hearing, the final order of determination of the commission upon such matter
shall be conclusive unless reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the administrative
procedures of Act No. 197 of the Public Acts of 1952, as amended, being sections 24.101 to
24.110 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, or any amendment thereto in the circuit court for the
county of Ingham, or for the county in which such person resides, or for the county in which
the alleged violation occurred.
(b) On and after May 18, l°49i any person requiring a new or substantial increase over
and above the present use now made of the waters of the state for sewage or waste disposal pur-
poses shall file with the commission a written statement setting forth the nature of the enter-
prise or development contemplated, the amount of water required to be used, its source, the .
proposed point of discharge of the wastes into the waters of the state, the estimated amount so
to be discharged, and a fair statement setting forth the expected bacterial, physical, chemical
and other known characteristics of the wastes. Within 60 days of receipt of the statement, the
commission shall make an order stating such minimum restrictions as in the judgment of the com-
mission may be necessary to guard adequately against such unlawful uses of the waters of the
state as are set forth in section 6. If the order is not acceptable to the user, he may request
a hearing on the matter involved, following which the commission's final order of determination
in this connection shall be conclusive unless reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
administrative procedures of Act No. 197 of the Public Acts of 1952, as amended, being sections
24.101 to 24.110 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, or any amendment thereto in the circuit court
for the county of Ingham, in or for the county in which the user resides, or for the county in
which the use is contemplated, upon petition therefor filed within 15 days after service
upon said user of the final order of determination.
Sec. 9. Any duly appointed agent of the commission shall have authority to enforce the
provisions of this act and may make criminal complaint against any person violating the same.
After service of a written notice of determination, setting forth specifically any violation of
this act, any person who shall fail to comply with the order of the commission shall be subject
to the penalties of this act.
Sec. 10. Any person, except a municipality, who discharges any substance into the waters
of the state contrary to the provisions of section 6 or who fails to comply with any restric-
tion, regulation or final order of determination of the commission made under the provisions of
this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine of not less than $500.00 and in the discretion of the. court it may impose an additional
fine of not less than $500.00 per day for any number of days during which such violation
occurred: Provided, however, That such person shall not be subject to the penalties of this
section if the .discharge of. the effluent is in conformance with and obedient to a rule, regula-
tion or order of the commission. In addition to the minimum fine herein specified, the attorney
51
-------
2685
general, at the request of the department of conservation, is authorized to file a suit in any
court of competent jurisdiction to recover tho full value of the injuries done to the natural
resources of the state by such violation.
Sec. 11. Wherever the word "person" is used in this act, it shall be construed to include
any municipality, industry, public or private corporation, co-partnership, firm or any other
entity whatsoever. Wherever the words "waters of the state" shall be used in this act, they
shall be construed to include lakes, rivers and streams and all other water courses and waters
within the confines of the state and also the great lakes bordering thereon.
Sec. 12. This act shall not be. construed as repealing any of the provisions of the law
governing the pollution of lakes and streams, but shall be held and construed as ancillary to
and supplementing the same and in addition to the laws now in force, except as the same may be
in direct conflict herewith. This act shall not be construed as applying to copper or iron
mining operations, whereby such operations result in the placement, removal, use or processing
of copper or iron mineral tailings or copper.or iron mineral deposits from such operations
being placed in inland waters on bottom lands owned by or under the control of the mining com-
pany and only water which may contain a minimal amount of residue as determined by the water
resources commission resulting from such placement, removal, use or processing being allowed or
permitted to escape into public waters; or applying to the discharge of water from underground
iron or copper mining operations subject to a determination by the water resources commission.
Sec. 12a. The provisions of this act shall be construed as supplemental to and in addi-
tion to the provisions of Act No. 316 of the Public Acts of 1923, as amended, being sections
261.1 to 277.10, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 19^8; and nothing in this act shall be
construed to amend or repeal any law of the state of Michigan relating to the public service
commission, the department of conservation and the department of health relating to waters and
water structures, or any act or parts of acts not inconsistent with the provisions of this act.
-------
2686
APPENDIX B
CONTROL OF WATERCRAFT POLLUTION
53
-------
268?
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
PROPOSED RULE FOR THE
CONTROL OF WATERCRAFT POLLUTION
By authority conferred on the Water Resources Commission by Sections 2 and 5
of Act 245, Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being CL '48, § 323.2 and § 313.5, the
following'is hereby promulgated, to go into effect on January 1, 1970.
R 323.AAA.
1. TERMS DEFINED
(a) The term "watercraft" means any contrivance used or capable of being
used for navigation upon water whether or not capable of self-propulsion,
except passenger or cargo-carrying vessels subject to the Interstate
Quarantine Resultions of the United States Public Health Service adopted
pursuant to Title 42 United States Code § 241, 243, 252 and 262-272.
(b) The term "sewage" means all human body wastes, treated or untreated.
(c) The term "litter" means any bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap
metal, junk, paper, garbage, rubbish, or similar refuse discarded as no
longer useful or usable.
(d) The term "marine toilet" means any toilet on or within any watercraft.
(e) The term "Commission" means the Water Resources Commission, Department
of Conservation.
(f) The term "non-pollutional" means incapable of causing.unlawful pollution
as defined in Section.6.
2. MARINE TOILETS - RESTRICTIONS AND POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
(a) No person shall operate a marine toilet on a watercraft on the waters
of the state so as to discharge any sewage into such waters unless such
sewage has.been rendered non-pollutional by passage through a device
which has been approved by the Commission.
-------
2688
(b) No person owning or operating a watercraft having a marine toilet shall
use or permit the use of such toilet on the waters of the state unless the
toilet is equipped with one of the following pollution control devices:
i. A holding tank which will retain all sewage that is produced on
the watercraft, or
'ii. An incinerating device which will reduce to ash a 1.1 sewage that is
produced on the watercraft, or
iii. ;A device which has been determined by the Commission to be capable
of rendering the sewage discharges non-pollutional in accordance with
the requirements of Act 245, Public Acts of 1929, as amended.
(c) No person shall dispose of sewage accumulated in holding tanks or in
any other container on a watercraft in such a manner that the sewage
reaches or may reach the waters of the state except through a sewage
disposal facility which has the approval of the.State Department of
Public Health or its designated representative.
P. 523.AAB. WATERCRAFT REGISTRATION - MARINE TOILET FACILITIES
Persons when making application for a certificate of number for a watercraft
pursuant to i 3, Act 303, Public Acts of 1967, (CL '48, § 281.653) shall disclose at
such time to the Commission whether such watercraft has within or on it a marine
toilet, and if so, whether such toilet is equipped with one of the pollution control
devices as required by this Rule. The Commission may request the Secretary of State to
provide it with the name of any applicant whose application indicates the absence of
such pollution control device on a.marine toilet.
R 323.AAC. DISPOSAL OF LITTER
The disposal of litter shall be subject to the provisions of Act 106 of the
Public Acts of Michigan for 1963.
January 29, 1968
56
-------
2689
APPENDIX C
MICHIGAN'S INTERSTATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
57-59
-------
COMMISSION OBJECTIVE:
WAUHS IN WHICH THE FOISTING QUALITY IS BFTTFR THAN TWF ESTABLISHED STANDARDS AS Of THE 3ATE IUC'1 STANDARDS
BECOME EFFECTIVE WILL NOT BE LOWERED IN QUALITY BY ACTION OF. THE WATER ([SOURCES COMMISSION UNLESS AND UNTIL IT
KU BEEN AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHANCE rN QUALITY VILl NOT BECOKF. INJURIOUS 10 I HE FUBLIC HEALTH.
SAFETY. OK WELFARE: OR BECOME INJURIOUS TO DOMESTIC. COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL. AGRICULTURAL. RECREATIONAL DR OTHER
USES WHICH ARE BEING MADE OF SUCH WATERS: OR BECOME INJURIOUS To THE VALUE OR UTILITY OF RIPARIAN LANDS: OH
BECOME INJURIOUS TO LIVESTOCK. WILD ANIMALS. BIROS. FISH. AQUATIC LIFE OR PLANTS. 0* THE GROWTH OR PROPAGATION
THEREOF BE PREVENTED OR INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED: Oil WHEREBY THE VALUE OF FISH AND GAME HAY BE DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED.
WATEK WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS WILL BE IMPROVED IN QUALITY TO MICT.TKE STANDARDS.
2690
WATER
WX*R
^
^%s
A
WATER SUPPLY
(1.) DOMESTIC
cul irwry and food
processing.
(2.) INDUSTRIAL
Such as cool ing
and manufacturing
process.
B
RECREATION
(1.) TOTAL BODY
CONTACT
Such AS swimming,
water ski ing and skin
revent nuisance.
Present at all times in
prevent nuisance.
At the average low river flow of
naintained for;
i pec res: Not less than 6 at
»ny cime.
o tolerant fish - warm Mater
peeves ; Average dai ly 00 not
less than 5 . nor shal 1 any
single value be less than <+.
Pecies: Average daily DO not
ess tnan U, nor shal 1 any
ingle value be less than 3.
At greater flows the 00 shall
e in excess of these values.
prevent nuisance.
3
SUSPENDED ,
COLLOIDAL 8
SETTLEABLE
MATERIALS
de* i onatrrl u*,c.
des ignated u*r.
No objectionable
desi gnated use.
desi gnated use.
No Objectionable
color, or depot I is m
quantities sufficient to
designated use.
RESIDUES
(0>tir "-, 4nd nutet i*|
Of unrvitural origin
«nd oi Is)
visible f i In of' Oi I .
materials. NO globules
of grease.
visible film of Oil',
gasoline or related .
materials. No globules
of grease.
visible f i Im of oi I .
materials. No globules
of grease,
Lr^i"r'i::x:,,,
visible f i Im of oi 1 .
gasol in* or related
materials. No globules
of grease.
materials. No globules
of grease.
fjei_i_d_ues_: No -evidence.
Df such material e«cept
materials. No globules
of grease.
visible fill of oi 1 .
maierjals. No globules
of .grease.
TOXIC a
DELETERIOUS
SUBSTANCES
Cyanide: Normally not'
upoer 1 imit of 0.2 «g/I. '
detectable with a minimum
upper Limit of 0.05 mg/t .
Phenol : limitations as.
defined under A-8.
or may become injurious to
application factors may be
used in specific cases when
ustified on the basis of
available evidence and
approved by the appropriate
related to toxicants. Toxic
and deleterious .substances
which are or may become
use.
-
60
-------
2691
QUALITY STANDARDS
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOL10S
("9/1)-
FOK GREAT LAKES t CON-
The maximum shall not
exceed 200.
average shall not excee
of 10 is a desirable
condition* are less than
10.
FOR INLAND WATERS:
Shall not exceed 500 as
a monthly average, nor
exceed 750 at any time.
Chloride*: The monthly
average shell not excee
125.
Shall not exceed $00 as
a monthly average nor
125-
tions less than those
which are or may become
injurious to the
designated use.
which are or may become
injurious to the
becomes available on
deleterious effects.
minerals. Maximum
1*0% as determined by the
formula (Na x 100)
when the bases are ex*
pressed as milliequiva-
tions lest than those
which are or may become
injurious to the
designated use.
NUTRIENTS
Phosphorus, ammonia.
from' industrial .
limited to the'extent
adverse effects on water
and slimes which are or
may become injurious to
the designated use.
from industrial,
municipal, or domestic
the stimulation of
growths of algae, weeds
and slimes which are or
may become injurious to
the desi gnated use.
from Industrial ,
municipal ,• or domestic
animal sources shall be
the stimulation of
growths of algae, weeds
and slimes which are or .
may became injurious to
the designated use.
municipal, or domestic
animal sources shall be
the stimulation of'
growths of algae, weeds
and slimes which are or
may become injurious to
the designated use.
municipal , or domestic
animal sources shall be
the stimulation of
growths of algae, weeds-
end slimes which are or'
may become injurious to
the designated use.
rom industrial ,
nimal sources shall be •
i mt ted to the extent
he stimulation of
rowths of el gee, weeds
may become injurious to
Oj concentrations shall
on form to USPHS Or Inking
rom industrial,
unicipal, or domestic
nimal sources shall be
imited to the extent
timulation of growths of
Igae, weeds and slimes
which' are or may become
njurious to the des.rg-
ated use.
8
TASTE 8 ODOR
PRODUCING
SUBSTANCES
may become injurious to
Monthfy average phenol
O.OOS «g/l for a single
-.ample.
origin shall be less
stances of unnatural
origin shall be less
than those which are or
the designated use.
ori gin shal 1 be less
than those which are or
origin shall be less
than those which are
fish or game.
stances. of unnatural
than those which are or
may become injurious to
origin shall be less
than those which are or
may become Injurious to
<* 9
TEMPERATURE**
<°F>
90°F maximum
90°F maximum
Ambient 'Increase 1 imi t
;r:To!d «•--• '»» w.
fish - warm
w.t.r ip.cl.1 56° to ""• 10° 85°
max.
Tolerant fish- 32° to 59° 15°
warm water
species. 60° to "«• 10* . 87°
max.
10
HYDROGEN
ION
(pH)
pN shall not have *n
more than 0. 5 uni t
range 6.5-8.8 with a
maximum induced,
variation of 0.5 unit
Maintained within the
range 6.5*8.8 with a
maximum Induced
maximum induced
maximum artificially
range. Changes, in
the pH of natural
waters outside these
values must be toward
neutrality (7.O.).
pH thai I not have an
ounces.
ange '6.5-8.8 with a
maximum induced
arfation of 0.5 uni t
within-this range.
RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS
An upper limit of 1000
beta activity (in absence
limit Is exceeded the
specific radionucl idet
present must be identified
fact that the concentre'
tion of nuclides will not
produce exposures above
established by the Federal
Radiation Council.
It shed when information
become* available on
deleterious effects.
Standards to be estab-
lished when information
becomes available on
Standards to be estab-
iccomes aval (able on
Standards to be estab-
tecomes available on
An upper limit of 1000
Strontium-90). If chit
limit is exceeded the
specific r'adionucl'ides
present must be identified
tion of nuclides will not
produce exposures above
the recommended limits
established by the Federal
Radiation Council.
lished when information
becomes available on
deleterious effects.
For the Great Lakes and connecting waters no heat load in sufficient quantity to
create conditions which are. or may become injurious to the Public health, safecv
or welfare; or which are or may become injurious to domestic, comerciat, industrial,
waters; or which are or nay become Injurious to the value or utility of riparian
lands; or which are or may become Injurious to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish
or aquatic life or the growth or propagation thereof.
61
-------
2692
APPENDIX D
MICHIGAN'S INTRASTATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
62-64
-------
2693
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
for
MICHIGAN INTRASTATE WATERS
.State of Michigan
Water Resources Commission
Department of Conservation
Adopted January T968
65
-------
2694
COWISSIW 'OBJECTIVE:
MATERS IH WHICH THE EXISTIKS QUALITY IS BETTER THAN THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS AS OF THE DATE SUCH STANDARDS BECOKE
EFFECTIVE WILL WIT PE LOWERED IN CUALITY BY ACTION Cf THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION UNLESS AND UNTIL IT HAS BEEN ,
AFFIRMATIVELY OP-TTSTRATED THAT THE CHAS3E IN QUALITY WILL KOI BECOKE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY. OR
WELFARE! OR 8ECOMF INJURIOUS TO DOMESTIC. CCWERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL. AGPICULTURAL. RECREATIONAL OR OTHER USES WHICH ARE
BEING MADE OF SUCH WATERS; OS BECOXE INJURIOUS TO THE VALUE OR UTILITY OF RIPARIAN LAKOS. OR SECCKE INJURIOUS TO
LIVESTOCK, WILD A.N!**ALS. BIRDS, FISH, AQUATIC LIFE OR PLA.VTS, "OS THE GROWTH OR PROPAGATION THEREOF BE PREVENTED OR
INJURinjSLY AFFECTED OR KHERE8Y THE VALUE OF FISH AKD GAKE KAY BE DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED.
WATER WHICH pnrS SOT KEET THE STAKDARDS WILL BE IMPROVED IN QUALITY TO MEET THE STANDARDS.
WATER
^VR.
^
^
A
WATER SUPPLY
(1.) DOMESTIC
Such as drinking.
culinary and food
processing.
(2.) INDUSTRIAL -.
Such as cool ing-
process.
B
RECREATION
(I.) TOTAL BODY
CONTACT
Such as swimming.
water skiing and skin
diving.
(2.) PARTIAL BODY
'CONTACT
Such as fishing,
hunting, trapping
^
FISH, WILDLIFE
AND OTHER
AQUATIC LIFE
such as
\9 P opag j
b
AGRICULTURAL
I,.—
Such as livestock
Mater Ing, Irrigation
and spraying.
COMMERCIAL
AND OTHER
Such as" navigation,
hydroelectric and
• steam generated •
electric power and
uses not included
elsewhere In these
standards r
1
COLIFORM
. GROUP
(organ! was/ lOOnl
or MPN)
The monthly aeoqatric average
shall not exceed 5000 nor shal
20J of the samples examined
exceed 3000, nor exceed 20,000
in more than 5$ of the samples
series of 10 consecutive
examined exceed 10,000. The
average for the same 10 con-
secutive samples Shall not
exceed 1000.
The geometric average of any •
samples shall not exceed 1000
nor shall 20% of the samples
examined exceed 5.000. The
fecal co li form geometric
average for the same 10
consecut ' ve samples sha 1 1 not
exceed 100.
The geome trie ave rage of any
samples shall not exceed 5000
nor shall 20% of the samples
examined exceed 10.000. The
fecal co li form geometric
average for the same 10 con-
exceed 1000.
The geometric average of any
samples shall not exceed 5000
nor shall 20% of the samples
examined exceed 10,000. The
fecal co li form geometric
secutive samples shall not
exceed 1000.
The geometric average of any
series of 10 consecutive
samples shall not exceed 5000
nor shall 20% of the samples
fecal col iform geometric
average for the same 10 con-
exceed 1000. .
series of 10 consecutive
samples shall not exceed $000
nor shal) 20% of the samples
examined exceed 10,000. The
fecal col iform geometric
average for the same 10
consecutive samples shall not
exceed 1000.
2
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
(og/l)
Present at all tines in
Present at al 1 times in
Sufficient quantities to
prevent nuisance.
At the average low flow of :
occur once in 10 years the
following DO values shall be '
maintained in rivers capable
of supporting: Intolerant
fish, cold-water species
than ft at any time;
Intolerant fish, warm-water
iDecies (bass. Dike, Dan-
fish) - Average daily DO
not less tnan 5. nor shal)
any. single value be less
than
-------
2695
QUALITY STANDARDS
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLfPS
(mg/l)
S-lall not exceed 500 as
average shal 1 not
any single value
exceed 1 25.
Shal 1 not exceed 500 as
125.
lions less than chose
which are or may become
injurious CO the
designated use.
des ignated use .
becomes available on
minerals. Max i mum
percentage of sodium
formula (Ha x 100)
(Na+Ca+Mg*k)
ients per 1 Iter,
which are or may become
injurious to the
designated use.
fctw,.
' *»•"
H shal 1 not have an
ources.
ange 6.5-8.8 with a
ariaclon of 0.5 uni t
within this range.
II
RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS
present must be identified
fact that the concentra-
tion of nucl ides wi 1) not
produce exposures above
the recommended limits
established by the Federal
Radiation Counci 1 .
i shed when information
Standards to be estab-
lished when information
ished when information
becomes available on
ished when information
becomes available on
An upper limit of 1000
5trontium-90). If this
limit is* exceeded the
specific radionucl ides
by complete analysis in
'act that the concentra-
tion of nuclides will not
iroduc* exposures above
the recommended limits
established by the Federal
Radiation Counci t.
1 ished when information
deleterious effects.
-------
2696
C. Fish, wildlife and other aquatic life.
These additional water qua I ity .standards for DISSOLVED OXYGEN apply to inland lakes
naturally capable of supportinq:
Intolerant fish, cold-water species (trout, whitefish, cisco)
a. In warm-water lokes with little water exchanr)C which ore capable of sustaining cool
stratum of we I I-oxygenated water throuqhout the summer (above a hypol imnion with very
little oxyqen): maintain more than 6 mg/I of dissolved oxyqen throughout the epiI imnion
and the upper one-third of the thermocline during the entire summer stagnation period.
At all other times the dissolved oxygen concentration must be maintained at natural
levels except in prescribed mixinq zones.
b. In lakes capable of sustaininq hiqh oxygen values throughout the hypolimnion during
periods of stagnation: maintain dissolved oxyqen values greater than 6 mg/I throughout
the entire lake.
c. In lakes which serve as principal anadromous fish migration routes: maintain more
than 5 mq/I of dissolved oxyqen throughout the epiIimnion and the upper one-third of
the thermocline in strat.ified lakes during periods of migration. In unstratified lakes
maintain more than 5 mg/I of dissolved oxygen throughout the entire lake during periods
of migration.
d. In shallow, unstratified cold-water lakes: maintain dissolved oxygen greater than
6 mg/I throughout the entire lake.
Intolerant fish, warm-water species (bass, pike, panfish)
a. In warm-water lakes with little water exchange: maintain dissolved oxygen values
greater than 5 mg/I throuqhout the epiI imnion and the upper one-third of the thermocIin*.
during the entire summer stagnation period. At all other times the dissolved oxygen
concentration must be maintained at natural levels except in a prescribed mixing zone.
b. In warm-water lakes with a high rate of water exchange: maintain oxygen values
greater than 5 mg/I throughout the epil imnion and the upper one-third of the thermocline
during the entire summer stagnation period. At all other times the dissolved oxygen
concentration must be maintained at more than 5 mg/1 except in areas where natural
oxygen depressions occur.
These additional water quality standards for TEMPERATURE apply to inland lakes
naturally capable of supportinq:
Intolerant fish, cold-water species (trout, whitefish, cisco)
a. Small warm-water lakes with little water exchange which are capable of supporting
trout in the thermocline or hypolimnion and shallow, unstratified cold-water lakes
shall not be artificially warmed.
b. Large warm-water lakes with little water exchange which are capable of supporting
trout in the thermocline or hypolimnion shall not receive a heat load which would warm
the thermocline or hypolimnion. Surface waters may be warmed I0°F when ambient temperature
is less than 45°F and 5°F when ambient temperature is greater than 45°F. Maximum limit
is 85°F.
c. In lakes which serve as principal anadromous fish migration routes the-temperature of
the epiIimnion shall not be elevated more than 5°F above ambient during the times of.
migration, and shall, in no instance, interfere with migration. If ambient water
temperatures in the migratory channels during the times of migration exceed 65°F they may
not be artificially increased to greater than 70°F.
Intolerant fish, warm-water species (bass, pike, panfish)
In warm-water lakes incapable of supporting trout: surface waters may be warmed I0°F when
ambient temperature is less than 45°F and 5°F when amblent, temperature is greater than
45°F. Maximum limit is 85°F.
Anadromous fish migrations
Warm-water rivers that serve as principal migratory channels for anadromous fish species
and that have ambient water temperatures in excess of 65°F during the times of mi-gration
may not be artificially warmed to greater than 70°F. At other times of the year the
standards for intolerant fish, warm-water species in rivers apply.
68
-------
2697
APPENDIX E
CHLORINATION POLICY
69
-------
GEORGE ROMNEY, Governor
ALBERT E. HEUSTIS, M.D., Director
January 4, 1967
2698
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
3300 N: IOGAN, LANSING. MICHIGAN 48914
DEPARTMENT LETTER NO. 35-1
TO: Municipalities Operating Sewage Treatment Plants
Bureau Chiefs
Division Chiefs
Directors of Full-Time Local Health Departments.
FROM: John E. Vogt, Chief
Division of Engineering
SUBJECT: Disinfection of Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents
For many years most communities and others operating sewage treatment plants
have chlorinated their treated wastewaters before discharging them into our
streams and lakes. This practice has provided a large measure of protection
of the public health. Present trends in public need for higher water quality
to permit increased use of our public waters for all forms of aquatic recrea-
tion and other uses involving intimate human contact require refinements in
present practices for bacteriological control of treated sewage effluents
and greater vigilance by those responsible for the operation of the facilities
involved. Greater concentrations of people living close to lakes and streams
coupled with year-round recreation including fishing in late fall, winter and
early spring requires continuous bacteriological control whenever sewage is
discharged to the public waters. Seasonal chlorination during the summer
recreation season no longer can be depended upon to provide a full measure
of protection to the public health.
It therefore is the declared and established policy that:
All municipalities and others discharging treated sewage from
sewage treatment plants to the public waters of the state be
required to provide effective bacteriological control over the
effluent therefrom by the continuous application each day of the
year of chlorine or other effective chemicals in facilities approved
by the State Department of Public Health. Effective control requires
sufficient testing at approved points of sample collection to assure
the maintenance of an adequate residual of chlorine or other disinfecting
agents, supplemented by occasional tests for organisms of the coliform
group. Adequate disinfection should reduce consistently the concen-
tration of coliform organisms to 1000 or less per 100 ml.
Approved:
-------
2699
APPENDIX F
STUDIES ON REMOVAL OF PHOSPHATES
AT
GRAYLING, MICHIGAN
73
-------
2700
STUDIES ON REMOVAL OF'PHOSPHATES.
AND
RELATED REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED
MATTER AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
AT
GRAYLING, MICHIGAN
MARCH .- SEPTEMBER 1967
CONDUCTED BY:
.OTTO GREEN., FRED EYER, AND DONALD PIERCE
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
2701
INTRODUCTION
Grayling is a community of 2,000 located on the Au Sable River, a famous trout
stream which is"probably enjoyed by more people than any other Michigan river.
Grayling's wastewater treatment plant, which has been in operation since 1938 and
was recently expanded in 1964, has facilities for primary sedimentation and
chlorination. Present river studies have shown a deterioration of water quality
downstream from the plant. There is an indication of excessive algal and slime
growths and higher than normal bacteria counts. It is the concensus•that a higher
degree of treatment, of which nutrient removal is an essential part, would improve
this situation and help preserve one of Michigan's great natural resources.
Preliminary studies on phosphate removal using ferrous chloride and polymers
by the Dow Chemical Company at the Midland municipal wastewater treatment plant
showed promise of very substantial reduction of total phosphates and suspended
solids by application of the chemicals to raw sewage followed by sedimentation.
Agreement was reached with the Dow Chemical Company and the City of Grayling that
a study would be undertaken at Grayling utilizing the principles and procedures
developed at Midland and adapting them to their particular waste characteristics
and physical facilities.
The initial bench studies conducted in late March and early April 1967, indicated
that Grayling sewage responded to chemical treatment in a fashion quite similar to the
Midland experience. These studies were made cooperatively by personnel of the Depart-
ment of Public Health and Dow's Technical Service and Development Section. Upon
review of the bench scale work with the City Manager and the Council of Grayling,
it was decided to proceed with plant scale studies. The City's consulting engineers
were instructed to install temporary facilities for minor modification, of the
sedimentation tanks and, with Dow's assistance, install chemical feeding and mixing
equipment. This work was performed by the engineers, Dow staff, and Grayling personnel.
The plant scale studies'were performed by personnel of the Department of Public
Health, the Dow Chemical Company and the Superintendent of the Grayling plant in
various combinations. These studies were commenced in mid-June and terminated in
mid-September. During most of this period, the plant loadings were usually high by
reason of tourist influx in the area and the encampment of troups of the National
Guard where facilities are connected to the Grayling sewer system.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
To conduct a cooperative study with the Dow Chemical Company -to ascertain the
amenability of Grayling waste water to treatment utilizing various forms of iron in
conjunction with ionic polymers for removal of phosphates, and related higher removal
of suspended matter and biochemical oxygen demand, by both bench scale work and actual
plant operation.
76
-------
2702
DESCRIPTION OF PLANT FACILITIES
The Grayling wastewater treatment facilities consist of the following:
1. A sewage lift station located approximately 600 feet upstream from
the plant. The station contains a grit chamber with a bar screen,
grit removal facilities, and a comminutor. There are 3 centrifugal
pumps: one - 250 gpm, one - 300 gpm, and one - 500 gpm. These
pumps are float operated by level variations in the water surface
of the wet well. Normally, chlorine is applied in the wet well
for odor control during the summer months but was not utilized
during the period of this study.
2. Approximately 600 feet of 8-inch force main from the lift
station to the treatment plant.
3. A flow splitting chamber which divides the flow delivered in
the force main equally among the primary sedimentation tanks.
4. Three primary sedimentation tanks, each 26 feet by 8 feet, with
an average water depth of 8 feet, equipped with mechanical sludge
and scum removal equipment.
Detention.times and. overflow rates for various combinations of pumps are as follows:
Pumping Rates
GPM
250
250 + 300
250 + 300 + 500
Surface Overflow Rates
Gals / sq. ft. / day
577
1,270
2,430
Detention
Hours
2.5
1.1
0.6
5. One sludge digestion tank of 4,012 cubic feet capacity which was
not in use during the test period. All sludge was pumped to a
tank truck and disposed of at the City's sanitary land fill.
6. Chlorination facilities consisting of 1 chlorinator with a
maximum feed rate of 40 pounds per day and a chlorine contact
of 695 cubic feet volume. This tank is baffled to produce an
end around flow. Contact period at 250 gpm pumping rate is
20.8 minutes.
7. The laboratory is fully equipped to conduct a program of
wastewater analysis; i.e. , solids analysis, BOD determinations,''
pH, and colorimetric analyses.
77
-------
2703
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Preliminary surveys were conducted during a 3-week period beginning March 27,
1967. During the first week, samples were collected and analyzed for suspended
solids, BOD, pH, sludge analyses and phosphates on raw sewage and chlorinated
effluent to determine plant loadings and performance. On March 30, hourly samples
were analyzed for ortho and total phosphates during a 15-hour period to establish
some indication of hourly and diurnal variations. During the following 2 weeks,
these studies on plant loading and performance were continued except for phosphates.
Jar tests were conducted from April 3-10 for phosphate removal.
JAR TESTS
Jar tests were conducted using various concentrations of iron, both ferric and
ferrous; several polymers of the anionic, cationic, and nonionic types and NaOH as
calcium carbonate alkalinity. Order of addition, time of contact and types of
mixing and flocculation were also studied.
It was found that iron, in both ferrous and ferric forms in concentrations
ranging from 15 mg/1 to 30 mg/1 would substantially remove both *0-P04 and T-P04.
Concentrations below 15 mg/1 showed little reduction. The use of ferrous iron
resulted cqnsitently in the 90% range of PO^ removals. Results, when using ferric
iron, were consistently lower.
Contact periods, ranging from 0.5 minutes or less to 20 minutes between the
iron and sewage were equally effective in phosphate removal. Only 3 of the 6 polymers
studied appeared to be effective. One anionic worked well in concentrations from
0.1 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1 and another from 0.25 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1. The cationic polymer
gave excellent results at a concentration of 30 mg/1; however, at this concentration
costs would be prohibitive.
The studies indicated that the polymers should have 30 seconds to 60 seconds
rapid mixing followed by 5-10 minutes slow flocculation in order to completely
develop the floe.
Further jar studies were conducted using' 20 mg/1 ferrous iron with 6 minutes
detention followed by addition of UO mg/1 of NaOH as CaCos alkalinity with 5 minutes
detention and final addition of the most effective anionic polymer in concentrations
ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/1 with 1.0 minute rapid mix and slow flocculation for
10-15 minutes.
Tests were conducted within the indicated ranges to further optimize the dosage
rates and reaction times attainable with the available plant structures.
Samples of the above showed consistent removals of 90% or more of O-PO^ and T-PO^
in filtered and unfiltered portions respectively. Turbidity as measured with a Helige
turbidimeter at 50 m.m. gave readings in the 10-20 range, representing an 80-95%
reduction. Iron content was increased from trace concentrations in the raw wastes
to 1.0-4.0 mg/1 in the treated effluent.
* 0-P04 - Orthophosphate
T-P04- Total phosphate
78
-------
2704
PRELIMINARY PLANT -STUDIES
On April 11, ferric chloride and the selected polymer treatment was conducted
on a plant scale for a period of 3 hours. The ferric iron was fed at the pumping
station with approximately 6 minutes detention through the 8-inch force main. The
polymer was dripped into the splitting chamber, giving a very short mixing period
between polymer additions and settling in the 3 sedimentation tanks.
On the following day, ferrous chloride was fed at. the same location, followed
8 seconds later by 40 mg/1 of NaOH as CaC03 alkalinity. This polymer was fed at
the splitting chamber. The test period was 5 hours.
On both days, samples were collected at 15-minute intervals. Little overall
reduction of T-PO^ occurred. However, filtered samples of the clarifier influents
showed a high incidence of phosphate tie-up by the ferrous iron. The use of ferric
iron did not show this. The polymer treated portion would not develop an adequate
floe, so settleability and overall removals were very low.
Grab samples of the clarifier influents from both test periods were mixed slowly
and an adequate floe formed which settled very well. These samples showed high
reductions of both 0-PO^ and T-POi|.
OBSERVATIONS ON JAR TESTS AND PRELIMINARY PLANT STUDIES
1. Grayling waste water is amenable to treatment with ferrous iron in conjunction
with NaOH and polymers for removal of phosphates and suspended matter.
2. Suspended matter, O-PO^ and T-PO^ pan be reduced to a high degree with this
type of treatment, under closely controlled conditions.
3. Successful application of this method of treatment will require modifications
at the plant to accommodate flocculation devices for polymer.
4. Ferric iron showed promise of good removals. Further study is needed to
demonstrate effectiveness of iron in this form.
MODIFICATION OF PLANT FACILITIES
Following the preliminary plant studies the Grayling City Manager and Council
decided to apply this technique in a full-plant study. It was decided to adapt the
present facilities at minimum cost making only minor changes in the facilities with
no change-in the pumping pattern, to determine what might be accomplished with these
facilities at this time. It was recognized that formal modifications of the plant,
• including modification of the pumping pattern to eliminate surging., and the addition
of permanent facilities for chemical feeding, mixing and flocculation devices would
be required to determine the capability of this plant for effective phosphate removal.
79
-------
2705
The inlet ends of the 3 settling tanks were modified by removing the wooden
dispersal baffle and installing motor driven vertical flocculators located 3 feet
from the inlet end. A picket fence baffle was installed 6 feet from the inlet wall
across the entire tank width, vertically from a point about 1 foot below the water
surface to a depth of about 6 1/2 feet.
Chemical feed equipment was located at the pump station to feed FeCl2 -and NaOH.
Polymer feed equipment was installed at the flow solitter chamber and controlled
by a float switch which engaged when the flow rose above the weirs and began to enter
the settling, tanks.
PROCEDURE FOR CHEMICAL ADDITION
Iron chloride in the ferrous form (FeCl2) was fed at the entrance to the pump
station grit chamber at a concentration of 15-30 mg/1. Sodium hydroxide was fed at
the comminutor at a concentration of 30-50 mg/1 approximately 8 seconds after iron
addition.
Mixing of these chemicals-with the raw waste was accomplished in the wet well
pumps and maintained in the force main. Contact time thus provided ranged from 4-8
minutes, most commonly about 6 minutes.
OVERFLOW RATES AND DETENTION PERIODS
Surface overflow rates and detention periods are dependent on rates of pumping at
the lift station. The pumping charts for June 20 to August 31 reveal that during
periods of daytime sampling (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.v) rates of flow varied from about 200
to 550 gpm through the sedimentation tanks. During dry weather, the average flows
for these hours ranged from 300 to 400 gpm. Generally, pump combinations changed
10 to 15 times per hour with corresponding variations in rates of flow of 100 gpm
or more through the sedimentation tanks.
Detention periods and surface overflow rates for the observed flows based on the
net effective tank area and volume computed by deduction of the portion of the tanks
between inlet wall and picket fence baffles are as follows:
Rate of Flow
GPM
. 200
300
400
550
Detention Time
Hours
1.40
1.60
1.20
0.87
Surface Overflow
Gal / sq. ft. /
600
900
1,200
1,650
Rates
day
80
-------
2706
The very unstable flow pattern experienced most of the time undoubtedly inter-
ferred with effective mixing and flocculation and with settling of suspended' matter.
Comparison of rates of flow through the sedimentation tanks from June 20 to
August 15 with those for the periods March 29 to June 8 and August 15 to September 14
reveals that a marked increase in flow occurred during June 20 to August 15. This
period corresponds with the period of encampment at the National Guard whose sanitary
facilities are tributary to the Grayling sewer system.
PERIOD OF THE STUDY
Full-scale plant studies for phosphate removal were commenced on June 20 and
continued through September It. Chemicals were added 7 days per week for the entire
period except for September 1-7. Generally, samples were collected and analyzed 3
days per week. On 9 days, chemicals were added in less, than established dosage rates
by reason of equipment malfunctions and other unusual circumstances. Data for these
days are not included in the reported results.
.SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES
1. All flow measurements were obtained by a float-controlled recorder located
behind a rectangular weir following the 3 sedimentation tanks. The flow recorder
was corrected with a head recording device and was considered to be reasonably
accurate.
2. Sampling was. carried out by automatic samplers composited in proportion to flow
during 24-hour periods; manually collected 9-hpur composited samples, 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.; and grab sampling (not included in the reported data).
3. Laboratory analyses for suspended solids, BOD, ortho and total phosphates and iron
were conducted according to Standard Methods with one exception: a portion of the
iron analysis was conducted with an atomic absorption apparatus.
DISCUSSION OF DATA
All the data obtained is graphically represented in Figures I-VA except for
periods when the sewage concentration was affected greatly by sewer flushing (2 days);
rain (2 days); when a settling tank was down for repairs (1 day); and those days when
there was no chemical treatment or only partial chemical feeds. (See also discussion
under "Period of the Study".)
During the period March 29-June 8 before treatment was commenced, suspended solids
removals were usually between 30% and 65% with the effluent concentration averaging
between 60 mg/1 and 90 mg/1. The arithmetic average of all samples, both 24-hour and
9-hour composites, was 157 mg/1 in the raw sewage and 78 mg/1 in the effluent giving
a removal of about 50%.
81
-------
270?
Removal of suspended solids during chemical treatment, despite high flows and
intermittant pumping, averaged between 70% and 85% with the effluent concentration
generally between 40 mg/1 and 60 mg/1. The arithmetic average during the period
was 224 mg/1 in the raw sewage and 50 mg/1 in the effluent giving a removal of
The average increase in suspended solids removal during the treatment period was
Statistical plots of the data for suspended solids removal for both periods
are shown in Figure IVA. All data for each period are arranged in order of magnitude
and plotted on normal probability paper against probability of occurrence. During
the period when no chemicals were added, there were wide variations in percent
removal ranging from extreme values of 23% to a high value of 81% and a centering
or most probable mean value of 51%. Performance was much more stable during the
period of chemical treatment as indicated by the much flatter curve plotted through
values ranging from 60% to 87% removal with a most probable mean value of 77.5.
Applying the overlapping test for statistical difference between the 2 means in the
range of 3 standard errors, it is found that the difference is statistically sig-
nificant and could not occur by mere chance even if the 10 low values for Curve B
were elevated so as to be arranged along an extension of the upper part of the curve.
BOD removals before treatment averaged 35% to 50% with the effluent concentration
averaging between 85 mg/1 and 120 mg/1. The arithmetic average of all samples was
170 mg/1 in the raw sewage and 101 mg/1 in the effluent, giving a removal of 41%. BOD
removals during treatment averaged between 50% and 70% with the effluent concentration
averaging between 65 mg/1 and 80 mg/1. The arithmetic average during this period was
178 mg/1 in the raw sewage and 74 mg/1 in the effluent, giving a removal of 58%. The
average increase in BOD removal during treatment was 17%.
Statistical plots for percent BOD^remo.val are shown in Figure VA in the same
manner as for suspended solids. It is apparent that very wide changes in percent
removal were experienced during the period when chemicals were not added. The
predictable mean value can be determined with values ranging from 0% to 55% removal.
However, during the period of chemical additions all except 3 values were 51% removal
or higher with all except 4 values between 51% and 69%, giving a relatively stable
mean of 57 or 58. Here also, the difference in performance during the 2 periods was
statistically significant representing real changes which cannot be accounted for by
chance.
Total phosphate analyses during periods without chemical treatment showed no
appreciable removal.
Total phosphate concentrations during chemical treatment usually ranged between
30 mg/1 and 60 mg/1 in the raw waste and between 9 mg/1 and 18 mg/1 in the effluent.
The phosphate removal averaged between 60% and 80%. The arithmetic averages during
treatment were 47.5 mg/1 in the raw sewage and 13.5 mg/1 in the effluent, giving a
removal of 72%.
Total iron analysis of the waste water indicated an average of 1.0 mg/1 to 1.3 mg/1
in the plant effluent without chemical treatment. During treatment, the iron in the raw
waste increased to 1.9 mg/1. The average iron concentration in the effluent during
treatment was 6.1 mg/1, ranging from 4 mg/1 to 8 mg/1. At the 7-day once in 10-year
drought flow of about 40 cfs, a sewage flow of 0.4 MGD with a concentration of 6 mg/1
of iron in the waste discharge would produce a concentration in the total river of
about 0.1 mg/1.
82
-------
2708
so
see O
so
V
O O.so
MAT
Jou6
83
-------
2709
250
ZOO
I
100 O
I-
0\ 0.50
1
o.as
I
-24-
A/0
2L
T#£A TMEJV T
30 O
S/IM/'i.l.fi/G-
MA*crf AP*»ll-
AfAY
rl V* r
JOIOE
-------
2710
•70
(,0
jui-r
A06UST
SEPT.
85
-------
K
°
PROBABILITY 46 8OO3
X 90 DIVISIONS ..oil. ul...
jzr/9
».S9
99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
90
8°
SO
40
20
^M
:nc
!E
..i..._
:t-
.n:
TT~rr
it;:
_ i __
-^-H
Pt
:Ef
-i'O
^!^-
mr.
M
L14-t-'
o e
-I • u-
-H-rr
TtEt
.ri.:/
DOP-O*
•y.L>j
i..t 4
:T
7/^P
i
j
-h--t:
... i
-1 -- •
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2
TO 30 40 50 CO /O SO 90
L To off
ro
-------
0.56
V
o.zs
2712
A/\
\
•9 HOt/f J'/>/VS>t./AfG-
T* -N Plj »- X «S
<^<
juwe
87
-------
00
00
D4.6
Michigan Department of Health
99.99
, 60
95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
99.9 99.8 99.5 99
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 O.S 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
98 99 99.5 99 8 99. a
ro
->3
H
U)
-------
2714
JUNE
JULY
4U60ST
SEPT.
89
-------
D4.6
Michigan Department of Health
99.99
90
99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 (10 . 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
Z 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
..I :.ii
M ••:!••••
i
. i
-------
2716
OBSERVATIONS DURING CHEMICAL TREATMENT
1. Percent total phosphate removal followed the same general pattern as suspended
solids removal.
2'. Percent phosphate removal appeared to be independent of the flow rate and raw
suspended solids concentration.
3. Percent phosphate removal appears to be independent of the raw phosphate
concentration.
4. Removal of suspended solids was consistantly in the range of 70% to 85% and the
concentration in the treated effluent was generally in the range of W mg/1 and
60 mg/1 although raw waste concentrations varied greatly from day to day with
extreme values ranging from less than 150 mg/1 to greater than 300 mg/1.
5. Percent BOD removal followed much the same pattern as suspended solids removal.
6. During the period of chemical treatment, concentrations of suspended solids and
BOD were much more uniform in the treated waste than noted during periods when
chemicals were not applied.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be deduced from these studies:
1. Bench scale studies demonstrated that thorough mixing of ferrous
iron with raw sewage for a period of 1 minute or less forms an
insoluble product of unknown structure with little or no
measurable orthophosphates and that total phosphates in the
range of 80% to 90% or higher may be removed thereafter from
the waste by the addition of alkalinity and anionic polymers
with gentle flocculation followed by a short period of
sedimentation.
2. Bench studies indicated removal of turbidity in the order of
80% to 95%. .
3. Bench studies demonstrated that certain polymers are more
effective than others.
4. Plant scale studies confirmed bench scale observations that
thorough mixing of the polymer followed by gentle flocculation
are essential for maximum effective removal of total phosphates
5. Plant scale studies demonstrated that removal of 65% to 75% of
total phosphates, removal of 70% to 85% of suspended solids,
and removal of 50% to 70% 5-day BOD can readily be achieved
on the Grayling waste water with minor alterations in the
conventional primary treatment facilities.
91
-------
2717
Mixing and flocculation achieved with the minor modifications
made and installed at this plant were much less than required
for maximum removal of total phosphates. Installation of
equipment and facilities in a conventional manner.for such
purposes may be expected to increase substantially the
effectiveness of removal of total phosphates with related
higher percentages of removal of waste constituents as
measured by the suspended solids and BOD tests.
92.
-------
2718
APPENDIX G
STUDIES ON REMOVAL OF PHOSPHATES
AT
LAKE ODESSA, MICHIGAN
93
-------
2719
STUDIES ON REMOVAL OF PHOSPHATES
AND
RELATED REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED
MATTER AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
AT
LAKE ODESSA, MICHIGAN
MAY - OCTOBER 1967
CONDUCTED BY:
WASTEWATER SECTION
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
.MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
2720
INTRODUCTION
Lake Odessa is a community of 1,800 located on the shores of Jordan Lake, an
inland lake in west-central Michigan, where intensive water-related recreational
activities are carried out on a year-round basis. The rate of eutrophication of
Jordan Lake, a naturally eutrophic lake, has been greatly accelerated by the organics
and nutrients discharged from the municipal wastewater treatment plant in recent years.
It has been determined that a higher degree of treatment, including nutrient removal,
is necessary to preserve and enhance water quality for accustomed and desired
recreational uses.
Studies on phosphate removal using ferrous chloride and polymers, being conducted
cooperatively by the Department and the Dow Chemical Company at Grayling, Michigan, -
showed excellent promise of substantial reduction of total phosphates and suspended
solids. With this background, arrangements were made with the Dow Chemical Company
and the Village of Lake Odessa to conduct a study at Lake Odessa, utilizing the
principles.developed by Grayling, and adapting them to these particular waste
characteristics and physical facilities.
Initial bench studies, conducted early in June 1967, indicated that Lake Odessa
waste water would respond to chemical treatment in a manner similar to that experienced
at Grayling. It was then decided to proceed with plant scale studies. No significant
modifications in plant facilities were made and temporary facilities for chemical
feeding were installed.
The plant scale studies were performed cooperatively by personnel of the
Department, the Dow Chemical Company, and the Village of Lake Odessa. These studies,
begun in early June 1967, were conducted through September. During this period, plant
loadings fluctuated widely as a result of the operations of a sizeable food processing
industry in the Village.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
To conduct a study, cooperatively with the Dow Chemical Company, to ascertain the
amenability of Lake Odessa waste water to treatment utilizing ferrous .chloride in
conjunction with anionic polymers for removal of phosphates, and related removal of
suspended matter and biochemical oxygen demand, by both bench scale work and plant
scale operation.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANT FACILITIES
The Lake Odessa .wastewater treatment facilities, constructed in 1954 to replace
an earlier plant, consist of:
1. Combination comminutor-screen chamber.
2. Parshall flume-measuring raw wastewater flow.
96
-------
2721
r
3. One primary sedimentation tank, 12 feet x 50 feet with an average
water depth of 8 feet, equipped with mechanical sludge and scum
removal equipment. (.Volume = 1,800 cubic feet)
4. Pumping station - primary effluent plus portion of trickling filter
effluent pumped to trickling filter with two 450 gallons-per-minute
pumps.
5. One trickling filter - 62 feet diameter x 6 feet media depth.
(18,100 cubic feet of media) Recirculation from trickling filter
effluent to trickling filter influent.
6. One secondary sedimentation tank - identical to primary sedimentation
tank.
7. Disinfection facilities - gas type chlorinator with a capacity of .
150 pounds a day, equipped to feed chlorine both to primary and
.secondary sedimentation tank inlets. The sedimentation tank
serves as a chlorine contact chamber.
8. "One, fixed cover, sludge digestion tank with capacity of 13,758 cubic
feet. Original plant septic tanks, with a capacity of 13,330 cubic
feet, are used for sludge storage and concentration.
9. Sludge drying beds with a total area of 6,560 square feet.
10. Service building with a laboratory fully equipped to conduct a
program of wastewater analysis; i.e., solids analyses, BOD
determinations, pH, colorimetric analyses.
BENCH SCALE STUDIES
Jar tests were conducted during the period June 7-15, 1967, using variable speed
laboratory mixing apparatus with 6 jars in parallel, to determine amenability of Lake
Odessa waste water to phosphate removal by chemical treatment. Various concentrations
of ferrous chloride, polymers and sodium hydroxide were used. Order of addition, time
of contact and types of mixing and flocculation were studied.
It was found that iron in the form of ferrous chloride, in concentrations ranging
from 15 to 40 mg/1 (Fe++) would consistently remove orthophosphate in the 90% range.
Contact periods, ranging from 1 to 5 minutes between the iron and waste water, were
equally effective in phosphate removal. Following the experience gained in the Grayling
studies, only 2 anionic polymers were used in the bench scale studies, 1 proving to be
very effective and superior to the other.
The bench scale studie's indicated that the polymers should have approximately 1
minute of rapid mixing, followed by 2-3 minutes of slow flocculation in order to
develop an optimum floe.
It was determined that .the chemical dosage regime to be established for plant
scale studies would include the following average feed rates:
1. Ferrous iron = 30 mg/1. - (as Fe++); Sodium hydroxide = 30 mg/1,
(as CaC03)-, polymer = 0.5 mg/1.
97
-------
2722
OBSERVATIONS - BENCH SCALE STUDIES
1. Lake Odessa waste water is amenable to treatment with ferrous iron in con-
junction with sodium hydroxide and polymers for removal of phosphates, under
closely controlled conditions.
2. Successful application of this method of treatment may require modifications
in plant facilities to accommodate chemical feeding, mixing and flocculation
devices for optinum floe development with polymers.
PLANT SCALE STUDY
Following the bench scale studies, it was determined by the Lake Odessa Village
Council to proceed to apply this technique in a full-plant study. It was decided to
determine what degree of phosphate removal could be achieved by the addition of
chemicals in a manner as closely approaching the principles followed in the bench
scale studies as possible without modification in plant facilities.
Chemical feed equipment was located at a sewer manhole some 500 feet upstream
from the comminutor chamber at the plant site to feed ferrous chloride and sodium
hydroxide into the raw wastewater flow. Polymer feed equipment was installed at
the coraminutor chamber. All chemicals were applied.with electrically driven
diaphragm-type chemical-feed pumps.
PROCEDURE FOR CHEMICAL ADDITION
Iron chloride in the ferrous form (FeCl2) was fed into the plant influent sewer
through plastic tubing inserted through a manhole located some 500 feet upstream from
the comminutor chamber, extending upstream from the manhole. Sodium hydroxide was
fed through plastic tubing inserted through the same manhole, extending downstream
from the manhole a distance such that the sodium hydroxide was applied to the waste-
water flow some 10-15 seconds after the iron was applied. Turbulence in the sewer
was depended on for mixing of these chemicals with the raw waste. The contact time
while flowing through the 500 feet of sewer to the comminutor chamber averaged about
4 minutes. Polymer was fed to the raw waste flow at the comminutor chamber.
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
Surface Settling Rates and Detention Periods
Surface settling rates and detention periods were dependent on rates of raw waste
flow arriving at the plant from the gravity sewer. Daily average surface settling rates
varied during the study period from 170 to 970 gallons per day per square foot, with
wide fluctuations occurring throughout the entire period, caused essentially by
variations in operations at a local food processing industry.. Average daily primary
sedimentation detention periods varied from 1.9 to over 10 hours during the survey.
98
-------
2723
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Trickling Filter Loading Rates
Trickling filter loading rates during the formal study period during which
chemicals were fed, CAugust 6 to September 13) ranged from 1 to 47 pounds of 5-day
BOD per day per 1,000 feet3. During the period of study following cessation of
chemical feeding, (September 14 to 29) these loadings ranged from 5 to 43 pounds of
5-day BOD per day per 1,000 feet3.
Sedimentation - Surface Settling Rates and Detention Periods
Since the secondary settling tank is identical to the primary settling tank, and
flows through the secondary tank are equal to those through the primary tank, surface
settling rates and detention periods were identical to those reported under "Primary
Sedimentation".
SLUDGE DIGESTION
A record of sludge digester loadings and gas production is presented for the
months April-October, inclusive, for the years 1966 and 1967 for comparative purposes.
In 1967, the monthly average digester loading ranged from 12.4 pounds volatile solids
per day per 1,000 feet3 (May) to 52.5 pounds volatile solids per day per 1,000 feet3
(July).
PERIOD OF THE STUDY
Full-scale plant studies for phosphate removal were conducted from July 5 through
September 29, 1967. Samples were collected and analyzed 5 days per week. Testing was
limited to BOD and suspended solids during the initial period July 5-20 when no
chemicals were fed. Chemical feeding was commenced on July 21. The period
July 21-August 3 was considered as a "start-up period" during which the process and
techniques were stabilized. Sampling and testing for BOD, suspended solids, and
ortho and total phosphates were conducted during this "start-up period". (Data for
this period is not included in the reported results.) Continuous chemical feeding with
sampling and analysis for BOD, suspended solids and phosphates was carried out from
August 6 through September 13. On 6 days during this period, chemicals were added in
less than established dosage rates by reason of equipment malfunctions and other
unusual circumstances. Data for these 6.days are not included in the reported results.
Complete data on BOD, suspended solids and phosphates was obtained and is reported
herein for the period September 14-29, following cessation of chemical feeding.
99
-------
2724
SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES
1. All flow measurements were obtained by a flow recorder operating in conjunction
with a 6-inch parshall flume located in the comminutor chamber.
2. Sewage sampling was accomplished by use of suction-type constant rate composite
samplers. Hand collected samples were obtained for digester supernatant liquor
analyses.
3. Laboratory analyses for suspended solids, BOD, and ortho and total phosphates
were conducted according to Standard Methods. Iron analyses were performed using
an atomic absorption apparatus. Digester sludge was examined by X-ray defraction
for presence of "Vivianite" - ferrous phosphate [Fe3 (P04>2 • 8H20].
DISCUSSION'OF DATA
The data obtained during the study is graphically represented in Figures I
through V, and in Tables 1 and 2, except for periods where only partial or no chemical
feeding was accomplished. (See also discussion under "Period of the Study".)
Suspended Solids
Statistical plots of the data for suspended solids removal for periods both with
and without chemical treatment are shown in Figure I. All data for each period are
arranged in order of magnitude and plotted on normal probability paper against
probability of occurrence. During the period of no chemical treatment, percent
removals of suspended solids varied widely from extreme values of 65% to a high of
about 90% with a centering or most probable mean value of 78%. Performance was much
more stable during the period of chemical treatment as indicated by the flatter curve
plotted through values ranging from about 82% to 95% removal with a most probable
mean value of 89%. Applying the overlapping test for statistical difference between
the 2 means in the range of 3 standard errors, it is found that the difference is
statistically significant and could not occur by mere chance. Figure II also
illustrates the more stable performance at a higher level of efficiency of BOD
removal attained during the period with chemical treatment as compared with the period
when no chemicals were added.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Statistical plots for BOD removal are shown in Figure III in ^he same manner as
for suspended solids. It is apparent that very wide changes in BOD removal were
experienced during the period when chemicals were not added. Percent removal of BOD
during this period ranged from a low value of 24% to 73%. However, during the period
of chemical treatment, all except 3 values were 72% removal or higher with all except
6 values between 72% and 89%, indicating a much more stable condition-. The mean value
for percent BOD removal during chemical treatment was 82%. Here, also, the difference
in performance during the 2 periods was statistically significant, representing real
changes which cannot be attributed to chance.
100
-------
I
2
v
§
Q
\
90-
80-
OjOl
ai
I I I
I I I I I . I I
SOLID3
\ \
10
20 »0 40 SO «0 7» to
90
9S •»
ro
->i
M
VJI
-------
2726
T#£Ar*1£*tT STUDIES
102
-------
1114 II
o
OJ
aoi
99.M
10
-^3
IV)
-------
2728
Table 1 shows also that the percent removal of BOD with chemical treatment
exceeded that obtained without chemicals in each trickling filter loading range with
respect to both minimum and average percent BOD removals attained within each loading
range. It is noted that trickling filter loadings during the chemical treatment
period remained below 50 pounds per day per 1.000 feet . while higher loadings were
experienced on 7 days during the period when no chemicals were used. Figure IV shows
that BOD removal was at a higher level and more stable during the chemical treatment
period.
Phosphates
Total phosphate' concentrations during the period of chemical treatment usuaij-y
ranged between 20 mg/1 and 60 mg/1 in the raw waste and between 4 mg/1 and 7 mg/1 in
the final effluent. A statistical plot of phosphate percent removal values obtained
during the chemical treatment period is shown in Figure V. Except for 3 days in this
period,.the total phosphate removal was 75% or above, ranging between 75% and 93%. with
a 'mean value of
Total" phosphate analysis during periods without chemical treatment showed low and
widely varying removals, ranging from 0% to' 49%. (See Figure VI)
Iron
Total iron analysis indicated an average of 1.2 mg/1 in the plant effluent during
the chemical treatment period, ranging from 0.7 ing/1 to 10.0 mg/1.
Sludge Dig'estion Liquor
Monthly average sludge digestion data for the months of April through October,
both for 1966 and 1967, are shown in Table 2. These data show average monthly values
of gas production, volatile solids loadings, and temperature. It is noted that a large
withdrawal of digested sludge from the digester was made in mid-July 1967. undoubtedly
accounting for the decreased gas production, rate during that month.
Analysis of total phosphates and orthophosphates in the digester supernatant
liquor made during the period preceeding chemical treatment showed an average of
about 373 mg/1 total phosphates and 81 mg/1 orthophosphates. These values represent
the average results of samples collected and analyzed on 7 days preceeding chemical
treatment. Supernatant samples collected and analyzed on 10 days during the latter
portion of the chemical treatment period showed an average of 69 mg/1 total phosphates
and 22 mg/1 orthophosphates. While this data on the digester supernatant liquor is
limited in quantity, it appears to support the conclusions drawn by E. A. Thomas in
his report on studies at the Uster treatment plant at Zurich, Switzerland, that even
though iron-phosphate sludge is fed continuously to a digester, the phosphates bound
in it apparently are not liberated in the sludge digestion process, rather, a further
reduction of the phosphate concentration in the digester liquor takes place, indicating
that the iron-phosphate sludge is capable of binding additional phosphates in the
digester.
104
-------
2729
Table 1
LAKE ODESSA, MICHIGAN
1967
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STUDIES
TOTAL PLANT BOD REMOVAL COMPARISON
AT ^VARIOUS TRICKLING FILTER LOADINGS
July 5-September 29, 1967
(42 days data)
Trickling Filter
5-day BOD Loading
lbs/day/1000 Ft. 3
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60'
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
101-110
No Chemical Treatment
Number
of
Values
1
4
4
5
- - -
. - - -
3
• _ _ _
1 •
1
2
% 5 -day BOD Removal
Range
24-72
50-65
43-93
No Values
No Values
52-69
No Values
61-73
Arithmetic
Average
66
50
60
65
- - -
- - -
59
_ _ _
39
69
67
With Chemicals Added
Number
of
Values
7
5
4
3
2
- - -
- - -
. - - -
_ _ _
_ _ _
- - -
% 5 -day BOD Removal
Range
65-95
40-87
59-96
78-88
74-83
No Values
No Values
No Values
wo Values
No Values
No Values
Arithmetic
Average
81
72
84
82
78
_ _ _
- - -
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
- - -
105
-------
2730
TREATMENT
X « PR/MA #Y EFFLUENT
106
-------
'04
.
"0.01
#r/*?o\/AL - M JAVA AY
of rar/tt
12 S 10
30 40 SO CO 70 80 90 «S 98 99
99.99
to
-j
U)
-------
2732
r#£ATrt£m STUDIES
TOTAL PHOSPHATES
108
-------
Table 2
LAKE ODESSA, MICHIGAN
1967
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STUDIES
SLUDGE DIGESTION DATA
Year
Gas Produced
(100 Ft,3./day)
Volatile Solids
Ibs/day
Volatile 'Solids
lbs/day/100 Ft.3
Temperature °F
Gas Produced
per pound of
Volatile Solids
pH
April
'66
. 18
260
19.0
91
6.9
'67
15
270 i
19.7
92
5.6
May
'66
14
170
12.4
92
8.2
'67
16
170
12.4
92
9.4
6.8
June
'66
24'
180
13.1
13.9
'67
30
320
23.4
92
9.4
6.5
July
'66
31
400
29.2
92
7.8
'67
22
720
52.5
92
3 . 1=''
6.1
August
'66
20
290
21.2
92
6.9
'67
23
350
25.5
91
6.6
7.0
September
'66
29
480
35.0
92
6.0
'67
35
4
550
40.2
91
6.4
6.4
October
'66
34
550
40.2
90
6.2
'67
24
390
28.4
90
6.2
6.7
o
ID
* Large withdrawal of digested sludge in mid-July.
to
-^3
U0
U)
-------
273^
OBSERVATIONS DURING CHEMICAL TREATMENT
1. Percent phosphate removal followed a general pattern similar to suspended solids
removal.
2. Percent phosphate removal appeared to be independent of the flow rate and raw
suspended solids concentration.
3. Percent phosphate removal appears to be independent of the raw phosphate
concentration.
4. Removal of suspended solids was consistently in the range of 83% to 90%, even
though raw waste suspended solids concentrations varied greatly from day to day
with extreme values ranging from less than 300 mg/1 to more than 900 mg/1. The
mean value of 89% represents significant improvement over the mean value of 78%
removal of suspended solids attained without chemical treatment.
5. Percent BOD removal followed much the same pattern as suspended solids removal.
6. During the chemical treatment period., suspended solids and BOD concentrations
were much more uniform in the treated waste than noted during the period when
chemical treatment was not used.
7. No deterioration in sludge digestion was observed during or following the
chemical treatment period as determined by common parameters such as gas produced
per unit weight of volatile solids and pH. Further, a decrease in both total and
orthophosphate concentrations in the digester supernatent liquor was observed
during and immediately following the chemical treatment period.
8. At the conclusion of the chemical treatment period, an analysis of the digester
sludge by X-ray defraction technique., revealed the presence of a high concentration
of ferrous phosphate [Fe3 (PO^) • 8^0], a phosphate rock commonly known as
"Vivianite". It appears that this is the insoluble product formed when ferrous
iron is mixed with raw sewage.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Bench scale studies demonstrated that thorough mixing of ferrous iron with Lake
Odessa raw waste water .for a period of 1 minute or less forms an insoluble
product with little or no measurable orthophosphate and that total phosphate
removal .from the wastes in the range of 80% to 90% or higher may be attained
by the addition of alkalinity and anionic polymers with gentle flocculation
followed by a short period of sedimentation.
2. Plant scale studies demonstrated that removal of 73% to 95% of total phosphates,
removal of 83% to 95% of suspended solids and removal of 72% to 95% of BOD can
readily be achieved on the Lake Odessa waste water with existing treatment
facilities equipped with chemical feeding even in the absence of any mixing
and flocculation facilities.
110
-------
2735
3. Mixing and flocculating achieved were much less than required for maximum
removal of total phosphates. The installation of facilities and equipment for
these purposes may be expected to increase substantially the effectiveness of
removal of .total phosphates.
4. The return of digester liquor to the plant process under the chemical treatment
regime described above should have no adverse affect upon the removal of total
phosphates.
1:3:1-112
-------
2736
APPENDIX H
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE HATER DISCHARGES
IN
THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
113
-------
2737
TABLE I
DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
DISCHARGES TO
LAKE MICHIGAN
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Itt.
15,
16.
Company Name
Bay Street Steam Plant
Cherry Growers, Inc.
Consumers Power
Company
Consumers Power
Company
Dow Chemical- Company
E. I. duPont
de Nemours and
1 Company
Frigid Foods, Inc.
Inland Lime and Stone -
Company, Division
Indiana Steel
Company
Leelanau Fruit
Company
Manistique Pulp and
Paper Company
Medusa Portland Cement,
Morgan McCool
Northport Cherry
Factory . . -
Packaging Corporation
of America
Penn-Dixie Cement
Corporation
U.p. Power Company
Product
Electricity
Canning
products
Electricity
Electricity
Chemicals
Synthetic
rubber, freon
acetylene
Canned
cherries
Limestone and
wash aggregate
Processed
cherries
Paper
Cement
Food products
Canned '
cherries
Paper
board
Cement
Electricity
Locat ion
Traverse City
Suttons Bay
Port Sheldon
Big .Rock Point
t
Ludington
Montague
Suttons Bay
Gulliver
Suttons Bay
Manistique
Charlevoix
Traverse City
Northport
Filer City .
Pet os key
Escanaba
flow 5-ddy BOD Solids Status
Treatment MGD ibs/day Ibs/day Rating
Screening 0.8 No Data Available -
Temperature 175 No Data Available • A
control
A
1.0 1,000 A
Septic tank I'/. 3 4,:i^8 A
coagulation ,
sed imenta t ion
Disc. 1500' off
shore
Screening, city - - No Data Available - - . A
sewer
Septic Ldiin. and 0.168 40.6 -A
settling basins -(8 hours)
Vibrating screens -. - N6 Data Available - - B
and chlorination
. City sewer, save- 2.028 2,729* 16,572* 'Dc
all, ponds
Package - - No Data Available - -
treatment plant • '
Screening . 547 1 ,866 109 • E
Vibrating screens - - No Data- Available - - A
screens
Settling 10.0 . 20,000 13,500 BS
Septic tank, - - No Data Available - - A
. settling ponds
------ NO Data Available ------ A
Date of
Order of
Determination Remarks
Seasonal
operation
I960 on radioactive
of effluent
Brine wastes to
• Lake Michigan
June 25; 1964
Decmeber 20 ,
1963
June 26, 1963
submitted
content
March 26, 1964 *Reflects loading
for old system
April 28, 1966 New plant
Plans to relocate to
off-water location
September 24,
1959
Cooling waters
only
114-115
-------
THE
TABLE 2
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
WATER DISCHARGES
IN
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
1967
2738
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment
Company Name
UPPER PtMINSULA
1. Mvnoaiinee River Basin
American Can Company,
Me nominee Mill
Daggett Cheese
Coapany
( Homer-Wauseca )
Receiving
Wax paper Hfi nominee Heno-ninee
River
Cheese Daggett Little
Cedar
River
iron ore
Suspended Pollution Date of
Treatment Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
Federson t. l.i2G l,6t--8 S.U89
vacuum disc
save -a 1 Is
Septic tar.*., A
wney r.auled
by floor wash
to swan.?
lagocn for
mine
drainage
Remarks
Additional con-
trol facilities
being installed
Harma Mining Company Mining
(Groveland Mine) iron ore
Randville Pine Creek Lagoons
Inland Steel Company Mining Iron River
iron ore
Palestine Cheese
Company
Scott Paper Company
White House Milk
Company
Stephenson
Gr. wood Menoninee
and pulp
Butter and Stephenson
Powdered
Milk
Iron River Septic tank, 0.360
lagoon for
acid mine
drainage
Little Cedar Septic tank, 0.02
River haul whey
Kenooinee side hill 0.070
River save-alls
Little Cedar Conb. waste O.Q3
-------
2739
Discharge Characteristics
'after Treatment
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA
10., Pine River Basin
East Jordan Canning
Company
Howes Leather
Company, Inc.
Northern Michigan
Electric Co-op
11. Elk River Basin
Columbia Fruit
Division, Michigan
Fruit Canners, Inc.
Elk Rapids Packing
Company
Taas Foods, Inc.
Lamina Tool and Die
Corporation
12. fioardman River Basin
Chef Pierre, Inc.
Morgan-McCool , Inc .
Parsons Corporation
Traverse City
Canning Company
13. Betsie River Basin
Elberta Packing
Company
Pet, Inc.
Pet Milk Company,
Pct-Ritz Foods
Division
Product
Vegetables
and fruit
Tannery
Power
Vegetable
canning
Cherry
canning
Vegetable
canning
Plating
Pie
Food
Products
Tube
fabrication
Canned
fruit
Canned
fruil;
Frozen
cherries
Pies,
apple and
cherry
Location
East Jordan
Boyne City
Advance
Ellsworth
Elk Rapids
Central
Lake
Bella ire
Traverse
City
Traverse
City
Traverse
City
Traverse
City
tiDerta
Frankfort
frank fort
Receiving
St ream
Jordan River
Lake
CharJevoix
Lake
Charlevoix
Intermediate
Lake
Elk Lake
Intermediate
Lake
Intermediate
Lake and
Cedar River
Boardman
Lake
Boardman
River
Grand
Traverse Bay
Mitchell
Creek
Boardman
River
oetsie Lake
Betsie Lake
Betsie Lake
Treatment Flow 5-day BOD Solids .
Provided MGD Ibs/day Ibs/day
City sewer,
lagoons
Primary 0. SCO 1 ,800 3 ,000
settling
Settling
lagoon for
fly ash
Spray .569 1,713 3,037
irrigation,
vibrating
screens
Screening . 500 BOO 150
and
c h lor i nation
Rotary
screen
Batch
treatment
of cyanide
Septic tank,
dry well
Screening
Settling
lagoon
Screening 5«7 1,866 109
Screening
Screening "20 760 150
Screening 600 930 235
Status Order of
Rating Determination Remarks
E
E September 29,
1951
Bpc September 29,
1965
A
Bs Seasonal
opera t ion
*s
A
A
C March 30, 1966
B August 29, 1963
E
B
D
-------
2740
Discharge .Characteristics .
, ' after 'Treatment ' . - 1967
Company Name -
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
14. Manistee "River Basin
Great Lakes Chemical
Corporation
Hardy Salt Company' .
— Michigan Chemical
Corporation
Horton Salt and
Chemical Company
. Packaging Corporation
of America,
American Box Board
Division
15. Big Sable River Basin
16. Lincoln River Basin
17. Pere Marquette River Ba;
Dow Chemical Company
, Harbison -Walker
Refractories Company
Sanders Meat Packing
Company
Stokely-Van Camp ,
. Inc.
18. Pentwater River Basin
19. White River Basin
Hooker Chemical "
Company
1 Miseo" Precision
Casting Company
Whitehall Leather
Company, Division
of Genesco
PVoduct-
Bromine
''
Salt
Bromine
chemicals
Salt,
magnesium ,
bromine
Paper-
board
sin
Chemicals
Magnesite
Meat
Packing
'Cannery
Chemical Cl2
Caustic HCL
Metal
Castings '
Tanning
Location
Tiler City
Manistee
• East Lake
Manistee
Filer City
-
Ludington
Ludington .
Custer
Scottville-
Montague
' Whitehall
Whitehall '
Receiving
.Stream
Manistee
Lake
Manistee
Lake
Manistee
Lake -
Manistee
Lake
' Manistee
Lake
Lake
'Michigan
Lake
Michigan
and Pere
Marquette
River
Pere
Marquette
River
Black River
-Pere
Marquette .
River
:
White take
White Lake
White Lake
• , Suspended Pollution Date of
Treatment .' Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
Provided • HGD Ibs/day Ibs/day Rating' Determination ' . Remarks
Septic tank, 0'.**23
brine wells
Settling '8.0
lagoon
Condenser 0 . 120
Eductors 15 '
Settling . - 5.00
lagoons
Settling 10.00
lagoons
industries located in
...
Clarifier,
brine to
Lake Uf4 . 5
Michigan not
included
Clarifiers, 5.3'
coagulant • . *
acids
. Lagoon - - No
Screening . 0.500
•and
chlorination
.
Sedimenta- 900
tion, sand
' filtration;
chlorination
Sedimenta- . - - No
tion traps
Lagoon to 1.2
lake
.Neg- W',-500 April 25, 1957
ligible
•p
. Veg- 17
ligihlo
h.eg- 19,00' April 30V 1959 '
ligible • . .
2,000 .5,000 A_ • -September 2K,
• '1959
20,000 13,500 • . Bs .
7,000 .A May 22, 1957
Neg- 8,000 . A
ligible
Neg- 500 B March 23, 1961
ligible. -
Data Available - - D
300 • .175- A May 2t, 1956 Seasonal
. .
3,000 A • ' June 28, 1956
Data Available - - . c
2,100' 608 • Bso
118
-------
2741
Company Name
Receiving Treatment
Stream • Provided
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment 1967
- Suspended Pollution Date of
Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
HGD Ibs/day Ibs/day Rating Determination
Remarks
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
20. Huskegon River Basin
Brooks and Perkins,
Inc., Cadillac
Manufacturing Division
Campbell, Hyanf and
Cannon Foundry Company
Central Concrete
Products -Company
Consumers Power
Company, B.C. Cobb
Plant '
Continental Motors
Corporation , Down-
town
Continental Motors
Corporation, Getty
Street Plant
Denham Manufacturing
Company
Evart Products
Company
Gerber Products •"
Company
H, J. Heinz Company
Kaydon Engineering
Corporation
Lake way Chemicals,
Inc .
Liberty Dairy
Company
Naph-Sol Refining
Company
Ott Chemical Company •
Paris Gravel Company-
Aluminum
sheet
preparation
Castings
Washed
gravel
Electric
power
Auto
engines
Auto
engines '
Electro-
plat ing
Baby food
Pickles
Bearing
Alcohol
base
• detergents
and dye
intermedias
Bottling
plant
Petroleum .
refining
Washed
sand and
Cadillac
Muskegon
Big Rapids
Muskegon
Muskegon
Muskegon
Big Rapids
Evart
Fremont
Lake view
Muskegon
Muskegon
Evart
North
Muskegon
Muskegon •
. Big Rapids
Clara River
. Ruddiman
Drain
Muskegon
River
Muskegon*
River
Muskegon
Lake
Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
Twin Creek
Darling
Creek and
Fremont
Lake ,
Tamarack
Lake
South Br.
Ruddiman
Creek
Black River
and Mona
Lake
Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
Little Bear
Creek
- Muskegon
River
Ion exchange' - - No Data Available - - B
Oil recovery - - No Data Available — - A '
Settling - - No Data Available - - - A
ponds
Settling 450 No Data Available
lagoons for
sludge and
fly ash ' . - -
Oil 0.81 130 • 450 Dpc
separator
CN and 0.46 38 196 A
• chrome.
treatment ,
oil sepa-
ration, acid .
neutralizing . -
Cr treatment .0916 No Data Available • May 24 , 1956
Cooling - - No Data Available - - B
water
Spray 1.0 No Data Available A
irrigation, " . • . -
• cooling
water to •
stream -
Screening .- - No Data Available - -
Clarifiers . .270 9 119 ' Eps October 27, 1966
Seepage 0.344 700 7,500 Bs May 24, 1962
lagoons . •
Wash and . . . " . -
cooling 0.171 161 143 - August 24, 1966 New plant .
water . -
API sepa- 5.0 " 175 405 A July 24, 1958
rator and
lagoon
Seepage .4175 1,045 •£,.£ August 29, 1967 Hew treatment
lagoons • facilities under
construction
Settling - - No Data Available'- - A
ponds
gravel
-------
Company Ha
Receiving Treatment
Locat ion Stream . Provided
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment 1967 •
Suspended Pollution Date of
Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
. _M_GD Ibs/day Ibs/day Rating Determination
27^2
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
20. Muskegon River Basin Continued
Sealed Power
Corporation
Speas Company
Wallace Stone
Company
Warren, S. D.,
Company
Auto parts Muskegon
Heights
Apple Fremont
juice
Washed Hersey
stone and
gravel
Paper Muskegon
pulp
Ruddiman
Drain' and
Mona Lake
Cole Drain,
Brooks Creek
and Fremont
Lake
Muskegon
River '
Muskegon
• Lake
Reduction - - Ho Data Available - - D
of chrome
Cooling ' 1.12 No Data Available A July 26, 1961
water to
stream
Settling - - No Data Available - - B-
pond s
Clarifiers, 12.0 13,000 18,000 E December 7, 1955
save-all,
sludge
lagoons
21. Grand River Basin
Allen Packing
Company
American Motors
Corporation,
Kelvinator Division
Amway Corporation
A.S.P. and
Manufacturing
Company
tAttwood Corporation
Placing Company
Aunt Jane's Foods,
Division of the
Borden Company
Bissell, Inc.
Sanitary sewage
Industrial wastes
Challenge Porcelain
Company
Cherry Growers, Inc.
Clark Equipment
Company
Crystal Refining
Company
Slaughter-
packing
Home
cleaning
products '
Plating
Cadmium
plating
Plat ins
Pickle
processing
Sheet metal
parts
fabrication
Bathtubs
Cherry
canning
Machinery
Oil
refininc
Charlott e County
farm drain
Wyoming Plaster
Creek
Ada Grand River
Grand Haven Grand River
Lowell Flat River
Edmore Stoney
Creek .
Walker Indian Mill
Creek
Grand Haven Grand River
Bailey • Fish Creek
Jackson Grand River
Carson City Fish Creek
Lagoon - - No Data Available - - A
Chemical - - No Data Available - - A
treatment
Stabilize- .063 809 . 187 D July 23, 1964
tion
lagoons
Chemical 0.084 No Data Available D
precipita-
t.on neutra-
lization
Cyanide and 0.20 • Su Eg December 15, 1960
chrome
reduction
Screening .0242 74. 7 • 29.8 E June 28, 1967 New treatment
- facilities
planned
Settling 0.03 20 16 . April 24, 1958
tanks
. A
A
None .090 25
Seepage - - No Data Available D March 25, 1965
lagoon .
Lagoon ' 12 ' D Occasional J.6ss
of oil to river
Oil ' 0.043 3
remova 1
-------
2743
Discharge -Characteristics
after Treatment
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
Product
Locat ion
Receiving
Stream
Suspended Pollution . Date of
Treatment Flow 5-day BOD Solids- Status Order of
Provided MGD Ibs/day Ibs/day Ratine Determination Remarks
21. Grand River Basin Continued
Detroit Gasket and -
Manufacturing Company,
- Extruded 'Metal Division
Eagle Ottawa Leather
Company
Electro Chemical
Finishing Company
Federal Mogul
General Motors
.Corporation, Diesel
Equipment Division
General Motors
Corporat ion ,
Oldsmobile Forge
Division
General Motors
Corporation,
Oldsmobile Division •
Gibson Refrigerator
Company
Gibson Refrigerator
Company
Grand Rapids Brass
Company
Hastings Aluminum
Products , Inc .
Hastings Manufacturing
Company .
Hilf inger Jackson
Corporat ion
Hupp Corporation
Hudsonville Dairy
Indian Summer, Inc.
.Extrusion
and
aluminum
anodizing
Hide-
•tanning
Electro
plating
Lead, tin,
copper
plating
Metal
manufac-
turing
Forgings
Crank
shafts and
connecting
rods
Cooling
Equipment •
Cooling
Equipment •
Zinc die
casting
Aluminum
coating
Auto '
parts
Zinc
plating
auto parts
Apple '
juice and '
Belding
Grand Haven
Hiddleville
Greenville
.Grand Rapids
Wyoming
Lansing
-
Delta
Township,
Eaton
County
Greenville
Belding
Wyoming
Hastings
Hastings
Jackson
Belding'
Hudsonville
Belding
Flat River
Grand River
.Thornapple
River
Flat River
Grand River
Plaster
Creek
Grand River
Jenne
Drain,
Flat River"
Flat River
Buck Creek
Fall Creek
Thornapple
River
Grand River
Flat River
Rush Creek
to Grand
River
Flat River
Phosphate '.70 6.0 150 B
and oil
removal _ .
Screening 1.4 . 16,000- 24,000 Ecp September 28,
1960
Cyanide, .300 No Data Available ' .April 27, 1967
chrome and .
other metal
treatment,
lagoons ,
neutraliza-
tion
Chemical 0.3 No Data Available
treatment, . . - -
lagoons
Cyanide and - - No Data Available - - A
chrome 2.120 8 D November 30,
reduction , • 1967
settling
ponds
Oil removal - - No Data Available - - A
Chemical ..072 2 A February 24, 1960
treatment
lagoon .
Lagoon 0.1 No Data Available A
Oil • .04 .No Data Available B
separator
Cooling - - No Data Available - - B March 25, 1965
waters
- - No Data Available - - A
Chrome .28 Ho Data Available A November 30,
and oil . • 1961
removal
Cooling and '0.24 15 'B May 22, 1957
anodize rinse
to river and
phosphate
recovery
Oil - - No Data Available - -
separator
Septic tank 0.33 20 ' 35 D
Settling .418 1,500 - 589 . B
pond .
Jervis Corporation
vinegar
Metal - Grandville Grand River
finishing
Chemical 0.788 No Data Available
treatment of
cyanides and
•chrome sed-
imentation
-------
2744
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
Product
Location
Receiving
Stream
Treatment
Provided
Suspended
Flow 5-day BOD Solids
MGU l&s/day Ibs/day
Pollution Date of
Status Order of
Rating Determination Remarks
21. Grand River Basin Continued
Keeler Brass Company
Kroeger Company
LeFere Forge and
Machine Company
Company, Inc.
Light Metals
Corporation
Michigan Consolidated
Gas Company .
Michigan Milk
Producers Association
1
Municipal Power Plant
National Fruit
Products Company ,.-Inc .
Nelson Metal
Products , Division
of Midland Ross
Corporat ion •
New York Central RR
Ore-Ida Foods , Inc .
Owens-Illinois Glass
Company
Packaging Corporation
of America , American
Box Board Division
. Packaging Corporation
of America, American
Metal
-i -ring
office
Truck hubs
and gear
blanks
•Metal
stamping
Extrusions"
Gas
compressor
station
Milk
plant
Electric
" Power
• Cherry
process
Die cast
plant
tFruit and
vegetable
freezing
Glass
Corrugated
. boxes
Paper
cartons -
Middleville
Township,
Kent '
County
Jackson
Paris
Township,
Kent
County
Wyoming
Six Lakes
Ovid
Grand Haven
Kent City
Grandville
Jackson
Greenville
.Charlotte
Grandville
Grand Rapids
Thornapple
River
Creek
Grand River
Plaster
Creek
Roy's Creek
Drain
First Lake
at Six
Lakes Drain
Maple River
Grand River
Ball Creek
Buck Creek
. Grand River
Dickerson
Creek
Butternut
Creek
Roy's Creek
Drain '.
Grand River '
Cyanide
reduct ion ,
neutraliza-
tion , sludge
removal
sludge,
chlorination
Oil
separator
Septic tank
and urder-
drained sand
filter, with
chlorination
Chemical
neutraliza-
tion, sedi-
mentation
sludge lagoon
Cooling
water
Spray
irrigation
Cooling
water
Stabiliza-
tion , ground
seepage and
irrigation
None
Oil traps
Primary
clarif ier ,
lagoons ,
spray
irrigation
Sedimenta-
"tion
None '
Save-alls
- - No Data Available - -
.265 233 280
- - No Data Available - -
0.54 344
H-.32 No Data Available
0.5 15 8.87
0.34 No Data Available
0.1 No Data Available
- - No Data Available - -
0.07 No Data Available
- - No Data Available - -
- - No Data Available - -
- - No Data Available - -
2.5 3,000 6,500 .
A
July 26, 1956
B History of oil
losses
E .' September 29,
1965
DS August 26, 1960 - -
A March 21, 1955
A November 29, Cooling water to
1962 'stream
A • Seasonal
discharge
B July 28, 1966
A
B September 23,
1964
' ?."
B
B
Box Board Division
-------
2745
uischarge Characteristics
after Treatment
1967
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
Product
Location
Receiving
Stream
Treatment Flow 5 -day BOD Solids
Provided MGD Ibs/day Ibs/day
Status Order of
Rating Determination Remarks
21. Grand River Basin Continued
Pet Milk Company
Pittsburg Forging
Company
•Ranny Refrigeration
Rockford Paper Hills,
Inc.
Samary Food Products
Saranac Manufacturing
Company
Swanson Pickle Company
Store-A-Way , Inc .
Super Food Service
Trailmobile .
Universal Metal
Products
1 Utilex Corporation
White Products
Corporation
Withrow Pickle
Company
Wolverine Finishes
Corporation
Wolverine World Wide,
Inc.
Condensed
milk
Forging
Refrigera-
tors
Box "
board
Fruit
processing
Plating
and
buffing
Pickle
brining
Meat
processing
Food ware-
house and
office
Washing
trailers
and tank
trucks
Metal
products
Plating
Water
heaters ,
water soft-
eners and
plumbing
ware
Shoes ,
tanning
Coopersville
Jackson
Greenville
Childsdale
Coopersville
Saranac
Ravenna
DeWitt
Grand
Rapids
Saranac
Fowlerville
Middleville
Sand Lake
Wyoming
Rockford
Deer Creek
Grand River
Flat River
Rogue River
Deer Creek
Grand River
Crockery
Creek
Lookingglass
River
Creek
to Plaster
Creek
Grand River
Red Cedar
River
Thornapple
River
Round Lake
Plaster
Creek
Rogue River
In-plant - --No Data Available - -
controls
Oil 0.07 No Data Available
skimmer
Lagoons 0.015 JO
Clarifiers 1.0 1,200 4,000
"Spray • 0.03 300
irrigation
and
screening
Cyanide and .150 No Data Available
chrome treat-
ment , lagoon
seepage
lagoon
In-plant . .001 10 ?0
controls
sludge
grease
removal
None .200 35
Cyanide and .350 - 20 . 120
chrome
settling
lagoon, oil
skimmer
Cooling 0.01 5 S.7M "
water
- - No Data Available - -
Chemical - - No Data Available - -
precipita-
tion
Screen ing , . 600 2 , 000 1 , 000
clarif iers ,
vacuum filter
B
A
B
A July 29, 1965 Does not run
every year
July 29, 195U
Bc '
A January 26 ,
1961.
November 30 ,
1961
June 22, 1961
C ' 65 Ibs/day
phosphate
B January 28,
1953
A October 26,
1961
C
Bc
Ds March 26, 1952
-------
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
22. Black River Basin
Bohn Aluminum
Corporat ion
DeWitts Poultry
Processing
Donnelly Mirrors
Hart and Cooley
Manufacturing Company
H. J. Heinz and
Company
Holland Suco Color
Company
Holland Die Casting,
Inc.
James DeYoung
Generating Station
Keeler Brass Company
Meade , Johnson and
Company
Miles Laboratories ,
Inc.
Parke, Davis and
Company
1
23. Kalamazoo River Basin
Albion Malleable Iron
Company
Allegan Metal
Finishing Company
Allied Paper
Corporation, Monarch
Division
Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Allied Paper
Corporation, Bryant
Division
Solids ' '
Oxygen demand
wastes
Allied Paper
Corporation, King
Division
' Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Product
Extrusion
aluminum
Poultry
processing
Glass
mirrors
Furnace
supplies
Canning,
pickles,
vinegar
and cider
Organic
colors and
chemicals
Zinc
castings
Electric
power
Drugs
Drugs
Synthetic
1 drugs ,
chemicals
Iron
castings
Electro-
plating
Paper
Paper
Paper
Location
Holland
Zeeland
Holland
Holland
Holland
Holland
Holland
Holland
Zeeland
Zeeland
Zeeland
Holland
Albion
Allegan .
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
Receiving
Stream
Wildwood
Drain to
Lake
Macatawa
Black River
Lake
.Macatawa
Black River
via County
Drain
Lake
Macatawa
Lake
Macatawa
Black River
Lake
Macatawa
Brower
Drain
Black River
Hunter
Creek .
Lake
Macatawa
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Portage
Creek -
Portage
Creek
Kalamazoo
River
after Treatment
Suspended
Treatment Flow 5-day BOD Solids
Provided HGD Ibs/day Ibs/day
(Jickel .180 23 55
recovery and
. neutraliza-
tion
Septic tank, 0.106 3.1 8.0
screening, and
sand filters
Lagoons .098 103 294
'Septic tank, .010 3u 21
stabiliza-
tion ponds
Screening .850 2,225 1,000
Clarifier . 800 1 ,700 HOO
Neutraliza- .223 59 48 '
tion lagoon
Cooling .- - No Data Available — -
water
Lagoon and .015 M 2
neutraliza-
tion of acid
Activated .182 90 197
sludge
Lagoon 1.17 107 60
Primary 7.2 im»
settling
and C12
ox idat ion
Dust ' 0.780 4,511
collection,
settling
Cyanide and .007 No Data Available
metal treat-
ment
Clarifier 2.0 . 400 300
Clarifier «.0 8,000 7,000.
Clarifier .8 900 100 .
1967
Pollution Date of
Status Order of
Rating Determination Remarks
Dc October 25, 1956
Es
E., April 23, 1952
P
E
' D May 27, 1965
B March 25, 1959
June 28, 1967
B
B
A . February 2U , 1950
A
CP
D March 28, 1963 Ground water
contamination
October 2t,
1951
A
A
A
E •
October 2*4 ,
1951
A
!••
-------
27^7
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
23. Kalamazoo River Basin
Aluminum Extrusions,
Inc.
American Aggregate
Corporat ion
Brown Paper Company
Mill 1
Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Brown Paper Company
Mill 2
Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Brunswick Corporation
Division of Gulf and
Western (Scotts, Inc.
Clark Equipment
Company
Consumers Power
Company
Consumers Power
Company
Corning Glass Works
Culligan Soft Water,
Inc.
DeKleine Packing
Company
I Eaton, Yale and Towne
Product
Continued
Extrudes
aluminum
Gravel
washing
Parchment
and wax
paper
Parchment
and wax
paper
Furniture
)
Fork lift
trucks
Electric
power
Electric
power
Glass, TV
tubes
Water '
softening
Pickles
.and
relish
, Gears
Location
Charlotte
Kalamazoo
Parchment
Parchment
Kalamazoo
Battle
Creek
Battle
Creek
Corns tock
Albion
Battle
Creek
Bentheim
Marshall
Inc., Marshall Division
Fresh-Pak Corporation
General • Foods
Corporation
Grand Trunk Railroad
Company
Kellogg Company
Lakeside Refining
Company
Lorton Products
ornpany
Menasha Corporation,
Paper Board Division
Solids .
Oxygen demand
wastes
Michigan Fruit
Canners, Inc.
Murray Packing
Company
Canning •
Cereal
Repair
of
equipment
Fuel
oil
Rendering,
fertilizer
products
Paper
Board
Fruit and .
vegetable
canning
Slaughter
and
packing
Martin
Battle
Creek
Battle
Creek
Battle
Creek
. Kalamazoo
East ' •
Otsego
Fennville
Plain we 11
Receiving
Stream
Battle Creek
River
.Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Allen Creek
River
. Kalamazoo
River
Battle •
Creek River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Black Creek
to Big
Rabbit River
Kalamazoo
River
Gun River
Battle Creek
River
Battle Creek
River
Battle Creek
River
Allen Creek
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
River •
Mann Creek •
via County
Drain - '
Kalamazoo
R'iver
Treatment
Provided
Lagoons
Sedimenta-
tion
Lagoon
Lagoon
Sedimenta-
tion, oil
separator
chrome
treatment ,
lagoon
Oil
removal
Cooling
water
Cooling
water
Clarif ier.
neutraliza-
tion
Controlled
discharge
Septic tank.
screen
Lagoons
None
Cooling
water
Oil
separator
Cooling
water
Oil floata-
tion, skim-
ming.
•recovery
Septic tank,
irrigation
Save-all*
Irrigation
Lagoons
Suspended
Flow 5-day BOD Solids
MGD Ibs/day Ibs/day
- - No
- - No
- - No
- --No
0.252
- - No
- - No
- - No
0.03
.00&
- - Ho
0.144
0 . 20
- - Ho
' .369
- - No
- - No
0.050
0.356
.500
- .010
Data Available - -
Data Available - -
Data Available - -
Data Available - -
20.
-------
2748
LOWER
23.
24.
25.
Company Name
PENINSULA CONTINUED
Product
Location
Receiving
Stream
Treatment
Provided
Discharge Characteristics
Suspended Pollution Date o.f
Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
HGD Ibs/day Ibs/day . Rat ing Determination Remarks
Kalamazoo River Basin Continued
New York Airbrake
Company
Sanitary sewage
North American-
Extrusions Corporation
Pet Milk Company
Plainwell Canning
Company
Ralston Purina Company
Shakespeare Corporation
Union Steel Products
Company
Valley Metal Products
Company
Waldorf Paper Products
Company, Mac Sim Bar
Division
Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Weyerhaeuser Company
Solids
Oxygen demand
wastes
Black River Basin
Du-well Decorative
Company
Michigan Fruit
Canners , Inc .
South Haven Chemical
Company
Paw Paw River Basin
Burnette Farms
Packing Company
Clark Equipment
Company
Coloma Cooperative
Canning Company
Hartford Metal
Protection Company
Pumps ,
mot ors ,
Aluminum
tubing
and
anodizing
Dairy
products
Canned
fruit
Dog and
cat food
Electro-
plating
Wire
products
Aluminum
extrusion
Paper
board
Paper
Decora-
tive
Metal
Fruit
products
Canning
vegetables
and fruits
Canning
Chrome •
plated
parts
Galesburg
Parchment
Wayland
Plainwell
Battle
Creek
Kalamazoo
Albion
Plainwell
Otsego
Plainwell
Bangor
South Haven
South Haven
Lawrence
Benton
Township,.
Berrien
County
Coloma
Hartford
Kalamazoo'
River
Travis Creek
Rabbit River
Kalamazoo
River
Battle Creek'
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalanazoo
River
Kalamazoo
•River
Kalamazoo
River
Black River
Black River
Black River
Brush Creek
Ox Creek
Paw Paw
River
Pine Creek
Trickling
filter, oil
floatation
and removal
Septic tank
neutraliza-
tion , lagoons
In-plant .
controls
Seasonal
spray
irrigation
Plating
recovery
system
Complete
treatment
. for plating
waste
Neutraliza-
t ion , lagoon
Clarifier
and stabili-
zation lagoons
Activated
sludge
Complete
plating .
waste
treatment
Screening
Controlled
discharge
Septic tank
and spray
irrigation
.Cooling
water
Screening,
irrigation ,
lagoon
Complete
plating
'waste
.192 7.13 5.58 September- 28,
1955
A
A
.7 • 124 E October 30,
1957
.049 145 27 A
.0436 49u B
- - No Data Available - - B
- - Ho Data Available - - A February 23,
1966
- - Ho Data Available - - BC
- - No Data Available - - B
1.1 2,035 940
A
B
1.75 3,800 2,600
B
Dc
0.20 .122 A
0.447 2,316 403.4
- - No Data Available - - A
0.050 300 B
.050 No Data Available • A
- - No Data Available - -
.071 84.5
treatment
-------
2749
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment - 1967
Company -Name
LOWER PENINSULA .CONTINUED
Product
Location
Receiving
Stream
Suspended Pollution Date of
Treatment . Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
Provided MGD .Ibs/day Ibs/day Rating Determination Remarks
25. Paw Paw River Basin Continued
Honee Bear Canning
Company
Midwest Timer Service,
Inc.
Millburg Fruit
Exchange (Kay Foods)
Murch- A. F. and
Company
Pearl Grange Packing
Company
Pet Milk Company,
Musselman-Dwan Division
Quality Frozen Foods
Sill Farms
Watervliet Paper
Company
Welch Grape Juice
Company
Fruit
products .
' Chrome
plating
Canning
Grape_ and
cherry
juice
Canning
vegetables
and fruits
Cherry
processing
Juices,
jams
Lawton
Hagar
Townsh ip,
Berri en
County
Millburg
Paw Paw
Bent on
Township,
Berrien
County
Paw Paw
Lawrence
Lawton
Townl ine
1 >rain
Pratt Drain
Blue Creek
.Jennings
Drain
Yore and
Stoef fer
Drain
Paw Paw
River
River
Brush Creek
River
Lawton Creek
Lagoons - - No Data Available - - A July 28, 1960
Lagoons -' - No Data Available - - A .July 28, 1960
Oxidation - - No Dat;* Available .- - B
[>cnds
Septic tank, 0.72 300 i>" September 21,
si-. ray irrip.a- . 1961
tion ...
oeptic tank, ,u?r> 100 ' .A
lap.oon, spray
irripat ion
Screening, 0,10 740 33S E
j.j-ray
irrifcution-
Screening - - No Dal -i Ava i lablo - - B
Screen inj? , - - No Data Available - - B
spray
irrigation
Save -a lie 1.75 3, 000 1? ,'JO'i . A
Screening, 0.8 1 ,000 A
spray
irrigation
26.'St. Joseph River Basin
Alpha, Inc.
Metal . ' Eau Claire
plat ing
and tubing
American International Aluminum Coldwater
Extension Chemical
Drain and treatment,
other waters lagoon
St.
-------
2750
Discharge Characteristics
after Treatment 1967
Company Name
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED
26. St. Joseph River Basin
Kawneer Company
Plant No. 1
Kingston Products
Corporation , Douglas
Manufacturing Division
Kirsch Manufacturing
Company
Kirsch Manufacturing
Company
Lamb-Knit Goods
Michigan Mushroom
Company
Midland Hire
Corporation
Municipal Power Plant
Quincy Products •
Company
Research Holding and
Film Company
Rudy Manufacturing
Company
Schaefer Manufacturing
Company
Schmidt Packing
Company
Silver Mill Frozen
Foods, Inc.
Simplicity Pattern
Company, Inc.
Simpson-Lee Paper
Company
Stover Soft Water
Service
United Food, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Product
Continued
Building
products
Electro-
plating
Metal
industry
Metal
industry
Mushrooms
and
asparagus
Electrical
wire
Electri-
city
Refrigera-
tion coils
Heat
exchangers
Electro-
plating
and
anodizing
Meat
packing
Fruit
packing
Paper
patterns
Paper
• Recharge
water
softeners
Canned and
frozen • .
food
Paper
Nickel
plating
Location
Niles
Bronson
Sturgis
White
Pigeon
Colon
Niles
Three
Rivers
Cold water
•Quincy
Mendon
Dowagiac
Union City
Niles
Eau Claire
Niles
Vicksburg
Berrien
Springs
Sodus
White.
Pigeon
Benton
Harbor
Receiving
Stream
St. Joseph
River
County
Drain
Fawn River
1
White' Pigeon
Lake
Sturgeon Lake
St. Joseph
River
St. Joseph
River
Cold water
River
Marble Lake
Drain
St. Joseph
River
Pine Lake
Drain
St . Joseph
River
Dowagiac
Creek
Farmers
Creek
St. Joseph
River via
fcacey Creek
Gourdneck
Creek
St. Joseph
River
Pipestone
Creek via
County
Drain
White Pigeon
River
St. Joseph
River
Treatment
Provided
Septic tank,
chrome
treatment
City and
chemical
treatment
of plating
.wastes
Oil
reraova 1
None
Septic tank
Vibrating
screens
Cooling
water.
closed
system
Cooling
tower
Chemical
destruction
of CN
Oil trap.
ponds
cooling
water to
lagoons
In-plant
control
None
Lagoons
Save-all
units
Sedimenta-
tion with
coagulation .
Controlled
discharge
Screening ,
irrigation
- .
Floatation,
save-all, '
clarifiers
Chemical
treatment
Suspended Pollution Date of
Flow 5-day BOD Solids Status Order of
MGD Ibs/day Ibs/day Rat ing Determinat ion Remarks
0.612 50 Dp February 25,
1953
0.158 100 A March 21, 1950
0.15 4 200 A
0.7 8 204
- - No Data Available - - Dp
0.025 200 A
- - No Data Available - - A January 3,
196«*
- - No Data Available - -
.056 50 7. if Dsp May 28, 1958
0.120 No Data Available B
0.305 u.i Ap December 3,
1964
0.08 50 ES
- - No Data Available - - C
0.68 500 110 Dcp January 21,
1966
1.18- 1,350 2,360 Dps . Additional !
all units
planned
4.21 2,306 - 2,692 , BS December 5,
1957
0.01 . No Data Available . April 26, 1956
- - No Data Available - - Bsp
2.0 u,200 5,000 B
0.144 No Data Available A September 23*
1964
and lagoons
-------
2751
Discharge Characteristics
aj^ter Treatment
1967
Company Name
Product
Location
Suspended Pollution Date, of
Receiving Treatment flow S-day BOD • 'Solids Status Order of
Stream Provided HGD Ibg/day Ibs/day. Rating1 Determination
LOWER PENINSULA CONTINUED .
Industries with Discharges in Hinor Drainage Areas
BU-Mar Poultry
Elk Rapids
Packing Company
Onekama Canning
Company
Petoskey Plating
. Company -.
Smeltzer Packing
Company
Poultry Borcula
processing
Pigeon River Settling
basins*
lagoons
Fruit
packing
Canning
cherries
Auto
parts
Cherries
and
apples
Lake
Leelanau•
Onekama
Petoskey
Benzonia
Lake
Leelanau
Portage
Lake
Herring
Lake
Screening
and
chlorinatioa
Screening
Chemical
'treatment
Screening
August 29,
1967 •
June 22, 1961
125-130
-------
2752
APPENnix I
MUNICIPAL HASTE WATER DISCHARGES
IN
THE LAX*: MICHIGAN
131
-------
TABLE I
MICHIGAN'S
2753
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER
DISCHARGE
INVENTORY
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
1. HENOHINEE (HICH.)-
munity^
I
Discharge Characteristics
Receiving Treatment Population
Waters Provided (1961 est.)
Suspended
5-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids
Influent Effluent Effluent Influent
mg/1 mg/1 % Removal mg/1
Suspended Suspended
Solids • Solids
Effluent Effluent
me/I' % Removal
Flow
MGD
Status and Abatement Action
Alpha
Caspian
Crystal. Falls
Armstrong Primary 300
Creek ST
Iron
River
Primary
IT
Iron
River
1.U90
Paint None 2,200
River
Primary 600
ST
' NO Data Available
No Data Available
No Data Available
Ho Data Available - -
Iron Mountain - Henotninee Primary 1U.UOO 280
Kingsford River
0.150 Staff recoroirendation on..
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to HRC
- by Harch 1, 1968.
0.220 Program in progress.
. Facilities to be in
operation by June 30, 1969.
0.060 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be -presented to WRC
- by Harch 1, 1968.
1.18 Final Order adopted M
November 21, 1950. Staff
recommendation on adequacy
cf present treatment to be
presented to WRC by
March 1, 1968
Iron River Iron Primary 3,300 136
River
Henominee Primary 11,400 89
River
30. 161
27 107
0.30 Final Order adopted' X .
November 21, 1950. . Staff
recommendation on adequacy
of present treatment to be
presented to WRC by ...
March 1, 1968
1.89 Staff"recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968.
Mineral Hills Iron Primary
River ST
Norway
Stambaugh.
Menominee None
River
South Republic '• Michigansae Primary
River ' ST
3,200
_ _ - No Data Available
__ ____ NO Data Available ----------
Ho Data Available - -
Iron Secondary - 1,900 188
River AS
0.030 Staff recommendations on
adequacy of present treatr .
ment to be presented to WRC '
by Harch 1, 1968.
0.320 Order adopted August 29,
1967. Program'-in progress.
Facilities to be in •
operation by July 1, 1968.
0.010 Staff .recommendation on
. adequacy of present treat-'
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968..
0.09 Final Order adopted £•
. November 21, 1950.' Staff
recommendation on adequacy
' of present treatment to be
presented to WRC. by "
March 1, 1968
Stephenson
Little
Cedar
River
'Secondary
TF "
Menominee Primary
River. ST
___:. -NO Data Available -__-.--.
0.18 Staff.recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be 'presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968. '
0.015 Staff I'ecoramendations'on
adequacy of present treat-.
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968.
9 Designates Orders which have, been confirmed by court action.
*fc Designates Orders which are currently under court review.
132-133
-------
2754
Discharge Characteristics
Community
2. BIG CEDAR
Pinecrest
Medicare Facility
3. FORD ' ' .
». ESCANABA
' Palmer
5. DAYS
Gladstone
6. RAPID
Masonville
7. VHITEFISH
8. STURGEON
Sagola
1
9. MAKISTlqUE
ilanistique
10. PINE
Boyne City
Charlevoix
East Jordan
H^ ELK
Bellaire
Receiving Treatment
Haters Provided
Big Cedar Secondary
River . TF
Warner Primary
Creek ST
Lake Primary'
Michigan
Rapid Nona
River
West Primary •
Branch ST
Sturgeon
Manistique Primary
River
Lake Primary
. Charlevoix • •
Pine Primary
River
Lake . Primary ;
Charlevoix
•Inter- • None- •• ' ,
mediate
River
Elk R1*MT> Ppiaanr '
Suspended Suspended Suspended • V j
S-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids ' Solids • Solids \f-
Population Influent Effluent' Effluent Influent Effluent 'Effluent Flow
(I960 est.) mi/1 '• . mg/1 \ Removal mg/1 • mg/1 ' t Removal KGD Status and Abatement Action
850 •-- No Data Available - - - T 0.085 . .
5, MOO 230 158 .. 29 260 110 56 0.67 Staff recommendation on
. ' ' ' . ' adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented' to HRC- .
.by March 1, 1968.
" ' . ' . ' September 30, 1966.
- ' Corrective program underway
U.SOO 37 22 '.• U3 31 17 • U7 1.68 Final Order adopted.
' ' ' • ' '.: ' ' October 21, 1950. '
2,800 88 09 U7 ' 95 39 58 0.22 Final Order adopted ,
'.'••'.••. ' ' ' . September 23, 1952.
2,800 .217 ' 130 ' UO 202 61 61 0.38
' - ' ' »'
1,920 113 -65 UO .151 . 6Sf 58 0.086 Final Order adopted
'.'"-• ''...' ' '"'" J6- W5°-
December 16, 1966.
Corrective program' underway
1.015 '--„.•--.---. No Data Available .----.---_•- 0.10? Tinal nivlA^ MAnnt** Mav 9^-
-------
2755
Discharge Characteristics
12.
13.
1U.
15.
16.
17;
Community'
BOARDMAN
KAlkaska
Traverse City
BETSIE
Beulah
Elberta
Frankfort
XANISTEE
• Manistee
Hanton
BIG SABLE
LINCOLN
PERE 'MARQUETTE
Custer
Receiving Treatment .
Waters . Provided
'
.River L
Boardman ' Primary
River
.
LaJce . IT
Betsie Primary
River
Betsie Primary
River
Hanistee Primary
River
Cedar and None
Nanton
Creeks
Black None
Creek
. • Suspended Suspended Suspended •
5-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids . Solids . Solids
Population Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent
(196<4 est.) 'mx/1 mg/1 % Removal mg/1 mg/1 ' % Removal
'
Available
18,500 . 203 16U 19 185 66 63
. ' .
• 550 161 100 .39 213 78 62
1,690 397 331 19 220 107 51
8,300 182 128 . 30 155 ' 69 52
1,050 ----:- - - No Data Available ------- .-'-
- • ' . . • . • ' •'
•
. ' '
V . •• .
Flew
HGD Status and Abatement Action •
0 137
3..60 ' Signed a Stipulation for
secondary treatment and
phosphate removal* Plant
scheduled for construction '
by December 31, 1970..
o.ouu •
0.081 Order of Determination
adopted August 22, 1950.
o.m . - - ' •
0.52
0.105 Conference held before WRC
December 16, 1966.
.Corrective program underway '
0 037 Conference held before WRC
December 16. 1966.
Ludington
Scottville
1 Corrective program underway •
Pens Primary 9,000
Marquette
River
Pere Secondary • . .1,245
Harquette L
River
39 . IB 93 63
-- No Data Available ' - - 0.125
18. PE1ITWATER
Hart
Pentwater Secondary
River - L . . '.
• Pentwater ' Secondary
River L
1,990
1,030
- - - - No Data Available
No Data Available
0.199 Final Order of Determination
- . adopted September 26,'.1963.
19. WHITE
White Cloud
White
River
White
River
Primary 1,000
IT • .
Primary
.2,800
270
162.
0.46
.0.21
-------
2756
i-
scharge Characteristics V'
Discharg
Coonunity
20. HUSKEGON
Big Rapids
Cadillac
. . Evart -
Fremont
Howard City
Harion
Huskegon
Muskegon Heights
Newaygo
North Muskegon .
Reed City
21. GRAND
Ada Township
(Ada)
Township
Ashley
Be Id ing
Kent County
Caledonia
- Carson City
Casnovia
Receiving
Waters
Muskegon
River
Clam
River
. Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
Creek
Middle
Branch
River
Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
* ' Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
Muskegon
River
Thorn-
apple
River
Mill
Creeks
Ashley
• Drain
Flat
River
River
Thorn- .
- apple •
River
Fish •'
Creek
Ball
Creek
Treatncnt
Provided
Primary
Secondary
AS
Primary
Secondary
TF
None
None
Primary
Secondary
AS
Primary
Primary .
Primary
Primary
ST
None
None
Secondary
L .
None
Primary
' ST • •'
None
Hone
Suspended Suspended Suspended
5-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids Solids Solids
Population Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent.
(1961 est.) mgVl mg/1 % Removal mg/1 . mg/1 % Removal
10,100 218 98 18 229 92 55'
10,300 208 30 85 232 • 52 77
1,775 ' 70 29 59 71 18 32
3,100 513 15 97 221 27 88
13,000 127 93 27 110 51 61
19,900 237 23 90 281 21 91
1,150 160 105 35 199 ' 62 68
1,000 230 163 31 191 127 33
. 2,180 623 272 51 270' 171. 36
' . ' - ' •'
.. . . . o ata Availa le
5,000 - . . No Data Available
710 ' - -»_•--' NO Data Available --, •----'-..
.1,200 '-No Data Available
. . 371 No Data Available -----
.; .
V
Flow
MGD
0.60
0.95
0.28
0.338
0 09
7.86
1.86
.0.08
0.27
0.11
0.05
0 . 50
0 01
0.50
0.071
0.12
0.'-37
Status and Abatement Action
Final Order adopted
May 23, 1952.
Final Order adopted
July 28, 1960.
««
Final Order adopted
January 21, 1966.
December 16, 1966.
Corrective program underway
Preliminary studies under-
way for proposed advanced
treatment needs.
• Final Order adopted
January 24 , 1950.
Order of Determination
adopted July 26, 1950.
Additonal treatment needs
being investigated.
Conference held before WRC
February 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway
Final. Order adopted • ,-
July 28, 1966. Corrective
program underway
August 29, 1967.
Correct ive program underway
February 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway .
Conference held before WRC
.February 21, 1966'.
Corrective .program underway
Final Order adopted
January 17, 1968. Plant
to be in .operation by
June 1, 1969.
^onfer^nce held before WRC
February 24, 1966. -
-------
2757
V/ Discharge Characteristics ^
Community
21. GRAND CONTINUED
Cedar Springs
Coopersville
Delhi Township
Delta Township
DeWitt
DeHitt Township
Dimondale
Edmore
East Lansing
Eaton Rapids
Fowler
Fowlerville
Gaines Township
(Cutlerville)
Gaines Township
(Dutton)
Grand Haven
Grand Ledge
.Grand Rapids
Grandville . .
Grant
Greenville
Hastings
Receiving
Waters
Cedar .
Creek
Deer
Creek
Grand
River ' '
Grand '
River
Looking-
glass
River
Looking-
glass
River
Grand
River
Stoney
Creek
Cedar
River
Grand
River
Peet
Creek
Red
Cedar
River
Buck
• Creek
Plaster
Creek
Grand
River
Grand
River
Grand
. River
• Grand
River
Crockery
Creek
Flat
River
Thorn- .
apple
River '•
Treatment
Provided
Secondary
L
Secondary
TF
Primary
Secondary
AS
Primary
None
None
Secondary
L
Secondary
AS
Primary
Secondary
TF
Secondary
L
Nona
None '
Primary
Primary
Secondary
AS
Secondary
AS
Secondary
TF '
Primary
Primary
Suspended Suspended Suspended
5-day BOD 5 -day B6i» 5-day BOD Solids Solids Solids
Population .'Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent
(1964 est.) mg/1 mg/1 % Removal ' mg/1 . . mg/1 • % Removal
1,770 No Data Available
1,580 225 73 " 68 203 72 65
5 ,000 ' 288 127 56 304 87 71
7,600 206 - 21 ... 91 211 .12 .93
- 1,240 260 ' 190 27 352 '' 136 ' 55
37,800 .' 122 29 - 74 157 87 SB
4,300 357 234 34 291 145 49
850 . 561 .59 89 245 37 85'
1.670 . o
11,700 • 15U ' 71 • 51 128 56 51
5,500 199 111 13 233 .66 62
220,300 96 13 86 129 21 81
8,500 138 13 91 235. 9 95 '
730 290' 20. 92. 367 11 85
7,200 187 •' 118 36 201 71- 63
.7-.000 .236 165 . 30 267 U5 ',«
now . • '
HGD ' Status and Abatement Action
0.177
0.21 Conference held with WRC
February 21 , 1966 .
• Corrective program underway
0.19
0.718
0.053-Order of Determination
adopted January 25, 1962,' -
0.76 Final Order adopted
July 28, 1966. Facilities '
to be in operation by
.February 1, 1966.
0.090 Final- Order adopted
January 19, 1967.. Plant
to be in operation by
June 1, 1969. '
0;123
6.1
.0.27 'Final Order adopted
• September 25, 1951
0.085
0.167
Conference held before WRC •
February 21, 1966.
Corrective program underway
Conference held before WRC
February 21 , 1966,.
Corrective program underway
. 1.91
0.18
37.1 Order adopted
•November 22 , 1919 .
0.72 Final Order adopted .
.July 26, 1961
0.013 ••
1.05
-------
2758
y Discharge Characteristics^ V
Comunity .
21. GRAND CONTINUED
Hud sonv i 1 le
Ionia
Jackson
Kent City
Kent County
Airport
Laingsburg
Lake Odessa
Lake view
Lansing
Leon! Township, ,
Jackson County
Leslie
Lowpll
Lyons
Mason
Michigan
Reformatory
(Ionia)
Middleville
Nashville
Ottawa County
(Grand Valley
State College)
Ovid
Paris
Township (Part)
(City of
Kent wood)
Receiving
Waters
Butter-
' milk
Creek
Grand
River
Grand
River
Ball
Creek
Plaster
Creek
Looking-
glass
River
Little
Thorn-
apple
River
Tamarack
Creek
Grand
River
Grand
River
Huntoon
Creek
Grand-
River
Grand
River
Grand '
River
Grand
River
Grand
River
Thorn-
apple
River
Grand
River
Maple
River
Plaster
Creek
Treatment
Provided
None
Primary
Secondary
AS
Secondary
sr
L
None
Secondary
TF
Secondary
L
Secondary
AS
None
Primary
Primary
ST
None
Secondary
AS
Primary
Primary
IT
Primary
Secondary
L
None
None .
Suspended Suspended Suspended
5 -day BOO 5 -day BOD .5-day BOD Solids Solids Solids
Population Influent- Effluent Cffl.ucnt Influent effluent Effluent
(I960 est.) mg/1 BE/1 I Removal ni/1 rag/1 % Removal
6,750 90 59 ' .35 136 '72 <47
U8,SOO 108 6 93 206 . 16 92
1-
1,810 207 65 72 U26 63 88
122,000- 159 9 90 341 27 87
5,000
1,810 139 78 12 116 87 39
2,600 119 73 33 66 32 39
5,000 '261 3 99 260/8 97
. 2,500 275 155 03 1U7 78 16
1,200 ' - - - No Data Available
1,525 .- No Data Available 160 76 19
.. '.- Ho Data Available --.
1,500 . '.-------- -•-'- No Data Available -------------
19 ,000 .-.-- No Data Available . ~ ~ :~
\1/
Flow
MGD Status and Abatement Action
bef WRC
February- 2«*, 1966.
. ' Corrective program underway
1.20
9.07 Tertiary treatment program
underway .
0 . 062
0.50 -
February 21, 1966. Final
Order under consideration. '
O.i*2i* Final Order adopted
August 29, 1967.
Corrective program underway
0.113
22.2.
'0.50 Conference held before URC
February 214, 1966.
. Corrective program underway
0.169 Final Order adopted *
'July 25, 1951.
0.260
Conference held before WRC
February 2u, 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.232
0.60
0.120
0.171
-
0.15 Final Order adopted
'. July 28, 1967'. Plant to
be in operation by
August 1, 1968.
Conference held before WRC *
February. 21 , 1966.
Corrective program underway
-------
2759
^
Discharge Characteristics '
Community
21. CRAMP CONTINUED
Parma
Perry
Pewamo
Pine Rest
Hospital
(Cutlerville)
'
Plainfield .
Township ,
Kent County.
Portland
Rockford
Sand Lake •
St. Johns
1
Saranac
Sparta
Spring Lake
Stan ton
State Prison
•of Southern
Michigan
(Jackson)
Vemnontville
Walker
Uebberville
Williamston
Woodland
Wyoaing
. Receiving
Waters
McKay
Brook and
Sandstone
Creek
Looking-
glass
River
Stony
Creek
Buck
Creek
"
York & Mill
Creeks &
Lambert on
Lake
Grand River
Rogue
River
Black
Creek
Hayworth
Creek
Lake
. Creek
Nash
Creek .
Grand
River
Fish
Creek
Grand
River
Thorn-
apple
River
Tallman
Creek
Red
Cedar
Grand
River
. McArthur
Drain and
Woodland
. Drain'
Grand
River
•Treatment
Provided
None . •
None
None
Secondary
AS
.
Primary'
Primary
Secondary
L
Secondary
TF
Primary
ST
Secondary
•TF
Primary
IT
Secondary
L
Secondary
TF
None
None
None
-Primary
Primary
IT
Secondary*
TF
. Suspended Suspended Suspended
5-day BOD 5-day BOD S-day BOD Solids • Solids Solids
Population Influent Effluent Effluent- Influent Effluent 'Effluent
(196U est.) nw/1 mg/1 % Removal mg/1 mg/1 » Removal
BOO
1,1400 .
/
4400 .
500 a
•1 hi
1
3,500" • 253 1U7 U2 . 327 1U5 ' 55
2,075 173 71 59 228 '59 714
395 -No Data Available . - - -
5,900 liu 13 91 155 30 80
N Data Available
1'1°°
3,000- 260 - 34 . • 87 3W3 «7 ' 86
2,060 16U. 1114 30 186 8U 53 •
1,200
6,500 . 172 31 83 1U7 U7 68
BOO -----------No Data Available ------'------
8,270 - - ' No Data Available --'-----
700 -----------No Data Available ---•------'---
2;215 191 ; 1U5 25 250 90 £,'J
375 • 208 1? 89 .285 9 96
SJ.OOO 100 • 19 81 . 155 33 '76
i ''
Flow
HGD Status and Abatement Action
M '
0.08 Final Order adopted
April 27., 1967.
Enforcement proceedings in
progress.
O.li Conference held before WRC . ;
.' . February 21, 1966.
Corrective program underway
Conference held before WRC
February 21, 1966.
Corrective program underway
0 .05
1 20 F* 1 Ord d *
July 2B-. 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.293 Health Dept.l Agreement • •
0.186 Final. Order adopted
February 26, 1952.
0.010 • .
. 0.65'
0.11 Conference held before WRC .
February 21 , 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.271 Final order adopted &
February 26, 1952
0.29 •
0. 12 Conference held before WRC
February 21, 1966. .
Treatment provided .'
0.90 Additional treatment
facilities, including
phosphate removal, .
underway.
0..08 Final Order, adopted
September 27, 1967.
Corrective program - underway .
0.827 Conference held before WRC
February 21, 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.07 Final Order adopted . :
January 17, J.968. Plant
to be iii operation by
June 1, 1969.
u.ij;. Final Order adopted •
• July 25, 1951. Additional
facilities underway.
0.027 Final Order adopted *
January 28, 1959. • ;
-
7.25 Final Order adopted * ,: .
August 25, 1919
-------
2760
Discharge Characteristics
Cotonunity
22. BLACK (HOLLAND)
com ng
Holland '
Holla d Townshi
Ottawa County
• .Township
Zealand
Zealand •
Township,
Ottawa County
23. KALAMAZOO
Albion
Allegan
Battle Creek
Bellevue
Charlotte
Douglas
Fennvi lie
Galesburg
Hopkins
Kalamazoo
Marshall
Olivet
Receiving
Waters
Black
River
Laxe
Macatawa
Black
River
Black
River
Black
River
Black '
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Battle
Creek
River
Battle
Creek
River
River
Kalamazoo
River
Creek
Kalamazoo
River
Rabbit
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo.
River
Indian
Creek
Treatment Populat ion
Provided (1964 «t.)
None ' 500
nonary 21,800
None • —
None 500
Secondary 3,900
AS
None ------
Primary 12,800
Primary 5,000
IT
Secondary 10,700
TF
None ' ' 1 30G
Secondary 8,100
TF
None ' • 1 000
Septic tanks -600
.tile fields
L
None . 1,110.' .
None 550
Secondary - • 81 ,200
AS
Primary . 6,700
• Secondary l,18b
I
Suspended- Suspended Suspended /
5-day BOD S-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids - Solids Solids v/
Influent Effluent Effluent- Influent Effluent Effluent " Flow
«a/l rag/1 % Removal mg/1 mg/1 % Removal MGD
132 82 . " .38 122 53 48 2.71
-
--------'--- Ho Data Available 0 OS
191 • 9 94 251 23 B9 0.388
117 77 32 124 .67 \ 42 2.22
198 . my • 24 - 212 107 42 0.38
l ' • • •
385 98 75 468 58 - 87 10.7
• 298. 43 86 207 116 ' 44 0.55
A ' h
. ... NO Data Available ---' 0.14
.__' - NO Data Available - - ^ - - - --,---- 'o..055
208 18.5 89 . — ' . 82 . 24.5
7U 62 16 ' - 106 43 57 2.14
Status and Abatement Action
August 24,- 1966.
Corrective program underway
.August 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway
August 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway
August 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway
*
Order adopted April 28,
1954
XX
December 15, 1966.
Order of Determination
adopted September 26,
1950.
August "24, 1966. ' -'
Corrective program underway
Conference held before WRC
August 24, 1966.
Correction by individual
on-site systems.
Conference held before WRC
August 24, 1966. ' '
Corrective program underway
Conference held before WRC .
October 28, 1966.
Corrective program •underway
Final order adopted
December 19, 1950.
Final order adopted
September 27, 1949.'
February 18, 1965. •
.110
-------
2761
Community
Receiving.
Waters
Treatment Population
Provided' (1964 est'.)
• '< ' ' Discharge
f
\s
Characteristics
Suspended Suspended
5-day 'BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids Solids '
Influent Effluent Effluent 'Influent Effluent
-mg/1 mg/1 % Removal ' mg/1 mg/1
1
Supsended ^ /
Solids •'•"'
.Effluent Flow • •
% Removal HGD Status and Abatement Action
3. KALAMAZOO CONTINUED . '
Otsego
Parchment •
Plain we 11
Portage (Part)
Saugatuck
• Spring Arbor
Springfield
Springport
. Kalamazoo
River.
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
Kalamazoo
River
. Rice
Creek
Secondary 4,300
TF-
• Secondary 1,565
TF
Secondary . 3 ,400
TF
Secondary 1,400
AS
Primary . 925
Secondary 700
L
Secondary 4-,600
TF
None 690
407 ' 183 50 •
149 27 '82
" 224 - 53 • 76
252 25 90
207 177 16
•
316 65
168 ' 27
255 74 .
234 ib
246 122
'
72 0.46 Final Order adopted
October 24, 1951.
84 0.319 Final Order adopted
October 24, 1951.
71 ' 0.314 Final Order adopted
October 24, 1951.
93 . 0.14
50 0.44 Final Order adopted
July 26, 1950.
March 25, 1959. Treatment
provided by City of Battle
Creek
August 24, 1966.-
Corrective program underway
2U. BLACK (SOUTH HAVEN)
Bang or
1 ' .
Black
River and
Maple
Creek
Ttlar*tr
Secondary 2,110
L -
Mnna llfifl '
. No Data
.
"' . * "
.October 25, 1962.
August 24, 1966.
Corrective program underway
South Haven
Black . .Secondary 6 ,400
River AS
94 201
Benton Township Paw Paw . Secondary '.26,000
(Part) ' River . . AS
- - - No Data Available ----------
r"1™na
-Hartford -
Lawrence
Lawton
Paw Paw'
Watervliet
Paw Paw
River
Paw Paw
River
Paw Paw
River
Paw Paw
River
Paw Paw
' River .
Paw Paw
River •
Primary
Primary
. Primary
Secondary
: L
Primary
Primary
1,470-
2,305
1,400.
3,100
.. 1,820
228 141 . 38
149 97 35
-. - * ' - NO Data.
289. . . 236 16
- i . _. . NO -Data
"153 91 40
325 190 40
Available -. -
334 118 63
Available '- - -
Final•Order•adopted
September 27, 1949;
Treatment provided
by City of Bento'n Harbor
0.25 Final Order adopted
February 21, 1956. -
-------
2762
Receiving Treatment Population
Waters Provided (I960 est.)
Discharge Cha.
.ract eristic s \X^
SuspendedSuspendedSuspended
S-day BOl) 5-day SOU 5-day HOD Solids - Solids ' Solids
Influent . Cffluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent Flow
OR/1 ng/1 \ Removal mg/1 ng/1 % Removal MGD Status and Abatement Action
ii3ed- J -,
ds • \/
26. ST. JOSEPH (MICH.)
Andrews
University
St. Joseph Primary
River '
7,000
__..-. . ... - |j0 Data Available ------
Plans for secondary
treatment have been
approved.
Bent on Harbor St. Joseph Secondary 3b,bO() - y>nt
and St. Joseph River AS -
Berrien Springs St. Joseph Primary 1,950 |?o
River •
Branch County
Medical
Facilities
Sway
Creek
Primary
Secondary ?,?7o
TF
- - Ho Dot.i Available ---.--,----
St. .Joseph Primary
River
5, BOU
Cassopolis
Ground
• Haters
Secondary 2,030
b & SI
Centreville Prairie None
River
• Farmers None
Creek
Glen Oaks Prairie None
Coonunity - -. River
College
No D.ii.1 Available
No 1M1.1 Av.iil.aMi.-
Colo)water Coldwater Secondary 9,700. 238
River TF
Coldwater Stqte Mudd Creek Secondary
Home and AS
Training School
Constantine St. Joseph Primary
River
Dowagiac Dowagiac Primary 7,600 . 137 100 . 26
Creek. . • " . . * . -
No Data Available
NO Data Available - -. - - -•-' --------
Hillsdale
St. Joseph Secondary 7,000 160
River • TF . ' " .
5.51 Final Order adopted
September 27, 1919.
O.lb Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968.
Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
. by March 1, 1968.
6.80 Staff recommendation'on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968.
0.78 Staff recommendation on
adequacy"of present treat'
ment to be presented to WRC
by. March' 1, 1968.
0.70.1 Staff recommendation on
.ido-juacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968.
0.100 Conference held before HRC
August 24, 1966.
'Corrective program underway
O.TS Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968.
0.311 Staff recommendation on
adequacy, of present, treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March-1, 1968.
0.15 Final Order adopted
February 18, 1965. Staff
recommendation on adequacy
of present treatment to be'
presented to WRC by
Harch 1, 1968. 'j
1.25 Order of Determination
adopted September 26, 1957.
Staff recommendation on '
adequacy of present treat- -
to be presented to WRC '
•by Harch.1, 1968. •-
0-056 Final Order adopted
June 21, 1965. Corrective
program underway.'
Order of Determinaition
adopted April. 28, 1966.
. . . i.-i:,: .-i .'/, V"»'.>. 'Jtatl
recommendation on adequacy
of present treatment to be
presented to WRC by
March 1,'196B.
-------
2763
I V-
\/_ Discharge Characteristics M/
Receiving .Treatment Population
Connnunity Waters Provided (1961 est_._)_
Suspended Suspended Suspended
'5-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids .Solids . Solids
Influent Effluent Effluent Influent 'Effluent Effluent
JDfl/1 mg/1 V Removal mg/1 mg/1 \ Removal
V
Flow .
HGD
Status and Abatement Action
26. ST. JOSEPH CONTINUED ' . .
Joriesville St. Joseph None •
River
Litchfield St. Joseph None
River
Nile s
Quincy
Reading . Unnamed None
Dra ins
Sturgis
White
Pigeon
River
Union City
Vicksburg
St. Joseph Secondary.
River L -
MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE AREAS
1,900
1,000
St. Joseph Primary 15,800
River
Marble Primary . 1,600
Lake
1,130
Stevensvilie Hickory None 700
Creek
Secondary 9,500
Tr
Three Rivers -St. Joseph Primary 7,400
River
1,670
Portage Secondary 2 ,220
Creek TF
Bridgroan
Chikaming
Township
(Sawyer, Lake-
side, Union
Pier)
Escanaba
Galien
Tanner
Creek
Galien
River
Portage
Creek
Galien
River
Secondary
K
None '
Secondary
AS S TF.
None
1,1450
3, 480
15,000
750
Harbor Pointe Lake . Primary
Michigan ' ST
Harbor.Springs Lake ' • "Primary . 1,430
Michigan • FS.
No Data Available -----
No Data Available -
93 47 49 177 69
150 ' 77 ' 46 539 '' 76
No Data Available
.__.__..___'No Data Available ------------
264 39 85 388
105 ' 59 U4 136 " 60
___--__---- No Data Available - - - -
125 75 60 212
0.190 Final Order adopted
January 17, 1968.
0.100 •.Final Order adopted
January 17, 1968.
•J
2.89 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, .1968. -
0.10 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented, to WRC
by-March 1, 1968.
0.113 Final Order adopted
July 27, 1967. Corrective
program underway.
0.070 Final Order adopted
" May 26, 1967. •Facilities
to be in operation by
June 1, 1972. '
1.05 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to
WRC by March 1, 1968.
1.29 Final Order adopted
October 30, 1959. Staff
recommendation on adequacy
of present treatment to be
presented to HRC by
March 1, 1968.
0.167 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat- "
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968..
0.20 Order of Determination
adopted January 23, 1951.
Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment ' to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968.
.........-.Ho Data Available ------------
--No Data Available
214 28 88 190 30 86
- - - r ..--NO Data Available - -
No .Data Available -•--
" .__- NO Data Available
0.145 Final Order adopted
September 2U, 1959.
0.348 Conference held before WRC
August 25, 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.075 Conference held before WRC
August 25, 1966.
Corrective program underway
0.080 Staff recommendation- on
adequacy of'present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968.
0.143 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by Harch 1, 1968. -
-------
2764
Discharge Charac
teristicsMx
Receiving Treatment
Cocnmunit ' Waters Provided
Suspended Suspended' Suspended
S-day BOD 5-day BOD 5-day BOD Solids Solids Solids
Population . Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent Flow
(1964 cst.) rog/1- . tng/1 % Removal mg/1 rag/1 t jtempval ' MGD Status and Abatement Action
V
MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE AREAS CO
Lake Painter-
Township yille
Drain
New , Galien
Buffalo River
Onekama Portage
Lake
Petoskey
Lake
Michigan
NTINUED
•
Secondary 2,130 ' 230 92 60 2M7 231
AS . .
Primary . 6,400 241 174 29 309 77
CP
August 25, 1966.
Corrective program underway
16 3 03 final Order adopted .
October 19, 1942
December 16, 1966.
Corrective program underway
76 ' 0.843 Staff recommendation on .
adequacy of present treat-
Suttons Bay Lake Secondary
Michigan . L
Deer and None
Spring
Creeks
Wequetonsing
Ho Data Available
1,800
Lake Primary
Michigan IT
.-_.-_ No Data Available ------------
No Data Available
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1963.
0.042 Staff recommendation on •
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March-1, 1968.
0:18 Final Order adopted "
February 23, 1967.
0.100 Staff recommendation on
adequacy of present treat-
ment to be presented to WRC
by March 1, 1968.
Abbreviations
FS Fine Screen
CP . Chemical Precipitation
ST Septic Tank
IT' Irahoff-Tank
AS Activated Sludge
TF . : Trickling Filter
L Lagoons
SF ...:.... Sand Filter '
SI . Spray Irrigation
-------
2765
APPENDIX J
POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE ALEWIFE DIE-OFF
ON
LAKE MICHIGAN WATER OUALITY
145
-------
2766
Possible Effects of the Alewife Die-off on
Lake Michigan Water Quality
August-September 1967
Observations of past years on the condition of the Lake Michigan shoreline waters
by the Michigan Water Resources Commission indicated a depression of water quality and
general nuisance conditions during periods of alewife die-offs. The 1967 die-off was
exceptionally heavy in June and July and created massive accumulations of dead and
dying alewives along Michigan's Lake Michigan beaches. The value of our beach water
sampling program for bacteriological analysis was questionable. Coliform bacteria
far exceeded the levels approved for safe swimming with several instances of
concentrations in excess of 500,000/100 ml. A small scale laboratory study was made
during August and September to investigate the water quality degradation potential of
decomposing alewives. Our experiment was not intended to be a definitive study of the
problem. Our data cannot be accurately expanded to apply to Lake Michigan due to the
crudeness of the experimental design. However, our results lead to conjecture on the
significance of alewife die-offs to shoreline water quality conditions in Lake
Michigan.
METHODS
Field studies were made to sample the surface waters of Lake Michigan for various
water quality parameters during the period of alewife die-off. Sample locations were
along a transect line from the beachwash out into the lake for 2,000 yards. The
principal parameters measured were coliform bacteria concentrations, dissolved oxygen,
and biochemical oxygen demand. Two thousand yards offshore 25 gallons of Lake Michigan
water were collected in clean 5-gallon glass containers for use in laboratory studies.
Dying alewives were collected and iced for use in these laboratory studies.
Laboratory experiments were designed to evaluate the extent of water quality
degradation created by the decomposition of alewives. Six plastic tubs of approximately
8-gallon capacity were used as the experimental containers. These were divided into
2 series of 3 tubs each. Series 1 tubs were filled with approximately 7 1/2 gallons
of Lansing tap water. Series 2 tubs were filled with approximately 7 1/2 gallons of
Lake Michigan water. Two tubs, 1 from each series, were controls and no fish were
introduced into them (Tubs 1A, 2A). One whole, freshly-dead 6-inch alewife was
placed into the second tub of.each series (Tubs IB, 2B). The remaining tub of each
series received a freshly-.dead 6-inch alewife that had been cut into 6 pieces
(Tubs 1C, 2C). These chopped fish were to simulate those broken up by wave and
abrasive action in the beach waters. All 6 tubs were placed on the roof of the
Michigan Water Resources Commission building in downtown Lansing and covered with a
double layer of cheesecloth to guard against excessive contamination.
As the fish underwent decomposition various parameters were measured. Dissolved
oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, nitrate nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, soluble
orthophosphate, and total phosphate determinations as well as coliform and fecal
coliform counts/100 ml .of water were made on all tubs before the introduction of
fish and at irregular intervals throughout the 23 days of the study. Samples were
always taken in the afternoon.
146-147
-------
2767
On the 9th day of the study the presence 'of algae was obvious. Grab samples
were taken for algae counts at that time and on the remaining sample dates. These
samples were counted by using a Sedgewick-Rafter counting chamber and the populations
presented as number of cells/ml.
i
Sampling was conducted in the following manner: 1) Samples for dissolved oxygen
analyses were taken from all 6 tubs: 2) The 2 tubs containing chopped fish [1C, 2C]
were vigorously agitated to simulate wave action: 3) The remaining tubs were gently
stirred: 4) Water samples were taken from all tubs for the other chemical and algal
analyses. •
FIELD STUDIES
On August 3, 1967 an attempt was made to collect water samples of Lake Michigan
at Ludington, Michigan. Due to gale conditions on the lake, samples were limited to
those taken from the lake side of the south breakwater at Ludington. Coliform
bacteria counts ranged between 13,000 and 2^,000/100 ml; fecal coliforms were
between 10 and 50/100 ml; dissolved oxygen was lower than would be expected,
7.2 to 7?8 mg/1, although still above 85% saturation; and BOD was higher than
would be expected, 8,8 to 1§,0 mg/1. Temperature was 24-25°C. The alewife die-off
was well past its peak at this time and location, with only scattered masses of
several hundred fish floating around the breakwater.
On August 15, 1967 another effort was made to collect field data on Lake
Michigan. It was necessary to go north to Frankfort, Michigan since virtually no
dead alewives were encountered to the south. Even the waters off Frankfort contained
very few dead alewives. Apparently the shoreline waters .from Ludington to Frankfort
had been recently "cleansed" by a new water mass created by upwelling. Water
temperatures taken by the Water Resources Commission Beach Survey on August 15,
1967 at Frankfort averaged 15°F lower than those taken on August 1, 1967.
Quantities of broken and decomposed alewives were present in the beachwash and
in decreasing numbers out into the lake. At 2,000 yards from shore it, was almost
impossible to find a dead alewife. In collecting fish for the laboratory study only
4- fish were found in a dying condition and 2 were considered as freshly dead. All
other fish observed were too decomposed for use in the study.
Water quality was poorest in the beach waters containing accumulated alewives
and improved with increased distance from the shore (Table 1). Dissolved oxygen
ranged from a low of 9.2 mg/1 inshore to 11.2 mg/1 2,000 yards offshore. This was
magnified by a 16°F difference in temperature and accompanying changes in oxygen
saturation levels. The BOD's. were slightly higher (6.0 mg/1) in the beachwash
area than one would normally expect to find when alewives are absent. The highest
coliform counts were found inshore. Their diminution offshore correlates well with
diminution of BOD, Duping periods of maximum alewife accumulation the BOD must be
exceptionally high with accompanying effect on dissolved oxygen concentration.
148
-------
2768
LABORATORY STUDIES
Bacteriological Aspects
Extremely high coliform and high fecal coliform populations developed in the
4 study tubs containing fish, while both control tubs maintained very low populations
(Table 2, Figure 1). Following a near logarithmic increase, peak populations of
coliforms were attained 5 to 9 days after the introduction of fish. These population
maxima ranged from 360,000 to 1,500,000/100 ml before diminishing to approximately
1.000/100 ml in all tubs with.fish. Fecal coliforn) populations peaked at maximum.
counts ranging from 1,000 to 3,500/100 ml.
These data suggest that high coliform counts recorded from Lake Michigan beaches
during the 1966-1967 periods of alewife die-off are most probably due to the accumulated
dead fish. These high counts partially negated the value of beach bacteria sampling as
an indication of sewage contamination. Fecal coliforms are now included with coliforms
as a standard test on beach surveys to enable differentiation between contamination from
alewives and sewage. The high fecal coliform populations measured in the study tubs
should be investigated further to determine if they arose naturally or from
contamination. If they occurred naturally the detection of human sanitary wastes
along Lake Michigan beaches during alewife die-offs will be impaired.
Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Extreme changes in DO and BOD were apparent in the experimental tubs (Figure 2
and Table 3). By the end of the .second day DO in 3 of the 4 tubs with alewives was 0
and <1.0 mg/1 in the 4th. DO returned between the 9th and 12th days with the develop-
ment of algae blooms. DO rose to a measured high of 29 mg/1 on the 12th day, but
'in all probability oxygen was 0 at night. BOD increased from 2 mg/1 in test tubs
with alewives to concentrations between -45 and 104 mg/1.
£H
Because of its relationship with algal populations, DO, and carbon dioxide, the
pH in the test tubs most probably underwent more extreme variation than our data
show (Figure 2 and Table'3). It would not be unusual to record diurnal variations
of well over a unit in a natural algae bloom condition. It is doubtful if our pH
data could be meaningfully interpreted.
Nutrient- Release
It was planned, to measure several forms of algal nutrients during the experiments.
However, the added analytical load came during our busiest season and we compromised
on ammonia nitrogen, soluble orthophosphate, and total phosphate.
Ammonia nitrogen increased to-between 9.6 and 14.0 mg/1 in the experimental tubs.
Peak concentrations were measured on the 9th day, after which the animonia level
decreased (Table 3 and Figure- 3).
149
-------
2769
Phosphorus was released rapidly from the decaying fish (Table 3 and Figure 3).
Each single dead alewife released-more than 2.0 mg/1 total phosphate within 2 days.
This early release was virtually all as soluble orthophosphate, the form most readily
taken up by algae. As algal blooms developed,the available soluble orthophosphate
decreased to 0 in the Lake Michigan water tubs. Total phosphate remained relatively
steady, suggesting it had been assimilated into the algae cells.
Soluble orthophosphate concentrations peaked as early as the second day and as
late as the ninth day. Maximum concentration was 6.3 mg/1. Total phosphate released
from the individual fish ranged between 113 and 201 mg PO^ based on. average tub water
volume of 6.8 gallons.
As the nutrients became available they were utilized by algae which quickly built
up dense blooms of small, single celled, green algae (Table 4). A dominant form was
Chlorococcum, characteristically associated with dead fish. Other genera prominant
in the algal flora were Scenedesmus, Euglena. and Chlamydomonas. Lesser numbers(of
several additional genera were also present.
The algal populations of the tubs containing fish exploded from less than
100 cells/ml to maximum populations ranging from 565,800 to 3,187,800 cells/ml.
Relationship of this build up with bacteria populations and nutrient concentrations
are .graphed in Figures U and 5. The tap water control tub was apparently contaminated^
for the algal population increased from 35 cells/ml of unknown genera to 11,765
cells/ml, predominately Chlorococcum and Scenedesmus. Algal cell counts in the lake
water control remained low, attaining a maximum population of only 759 cells/ml with
diatoms predominating.
DISCUSSION
One agency has estimated that a few hundred million pounds of alewives died in
Lake Michigan during 1967. For the purpose of this report we will use 300 million
pounds. Analytical work by the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries on several groups
of alewives has shown that alewives about 6-inches long contain approximately 2.23
grams of phosphorus per pound of fish. Thus, 300 million pounds of dead alewive's
could release 2,300 tons of phosphates into Lake Michigan. The concentration of
soluble orthophosphate as POi). commonly claimed sufficient to create nuisance algae
conditions in water is 0.03 mg/1. If two-thirds of the released phosphorus was in
the form of soluble orthophosphate the potential exists from this source alone to
bring approximately'11 cubic miles-of phosphorus-free water to the point at which
nuisance algae blooms could occur. The relationship between the amount of dead
alewives, phosphates released, and water mass fertilized is portrayed in Figure 6.
It is generally acknowledged that during the summer the water mass along Michigan's
west coast from Benton Harbor-St. Joseph to Little Point Sable moves northward and is
discrete unless broken up by strong winds. The U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
aerial survey during the die-off showed that most dead alewives were concentrated in
the southern tip of Lake Michigan and in a band along both shores in the southern
150
-------
2770
two-thirds of the lake. Windrows of dead alewives collect in the shallc:, .r water
beach zone. Nutrients from the decomposing fish would be released into this
discrete, surface water mass which is already enriched by tributary rivers draining
urban and agricultural areas.
There are roughly 2-,240,000 acre feet of water inside the 30-foot depth contour
from the Indiana-Michigan state line to the Leelanau Peninsula tip. Assuming 2/3 of
the phosphorus released during alewife decomposition is available for uptake then
18,700,000 pounds of decomposing alewives would.be necessary to bring that amount
of phosphorus-free water to the critical nuisance algae producing level. This '
stretch of shore comprises approximately 20% of the total Lake Michigan coastline.
Twenty percent of the estimated alewife die-off of 300 million pounds is 60 million
pounds. It seems highly probable that more than the 18,700,000 pounds needed to bring
the nutrient concentration to nuisance-potential levels would accumulate in this area.
Growing alewives concentrate phosphorus which is already present in the lake. It
is normal for phosphorus to be recycled upon their death, but because of their
unusually high population and habit of dying during a short period of the year in
the alongshore waters, the phosphorus is released in a relatively small volume of
water. It is concluded that phosphate released from decomposing alewives in the
alongshore water mass of Lake Michigan could be a significant factor in the production
of algae. Nuisances which can develop with increases in algal populations include a
reduction in transparency, reduction in length of filter runs at water plants,
possible taste and -odor problems in drinking water, interference with swimming,
and deposition of filamentous algae on beaches.
•' SUMMARY
1. Routine monitoring of Michigan's swimming areas showed degradation of water
quality, in association with alewife die-offs in the summers of 1966 and 1967.
2. A simple experiment to trace various water quality .parameters in open tubs
containing single decomposing alewives was undertaken.
3. Significant changes in water quality in the experiments include:
a. Increase in coliform and fecal coliform bacteria counts.
b. Increase in BOD.
c. Decrease in DO to anaerobic conditions followed by increase.
which accompanied algae build up.
d. A great increase in algal cell numbers.
e. . Rapid release of ammonia and phosphates..
4. Decomposition of masses of alewives in the alongshore waters of Lake
Michigan could promote phenomena of'unknown magnitude similar to
those which occurred in the study tubs
5. Abnormally high coliform bacteria counts due to the presence of dead
alewives partially negate-the value of beach bacterial sampling as
an indication of sewage contamination'.
151
-------
2771
The discrete, alongshore water mass of Lake Michigan's southeastern
shore is already enriched by tributary rivers draining urban and
agricultural land. Additional nutrients from decomposing alewives
could be a significant factor in the increased production of .algae.
Such growths.could result in reduction in transparency, reduction in
length of filter runs at water plants, possible taste and odor problems
in drinking water, interference with swimming, and deposition of
filamentous algae.on beaches.
Field work by: Ronald B. Willson, Aquatic Biologist
James McDonald, Water Pollution Investigator
James Westenbarger, Water Pollution Investigator
Chemical analyses by: Russell Krueger, Chemist
Bacteriological analyses by: Division of Sanitary Bacteriology and
Chemistry, Michigan Department.of Public
Health
Laboratory work by: Carlos Fetterolf, Chief,
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
James McDonald
Ronald B. Willson
! John Robinson, Aquatic Biologist
Report by: Ronald B. Willson
Carlos Fetterolf
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
Water Resources Commission
Michigan Department of Conservation
January 27, 1968.
152
-------
2772
Table 1. Lake Michigan water quality off Frankfort south
of the south breakwater, August 15, 1967.
Distance off
shore
Beach wash
10 feet
25 feet
50 feet
75 feet
100 feet
100 yards
200 yards
300 yards
i
500 yards
1000 yards
2000 yards
Distance off
shore
250 yards
2000 yards
. Temperature Coliforms
°C c/100 ml
18
16.5
17
17
16
15
15
15
15
14
13
9
Total solids
mg/1
. 170
165
Contaminated
2,600
2,800
1,000
800
300
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
so P04 T :
pH mg/1 m;
8.3 0.00 0
8.3 0.00 -0
BOD ' Dissolved oxygen
mg/1 mg/1
6.0
4.9
3.7
6.2
2.2
'1.4
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
1,8
1.6
P04 N03
g/1 mg/1
.00 0.20
,.00 0 . 20
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.8
9.8
10.0
10.4
10.6
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.2
Hardness
mg/1
130 .
135
153
-------
Table 2. Coliform and fecal coliform bacteria populations
in experimental tubs, August-September 1967.
Lansing tap water series
Lake Michigan water series
Time in 1A Control IB Whole fish 1C Chopped fish 2A Control
. .days Coliform Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Fecal
Start <10 — <10 — . <10 — <10
1 <2 . ^100 4,000 200 6,000 1,000 <100 < 100
2 <2 <2 17,000 3,500 20,000 700 <100 <10
5 <2 <2 110,000 3,000 220,000 200 <2 <2
7 <2 <2 360,000 1,000 100,000 1,000 <2 <2
9 <2 <2 150,000 500 430,000 500 <2 <2
12 <2 <2 10,000. <100 20,000 <100 <2 <2
23 <2 <2 2,000 <100 <1,000 <100 <2 <2
2B Whole fish 2C Chopped fish
Coliform Fecal Coliform Fecal
<10 — <10
25,000 2,200 7,000 400
60,000 2,100 • 20,000 .200
500,000 2,100 750,000 300
350,000 3,000 1,500,000 1,000
190,000 1,100 220,000 <100
10,000 <100 <10,000 <100
< 1,000 <100 <1,000 <100
to
-J
--J
U)
-------
277^
Figure I. Coliform and fecal coliform bacteria populations .in experimental tubs,
August-September, 19&7-
TAP WATER — COLtFORMS
LAKE WATER —COLIFORMS
tOflOOflOO
I,OOO,OOO
0 IOO.OOO
10,000
u
ID
JO
E
o
o
u
100
ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 5 10 15 2O
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I
IO.OOO.OOO
1,000,000
IOO.OOO
IO.OOO.
1,000
100
DAYS
DAYS
LEGEND:
• WHOLE ALEWIFE
CHOPPED ALEWIFE
CONTROL
O
O
u
<0
JD
O
u
(0
u
0)
0)
|
TAP WATER — FECAL COL I FORMS
LAKE WATER FECAL COLIFORMS
10.000
1,000
IOO
10
10 . 13
DAYS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I ! I I I I I I
20 0 5 10 IS 20
10,000
I.OOO .
DAYS
155
-------
Table 3. Water quality in tubs during decomposition of alewives,
August-September 1967. All concentrations in mg/1 except pH.
. Lansing tap water, series
' • .
Time in
days
. Start . .
1
2
5 . '
' 7 ' •
9
12 .
23
Time in
days
Start
1.
2
5
7
. 9
12
23
Temp. .
°C
—
29 :
25
27
26
31'
28
—
Temp.
°C
'--
29
25
.27
26
31
28
--
.DO '
5,8
7.0
7.3
7.1
6.7
6,8
8.0
8.0
DO
8.0
7.7
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.0
8.0
9.0
BOD
0.6
0.4
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.0
--
1.6,
BOD
. 1.6
3.5
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.0
-
• 2:0
Control - 1A
oH NO — N NH — N
9.t- 0.00
9..1 —
8.1* -'- 0.0
7;6 -- 0.0
7.5 -'- 0.0
7.5 .--• 0.0
7.3 . 0.00 0.0
7.3 0.00 — '
Control 2A
pH NO,-N NHi-N
8.3 0.15
8.t —
8.2 — 0.0
8.2 .-- 0.0
8.2 -- 0.0
8.1 — 0.0
8.0 0.00 0.1
7.8 O.-OO
SO POU T POU
0.05 O.tO
6.05 0.25
.0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00 0.30
0.1 0.25
0.00 0.25
SO POU T POu
0.00 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.05
0.00 0.10
0.00 0.15
Temp.
°C
--
29
25
27
26
31
28
Temp.
°C
—
29
25
27
26
31
28
--
Whole alewife -
DO BOD pH N03-N NH
5.8 .0.
6.3 >13.
0.0 36
0.0 51
0.0 61*
0.0 100
3.2
8.0 38
Lake
DO BOD
. 8.0 . 1.
1.0 11
0.0 28
0.0 t5
0.0 til
t.O tt2
29.0
10.5 16
6 9.t 0.00
t 8.1
.7.0 '-- 3
7.0 '-- 8
7.1 -- 13
7.2 -- It
- 7.2 0.00 11
.7.7 0.00
Michigan water,
Whole alewife -.
pH N03-N NH
6 8.3 0.15
7.6
7.3 — 3
7.1* -- 8
7.5 — 10
7.7 — 12
- 9.6 0.00 3
7.9 0.00
IB
?-N
—
.6
• 8 .
.0
.0
.0
--
1
Chopped alewife - 1C
SO POij T POU
0.05 O.tO
2.1 2.5 .
t.3 t.3
5.7
6.1
6.3 8.1'
5.5 6.2
0.30 8.0
Temp.
»C
—
29
25
27
26
31
28
DO
5.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
10.0
BOD pH NO,-N NH3-N
0.6 9
33 7
39 7
60 6
90 7
68 7
8
lOt 8
.t 0.00
.3
.0 -- 3.8
.9 -- . 8.0
.0 — •' 10.0
.1 -- 13.0
.2 0.00 7.i*
.0 0.00
SO POU
0.05
. 3.7
t.3
5.0
5'. 3
6.0
t.5
0.10
T PP.,
O.tO
M.O
t.3
--
-
8.t
5.8
20.0
series 2
2B
3-N
--
.7
.6
.0
.0
.2
--
Chopped alewife - 2
SO POU T POL
0.00 0.10
2.1 2.8
3.7 3.7
t.5.
U.7
t.O 7.1
0.75 t.t
0.00 t.5
Temp.
°C
--
29
25
27 .
26
31
28
—
DO '
8.0
1.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
18.0
28. t
16.6
BOD p
1.6 8
11 7
17 7
32 7
tt 7
t6 7
— 10
20 7
H N03-N NH3-N
.3' 0.15
.6 — .
.3 — 3.2
.t -- 7.t
.t -- 9.6
.9 — 9.6
.0 0.00 0.2
.7 0.00
C
SO POM
• 0.00
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.8
0.2
0.50
0.00
0.10
1.9
2.1
-
t.7
2.5
2.5
ro
-------
46
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and pH concentrations in
experimental tubs containing decomposing alewives, August-September 1967.
IA-CONTROL
10 13
DAYS
8A-CONTROL
TAP- WATER SERIES
a so
IB-WHOLE ALEWIFE
10 100
1C-CHOPPED ALEWIFE
10 IS
DAYS
10 15
DAYS
LEGEND —
LAKE WATER SERIES
— B.ao
— DO.
pH
6 60
2 B-WHOLE ALEWIFE
.11111 \^r"\ i i i i i i i i i i i i • i
2C-CHOPPED ALEWIFE
IO IS . 20
DAYS
10 IS
DAYS
to
-------
2777
Figure 3- Ammonia, soluble orthophosphate, and total phosphate concentrations
i.n experimental tubs containing decomposing alewives, August-September, 1967-
TAP WATER SERIES-I
LAKE WATER SERIES-2
I A-CONTROL
i i i i i i -i i i i i r i i i i i
0 5 (O . 15 2O
12
IB —WHOLE ALEWIFE
\
LEGEND:
• AMMONIA
TOTAL
PHOSPHATE
SOLUBLE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
2 A-CONTROL
10 15 20
DAYS
21
1C-CHOPPED ALEWIFE
—{POSSIBLE
EXPERIMENTAL
ERROR)
A
IO IS
DAYS
EC-CHOPPED ALEWIFE
10 15
DAYS
18
IS
20
158
-------
2778
Table 4. Algae cell counts (Sedgewick-Rafter), experimental
tubs, August-September 1967.
Lansing tap water series
Lake Michigan water series
Time in
days
9
12
23
1A
Control
no fish
35
427
11,765
IB
- Whole
fish
52
18,768
2,145,000
1C
Chopped
fish
8,856
97,290
3,187,800
2A
Control
no fish
• 86
259
759
2B
Whole
• fish
75,900
409,515
621,000
2C
Chopped
fish
130,065
565,800
455,400
159
-------
Figure
Relationship between coliform bacteria, total phosphate, soluble orthophosphate and plankton algae
experimental control tubs with Lansing tap water and Lake Michigan water, August-September 1967.
1.3
LAKE WATER
2-A CONTROL
LEGEND^
ALGAE
COLIFORM BACTERIA
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
------- SOLUBLE ORTHOPHOSPHATE
IO.OOO
1,000
100
10
0.1
0.01
000
10
15
20
10
15
20
DAYS
DAYS
ro
-------
2780
Figure 5. Relationship'between coliform bacteria, total phosphate,
soluble orthophosphate, and plankton algae, experimental
test tubs with Lansing tap water and.Lake Michigan water,
August-September 1967.
TAP WATER SERIES
Number of algal cells/ml Number of algal cells/ml
Number of coliform bacteria/100 ml " Number of coliform bacteria/100 ml
- 5 •
IB- WHOLE ALEWIFE
/\ .'/
/"'. .\X
f~~"~~ 7^\ •
1 /
! /
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> 5 10 15 2O
DAYS
LEGEND
COL
TOT
SOL
LAKE W/
2B— WHOLE ALEWIFE
/" ' -,/
/ \
-; — ^^ ' ""-•-.
f ^
*
li \ • -
:' \
'....; \
c
AE
FORM
AL f
UBLE
\~TEf
1C- CHOPPED ALEWIFE
,^ • '""->-.... :
1 \
/i ^ — "^ ' v
i
X
\
i i i i : i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r.
IQPOO
too
10
"if
1
01 .
O.OI
0
10,000
1,000
100
10
•-t
~^
Ql
0.01
o
5 10 IS
DAYS
- 20
DAYS
161
-------
2781
Figure 6. Relationships between potential total phosphate release as PO^
from dead alewives anil volume of phospnoru.T-free water which
could be brought to 0.0:1 mg/1 solubla orthophosphate 'assuming 2/3
of the phosphate released was soi'iLle orthophosphate).
250,000
2OO.OOO
«/>
> 25O.OOO
UJ
IOO.OOO
5O.OOO
I
18
12.
\tt
O
m
o
6
1.000
2.0OO
3.OOO
0
4.OOO
TONS OF PHOSPHATES
162
-------
2782
APPENHIX K
SURVEY OF ALGAE PROBLEMS -
L»KE ''ICHTSAN REACHES
i»=ND
PHYTOPLANKTON SURVEY
MICKTPAM INSHORE WATERS OF S^UTH-CEMTRAL
LAKE MICHIGAN
163
-------
Preliminary Survey of Algae Problems, 2783
Lake Michigan Beaches,
August U, 5, 1966.
A brief reconnaissance •survey of Lake Michigan shoreline from South Haven north to
Meinert's Park in Muskegon County was made on August k and 5, 1966 to learn if an algae problem
was present in this area and, if so, to determine its extent. Complaints had been received
prior to the survey stating that undesirable algae accumulations were occurring along some of
these beaches. A minimum of 500 feet of shoreline was inspected at each of the 12 public
beaches shown on Figure 1. Qualitative samples of. plankton and algae were obtained from
these beaches.
Filamentous algae (Cladophora) and alewives (Alosa psuedoharenqus). were present in moderate
amounts at the South Haven public beach. Several windrows of algae, fifteen feet in length
and one foot wide, were observed on the bottom in shallow water near shore. Decaying alewives
were mixed in this algal mass and one fresh-dead alewife was found per 25 feet of shoreline.
The lifeguards stated that the algae and alewives had been a nuisance this year and the
cause of numerous complaints. Proceeding north from South Haven, the next seven beaches had
less of an algae and alewife problem, with the exception of the Allegan County Park where
conditions were similar to those at South Haven.
At the Grand Haven State Park, Assistant Park Manager Marvin Gebbins said that algae
accumulations and dead alewives had been a problem this year. The algae became so '
concentrated at times that he thought it would have been wise to close the beach to swimming.
Bathers complained that their bathing suits had been stained by the algae. He observed that
algae concentrations had varied with wind direction and intensity. There was not much of a
problem at the time of my visit so I could not confirm his statements. Cladophora was
observed in one-foot clumps on the bottom near shore. At Norton Park, 5i miles to the north,
an obvious algae problem existed. The waves washing on shore appeared green because of the
intense concentration of suspended Spi rogyra. The one-half mile of shoreline examined had a
strip of thick algae extending 20 feet offshore. Decaying alewives were fairly abundant in this
unsightly mass. The algae was so concentrated that a swimmer could not see his feet while
standing in knee-deep water. The life guard said that this condition had been present in
varying degrees of severity all summer.
Bronson Park, k^ miles further north, had similar, but less pronounced conditions.
Lloyd Park, 12 miles north of Bronson Park, had clear water, no alewives, and only scattered
clumps of algae.
Meinert County Park, 5 miles to the north of Lloyd Park, had conditions as bad as Norton
Park. Mrs. Ramthum, who has operated the park for the last 13 years, said that this was the
first time she had seen a problem of this type.
This survey substantiates the complaints received by the Water Resources Commission which
stated that algae accumulations at some Lake Michigan beaches had reached nuisance proportions.
John G. Robinson
Aquatic Biologist
Michigan Water Resources Commission
3/15/67
Imh
-------
278^
iMeinert Park
i Lloyd Park
Bronson Park
Norton Twp. Park
' Grand Haven
\ Port Sheldon
Hoi land State Park
Lake town Twp. Park
Saugatuck City Park
, •_ _A_1I legan County Park
i! GJenn Beach
WISCONSIN
ILUNOIS
Figure 1. Areas in southeastern Lake
Michigan affected by nuisance algae.
Preliminary survey August k, 5» 1966
LEGEND
" Cladophora
Cladophora and
Spirogyra ;
090 IQ ZO 30 «D
ICALK IN MILES
166
-------
2785
PHYTOPLANKTON SURVEY
MICHIGAN INSHORE WATERS OF SOUTH CENTRAL
LAKE MICHIGAN
August 9-11, 1966
On August k and 5 a reconnaissance survey of several beaches along Lake Michigan showed that
nuisance accumulations of algae were present around Muskegon and intermittently for 25 miles
to the north. The purpose of this follow-up survey was to determine the offshore extent
of these accumulations and to compare the plankton populations in the problem areas with
those from other areas.
Between St. Joseph to the south and Manistee to the north, a shoreline distance of 163 miles,
eight beaches were sampled (see Figure 1). Four lake samples were taken at each location,
one each at the following distances offshore: 1 mile, 1/3 mile, 600 feet and 75 feet. A
sample was also taken from tributary streams at seven of the locations.
Methods
Plankton was obtained by towing a plankton net with a 20" diameter opening and #25 silk bolting
cloth two feet below the water's surface for 300 feet. The samples were preserved with formalin
immediately after collection. Lake samples were taken upwind from the tributaries in order
to avoid river plankton. The plankton was identified and counted in each sample by
examination of 10 fields on two slides at 100 power. The count was made with a microscope
using a 10X ocular and 10X objective. Identifications were made using 43X and 97X objectives.
Each one-celled alga, filament and colony were counted as one organism. This method fails
to take into account the size of the plankton. Therefore,estimates of dominance by volume
were made by examining concentrated samples under low power. The term "total plankton count"
refers to the summation of counts made at all four lake stations at each location.
St. Joseph and St. Joseph River
The total plankton count was higher here than at any other location (see Figure 2). The most
abundant algae were: Anabaena 1 mile and 1/3 mile offshore; Melosi ra at 600 feet; and
Fraqilaria at 75 feet offshore. Volume comparisons (see Table 1) show that Melosi ra and
Anabaena were the dominant phytoplankton offshore and that Fraqilaria was predominant inshore.
The comparatively high counts found at St. Joseph indicate enriched conditions. The
predominant algae found here (with the exception of Frag ilaria) are the type commonly found
in eutrophic (rich in nutrients) situations.
The St. Joseph River (avg. discharge> 3,269 cfs) was greenish-brown in color because of the
large standing crop of algae. Melosi ra made up 56% of this population numerically and 75%
of its volume. Actinastrum. Scenedesmus. and Pediastrum were also very abundant. This river
had the highest plankton count of the seven sampled.
South Haven and Black River
The total plankton count at this station was fourth highest of the seven sampled with
Dinobryon numerically dominant and Melosi ra and Ceratiurn also abundant. The concentration
of blue-green algae was seond only to that found in the St. Joseph area. Blue-greens are
often abundant in enriched situations and are often associated with nuisance conditions.
Gomphosphaeria and Anabaena (blue-greens) were found in every lake sample but not in the river.
Ceratium. Fraqilaria and Me 1osi ra dominated in volume.
The Black River (a relatively small river) had the second lowest plankton count of the stream
samples. Numerically, Navicula constituted Wk of the phytoplankton.
Holland. Lake Macatawa, and Black River
This area had the third highest blue-green algae concentration due to the comparatively high
numbers of Anabaena. Other features, however, such as low total counts dominated by typical
oligotrophic (nutrient poor) types such as Fraqilaria and Dinobryon indicate that nutrients
were not abundant.
167
-------
2786
Lake Macatawa, which contributes a relatively small flow to Lake Michigan at Holland, was
grass-green with a bloom (intense concentration) of the blue-green nuisance alga,
Aphanizomenon. The total phytoplankton consisted of 85% blue-greens while the remainder
. was mainly Pediastrum.
Grand Haven and Grand River
The phytoplankton of this area was very similar to that found at Holland except that
Spi roqyra. a nuisance-type filamentous algae, was numerically and volumetrically dominant in
the sample taken in the beach tow (75 feet offshore).
The Grand River (avg flow > 3,52** cfs) had a low phytoplankton count with the numerically
dominant Helosi ra making up 27% of the total. Actinastrum and Pediastrum were the
dominant non-flageI late greens. Fraqilaria was also abundant. The blue-green Aphanocapsa
and Gonphosphaer i urn represented 11% of the total potamoplankton (river plankton).
Huskegon. Muskeqon Lake and River
Because of rough water only the samples from 1/3 mile and 75 feet offshore were collected.
Spi roqyra was dominant in number and volume in the inshore sample. This profusion of
Spi roqyra is evidence of highly enriched conditions. Asterionella and Fraqilaria were dominant
further offshore where very litt.le Spi roqyra was found.
Muskegon Lake was similar to Lake Macatawa in having a bloom of Aphanizomenon. Anabaena.
Anacystis and Gomphosphaerium were also present, makina the blue-greens equal to 8k% of the
total plankton. Average flow of the Muskegon River is > 1,877 cfs.
Benona (Stoney Lake)
All samples taken here except the beach tow had exceptionally la-/ plankton concentrations
(see Figure 2). The beach tow had by far the highest count of the four due to the
numerically and volumetrically dominant Spiroqyra. Asterionella and Fraqilaria were dominant
in the three samples taken further offshore. Only two filaments of Spi roqyra were counted
in the sample taken 300 feet offshore.
It is interesting to note that the offshore samples at this station contained the smallest
amounts of plankton noted on the survey even though nuisance quantities of algae had
accumulated near the shore.
Lading ton. Pere Marquette Lake and River
This area had the second highest total phytoplankton count of the group due to Melosi ra which
was also abundant in the Pere Marquette River. It made up 97% of the total potamoplankton.
There were relatively few blue-green algae present in Lake Michigan and none in the river.
Fraqilaria and Asterionella were second and third in dominance in the lake samples. Spi roqyra
was not found in the offshore samples and only in very small quantities in the beach tow.
Visual observations of the beach area and shallows indicated good water quality.
Manistee. Manistee Lake and River
As was expected, this area had a low total phytoplankton count and a low count in the beach
tow. The dominants were Fraqilaria and Asterionella. Anabaena. Tabellaria and Dinobryon
were present in low numbers at all stations.
The Manistee River had the lowest total count of the entire survey. All alga was sparse
including the dominant pennate diatoms.
There wes very little difference in the inshore and offshore phytoplankton counts at this
station (sse Figure 2 and 3). The low phytoplankton count in this area corresponded with
the very clear, clean appearance of the swimming beach.
168
-------
2787
Observations and Summary
1. Combining the information gained from the reconnaissance surv.-y of Ae:tusi. k, 5 and the
follow-up survey of August 9~11, 1966 it is possible to roughly outline rhc ar.-'ris which had
algae problems see Table 2). Approximately 32 miles of '«-ke Michigan *.hornli.ne had
nuisance accumulations cf Spi roqyra and Cladophora in Auuiist of 1966. Thi:, problem was first
observed 6.5 miles sou^ of Muskegon at Norton Township Pork and exicr.dc-d intermittently
to Benona, 25 miles no1ih of Muskegon. At some beaches in thi^ ores the accumulations
were not sufficient to cause nuisance conditions.
Sixty miles of shoreline from South Haven to Pentwater (excluding the areo described in the
above paragraph) had noticeable accumulations of Cladophora but little or no Spi roqyra.
Since Cladophora lays on the bottom in windrows it was not as objectionable as was the
Spi roqyra in suspension. Personnel in charge of these beaches voiced only moderate
complaints concerning the necessity to rake up the algae once a week or .so. In the area
where Spi roqyra was a problem, park managers received complaints of green-stained bathing
suits and conditions unfit for swimming.
2. Comparing the eight areas studied, the algae at Holland and. Man! s tee could be
described as being the least indicative of enrichment. That found at Benona, Muskegon
and St. Joseph were the most indicative of enrichment.
3. There were, striking differences in the quantity and quality in the inshore phytoplankton
and that found beyond 600 feet. Benona is the best example of this wh'-^re the offshore plankton
population was lower (see Figure 2) than the other six areas, while the inshore count was the
highest registered. The inshore plankton was dominated by autrophic species (Spi roqyra and
Cladophora) while the offshore organisms were more typical of ol iqstropmc waters. This
suggests that during the summer of 1966 the water masses inshore -.mo offshore from 600 feet
out remained sufficiently different for long enough periods to L-aiopori radically different
alga) populations.
4. Me 1 os i ra. a filamentous diatom, was the dominant algae found fit Z<.. Joseph and,
Ludington, except in the samples taken one mile offshore. These nigh MfIos i r
-------
2788
FIGURE I. Location Of Plankton
Sampling Stations
August 9-11 1966
090 10 20 3O 4O
I I
9CALC IN •ILCS
A ) Sampling Location
170
-------
2789
900 -
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
FIGURE 2. Total phytoplankton count (summation of
air the counts of all four lake stations)
at each location compared to the
inshore beach tow. Lake Michigan,
August, 1966.
LEGEND'
808
530
110
I
m
57
= Total Phytoplankton Count
»Beach Tow Phyfoplankton Count
Numbers Indicate Clump Count
681
313
288
1
123
137
569
• 742
277
3O8
68
ST. JOSEPH
SOUTH
HAVEN
HOLLAND
GRAND
HAVEN
BENONA LODINGTON MANISTEE
171
-------
2790
Table 1. Phytoplankton dominants from the mouths
of seven tributaries and eight locations near shore
in southcentral Lake Michigan, August 9-11, 1966.
Numerical Dominants
Volumetric Dominants
Code and Location Station* Species %
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
- St. Joseph
St. Joseph River
- South Haven
Black River
- Holland
Lake Macatawa
- Grand Haven
Grand River
- Muskegon
Muskegon Lake
- Benona
- Ludington
Pere Marquette
River
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
Anabaena
Anabaena
Melosi ra
Fragi laria
Melosi ra
Dinobryon
Dmobryon
Melos i ra
Dinobryon
Navicula
Dinobryon
Fragi laria
Fragilaria .
Fragi laria
Aphani zomenon
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Spi rogyra
Melosi ra
Fragi laria
Spi rogyra
Aphan i zomenon
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Spi rogyra
Fragi laria
Me 1 os i ra
Me 1 os i ra
Melos i ra
Melos i ra
27
33
52
24
56
21
47
24
23
84
36
36
53
52
73
33
36
35
43
27
25
38
77
47
40
33
53
59
82
69
80
97
Species
Ceratium
Melosira
Anabaena
Me 1 os i ra
Act i nastrum
Melosi ra
Ceratium
. Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Synedra
Anabaena
Dinobryon
Anabaena
Navicula
Pedlastrum
Dinobryon
'As te r i one 1 1 a
Tabel laria
• Fragi laria
Ped last rum
Asterionel la
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Asterionel la
Asterionel la
Asterionel la
Fragi laria
Asterionel la
As te r i one 1 1 a
Fragi laria
Frangi laria
Navicula
%
23
22
17
19
19
21
26
14
19
4
15
25
13
11
12
20
11
24
32
16
22
27
8
21
30
32
19
17
7
21
9
1
First
Anabaena
Melosi ra
Melos i ra
Fragi laria
Melosi ra
Melosi ra
Me 1 os i ra
Fragi laria
Ceratium
Navicula
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Aphani zomenon
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Spi rogyra
Spi rogyra
Melosira
Fragilaria
Spi rogyra
Aphani zomenon
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Spi rogyra
Fragi laria
Melosira
Melosira
Melosi ra
Melosira
Second
Fragi laria
Ceratium
Anabaena
Melosira
Ped i as t rum
Fragi laria
Ceratium
Ceratium
Tabel laria
Synedra
Tabellaria
Ceratium
Anabaena
Navicula
Ped i as t rum
Tabel laria
Tabel laria
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Ped i as t rum
Asterionel la
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Asterionel la
Asteripnel la
Asteripnella
Fragi Uria
Asteripnel la
Asterionel la
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Ped i as t rum
H - Man is tee
Man is tee Lake.
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
30 Asterionella 18
54 Asterionella 27
47 Asterionella 28
47 Asterionella 25
20 Anacystis 20
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
Fragilaria
Asterionel la
Asterionel la
Asterionel la
Asterionel la
Anacyst is
*Station number refers to distance offshore:
5-river mouth.
1-one mile; 2-1/3 mile; 3-600 feet; 4-75 feet;
172
-------
2791
INDIANA
LEGEND:
) 32-100 PLANKTON
^100-200 PLANKTON
lzOO-600 PLANKTON 5|S
™ ^1™
HGURE 3. Plankton Concentrations
75 feet offshore and
I mile offshore
August, 1966
173
-------
2792
Table 2. Algal conditions at selected Lake
Michigan beaches, August 1966.
Beaches checked
St. Joseph
(Jean Klock Park)
South Haven
(City Beach)
Glenn Beach
(7 miles north of
South Haven)
Allegan County Park
(I0i miles north of
South Haven)
Saugatuck City Beach
Lakewood Township Park
(5 miles north of
Saugatuck)
Holland State Park
Port Sheldon Twp. Park
Grand Haven State Park
Norton Township Park
(6j miles south of
Huskegon)
Muskegon State Park
Lloyd Park
(12 miles north of
Muskegon)
Mefnert Twp. Park
(17 miles N of Muskegon)
Benona Beach
(25 miles N of Muskegon)
Little Sable Point
(6? miles N of Benona)
Cedar Point Twp. Park
(6 miles N of Littte Sable
Point)
Pentwater State Park
Beach
ludington City Beach
Manis tee
Dominant
algae
Fragi laria
Fragi laria
_•- '
-.-
» —
Fragi laria
Spirogyra
Spirogyra
Spirogyra
-~-
Melosira
Fragi lari a
Nuisance algae
tvpe
Anabaena
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Spi rogyra
Cladophora
Spi rogyra
Cladophora
Spirogyra
Cladophora
Cladophora
Spi rogyra
Cladophora
Spi rogyra
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
Cladophora
None
None
Nuisance algae
concentration
Sparse
Moderate
Sparse
Moderate
Sparse
Sparse
Moderate
Sparse
Abundan t
Very abundant
Abundant
Sparse
Very abundant
Very abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Sparse
_..
Observations
No problem
observed
SI ight problem
No problem
observed
Slight problem
No problem
observed
No problem
observed
SI ight problem
No problem
observed
Moderate problem
observed
Severe problem
observed
Moderate problem
observed
No problem
observed
Severe problem
observed
Severe problem
observed
Moderate problem
observed
Moderate problem
observed
No problem
observed
Clean water
Clean water
174
-------
2793
Area
Location
1. St. Joseph
8-9-66
2. South Haven
8-10-66
3. Holland
8-10-66
k. Grand Haven
8-10-66
5. Muskegon
8-10-66
6. Benona
8-10-66
7. Ludington
8-11-66
8. Man istee
8-11-66
Tabel 3- Soluble orthophosphate concentrations as PO^
in mg/1 along the southeast-central Lake Michigan
shoreline and in nearby tributaries, August 9-1V. 1966.
Sample Stations
1 Mile
Off Shore
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
1/3 Mile
Off Shore
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
No sample
0,00
600 Feet
Off Shore
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
No sample
0.01
75 Feet
Off Shore
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
River
Sample
0.19
0.56
0.17
0.36
O.t6
No sig-
nificant
tribu-
tary
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
175
-------
279^
Table •» . Plankton composition from
Genera
Phytoplankton
Non-Flagellate Greens
ActlnaitruM
Ank 1st rode sows
•otryococcus
Chore) la
CMorococcuM
Closterlun
Coelastrun
DIctyosphaerluB
Dlonrphococcus
Euaitrum
Gleocystls
Nlcractlnlum
Oocystls
P*d last run
•lanktospnaerta
Scenedesnus
Selena strum
Sphaerocystls
Staurastrun
Westella
Flagellate
Ceratlum hlrudlnella
Eudorlna
Glenodlnlum
Gonlun
Pandor i na
Perldlnlum
P 1 eodor 1 na
Totals
Filamentous -Greens
Osci 1 latorls
Splrogyra
Ulothrlx
Totals
Yellow-Green
Dtnobryon '
Diatoms
Cent r Us
Cyclotella
Stephanodlscus
Totals
Pennates
Cynbella
Diatoms
Dlatomella
Fragllarta
Gyros) gnu kutzlngll
Havlcula
Synedra
Tabellarla
Totals
Blue-Greens
Anabaena
Anacystis
Aphanlzomenon
Aphanocapsa '
CoelosphaerluRf
Gonphosphaerla
Lyngbye
rterlsmopedla
Totals
Protozoa
Copepoda
Naupllus larvae
Total zooplenkton
Total phytoptankton
Total plankton
Total species
ST.
JOSEPH
ST. JOSEPH RIVER SOUTH
Al* A3 Al Ajj /^ g]^ m?
P** 2 28 6 119
P P -
3
P 1
P P
1
2 13 t*»
d
" p
2 15 **6
II 25 13
P 8
p
II 25 21
2
.2 0
II 66 7
80 152
80 152
2
7 34 9
12 9
1 4
8 54 20
13 119 50
P P
1 '
P 2
14 1 19 52
2 5 7
p
P 2
2 18 33
4 25 40
48 359 291
52 384 33 1
17 19 14
7 27 7 1
2 29
P
p
IS 1 79 7 2
6 23 32
2
1
6
II 2
8 12 31 32
p
0000
28 58
4 6
p
25 358 28 4
4 7
26 2 22 13
2 1
14 71 3 2
4 3 4
50 80 33 23
2123
1 P 1
536S
6 21 8 10
P 2 1
P 3 3
20 27 SO 26
110 632 133 124
130 659 183 ISO
20 21 20 lv
*The station nur*b*rt Indicate the following distances
**"P" Indicates that the
organism was
present but not
the mouths of seven tr
fbutarie* and
August 9-H. 1966. Numbers Indicate the frequency of occurrence
of organisms or clump* in 10 fields al 100 po-cr.
LAKE MIS-
BLACK HACA- GRAHD KEGON BENOHA
HAVEN RIVER HOLLAND TAWA GRAND HAVEN RIVER rUSKECC.1 LAKE (SIDNEY LAKE)
18 1 II 1
1 2
P 2
41 4
P
• p •! P P P
pp 2PPI PPPPP
1 1 P
1
PI.. - . P
15 3 P
3
41 3 1 0
16 4 S
P P 2
4
16 4 2 9
p
2
0200
29 13 19
57 4 1
p
57 k 1
2
4
32 II 1 6
77
10 2 4
25 1 6
69 26 88 IS
24 S 1 8
P 1
24 5 1 9
14 1
2 1
2 1 3
25 ** 1 9
45 7 2 16
236 57 92 53
281 64 94 69
24 16 14 IS
offshore: 1 -
counted for qui
1 1
2 1
5 2
S
p
4
1
9 1
0 0
15 7
P
21 28
1
2 1
3
24 35
4 7
1
2
6 8
1 1
3 5
2 2
1 2
19 40
59 53
78 93
17 16
1 mile:
1
4 25
2 1
1
9 29
3
S
8 .
1
1
2 0
7
1
3
64 1
13
1
6 1
88 2
4 IS
1 9
146
1 P
P
4 3
6C
7
S 12
2 1
23 22
40 43
123 201
163 244
25 16
Z - 1/3
P
6 1
S 2
6 3
II 5
1
0 1
19 5
1 1
2 1
7 5
31 16
II 6
.49 27
8 4
p
P P
8 4
2
1 1
1 1
28 28
95 44
123 72
17 16
mile: 3
imitative purposes.
P p
3 2 17
7
3 338
1
. 2
P 2
1
P
1 1 4
2 59
3
2 59 3
2
p
29
p
29
61*
'i
13 44 17
4 2
1
972
28 69 21
3 1
p
4
2 8
P
P
3 3 12
2
2 3
1 2 2
IS 19 9
37 137 107
52 156 116
18 19 17
- 600 feet; 4
2 10
1 2
2
. 8 1 P
P 2
1
1
p
9 1 3
2 82
2 82 0
10 4
2
'
1
20 58 22
1 4
2
10 17
48 119 24
2 1 12
3 4
209
P P
p
3 3 4
8 4 229
2 1
IP?
2 1
1
22 10 8
79 215 272
101 225 280
21 15 21
- 75 feet.
P P
2
P
2 P
3
1
20 0 4
P
2 300
0 0 2 300
2
1 P
1 2
7 6 '<9 94
IS 8 20 109
2 P
P 1 4
1 1 3 52
25 15 43 259
2 4 5
P 1 3
P P P
3 P
P
P
p
6 10 7 1.
32 20 60 S69
38 30 67 570
14 15 14 20
PERE
HAR-
OJUETT'E
LUDIUGTON RIVEF
rj_ j2_ y_ G4_ GJ_
1
1 p
p
1
p
p
1 2
P
4 P 4
P 1 P
P P -1
2
P 2 1 2
P
4 0-6 4 3
1
00010
1
p p
1 101 195 221 245
10 9 18. 5
2 1
35 8 59 25 2
13 J
1
P 1 1
47 17 78 46 S
7 3
P 1 f
\
p
P P 2
P P
P P P
3 4 3 5 12
59 123 283 277.253
62 127 286 282 265
18 14 17 18 8
HADISTCC
HANISTEC RIVER
IM_ H2_ J3_ H4_ Hi.
P
4
P
P P P
9 4 1
1 P 1 1
96012
00000
92121
2 4
P 1
3 672
24 40 41 JZ 3
1
6 4 1
.1133
2132
41 62 77 58 7
II 1 2 P.
PI . P 3
p
P
P
1
p
1
1 212 .S 1
3 3 13 S 3
79 74 87 68 15
82 77 100 73 18
13 14 14 IS 16
176
-------
2795
S'IMMAPY rip BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
FOR
LAKH MICHIGAN MATERS
-ITS
-------
2796
MAP I
LAKE MICHIGAN
MANISTEE
LUDINGTON
BEACH .SAMPLING LOCATIONS
GRAND HAVEN •
25
SOUTH HAVEN
a ST. JOSEPH
BUFFALO
MICHIGAN
INDIANA "
MICHIGAN
OHIO
179
-------
FIGURE I
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
for
LAKE MICHIGAN WATERS
along
MICHIGANS LOWER PENINSULA COASTLINE
20.000
1966 Geometric mean
1967 Geometric mean
1966 8 1967
Connecting lines for illusf. only
No value assigned
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20.000
10,000
— 5.000
1.000
500
100
I 2 3456789 10 II 141516171819212223242526272829303132333941434751535456575859606263646566
LOCATION NUMBER
10
ro
-a
-------
2798
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA FOR LAKE MICHIGAN WATERS
ALONG MICHIGAN'S LOVER PENINSULA COASTLINE
1966 and 1967
Sampling
Locations Hln.
1. Grand Beach. 430
2. Hew Buffalo < 30
•3. Harbert Beach < 30
It. Warren Dunes <• 30
State Park
5. Ueko Beach 91
6. Glenlord OO
Beach
7. Pine Beach <30
8. Silver Beach < 30
9. St. Joseph >30
10. Jean Klock 430
Park
II. Berrlen Co. > 30"
Park
12. Hagar Twp.
Park
13. Roadside Park
14. Covert Twp. - 430
Park
IS. Harry LaBar >30
. Drake Recre-
ation Area
16. 13th Ave. Pk. ISO
South Haven.
17. South Haven < 30
l6. Glenn ISO
19. A Megan Co. < 30
Park
20. Ganges Twp.
Park
21. Douglas Beach 36
1
22. Saugatuck Oval 36
23. Hacatawa Park < 30
24. . Lake Hacatawa 36
Outlet
25. Holland State < 30
Park
26. Grand Haven 36
State Park
27. Grand Haven 430
Beach
28. North Beach < 30
.Park
29. Norton Twp. < 30
Park
30. Lake Harbor < 3D
31. Muskegon City 36
Park
32. Pere Harquette<30
Park
33. Huskegon State <30
Park
31*. Pioneer Co. -•* .
Park
35. Duck Lake
Outlet
Note: 1966' results are-
1966 Reiults
Geo.
Han. Mean
46,000 3,800
46,000 774
930 146
4,300 406
4,300 583
. 2 ,400 ' 498
j
4,300' 300
9,300 385
9.300 717
9,300' 390
2.300 105
..
—
2,400 223
1.500 222
2.400 467
9.300 318
9.300 .1,111
2.400 327
—
4.300 202'
9,300 834
1,500 256
1,500 169
2,300 206
7,500 407.
4.300 383
9,300 206
21,000 372
9,300 348
930 145
2,400 185
930 99
—
--
"967
No. of .
Samples Kin. Mai.
5
5
4
20
5
5
15
20
25
25
5
—
—
5
5
5
45
5
5
--
9
15
10
9
24
25 '
20
10
5 '.
12
10
35
20
--
—
200 34,000
TOO' 39,000
700 19.000
100 19,000
600 13,000
700 6,000
400 .19,000
400 500 ,000
800 1 ,700 ,000
200 2 1 ,000
600 17,000
1,100. 78,000
?,300 -17,000
1
600 100.000
1,100 10..000
1,600 6,200
200 500 ,000
1,600 10,000
600 16,000
TOO 18,000
500 25,000
500 13.000
600 37 ;000
vp.
. . Park
49. Benzie State
Park
50. Empire Park
51. D. H. Day ' 4 30
Stale Park
52. Leland Twp.
Park
53^ Northport 4 30
Hun. Beach
54.' Suttons Bay 36
Village Park
55. Elmwood Twp.
'Park
• 56. Traverse City < 30
Mun, Park
57. Clinton Beach <- 30
58. Sunset Beach 4300
59- Bryant Beach 430
60.. Traverse City 4.30
State Park
/
61. Barnes Twp.
Park
62. Charlevoix < 30
City Park
63. Bay View < 100
Recreation Club
64. Petoskey City- 100
"Beach -
65. Ueque.tonsing 4.100
66. Harbor SprlngsI40,000 783 10
— >
7.500 285 '3
9,300 741 15
140,000 11,080 5
110,000 3,709 5
930 . 94 15
. --
100,000 461 30
' 1.200 413 >
50,000 631. 5
40,000 719 ' 5
40,000 413 10
•-
..
—
100
< 400
<200
-------
2799
7-7-67 7-9-67 7-17-67 7-18-67 7-19-67 7-24-67
UPPL'P Pr.NJNfHILA nACTKI-UOLO'UCAI. DATA TABULATION
Sampling Location.
70. State Roadside Park, W; of Gros Cap
71. Lake Michigan Picnic Ooumls, S.E. of
Rrevoort . .
72. Roadside Park at Cut P.iver Bridge 36 .930
73. Twp. Camp Hround at Epoufette 36 150
*74. State Roadside Park F.. of Naubinway 91 210
230
75. End of Public Access Road-Maubinway 91 230
76. Dutch John's Point Park 210
77. State Roadside Park N.E. of Thompson 230
78. Portage Bay Forest Campground ' 4,300
*79. Fayette State Park 91
91
930
80. Peninsula Point Campground 91.
81. Twin Springs Park 24,000
82. Gladstone Beach 4,300
*83. Ludington Beach, Escanaba 230
230
230
*84. Fox Park, Menominee County . -
-------
2800
APPENDIX n
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN THE VICINITY
. . OF THE
E. I. DU PONT OEf NFMOURS AND COMPANY DISCHARGE
TO
LAKE MICHISAN.
183
-------
2801
Biological Surveys in the Vicinity of the
E. I. duPont de.Nemours and Company Discharge
to Lake Michigan, Montague, Michigan
Seotember 10, 1957 and September 6, 1967
In September 1957 and 1967 biological surveys were conducted in the vicinity of
the E. I. duPont de Nemours and .Company (duPont) discharge to Lake Michigan. The
purpose of these surveys was•to determine the effects of the discharge upon the biota
in this area.
Bottom-associated organisms.and their community structures are particularly
useful in evaluating the effects of wastes on aquatic life. Some species of aquatic
animals spend their entire life cycle in association with the lake bottom while other
species have stages (egg, larval and/or pupal) dependent on the aquatic environment
for varying periods (from as short as 2 weeks'to more than a year). Therefore the
individuals in a benthic community have been exposed to their, aquatic environment
for extended periods of time. Their populations reflect the long-term water quality
conditions to which they have been exposed.
Benthic animals are important in the food chain of fish. Desirable sport fish
are companion species of benthic macroinvertebrates typically found in environments
with good water quality. Healthy populations of bottom organisms provide the proper
bases of the food chain to support populations of desirable sport fish. Water quality
changes sufficient to alter the benthic community will also alter the fish population.
METHODS
Quantitative (areal) samples and some qualitative collections of the bottom-
dwelling macroinvertebrates were made with a Petersen dredge in 1957 and. a Ponar
dredee. in 1967 (Figures 1 and 2)= U. S, Standard #30 brass screens were used for
sieving these samples. Samples were fixed with formalin.and-labeled as collected.
Samples were washed and sorted and the organisms were identified and tabulated in
the Lansing laboratory (Tables 1 and 2). Animals were assigned a tolerance status
according to published accounts and/or the past experience of the authors. Tolerance
status refers to the animal's relative ability to withstand and/or respond to adverse
environmental conditions. Individual tolerances are generally derived from an
animal's reaction to organic wastes and attendant oxygen depletion or modification
of bottom deposits.
Tolerance status may be generally defined as:
Tolerant - organisms that can grow and develop within a wide range of
environmental conditions. They are often found in water of poor
quality. These species are generally insensitive to a variety of
environmental stresses.
18^-185
-------
2802
Intolerant - organisms whose growth arid development are dependent .
upon a narrow ran.ge of optimum, environmental conditions. They are
rarely found in areas of organic enrichment. They cannot adapt to
adverse stiuntions and are replaced by less sensitive organisms if
the quality of their environment is degraded.
Facultative - organisms with the ability to survive over a wide
range of conditions. They possess "medium" tolerance and often
respond positively to moderate organic enrichment but cannot
tolerate severe environmental stresses.
In addition to tolerance status, the diversity of animals present in a given
benthic community is significant. In general, pollutional communities are
characterized by very low species diversity, while normal undisturbed communities
contain many different soecies.
In 1957 and 1967 water samples were collected for chemical analysis at each
bottom samolins station (Tables 3 and 4).
Observations and Results
Benthos
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA, 1963) found that 3
types of organisms dominated the benthos in Lake Michigan. Amphipods (scuds) were the
most abundant, followed by sludgeworms (oligochaetsj, and then midges (tendipedids)
which were moderately abundant.
The intolerant scud (Pontoporeia affinis) prefers a habitat of sand or gravel and
is not numerous in organic sediments. Oligochaets, on the other hand, thrive in areas
of organic decomposition which may result from organic wa^te discharges. For this
reason an increase in oligochaets accompanied by a decline in amphipods in the
vicinity of organic waste discharges is considered evidence that the environment
is adversely affected.
A tabulation was made to compare the percent of amphipods, oligochaets and
midges reported by the FWPCA throughout Lake Michigan and by the Michigan Water
Resources Commission (MWRC) in the vicinity of the duPont outfall (Table 5). This
comparison shows that the percent of intolerant amphipods is similar in the 4 studies
reported. Pronounced differences occurred in the percent of midges and worms. This
could be influenced by the difference in sampling areas. Eggleton (1935) and FWPCA
sampled over a large area of -Lake Michigan. We confined our sampling to depths of
less than 50 feet.
186
-------
2803
Source
Table 5
Amphipods, oligochaets and midges in benthos samples
from Lake Michigan, 1931, 1957, 1962, and 1967
Percent Percent Percent Percent* . Average
Year Amphipods Oligochaets Midges Miscellaneous no./m*
Eggleton
MWRC
FWPCA
MWRC
1931
1957
1962
1967
65
66
48
60
24
6
39
8
_._
25
—
30
11
3
13
2
1 ,243
3,002
4,229
4,756
*Midges are included in miscellaneous by-the FWPCA.
in this manner.
They also cited Eggleton's data
In 1957 3 of the 10 samples (4, 5, and-.6; t igure a.; were collected from the
immediate vicinity of the duPont discharge. Stations 1, 2.and 3 were approximately
1/2 mile south and stations 7, 8, and 9 were 1/2 mile .north at varying distances
offshore. Station 10 was taken just off the mouth of the White Lake Channel. In
general, the species composition was similar at all stations (Figure 3).
In the sample collected nearest duPont's discharge (station 6) the number of
amphipods was noticeably lower than at similar depths elsewhere (Table 1), 7/sq.
foot versus 48 and 156/sq. foot. It should be noted, however, that this location was
closer to shore than the other stations and could have .been subject to unstable
substrate sands. This was apparently the situation at station 1 in only 4 feet of
water 250 feet from shore where only 10 midges of 3 species were found.
In 1967 11 bottom samples were taken within 500 feet of duPont's discharge and
7 from 1 mile or more distant (Figure 2). There was a great deal of similarity
between the number of species and their tolerance status from these 2 areas (Figure 4),
as there was in 1957. Intolerant amphipods were present.at all 11 stations within 500
feet of the discharge but their, abundance was less, 105/sq. foot compared to 521/sq.
foot for those stations more than 500 feet from the discharge. Proximity to the
discharge is apparently not the only factor affecting amphipod abundance. Average
sample depth in the discharge area was 18 feet and 28 feet in the control area.
There appears to have been a direct relationship between depth and amphipods: with
greater "depth more amphipods were present (Figures 5 and 6).
Reconnaissance surveys, of the aquatic fauna were conducted in the discharge
vicinity in 1961 and. .1963. There has been no apparent injury in the immediate discharge
area or remote from it. Amphipods and midges have been the dominant animals. Minnows
and alewives have been observed swimming normally in the discharge as it bubbles to
the surface.
Bottom materials have been of fine, clean sand with no deposit on all 4 inspections.
187
-------
2804
Water Quality
In conjunction with the 'benthos studies water samples have been analyzed in 1957
and 1967 (Tables 1 and 2). Waste contaminants have always been well within the MWRC
Order of Determination.
Water samples taken directly over the discharge in September 1967 contained
0.65 mg/1 ammonia. .No ammonia was detected 100 feet in any direction from the
discharge. All other water quality parameters measured'were very near normal in
all sampling locations. .
SUMMARY
1. Biological surveys were conducted in 1957 and 1967 to determine if the E. I.
duPont wastewater discharge to Lake Michigan had any -effect on the surrounding
bottom fauna populations.
2. These studies indicate that the discharge has not had a significant effect on
the benthic communities. Intolerant species were present at all stations
regardless of proximity to the discharge.
3. Water samples were collected and analyzed at all bottom sampling stations. The
waste constituents of the duPont discharge could not be detected 100 feet from
the outfall.
1957 Field and laboratory work by: Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr.,
Aquatic Biologist
Edwin S. Shannon, Sanitary Engineer
1967 Field work by: D. James Seeburger, Aquatic Biologist
Ronald B. Willson, Aquatic Biologist
1957 and 1967 Chemical analyses by: Russell Krueger, Chemist
1967 Laboratory work and report by: D. James Seeburger
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Michigan Department of Conservation
January 26, 1968
.Literature Cited
Eggleton, F. E.'1935. The deep-water bottom fauna of Lake Michigan. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, Vol'. XXI, (1935). pp. 599-612 as cited
by FWPCA, 196°
FWPCA, 1963; Lake Michigan studies. Special report number LM-H, Biological Studies.
FWPCA, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Great Lakes-Illinois River
Basins Project. pp. 1-20.
188
-------
2805
Figure 1.
Combined chemical and bottom fauna sampling station vicinity of
duPont discharge Montague, Michigan, September 10, 1957. From
U.S.G.S. quadrangle.
N
E. I. duPont discharge
LAKE MICHIGAN
(£•
W
'...
. a:
4
4-;
.1
•i /
I.
t
•i
•T
• < ' ' ' -J-
y _(U T- ^^*rt£i^ ^-_ _,-tt -,:-;J. .
V-
. - — ..*-. •
_' ?" -=• • . . ... •''«. . Oll.oi
• ..' • I-.-' ••- *•'"• . ...•—-
_ i" • • i . ' »»°
. .
l.oi/C.mj '
Scale in miles
0 I
I I
189
-------
Figure 2. Combined chemical and bottom fauna sampling stations, duPont
discharge and vicinity, Montague, Michigan, September 6, 1967.
From U.S.G.S. quadrangle.
2806
E. I. duPont discharge
LAKE MICHIGAN
190
-------
Table !• Quantitative survey of benthic macroinvertebrates, Lake Michigan, vicinity of
E. I. duPont discharge near Montague, September 10, 1957.
Station
Depth
. Distance offshore
Distance along shore from discharge
T Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms)
Mollusca (snails and clams)
I Somatogyrus sp.
F Valvata sp.
T Sphaeriidae
Turbellaria (flatworms)
F Dalyellja sp.
F Nematoda (roundworms )
Amphipoda (scuds)
I Pontoporeia affinis
F Hydracarina (water mites)
Diptera (flies and midges)
Tendipedidae (pupae)*
F Hydrobaenus sp.
F Calopseetra sp.
F Tanytarsus sp.
F Glyptotendipes sp.
F Cryptaehironomus sp.
T Tendipes attenuatus
Total number of organisms/sq. ft.
Total number of tolerant
organisms/sq. ft. .
Total number of facultative
organisms/sq. ft.
Total number of intolerant
organisms/sq. ft.
Total number of species/sq. ft.
Total number of tolerant species/sq.
Total number of facultative
1
4' •
250'
1/2 mi. S.
1
3
6
10
6
i» ,
0
3
ft. 1
2
2.
12'
1,000'
1/2 mi. S.
1
156
1
3
• ' 1
23
1
66
249
64
29
156
7
2
it
3
21'
2,000'
1/2 mi. S.
12
19
3
1
U61
10
4
1
6
• "4
135
652
146
45
461
10
3
6
4
24'
2,000' at
discharge
Number
9
—
.1
—
—
1
436
4
7
7
49
514
58
20
436
8
2
5
5
18'
1,500' at
discharge
of animals
37
• .
73
12
7
1
10
3.
.113
HO
30
73
7
2
i»
6
12'
500' at
discharge
per square
29
7
1
M
3
3
6
72
121
97
17
1
7
2
4
7
12'
800'
1/2 mi. N.
foot
1
---
48
1
1
1
13
3
43
110
43
. 19
48
7
2
4
8
18'
1,200'
1/2 mi. N.
39
:
1
82
•
13
84
219
. 121
13
82
5
3
1
9
22'
2,000'
1/2 mi. N.
13
12
UU1
3
1
7
53
530
66
23
441
7
2
4
10.
18'
White Lake
Channel
1 1/8 mi. S.
32
3
—
17
128
6
1
1
12
33
227
76
20
131
8
3
3
species/sq. ft.
Total number of intolerant
sper.ies/sq. ft.
^-Tolerance status T = tolerant, F - facultative, I = intolerant.
of the Tendipedidae pupae are included in tabulation of animals present.
-------
Station 1 2 }b 5 6 78 9 10
Distance offihore 1500', at 1600' . at 1700', at 2000'. at 6780'. »c ISOO' 'WO' 1500' 1500' 1 mile
Nollutca (snaili and clam)
F Am! col* »p. ....... 2 ; (, .. .•. .. n
F Halito^a *p. -- -- -- - .5 -- 2 S
T- Ollgoch*«ta (aquatic earth-orm) It 2 5 255 9 3 7. "O 73 -- V*
Cladocera («ac«r Me**)
F Oaphnia tp. -- - -- 1.
1 Poniooorela affinit 6lt IDO 87 D1S 8*.b 66 r6* 7* 75 1063
Tendipedidae. (pufH«r -'- U 2- 5 "7 <« 9 9
F Predlameia b*thyphi la -- -- -- -- -- -- 2
F Hydrobavrms ^imulani -- -- — - -- " 2lfl 7
Tendtpedlnae -- D
F Polyptdilum Mlinoense ... }
r £ypT!^X«Ts.niHi :: :: :: '*_ :: :; ;: :: • :: ::
F C'vc-totendipej lobiferui -- — -- k
f Clyp'otendlpe* vp. -- -- -• . -- -- lit •- 101 ]9
F "jrniich.'a nai» -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -
F HaTni'Vch'iT'ip. -- -- " « -- 67
T Tendip«< airovi-idi» -- 92
* Ie_ndjpg» acKrtaAu* '73 5 "0 225 S -- 237
T Ta'ndl He* aothratinm 5
T Tendipci atten^atu} • — -- — -- it Sit -- 6<. 81 9
T Tend! pet rlpariji* -- " " -- •• •- -- <"
Ht«6«r of organitmi/iouare fool . 98 2<*7 109 9M 875 500 1*56 • 769 Hi 7 l'7l
Total nu«*«r of tolerant •ninwU/iq, ft. 32 10) 115 6 17 10
1500' 1 Mil. »00'. at 1500' 1500' 1500' 1500' 1 "til.
I 27 -- - - •- -- 77
5 57 -- - "2 )<• 17 1
.... j j .. 2 -- 2
<<8 ni.9 1} )0 )0 89 <• S36
9 — 1 7 " S / «•
1- i, ....
...... 9
II 1". II "j II I- II
jg
2 !5 l\ 16 39 t! *
it 2
1. .- to 2
ID •- 62 — " S) «
IDO .- .. .- D6 KB
18 -- 9
31) 1276 172 . D3 "7 )» 87 S9D
ill 92 60 71 58 65 SS
83 35 39 )2 29 *" H »
D8 1 ID9 IJ 30 30 89 • 1 506
9 9 S 6 7 7 . •• 8
I 1 I 1 1 1 ' '
PO
00
o
00
-------
2809
Table 3. Lake Michigan surface water quality, vicinity
of E. I. duPont discharge, September 10, 1957
: Temp. '• DO' BOD Cl' S04 NH3 Cu
Station Location Odor Depth °C . mg/1 . mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 pH mg/1 mg/1
10 White Lake channel 18' 13.5 10.6 1.1 5 8.2
1 250' offshore, 1/2 4' 9.3 10.8 2.5
mile S. of discharge
2 1,000' offshore, 1/2 None 12' 10.6 1.6 8.2 0.0. 0.0
mile S. of discharge •
3' 2,000' offshore, 1/2
mile S. of discharge 21' 10.5 10 '.'H 1.1
duPont effluent 72 32 36 7.2 9.0 Trace
5 Immediately above Strong 18' 10 10.6 3.1 6 18 7.9 0.4 0.0
discharge . .;
6 500' offshore at None 12' 10.5 10.7 1.4 . 8.3 0.0 0.0
discharge
7 800' offshore, 1/2 10' -10.5 10.8 2.1
mile N. of discharge
4 2,000' offshore.at . 24 10.5 10.6 1.1
discharge
8 1,200' offshore, 1/2 None 18' 10.5 10.8 1.8 8.0 0.0 .
mile N. of discharge
9 2,000' offshore, 1/2 22' 10.0 10.8 1.8
mile N. of discharge
193
-------
Table 4. Water quality -of Lake Michigan, vicinity of
duPont discharge, Montague, Michigan,
September 6, 1967.
Station
1-A
1-B
2
3
•it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
It
15
16
17
IP
Location
10' N.W. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
10' N.W. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
100' W. of discharge - 1,600' offshore
200' W. of discharge - 1,700' offshore
500' W. of discharge - 2,000' offshore
1 mile W. of discharge - 6,780' offshore
100' N. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
200'. N. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
500' N. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
1 mile N. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
1 mile N. of discharge - 1 mile offshore
2 miles N. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
2 miles N. of. discharge - 1 mile offshore
200' E. of discharge - 1,300' offshore
100' S. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
200' S. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
500' S. of discharge - 1,500' offshore
1 mile S. of White Lake outlet - 1,500'
offshore
1 milo C nf Uhi+a T.nV-o niii-lof - 1 milo
Odor
Strong
chemical
Strong
chemical
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
M^ne
Depth
20'
Surface
18'
19'
24 .
1*7'
21'.
20'
. 19'
17'
33'
11'
35'
ii'
18'
17'
16'
16'
id1
°C
17
18
17
17
17
1"4
17
18
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
Ifi
mg/1 mg/1 pH mg/1 mg/1
9.3 0.9 8.6 12 0.0
9.U 1.0 8.6- 12 0.0
g 5 j.
__ Q g H
_._ _„_ ___ Q
OR 16 _: u
mg/1 .mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
0.65 0.0 Neg. 0.2
0.60 0.0 '0.2
0 0 --- ---- ---
00
--_ --- ---- 0 0
. — n o
offshore
00
.H>
o
-------
2811
Figure 3. Number of species of bottom animals per square foot and their
tolerance status,'duPont survey, Lake Michigan,' 1957.
= Intolerant
= Faculative
= Tolerant
15
o
c/r
o
LT>
CM
O
x:
to
O
O
o
a;
fn
o
M-l
O
O
O
O
O
—
o.
0
0)
o
X." .
0)
14-1
M-i
o
..
o
o
LO
«
H
a)
o
x:
to
14_)
14-1
O
_
o
o
CN
«'
fH
discharge
M-i
O
Q) .
O
^
to
IH
• 0
—
o
o
00
of discharge
01
o
x:
to
14^
14..- -
o
_
o
o
(N
*1
H
of discharge
.®
o
XT'
to
(4_4
14H
O .
_
O
o
o
«t
CN
x:
4->
O
^H
(1)
C
.c
x:
o
OJ
'y
4-* '
•H
x:
3
w
0)
•H
O
0)
10
1/2 mi. S.
Discnarge
area
195
-------
HI
I
CO
MH
o
.c
in
MH
Figure 4. Number of species of bottom animals per
square foot and their tolerance status,
duPont survey, Lake Michigan, 1967.
Q
o
in
ID'
O)
15
•H
3
4-> .
o
1)
££
•3
a)
•H
*C '
*••
MH
O
•
CO
CU
01
H
•M
3
O
CU
10
.o>
•rH '
CT
- 3
MH
O
to
CU
£
o
MH
O
..
O
o
«s
H
1
CO
0)
^r^
10
MH
O
O
. O
in
•*
r-)
1
•'.
.
o>
f-.
o
co
MH
O
_
O
o
CO
«>
H
. ' 1
W
cu
O
MH
MH
o
_
o
0
r,
iH
1
3t
o>
SL,
O
10
MH
0
_
0
0
^
H
1
3
CU
o'
CO
MH
0
_
0
o
o
CM
1
3
o
o
UV
o
o
(N
o
o
o
o
CM
O
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
CO
MH
MH
O
-.
O
00
p^
•»
ID
CU
o
co
MH
MH
0
_
O
o
in
01
t,
O
CO
MH
MH
0
•- .
O
o
in
0)
t.
0
•42
CO
MH-
0
_
0
O
in
•H
E-
O
O
rH
o
o
CM
O
O
CU
(4
o
MH
O
O
O
CU
•(4
O
JC
10
MH
MH
O
z.
0
•H
E
O
4=
at
MH
MH
0
O
'O
E
CM
o
4=
V)
MH
MH
O
E
CM
O.
01
43
10
0
South
Control
Discharge Zone
= Intolerant.
= Faculative
North Control
1= Tolerant
ro
00
M
ro
-------
2813
Figure 5. Relationship between water depth and tolerance status
of benthic-.fauna. F-. I. duPont survey, Lake Michigan,
September 1957.
100
(C
•i-T
C
M-i
O
bf
rfl
4->
C
-------
Figure 6. Relationship between water depth and tolerance status of
benthic fauna. E. I. duPont survey, Lake Michigan,
September 1967. * .
100
ID
00
••H
c
Iti
-------
2815
APPENDIX N
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
OF THE
DO'-' CHEMICAL COMPANY BRINE DISCHARGE
TO
LAKE MICHIGAN
199
-------
2816
Reconnaissance Survey of the Dow Chemical Company
Brine Discharge to Lake Michigan near Big Sable Point,
Mason County, Michigan
August 10, 1967
This reconnaissance survey was conducted, to determine the n-eneral effect of the
Pow discharge on the bottom fauna of Lake Michigan near Big Sable Point. High winds
and increasingly rough water forced early termination of the study before the affected
area could be clearly determined.
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Water samples were collected with a Kemmerer sampler, fixed in the field if
necessary, and returned to Lansing for analyses (Table 1).
Separate samples were collected, for conductivity measurements from which a
nomograph was constructed for use with a remote-probe conductivity meter (Solu Bridge).
By making several traverses perpendicular to shore the course of the brine discharge
on this particular day was roughly determined.
Quantitative (areal) collections and some qualitative samples of the bottom-
dwelling macroinvertebrates were made with a Ponar dredge. U.S. Standard #30 brass
screens were used for sieving these samples. Samples were fixed with formalin and
labeled as collected. Samples were washed and sorted and the organisms were identified
and tabulated in the Lansing; laboratory (Table 2). Animals were assigned a tolerance
starus according to published accounts and/or the past experience of the authors.
Tolerance status refers to the animal's relative ability to withstand and/or respond
to adverse environmental conditions. Individual tolerances are generally derived from
an animal's reaction to organic wastes and attendant oxygen depletion or modification
of bottom deposits.
Tolerance status may be generally defined as:
Tolerant - organisms that can grow and develop within a wide range
of environmental conditions. They are often found in water of poor
quality. These species are generally insensitive to a variety of
environmental stresses.
Intolerant - organisms whose growth and development are 'dependent
upon a narrow range of optimum environmental conditions. They are
rarely found in areas of organic enrichment. They cannot adapt to
adverse situations and are replaced by less sensitive organisms if
the quality of their environment is degraded.
2CXO-201
-------
2817
Facultative - organisms with the ability to survive over a wide
range of conditions. They possess "medium" tolerance and often
respond positively to moderate organic enrichment but cannot
tolerate severe environmental stresses.
In addition to tolerance status, the diversity of animals present in a given
benthic community is significant. In general, pollut.\onal communities are
characterized by very low species diversity, while normal undisturbed communities
contain many different species.
Observations and Results
The Dow brine discharge to Lake Michigan is located approximately 2 1/2 miles
north of the Pig Sable Point lighthouse, Mason County, Michigan. Near the discharge
the conductivity in micromhos of the bottom water ranged between 270,000 and 110,000
(78,000 and 30,000 mg/1 Cl respectively) (Table 1). By trailing the conductivity
probe it was determined that.the brine flowed north in a band about 300 feet wide
and 2 feet thick between the third and fourth sand bars which were approximately
900 feet offshore (Figure 1). Conductivity remained very high, 40,000 micromhos
(8,000 mg/1 Cl), as far as 1/2 mile northeast of the discharge. At this point the
brine mass commenced to become significantly diluted and lost its identity. Traces
could be detected 2 1/2 miles northeast of the discharge. High conductivity,
22,000 micromhos (3,700 mg/1 Cl)v was found 500 feet southwest of the discharge,
but the concentration 900 feet southwest of the discharge was insignificant. The
water mass immediately above the brine had low conductivity.
Dissolved oxygen of the bottom water in the area of very high conductivity was
between 2.5 mg/1 and 7.0 mg/1. The extent of this low oxygen area was not fully
determined.
Quantitative samples of the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna were taken at 5
locations (Figure 2 and Table 2).. An additional 10 samples were visually evaluated
to roughly determine the extent of the effect of the brine on the bottom animals.
Sixteen species were found altogether, 2 intolerant, 12 facultative, and 2 tolerant.
Bottom animals were virtually eliminated in the immediate vicinity of the
discharge where only 1 animal was found. However, populations commenced recovering
a short distance away and appeared near normal as close as 200 yards west of the
discharge. Almost all of the qualitative samples had populations dominated by
midges with a few snails, oligochaets and scuds.
Intolerant scuds were scarce in the 2 samples taken 900-1,000 feet offshore over
1 mile north and south of the discharge. Whether this is an effect of the brine
following the trough between the sand bars will be evaluated on another survey.
Greater species diversity (13 species) was apparent at a depth of 60 feet 2
miles north of the discharge than it was at the same depth immediately off the
discharge (4 species).
All bottom sediments were composed of fine, clean sand.
202
-------
2818
A second water quality and benthos survey has been scheduled for the summer of
1968. Our purpose will be to more clearly define the extent of chemical and
biological -effects surrounding the Dow discharge.
Field work by: D. James Seeburger, Aquatic Biologist
Michael E. Newton, Aquatic Biologist
Report by: D. James Seeburger
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
Michigan Water Resources Commission
January 27, 1968
203
-------
Table 1. Water quality, Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the Dow Chemical Company
discharge, Big Sable Point, August 8, 1967.
Station
A
B
C
0
E
F
Temperature
Location °F
At point of discharge
300 ft. NE of discharge
900 ft. NE of discharge
2 miles K of discharge 1 mile offshore
100 ft. west of discharge
2 1/2 miles S of discharge
67
67
67
58
67
67
DO
mg/1
2.5
6.9
3.3
10.0
9.0
8.6
Depth
ft.
18
18
19
60
20
12
Cond.
jcmhos
110,000
125,000
270,000
260
290
520
Cl
mg/1
30,000
33,000
78,000
7
10
82
Na Hg Ca
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
__. ...
5,500 9,100 25,000
...
... ... ...
Solu Bridge conductivity and mg/1 of Cl as determined from nomograph
Station
G
H
I
J
K
L
H
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
H
Location
Control - 3/1* mile offshore from Lincoln River outlet
At point of discharge
100 feet towards shore from discharge
200 feet towards shore from discharge
300 feet towards shore from discharge
100 feet NE from discharge
200 feet NE from discharge
300 feet NE from discharge
900 feet NE from discharge
1/2 mile NE from discharge
1 1/2 miles NE from discharge
100 feet west from discharge
100 feet SW from discharge
200 feet SW from discharge
500 feet SW from discharge
900 feet SW from discharge
2 1/2 nlles S of discharge 1/2 mile S of lighthouse
Conductivity
in 44. mhos
220
30,000
20,000
U.OOO
U20
20,000
7,000
17,000
UO.OOO-f
10,000
385
270
1*0,000
HO, 000
22,000
U20
1*00
Cl
_m^t/l
6
5,600
S.UOO
1*1*0
25
3, MOO
850
3,000
8,000+
8,000
20
10
8,000
8,000
3,700
25
22
ro
oo
-------
Table 2. Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms per square foot in the vicinity of the Dow Chemical Company
discharge off Big Sable Point, Lake Michigan, August 8, 1967.
Tolerance status
^ and species
Station
Sampler
Depth
1
Ponar
18 feet
At discharge
900 feet offshore
2
Ponar
18 feet
1 1/2 miles north
of discharge
900 feet offshore
Mollusca (clams, snails)
I Lymnaeidae (Stagnicola) sp.
F Valvata sp.
T Sphaeriidae
3
Ponar
60 feet
2 miles north of
discharge 1 mile
offshore
1
it
. 16
it
Ponar
60 feet
1 mile offshore
from discharge
5
Ponar
12 feet
1/2 mile south
of ligt thouse
1,000 feet offshor
T Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms)
Coelenterata (hydroids)
F Hydra sp.
Cladocera (water fleas)
F Daphnia sp.
Amphipoda (scuds)
I Pontoporeia affinis .
Coleoptera (beetles)
Elmidae
F Dubiraphia vittata
Diptera (flies and midges)
F Tendipedidae (pupae)2
F Prodiamesa (M) bathyphila
F Diamesa TF) campestris
F Diamesa (P) fulva
•F Calopsectra sp.
F Hicrotendipes tarsalis
F Pseudochironomus sp.
F Tendipes (T) staegeri
6
1
33
29
2
1
578
103
25
12
Total no. of organisms/sq. ft. 1
Total no. of tolerant organisms/sq. ft. 0
Total no. of facultative organisms/sq. ft. 1
Total no. of intolerant organisms/sq. ft. 0
Total no. of species/sq. ft. 1
Total no. of tolerant species/ sq. ft. 0
Total no. of facultative species/sq. ft. 1
Total no. of intolerant species/sq. ft. 0
95
2
92
1
6
1
it
1
^T = Tolerant, F = Facultative, I - Intolerant
?None of the Tendipedidae pupae are included in tabulation of animals present.
661
i»5
37
579
13
2
9
2
119
i|
12
103
t|
1
2
1
M3
0
37
6
3
0
2
i
rv>
oo
ro
o
-------
Figure ' . Water quality sampling locations in the vicinity of the Dow
Chemical Company discharge, Big Sable Point, Lake Michigan,
August 8, 1967.
2821
206
-------
2822
Figure 2. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations in the vicinity of
the Dow Chemical Company discharge off Big Sable Point, Lake.
Michigan, August 8, 1967.
Lake Michigan
207
-------
2823
15 r
V)
0)
o
0)
0)
-Q
3
10 U
Stations
D
Intolerant
Facultative
I Tolerant
Figure 3. Benthic macroinvertebrate species per square foot and their
tolerance status, reconnaissance survey vicinity of the
Dow Chemical Company discharge to Lake Michigan, Big
Sable Point, August 8, 1967.
208
-------
2824
APPENDIX 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY
LAKE MICHIGAN AT MANISTEE IN THE VICINITY
OF
PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S
WASTE DISPOSAL PIPELINE
209
-------
2825
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
V .
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study
Lake Michigan at Manistee in the Vicinity of
Packaging Corporation of America's
Waste Disposal Pipeline
September 1, 1967
This survey was conducted to ascertain the effect that Packaging Corporation of
America's (PCA) waste discharge to Lake Michigan has on the benthic macroinvertebrate
population in the vicinity of the discharge. PCA's plant at Filer City is located on
the south end of Manistee Lake in .Manistee County, Michigan and produces paper
products from pulp wood. Their waste disposal pipeline to Lake Michigan was
originally designed to remove the majority of their waste load from the south end
of Manistee Lake. Manistee Lake and its tributaries have long supported one of the
largest steelhead runs in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The primary purpose of the
waste diversion to Lake Michigan was to guard against unlawful pollution and protect
the water quality in Manistee Lake, particularly during times of fish migrations. The
original use of Lake Michigan for waste disposal purposes was covered by an Order of
the Michigan Water Resources Commission adopted June 28, 1956 and amended September 24,
1959 following statements of new and increased use by the American Box Board Company,
which as of July 31. 1959 merged into PCA.
Members of the Water Resources Commission staff have conducted several studies of
waste quality and biological conditions in the vicinity of the Lake Michigan outfall
throughout the years. Conditions found have generally been satisfactory. One aspect
that was periodically questionable was the lowering of aesthetic and recreational
values of Lake Michigan waters adjacent to the discharge. Complaints of undesirable
odors and unnatural colors increased as public contact with these waters increased.
During December 1963 the Water Resources Commission staff demonstrated that PCA was
not conforming to the original -restrictions and concluded that' the undesirable odors
and colors in Lake Michigan as a result of the PCA discharge were detrimental to uses
being made of the lake.
PCA was requested to take corrective action. The company proposed to increase
the specific gravity of its.waste through the addition of brines which were being
discharged to Manistee Lake by a neighboring company. Studies by PCA indicated this
would eliminate the color streaking and the movement of the wastes toward the shore-
line. The WRC thought the. PCA proposal worthy of a trial. On August 15, 1964 a brine
pumping station was .completed and through its operation the specific gravity of the
waste being discharged to Lake Michigan was increased. Ori September 21 and 22, 1964
an inspection of the pipeline outfall area and Lake Michigan beaches disclosed no
detectable odors or visible discoloration.
-------
2826
Background benthic macroinvertebrate studies in the vicinity of the discharge
had been made on July 15-17, 1957 (before the waste pipeline became operative),
September 11, 1958 and September 14, 1962 (before the brine pumping station was
operative). These surveys demonstrated that the bottom animal population in the
vicinity of the discharge was indicative of a clean water environment. No detrimental
effects could be ascertained when the 1958 and 1962 conditions were compared to the
background bottom animal population. During the summer of 1966 a question was raised
regarding the effects that the addition of brine and the resulting change in the
chemical and physical properties of the PCA waste might have on the invertebrate
population in the vicinity of the Lake Michigan discharge.
METHODS
On September 1, 1967 chemical and biological samples were collected at 16
locations along the Lake Michigan shore (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Table 1
Sampling locations, chemical and benthic macroinvertebrate study,
Lake Michigan, vicinity of the PCA pipeline outlet, Manistee County,
September 1, 1967.
Station No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Depth
in feet
35
31
20
31
33
14
34
31
16
14
37
31
25
28
16
25
Distance from
shore in feet
4,000
4,000
1,000
8,000
4,000
1,000
8,000
4,000
1,000
500
8,000
4,000
1.000
4,000
1,000
4,000
Approximate direction and
distance from the PCA discharge
4 miles NNE
3 miles NNE
3 miles NNE
1 mile NNW
1 mile N
1 mile NNE
7,000 feet WNW
3,000 feet WNW
PCA discharge area
500 feet ESE
1 mile W
1 mile SW
1 mile SSW
3 miles SSW
3 miles SSW •
4 miles SSW
Benthos samples were collected with a Ponar dredge at all stations. Only completely
closed dredge hauls were evaluated. One dredge haul was evaluated from each of the 16
stations. Samples were screened with a U.S. Standard Number 30 soil seive. A complete
species list of benthic macroinvertebrates together with their tolerance status is
presented in Table 2. Tolerance status is derived from an animal's reaction to organic
wastes and attendant oxygen depletion or modification of bottom deposits. . Tolerance
status may be generally defined as:
212
-------
2827
Tolerant - organisms tluit can prow and develop within a wide range of
environmental conditions. They are often found in water of poor quality.
These species are generally insemsitive to a variety of environmental
stresses. .
Intolerant '- organisms whose growth and development are dependent upon a
narrow range of optimum environmental conditions. They are rarely found
in areas of organic enrichment. • They cannot adapt to adverse situations
and are replaced by less sensitive organisms if the quality of their
environment is degraded.
Facultative - organisms with the ability to survive over a wide range of
conditions. They possess '''medium" tolerance and often respond positively
to moderate organic enrichment but cannot tolerate severe environmental
stresses.
In addition to tolerance status, the diversity of animals present in a given
benthic community is significant. In general5 pollutional communities are
characterized by very low species diversity, while normal undisturbed communities
contain many different species.
Conductivity and temperature readings were taken near the surface and near
bottom at each sampling station with a Solu Bridge. The conductivity readings were
converted to mg/1 of chlorides with a nomogram calibrated for chlorides in Lake
Michigan at Manistee. Transparency was measured with a standard Secchi disc at
all sampling stations. Temperatures, transparency, conductivity, and chloride
concentrations are .presented in Table 3.
OBSERVATIONS
The bottom material at the majority of stations was clean sand with the exception
of stations 8 and 9 which had a thin layer of light flocculent material over clean
sand. The extent of this light deposit was limited. No unnatural odors were observed
throughout the survey. An inspection of the Lake Michigan beaches both to the north
and south of the pipeline indicated very clean waters with no visual discoloration
or detectable debris along the shore.
For the evaluation of this benthic survey the stations have been grouped into 5
zones (Figures 2 and 3) with zones N-l and N-2 north of the discharge zone and zones
S-l and S-2 south of the discharge zone.
Zone N-2 (stations 1, 2 and 3) extends from 2 to 5 miles north of the discharge.
In this zone 10 species of bottom-associated organisms were sampled. Four of these
were tolerant, 5 facultative, and 1 intolerant. The intolerant species was the scud
Pontoporeia affinis. Chloride content of the water in this zone ranged between 22
and 27 mg/l and the Secchi transparency was between 9 and 10.5 feet.
Zone N-l (stations 4, 5 and 6) extends from 1/2 to 2 miles north of the discharge.
In this zone 12 species of bottom-associated organisms were sampled. Two of these
were tolerant, 9 facultative, and 1 intolerant. Again the intolerant species was
Pontoporeia affinis. The chloride content of the water in this zone ranged between
15 and 19 mg/1 and the Secchi transparency was 12 feet throughout.
213
-------
2828
The discharge zone (stations 7. 8, 9 and 10) extends from 1/2 mile north to 1/2
mile south of the PCA discharge. Station 9 is in the immediate vicinity of the
discharge. In the discharge zone 7 species of bottom-associated organisms were
sampled. Four of these were tolerant and 3 faculative. No intolerant animals were
collected from this zone. The chloride content of the water ranged between 15 mg/1
at the surface to 248 mg/1 near the bottom in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
The Secchi transparency readings ranged between 9 and 13 feet throughout the zone,
with the less transparent water occurring nearest the shore.
Zone S-l (stations 11, 12 and 13) extends from 1/2 mile to 2 miles south of the
discharge. In this zone 17 species of bottom-associated organisms were found. Three
of these were tolerant. 13 facultative and 1 intolerant. The single intolerant species
was once again Pontoporeia affinis. The chloride content of the water ranged
between 15 and 17 mg/1 and the Secchi transparency was between 6.5 and 13 feet.
Again the less transparent water occurred nearest the shore. This phenomenon was
apparently associated with wave action in the shallower water rather than any
discoloration from, the discharge. Wind was from the WSW at more than 10 mph.
Zone S-2 (stations 14, 15 and 16) extends from 2 to 5 miles south of the
discharge. In this zone 11 species of bottom-associated organisms were found. Three
of these were tolerant, 7 facultative and 1 intolerant. The single intolerant form
was again Pontoporeia affinis the same species collected from zones N-2, N-l and S-l.
The chloride content of the water ranged between 10 and 17 mg/1 and the Secchi
transparency was between 6.5 and 7 feet.
SUMMARIZATION OF RESULTS
From the physical, chemical and biological data obtained from this survey the
following conclusions may be reached:
1, In the immediate vicinity of the PCA discharge a thin layer of a
soft white material forms a deposit of limited area. No trace
of this material could be. found in the zones adjacent to the
discharge. Apparently wave action or currents prevent the
accumulation of greater amounts of this material.
2. Water in the immediate vicinity of the PCA discharge at a depth of
16 feet was saturated with oxygen.
3. Surface chloride concentrations in Lake Michigan in the vicinity
of the PCA discharge ranged between 10 and 27 mg/1. The chloride
concentration near bottom in this area was 248 mg/1. Chloride
readings taken near bottom 500 feet offshore at the discharge
(station 10) showed that the chlorides had dropped to 41 mg/1
while readings taken near bottom 4,000 feet (station 8) and
8.000 feet (station 7) offshore at the discharge showed
concentrations of 130 mg/1. This demonstrates that the 'majority
of the PCA waste was moving"away from shore on this date.
Chloride measurements made near bottom 1 mile north and 1 mile
south of the PCA discharge showed no significant concentrations
of Chlorides.
214
-------
2829
'(. A series Oi'. water temperatures taken in the vicinity of the PCA
Lake Michigan discharge showed virtually no differences between
temperatures found in the adjacent zones.
5. Secchi transparency readings taken in the vicinity of the PCA
Lake Michigan discharge showed no decrease in transparency of the
surface waters. Suspended solids from a water sample taken near
the bottom in the immediate vicinitv of the discharge were only
'' 7 mg/1.
6. Benthos samples collected from -2 zones extending, from 1/2-5 miles north of
the PCA Lake Michigan waste discharge and from 2 zones extending from 1/2-5
miles south of the discharge were representative of bottom animal populations
indicative, of a clean water environment. Samples collected from the discharge
zone itself did not contain intolerant scuds found in the other zones,
although significant numbers of- facultative and tolerant forms were collected.
The soecies diversity in this zone was lower than that of the adjacent zones.
CONCLUSION
Near a waste discharge of this nature we may anticipate that the bottom fauna
will be changed in the prescribed mixing or discharge zone. At present we can show
no adverse effects on the benthic macro/invertebrate populations sampled in the zones
adjacent to the PCA Lake Michigan dsicharge when these populations are compared to
bottom animal populations tb**- existed in 1957. prior to the discharge of waste at
this point.
Field work by:
Laboratory work by:
Report by:
Michael E. Newton,
Aquatic Biologist
D. James Seeburger,
Aquatic Biologist
Michael E. Newton
D. James Seeburger
Blanchard Mills,
Water Pollution Investigator •
Michael E. Newton
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
Michigan Water Resources Commission
January 9. .1968
215
-------
2830
Figure 1. Location of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling statipnCj
Lake Michigan a-t Hanistee in the vicinity of the Packciftinn Corporation
of America waste disposal pipeline, September 1, 1967, showing depths
from U.S. Lake Survey chart. (• = Kairij.linr station) ( X = sampling
station and pipeline discharge point)
•i')
t,
*
•
11
\f->
7
scale in f«at
216
-------
Table 2. Results of a survey of the bottom-dwelling macro!nvertebrate population. Lake Michigan at Man is tee
in the vicinity of the Packaging Corporation of America waste disposal pipeline: September I, 1967.
(I = intolerant to pollution, F « facultative to pollution and T = tolerant to pollution).
Zone
Station
•** _ M 9 • ^t." Ml
12 3 45
Distance from shore in feet 4.000 4,000 1,000 8,000 4,000
Depth in feet '
Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms)
Tubif icidae
Chaetoqaster sp.
Stvlaria sp.
Amphipoda (scuds)
Pontoporeia affinis-
Hydracari.na (water mi tes)
Tendipedinae (true midges)
Pelopi inae
Oiamesa (P) bathyphila
Diamesa (P) campestris
Hydrobaeninae
Psectrocladius elatus
Psectrocladlus sp.
Te ndipedinae (pupae )
Cryptochi ronomus sp. 3
35 31 20 31 33
T 4 120 104
F 2
F. 7
12 14 37
F 2
F 7
F
F .7
F 2
F 4 4 9
F 9
Cryptochi ronomus sp. 9(Lipina)F
Cryptochi ronomus rol 1 i
Cryptochi ronomus nr . •
camptolabis
Cryptochi ronomus unk.
Calopsectra sp.
Tanytarsus (T) sp. 2
Tanytarsus (Stictochi ronomus)
sp. 1
Tendipes attenuatus
Tendipes plumosus
'Tendipes ri par Jus
Tend! pes (L) modestus
Tendipes (C) atroviridis
Hicrotendipes tarsalis
Harnischia nr. nais
Glyptotendipes lobiferus
F
F •
F
f 5
F
F. 2
T
T 9
T 122 30
T
T
F .
'F' • '2
F
6 789 10 II 12
1,000 8,000 4,000 1,000 500 8,000 4,000
14 34 31 16 14 37 31
23 16 39 .
2
II 2
II 16 .
22 5
. .2
4 9
2 42
4 425
4
2.
2
2
4
4
.74
39 11 50 21 5 9 50
.2 • ' .
9
2
18
•it **S"2 .-• -*
13 14 IS 16
1,000 4.000 1,000 4,000
25 28 16 25
.2 24
5 . • - •
22 II
2
2
2 5
7 ..12
20 4 28 II
2
2
2 23 21 14
Pelecypoda
Sphaer!idae (fingernai1 clams)
Number of species/sq. ft.
Number of individuals/sq. ft.
Number of intolerant species
Number of faculaiive species
Number of tolerant species
3
15
1
0
2
2
6
0
2
0
7
276
1
3
3
2
6
0
2
0
9
205
1
6
2
5
74
1
3
1
4
38
a
2
2
5
77
0
I
4
3
29
0
1
2
2
7
0
1
1
13
104
1
10
2
8
83
0
6
2
3
24
1
1
1
8
42
1
5
2
5
60
0
3
2
7
59
1
3
3
CO
U)
-------
2832
Table 3. Tabulation of chemical and physical data from
Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Packaging Corporation
of America pipeline out.let, Man is tee County.
September 1, 1967
Sampling station
1 Surface --- 57
1 Bottom 35 ft. 46
2 Surface --- 57
2 Bottom 31 ft. 48
3 Surface 56
3 Bottom 20 ft. 51
4 Surface 52
4 Bottom 31 ft. 46
5 Surface --- 52
5 Bottom 33 ft. 46
6 Surface 46
6 Bottom 14 ft. 44
7 Surface --- 52
7 Bottom 34 ft. 46
8 Surface --- 48
8 Bottom 31 ft. 44
9 Surface --- 46
*9 Bottom 16 ft. 44
10 Surface 46
10 Bottom 14 ft. 42
11 Surface --- 50
11 Bottom 37 ft. 44
12 Surface --- 48
12 Bottom 31 ft. 45
13 Surface 50
13 Bottom 25 ft. 48
14 Surface 50
14 Bottom 28 ft, 43
15 Surface --- 48
15 Bottom 16 ft. 45
16 Surface 50
16 Bottom 25 ft. 43
Seech i
transparency
9'
10'
10.5'
—
12'
_•__
12'
12'
._ _
13'
---
9.5'
—
9'
—
12.5'
—
13'
—
9'
---
6.5'
—
7'
—
6.5'
—
71
---
250
250
260
260
270
270
230
230
220
230
220
240
220
700
240
700
220
1 ,200
220
330
220
230
230
230
220
230
220
220
200
220
220
230
conduct i vi ty
mg/1
chlor i des
22
22
24
24:
27
27
17
17
15
17
15
19
15
130
19
130
15
248
15
41
15
17
17
17
15
17
15
15
10
15
15
17 '
*Water collected near bottom with a Kemmerer water bottle at Station 9-B (the
Packaging Corporation of America Lake Michigan discharge) contained 7 mg/1
suspended sol i ds and 12.5 mg/1 diss.olved oxygen.
218
-------
2833
Figure 2. Location of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations,
Lake Michigan at Manistee in the vicinity of .the Packaging Corporation
of America waste disposal pipeline, September 1, 1967, illustrating
established sampling zones. (• = sampling station) (J( = sampling
station and pipeline discharge point)
*
o
seal* in f«at
219
-------
figure 3. Number of bottom-dwelling macroinvcrtebrate .-.pncifr;
and their tolerance status from five sampling 7,onf!.-»
Lake Michigan, at Manistno in the vicinity of t.ho
Packaging Corporation of America waste disposal
pipeline, September 1, 1967.
283^
UJ
o
UJ
Q.
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
INTOLERANT
FACULTATIVE
TOLERANT
SAMPLING ZONES
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
220
-------
2835
APPENDIX p
RADIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF AOUATIC 3IOTA
IN THE VICINITY OF THE
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR REACTOR
221
-------
2836
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
Radiological Investigations of Aquatic Biota in the Vicinity
of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Reactor
1960-1967
Beginning in 1960 collections of aquatic plants and animals for radiological
analysis have been made twice a year in the vicinity of Consumers Power Company's
Big Rock Point Nuclear Reactor. Data collected prior to September 1962 when the
reactor went critical are indicative of the radiation levels to be expected due -to
fallout and natural background sources.
The Big Rock Point Reactor site is located on the south shore of Little Traverse
Bay, Lake Michigan, in Charlevoix .County, Michigan. The immediate and general area
is heavily wooded and sparsely populated. The shore line is rocky, barren; and
exposed to wind and wave action. Stations for the collection of aquatic biota
have been established at Mount McSauba Point, Big Rock Point, and Nine Mile Point
(Figure 1). Mount McSauba Point is approximately three miles southwest of the
reactor and Nine Mile Point is approximately three miles east of the reactor.
From Mount McSauba Point to Nine Mile Point the six foot depth contour occurs
between fifty and three hundred yards offshore. Generally the depth increases
rapidly beyond this contour to depths greater than one hundred feet a mile from
shore. Bottom type of the inshore area is uniformly rocky with underlying gravel
and some sand.
The direction of current -flow is important at this location due to the proximity
of the water intakes at Charlevoix and Petoskey. Studies of Lake Michigan surface
currents have shown that the major surface current structure of Lake Michigan can
change greatly over a three week period. In spite of this instability, a northward
current paralleling the east shore of the upper half of Lake Michigan is usual.
These studies suggest that when westerly winds are blowing, a clockwise current
circulates in Little Traverse Bay, resulting in a westward moving current past the
reactor site towards Petoskey. Wind direction data from the U.S. Coast Guard Life-
boat Station at Charlevoix indicate, that the westward moving shore current would
be the normal one.
Monthly water samples have been collected and analyzed from six locations in
the Big Rock vicinity (Figure 1). The annual monthly average-radioactivity counts
of these samples have been plotted together for comparative purposes in Figure 2
along with similar averages from six samples taken considerable distances from
Charlevoix. Three of the latter were from Lake Michigan and three from large rivers.
This comparison indicates that the radioactivity concentrations found in the
Charlevoix area are similar to those found at other locations in Michigan.
Plankton samples were secured with a standard number 20 silk bolting cloth net
towed through the very clear water. Collections of other aquatic organisms were made
near shore in water less than three feet deep. Gross alpha and beta concentrations
of these organisms are reported in microcuries per gram x 10~7 on an oven dry basis.
222:-;223
-------
2837
The radioactivity of plankton collected near Big Rock Point has not varied
siginificantly from the counts of plankton at the two stations three miles distant
(Figure 3). Considerable variations have occurred from year to year since 1960
probably because of variations in the amount of fallout. Since plankton moves with
the currents it is a poor monitor of localized changes in radioactivity such as
would be expected at Big Rock Point.
The radioactivity of the other biota collected at Big Rock Point has been
generally higher since 1962 than it has been at either Nine Mile Point or Mount
McSauba Point. The largest difference occurred in the periphyton and filamentous
algae (Figures 4 and 5). Crawfish and shore minnows also had higher counts at Big
Rock Point than elsewhere (Figures 6 and 7). Despite these increases it is
significant that these higher counts are not greater than those found before the
reactor went critical.
A general rise in the radioactivity was observed in 1963. Since this also
occurred in watercourses distant from Big Rock (Figure 2) it is reasonable to
attribute the rise to increases in fallout from nuclear testing. From this 1963
high a general decline in radioactivity has taken place except for the biota in
the immediate vicinity of the Big Rock Point Reactor.
Field collections by: Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr.,
Michael E. Newton,
D. James Seeburger,
John G. Robinson,
Robert F. Carr,
Aquatic Biologists
Radiological analyses by: Russel Krueger, Chemist
Report by: Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr., Chief
Water Quality Appraisal Unit
John G. Robinson
Michael E. Newton
January 24, 1968
224
-------
FIGURE 1 . LOCATION HAP, BIG ROCK
POINT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR, SHOWING
H.W.R.C. SAMPLING POINTS.
4= AQUATIC BIOTA
• = WATER
FROM U.S.L.S. CHART NO. 70, 1957
HARBOR SPRINGS
LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY
PETOSKEY (E)
BEAR RIVER (F)
WATER SUPPLY
IXIE CEMENT CO.
(D)
BOYHE CITY
oo
U)
00
-------
Figure 2.
Annual radiological concentration averages of monthly water samples taken in the vicinity of
Big Rock Point Nuclear Reactor (•) and other locations (Q), 1961-1967.
ABCDEFGHIJKLABCDEFGHIJK!
ro
oo
-------
2840
100,000
10,000
r-
i
o
I
1,000
in
v
•H
O
•H
100
• ' | I I I I 'I ' ' I *
Figure 3. Plankton radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor.
PLANKTON
9/27
Critical
Mt. McSouba Point •-•*•*••••
Big Rock Point M * *
Nint Milt Point -o-o-o
I , , I
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
227
-------
2841
100,000
I " • ' • I ' • I • ' I
Figure 4. Penphyton radioactivity near Eig Rock Foint Reactor.
PERIPHYTON
Mt. McSauba Point •-••••••-••
Big Rock Point x x *
Nine Mile Point -0-0-0-
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
228
-------
2842
100,OOC
' Figure 5. Filamentous algae radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor.
10,000
I
00
ID
O.
in
v
•H
t,
O
O
o
•H
s
1,000
100
FILAMENTOUS
ALGAE
t
9/27
Critical
1960
1961
Mt. McSauba Point •-•-•-•-
Big Rock Point * * *
Nine Mile Point -o-p-.-o
I
I
1
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
229
-------
100,000
2843
10,000
Figure 6. Crayfish radioactivity noar ^ig Rock Joint Peactor.
CRAYFISH
I
DO
8.
t.
3
u
o
o
•H
5;
1,000
100
. . 1
I960
1961
Mt. McSauba Point •-•••••••••••
Big Rock Point * K x
Nine Mile Point -0-0-0-
_L
I I . . I .
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
230
-------
100,000
10,000
Figure 7. Shore minnow radioactivity near Big Rock Point Reactor.
2844
c-
i
o
X
E
-------
2845
APPENDIX 0
TRIBUTARY MONITORIMR DATA
ANO
SPECIAL SURVEYS
233
-------
-Table 1
Tributary Water Quality Station Descriptions
Basin
No. River
Location
rv>
i
ro
U)
vn
10 Pine River at Charlevoix
12 Boardman River at Traverse City
14 Manistee River at Manistee
17 Pere Marquette River at Ludington
18 Pentwater River at Pentwater
19 White River near Whitehall
20 Muskegon River at Muskegon
21 Grand River at Grand Haven
22 Black River at' Holland
23 Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
24 Black River at South Haven
*26 St. Joseph River at St. Joseph
North bank at U.S. Highway 31 bridge in Charlevoix
Park Street bridge in Traverse City
Maple Street bridge in Manistee
North wall of channel at Coast Guard Station in Ludington
North wall of channel at Coast Guard Station in Pentwater
South wall of channel at red tower near Whitehall
South wall of channel at Coast Guard Station in Muskegon
South wall of channel below Corps of Engineers in Grand Haven
South wall of channel across from State Park in Holland
U.S. Highway 31 bridge in Saugatuck
Dyckman Avenue bridge in South Haven
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad bridge, below U.S. Highway 31
bridge in St. Joseph
*The station at the mouth of the St. Joseph includes flow from the Paw Paw (Basin No. 25).
00
-------
284?
LAKE
BASINS IN
MAP I
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PORTION
MICHIGAN DRAINAGE BASIN
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
BASIN BASIN
NUMBER NAME
1 MENOMINEE
1 CEDAR
3 FORD
4 ESCAN8A
5, DAYS
6 RAPID
7 WHITEFISH
8 STURGEON
9 MANISTIOUE
10 PINE (BOYNE JORD,
II ELK
12 BOARDMAN
13 BETSIE
14 MANISTEE
19 BIG SABLE
16 LINCOLN
17 PERE MAROETTE
18 PENTWATER
19 WHITE
20 M'.'SKEGON
21 GRAND
22 BLACK (HOLLAND)
23 KALAMAZOO
24 BLACK (SOUTH HAVE
23 PAW PAW
26 ST JOSEPH
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL
DRAINAGE
AREA /
(SO. MILES) *•
2.087
387
477
941
73
137
322
212
1,450
AN) 370
452
295
252
2.120
206
99
740
'72
49O
2.660
5,530
176
2.060
N) 287
444
3,033
3.5S8 '
29,000 '
J
/^
-------
r\>
Ol
-J
FIGURE I
SUMMARY OF SELECTED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARIES
1965—1966
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Q
Dissolved Oxygen
Arithmetic Average
' Of Two Years
Data, 1965—1966
Mg./l.
-
:
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
£ £ £ E a E E S E
X azuicEiuujZui
w < aEyJSuiwo0-
•j * S | Im
Ul
u
a.
e
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
5
— Day B.O.D.
Arithmetic Average
Of
Data,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
a
b
1
il?
-
i z
5 §£ -j
3
I
£
h
U
Ill
III
; 1-5
1C
U
S
,§
1
y
Two Years
1965-1966
Mg./l.
-
lllllll
5S|£S££&
5 £ 5 a £ E E a
lilitpil
10 K ^ 1 1
i u |z 0
S
HI
80
70
60
50
40
30
2O
10
Chlorides-CI.
Arithmetic Average
Of Two Years
Data, 1965—1966
i-
'
-
-
-
-
- '
'1
££
I|
° i
H £
S|*?gz|
j1 •* s;!1 8
is .
ID u
a
1.0
09
o.e
07
06
OS
0.4
03
0.2
01
Phosphates— PO.
Arithmetic Average
Of Two Years.
Doto, 1965 — 1966
- •
- •
-.'
-
-
-
-
-
1
£ j
E :
,1
5S|§
: E -' 0
Mg./l. .
E..I.I.
, £ £ 1 15 £ |5 £
c £ £ S E S S £
- :cKo*oz£'»ii^UJ§§5>>§§§S>^
XzOXO2ua*u|WZbJ
^2° 5°— •~SJ*
§£l|°! *l|l|
^><" » tf|«*
«> s
.32 • • ' 8
< &
« .
ro
oo
-{=•
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF
WATER QUALITY
IN
LAKE MICHIGAN
SELECTED
PARAMETERS
TRIBUTARIES
Surface Water
Board Riv
man '
raverse ty
Manistee River,
_
Ludington '
White River,
f\) Whitehall
CO
• Huskegon River,
-
Grand River
Grand Haven
Holland
Kalamaz River
t k
South Haven
. St. Joseph Riye
• Parameter
Cl
Cl
DO
BOD
POt,
N03-N
Cl
POU
N03-N
DO
Cl . '
. POM
DO
BOD
Cl
N03-N
DO
Cl
N03-N .
BOD.
Cl
•«>„
• N03-H
BOD
Cl
N03-N
Cl
N03-N
BOD
PO,
N03-N
, DO
Cl
' PO,
B03-»
Jan.
"
7-
""
0.0
0.39
0.1
0.32
12.4
12
0.0
0.76
. 13.8
7
0.0
0.23
12.4
IV
0.28
4.7
SO
1.0
1.7B
0.5
1.55
U.I
.1.80
6
|? •
•>.6
0.25
0.85
- l?.l
1.63
Feb. Mar.
5 4
-2 16
10.7
2.0
0.0
0.46 --.
50 - --
0.1 -- .
0.41
11.0
11 .
o.o
0.81
9.7
1.7
20 •
0.0
0.35
9.7
0.30
"4.6
20 -- '
0.3
2.21
2.9
19
1 . 38
18
0.1
1.61
2.7
• o.i . --
0.71
12.1
12
0.3
r.84 --
Apr. May
2 4
0 2
1,4
0.0
0.40
33 36
0.2
•0.31
11.0 . 10.0
9 9
0.0
O.&'J
11.2 10.0
2.6
36 52
0.15
0.3P
10.5 9.H
18 10
0.42
4.U
22 «4
0.3
1.20
3.5
18 10
'0.35
0.88
20 31
0.05
0.83
1.6
0.1
0.60
10.3 7.2
9 10
0\ 2
1.60 ' --
June July
.1
0
8.0 7.2
1.2
0.0
p.o
32
0.0
0.0
8.6 ~*.f>
8
0.0
0.0
9.2 11.6
0.7
56
0.?
• o.o
6.9 6.8
>2
0.0
10.6
0.1
0.0
"4.5 --
22
0.0 •
0.0
29
0.0
0.29
1 .6
2.1
0.37
10.4 .
11
0.0 — '
0.0
Aug.
--
1.6
0.0
0.18
7.9
0.2
0.25
8.0
l.i.O
0.09
9.2
0.0
0.02
0.12
5.5
-'-
4.0
1.0
-
13.8
'
Sept.
-
--
1.2
0.1
o.m
7.2
a?
0.2
0.1"
7.4
5
0.1
0.11
R.;.
1.6
0.0'
«.
-------
2850
FIGURE .2.
PINE RIVER
CHARLEVOIX
T r T
irr
''• ' I ' ' '
[Nltrotts-NOj-N |
K-0
10
8
6
4
2
1-0
10
8
6
4
2
h-0
10
C>
z
Phosphates—P04 I
5-Day B.0.0.
i l l
O—i
10
8
6
4
2
0—1
10
8
6
4
2
10
J FMAMJ J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A SONO
1965 1966
NOTE: DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS.
. . FOR. WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
239
-------
FIGURE 3
BOARDMAN RIVER
TRAVERSE CITY
2851
M>
10
8
10
8
* 6
4
2
M>
Nitrates
.1 ——-. i
-N03-N]
Phosphates —P04 |
| 5-Day B.O.D.
10
8
6
4
2
°
!0
8
6
4.
2
10
| Q Ll i I I I j i J -I II | I I I 1 I I 1 .. ._L ... I I _| O I
JFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASONO
1965
1966
NOTE 04SH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE
240
-------
2852
FIGURE 4
MANISTEE RIVER
MANISTEE
i i i i i I MI
| NHrotes-NOj-Nl
I i I I I T
I Phosphotes-P04
0—1
125
100
75
50
25
0 |
10
8
6
4
2
125
100
75
50
25
O
10
8
6
4
2
Chlorides-CI. !
5-Day B.O.D.
10
210
Dissolved Oxygen
I I I I I I
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
10
NOTE- OASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
241
-------
2853
FIGURE 5
PERE MARQUETTE RIVER
LUDINGTON
0
O5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
FIT
Nitrates- N03-NJ
1 I I
I I I I
0 |
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
°-H
125
100
75
50
25
°-H
10
8
6
4
2
0 1
10
Phosphates —
125
100
75
50
25
Chlorides-CI. i
j 5—Day B.O.D |
Dissolved Oxygen
10
_0 I I I I I I I -I I I I ill i i • I • I I I I I I I I o_
J FMAMJJ ASOND J FMAMJ J A* S 0 N 0
1965
1966
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS' NOT AVAILABLE.
342
-------
2854
FIGURE 6
PENTWATER RIVER
PENTWATER
V.
b>
S
—0
0.5
O4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0
10
8
6
4
2
10
8
6
4
2
I \ I IIIIII"I T I I I I I III I I I I
! Nltrotes-N03-N|
: Chlorides-CI.
| 5— Day B.O.D. |
| Dissolved Oxygen1
1966
0—
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0
10
6
6
4
2
0
10
e
6
4
2
0
10
NOTE - DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
243
-------
2855
FIGURE 7
WHITE RIVER
v WHITEHALL
1—0
0.5
0.4
' 0.3
0.2
O.I
I 0
125
100
, 75
50
25
I °
10
8
6
4
2
I 0
10
\ 0
I T
i I] I I
Nitrates-N03-N~
! Phosphates—f
Chlorides-CI
Day B.O.D ]
0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
125
100
75
50
25
.0
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
244
-------
2856
FIGURE 8
MUSKEGON RIVER
MUSKEGON
0.5
04
> 0.3
o>
0.2
O.I
125
100
75
50
25
I :°
10
8
6
4
2
10
i T^Iiiir
I I I I I I II
[~Phqsphates-PC4 I
I Chlorides — Cl
|5—Ooy B.O.D. |
.Dissolved Oxygen j
0 |
0.5
O.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1
125
100
75
50
25
°^
10
8
6
4
2
0. I
10
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
245
-------
FIGURE 9
GRAND RIVER
GRAND HAVEN
2857
[Phosphates—P04
Dissolved Oxygen
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'll
I I I I
JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND
1965
1966
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
246
-------
FIGURE 10
BLACK RIVER
HOLLAND
2858
JFMAM J JASOND J F.MAMJ JASON 0
1965
1966
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE. '
247
-------
FIGURE II
KALAMAZOO RIVER
SAUGATUCK
2859
0.5
0.4
0.3
02
0.1
Illll I I I I I I . I I
' '
Phosphotes —4
125
100
75
, 50
25
>,
9
z
10
8
6
4
2
10
I I 111
Chlorides-CI. j
| 5-Day B.Q.O. j
s
Dissolved Oxygen |
I o I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.5
0.4
03
0.2
O.I
0
125
100
75
50
25
0
IO
8
6
4
2
10
J FMAMJ JASONO J FMAMJ J'ASONO
1965
1966
NOTE DASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE.
248
-------
2860
FIGURE 12
BLACK RIVER
SOUTH HAVEN
] I I T i l_ | [ I I I 1 I I I
["NiTraTe's-NOj-N |
Phosphotes-PO^ I
O
125
100
75
50
25
0—
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
125
100
75
50
25
O
10
8
6
4
2
Chlofides-CI {
5-Day B.O.D.
10
I n'l I I
I I I I
I I I I I
J FMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJ JA SON.D
1965 1966
NOTE D4SH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE. .
249
-------
FIGURE 13
ST. JOSEPH RIVER
ST. JOSEPH
2861
o>
2
I I I I I • I I I i
05
04
03
0.2
O.I
125
100
75
50
25
10
Phosphates—P04
Chlorides-CI
,5—Doy B.O.D.
1 I
^ | Dissolved Oxygen
I I I I I I I I I
I .1 I I
I I I I I I
0 1
O.5
04
03
02
O.I
0 i
125
100
75
50
25
0 |
10
e
6
4
2
Q—I
10
JFMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJ. JASOND
1965 1966
NOTE- OASH LINES INDICATE PERIODS
FOR WHICH DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE
250
-------
TABLE
WATER
QUALITY
MONITORING
PROGRAM
COL I FORM
COUNTS 1965—1966
MONTHLY
TEST RESULTS
BoarUir. .:. . U^r, Traverse City
Pere Marquette River, Ludington
White River, Whitehall
Huskegon River, Huskegon
Grand River, Grand Haven
Black River, Holland
Kalamazco Riv-r, Saugatuck
Black Stiver, 'iouth Haven
<30
91
<30
430
...
91
230
1,300
36 <3U
l.ttOO
, 36
".'00
9,300 --- 9,300
9,300 9,300
430 --- ' 930
9,300 9,300
1965
---. 2,300
230 2,400
36 --- 390
1,500 2,400
9,300 210,000
430 214,000
930>140,000
2,300 43,000
1,100,000
750
255
. 9,300
7,500
2,300
1,300
4,300
<30 <30
930 9',300 1,500
36 --- 130 <30
4,300 9,300 16,000
9,300 2,300 9,300
2,300 <30 230
930 150 91
43,000 93,000 9,300
<30 <30 <30
230 . 9,300 91
_ 36 <30 <30
1,500 1,300 2,300
300 4,300 43,000
91 91 930
210 230 930
43,008 43,000 4,300
930 36
- . 930 150
<30 <30
130 2,300
43. ?00 4,300
91 91
91 2,300
43,000 9,300
1966
1,300
91 200
91 900
930 2.000
9,300 4,000
230 1,600
430
5,300
14,000 8,500
1,600 350
200 <100 —
3,400 300 ---
8,000 ll.OOC
<200 100 —
200 . 300
1,200 15,050 — '
IDC
14,000
300
30C
:-,T:C
...
...
...
<100
«:o
.' 1.V
:,05:
5,-c:
:::
4.-;
^ , C ? .'
ro
m
SJ-;t«: Results for 1965 and the first 5 months in 1966 are reported as MPN/100 ml.
Results for the remainder of 1966 are expressed as org/100 ml. •
ro
oo
ch
ro
-------
LAKE
SAMPLING
MAP 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PORTION
MICHIGAN DRAINAGE BASIN
LOCATIONS —RAW WATER INTAKES
2863
DRAINAGE
BASIN
NUUBCR
1
2
3
4
5
t
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
19
16
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BASIN
AREA
NAME (SO. MILES)
MCNOMINEE
CEDAR
FORD
ESCANBA
DAYS
RAPID
WHITEFISH
STURGEON
MANISTIOUE
PINE (BOYNE JORDAN)
ELK
BOARDMAN
BETSIE
MANISTCE
BIG SABLE
LINCOLN
PERE MAROETTE
PENTWATER
WHITE
MUSKEGON
GRAND
BLACK (HOLLAND)
KALAMAZOO
BLACK (SOUTH HAVEN)
PAW PAW
ST. JOSEPH
MISCELLANEOUS
2,067
387
477
941
73
137
322
212
1,450
370
452
295
252
2,120
206
99
740
172
490
2,660
5,530
176
2,060
287
444
3.O33
3,528
;
252
-------
TABLE 4
SAMPLE RESULTS
DOMESTIC WATER INTAKES
LAKE MICHIGAN
1967
Intake Sampled
i.
2.
3.
tt .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
St. Joseph, Hichigan
Benton Harbor, Michigan
South Haven, Hichigan
Grand Haven, Hichigan
Huskegon, Hichigan
Ludington, Hichigan
Northport, Hichigan
Traverse City, Hichigan
Gladstone, Hichigan
Arithmetic Averaj
Total Fecal
Coliforro Coliform
org/100 ml org/100 ml Do
700 180 10.4
100' <10 11.2
300 30 9.6
<100 <10
<100 • 10
600 20 --
<100 <10 9.3
<100 <10 ?.3
—
BOD S.S.
13
12
12
6 •
- . 8
9
2.6 0
1.9 0
6
4
i7
T.D.S.
170
155
165
170
135
185
165
175
195
150
166
pH
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.4
8.1
7.9
8.0
a. 2
HO,-»
0.30
0.25
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.10
0.21
Cl
6
6
8
10
4
24
' 5
5
4
4
7.6
NHq-N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SO
P0h
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.169
Fe
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.35
Ca
40
36
40
40
36
44-
34..
36
34
36
37
Hg Ha
12 5.1
11 4. a
12 5.5
12 6.9
10 4.4
11 6.0
11 4-. 2
9 4.2
11 3.7
11 4.1
11 4.9
K
o.e
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7.
0.7
0.7
0.76
so,,
30 •
24
29
29
19
23
22
20
23
23
24
Alkal
125
115
120
125
110
115
110
110
110
110
115
Hard-
ness'
150
135
150
150
130
155
130
130
130
135
139
Phenol
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
0.000
CN
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
Cr»6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
As
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O'.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Co
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
F
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.1S
0.13
Zn
0.0
0.0
o.o'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ro
w
tx
Note: All results are mg/1 except pH and as otherwise noted.
Sample result:; were obtained from grab samples taken during summer and fall of 1967.
(O
00
-------
TABLE 5
LAKE MICHIGAN
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY
MUNICIPAL PLANT INTAKES
1966
2865
Municipality
St. Joseph
Benton Harbor
South Haven
Holland
Wyoming
Grand Rapids
Muskegon Heights
Muskegon
Ludington
Traverse Ci ty
Gladstone
Escanaba
Menominee
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg'.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Coliform
Tot, orq./ 100 ml
0
11,000
1,325
0
110,000
2,375
4
1,100
210
3
46,000
512
0
2,400
135
0
2,400
Not determined
0
1 1 ,000
340
- 4
1!
155
3
1,100
60
0
30
5
3
1,100
45
3
1*30
35
3
24,000
300
Chlorides
mg/1
5
13
7
4
13
8
7
13
10
5
12
8
Hardness
mq/1
112
232
120
196
144
Temp
°F
_fiH
151
119
125
165
134
1 126
15 166
9 138
1 124
10 160
6 135
118
154
133
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
124
140
129
110
136
125
136
112
129
32
76
50
33
77
49
33
72
49
33
73
48
31
71
51
33
73
47
33
72
48
33
73
46
7.5
8.8
8.1
7.7
8.7
8.1
7.8
8.5
8.2
7.6
8.8
8.3
7.6
8.8
8.2
7.8
8.7
8.2
8.0
8.4
8.2
7.2
8.5
8.0
34
80
48
33
68
45
34
70
42
34
70
47
7.9
8.6
8.3
7.0
8.2
7.5
7.7
8.5
8.1
7.4
8.5
8.1
* Data shown represent a yearly average, a yearly minimum and a yearly maximum.
254
-------
LAKE
MAP 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PORTION
MICHIGAN DRAINAGE BASIN
SPECIAL SURVEYS
2866
2
3
4
9
6
r
6
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
BASIN BASIN
NUMBER NAME
I MENOMINEE
CEDAR
FORD
ESCANBA
DAYS
RAPID
WHITEFISH
STURGEON
MANISTIOUE
PINE (BOYNE JORDAN)
ELK
BOARDMAN
BETSIE
MANISTEE
BIG SABLE
LINCOLN
PERE MAROETTE
PENTWATER
WHITE
MUSKEGON
GRAND
22 BLACK (HOLLAND)
23 KALAMAZOO
24 BLACK (SOUTH HAVEN) 287
25 PAW fUU 444
26 ST. JOSEPH 3,033
MISCELLANEOUS 3,528
255
-------
TABLE 6
DATA FROM SPECIAL SURVEYS
MICHIGAN'S PORTION OF THE
LAKE MICHIGAN DRAINAGE BASIN
Station
Hunber
1
2
3
1
5
6
7 '
St. Joseph River at C & 0
Railroad Bridge in St. Joseph
Escanaba River at River
Houth
Menominee River, 1st Street
Bridge in Henominee
Black River (U.P.) U.S. -2
Bridge, Naubinway
Manistique River (U.P.)
H-219
Sturgeon River (U.P.)
U.S. -2 Bridge
Ford River, U.S. -2 Bridge
naba
Date
1967
7-19
7-20
8-23
8-21
7-24
7-25
10-13
11-11
11-11
10-10
Total fecal
Temp. Coltform Coliform
°C org/100 ml org/100 ml DO BOD pH S.S.
22.7 13,200 2,600 13.9 9.8 8.6 51
18.8 5.000 100 6.1 4.6 7.7 11
24.1 1,700 -- 6.2 3.2 7.5 7
-- 7.7 3
-- 7.3 25
.- 7.7 2
7 .2,800 -- 11.6 1.8 8.2 5
T.D.S.
320
135
. 160
155
175
130
190
N03-N
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.10
Total SO
NHi-N POu POu
0.0 0.60 0.05
0.0 0.15 0.00
0.0 0.15 0.05
0.0 0.15 0.05
0.0 '-- 0.00
0.0 -- 0.00
0.0 0.10 0.00
Ca Hs Na
58 23 8.5
25 10 3.2
26 7 2.1
34 11 1.1
27 6 1.6
26 8 2'. 5
12 18 1.6'
K Cl
0.9 10
0.7 0
0.5 0
0.1 0
0.5 0
0.6 0
0.5 0
Hard-
ness
246
100
95
130
92
98
180
Alkal-
inity Phenol
175 0.00
85 0.00
80 0.00
70
85
165
Cn Cr*6 Fe
0.00 0.00 --
0.4
0.00 0.00 0.25
0.00 0.00 0.5
0.00 0.00 0.4
0.1
Note: Station numbers 1, 2 and 3 were 2W-hour comprehensive surveys conducted during the summer of 1967. Station numbers U, 5 and 6 were grab
sampled once during 1967 as part of the interstate water quality monitoring program and station number 7 was grab sampled once during 1967
as part of a background water quality monitoring program. ,
All results are ng/1 except pH and as otherwise noted.
to
CO
-------
MAP 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PORTION
LAKE MICHIGAN DRAINAGE BASIN
2868
RADIOACTIVITY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
BASIN BASIN
NUMBER NAME
I MENOMINEE
2 CEDAR
3 FORD
4 ESCANBA.
9 DAYS
6 RAPID
7 WHITEFISH
8 STURGEON
9 MANISTIOUE
10 PINE (BOYNE JORDAN)
II ELK
12 BOAROMAN
13 8ET5IE
14 MANISTEE
19 BIG SABLE
16 LINCOLN
17 PERE MAROETTE
IB PENTWATER
WHITE
MUSKEGON
GRAND
BLACK (HOLLAND)
KALAMAZOO
BLACK (SOUTH HAVEN)
PAW PAW
ST. JOSEPH
MISCELLANEOUS
257-258
-------
2869
APPENDIX R
PHOSPHORUS INPUT
TO
LAKE MICHIGAN
259
-------
28?0
Michigan Portion of Lake Michigan
Watershed Calculated P In-outs
By Sources Based on
Tributary Monitoring Data
To find the.total amount of phosphorus (P) be\ng contributed to Lake Michigan
from Michigan lands and waters/ drainage area and flow data were used from USGS
records and P04 dara from the Water Quality Monitoring Program. Calculations were
made on a basin and/or region basis. Certain river basins have no flow data available
since USGS does not have gaging stations on all Michigan streams. Flows for these
streams were calculated by finding the ratio of flow (cfs) to area (sq. tni.) for an
adjacent or similar basin and multiplying-this by the area (sq. mi.) of the unknown
basin.
The amount of phosphorus (P) contributed by each basin to Lake Michigan per year
was calculated by use of the following formula:
Pounds P per year = MGY x 8.34 Ibs/gal x Avg. mg/1 P
Basins which have neither flow data nor PO^ data available were calculated by
using the average Ibs. P/sq. mi. figure of an adjacent or similar basin.
The ''miscellaneous basins" are drainage areas along the lakeshore which are not
drained by a major stream. These areas were totaled and multiplied by the average
Ibs. P/sq. mi. figure for all basins.
The Menominee and St. Joseph rivers are interstate waters which drain lands
other than Michigan lands. The Menominee Basin is equally proportioned, half in
Michigan and half in Wisconsin. It was assumed that since the 2 halves of the basin
are similar in population and types of land use that Michigan would be responsible
for 50% of the phosphorus (P) present at the mouth of the river.
The St. Joseoh River Basin was treated differently. PO^. data from a river survey
conducted July 17-20, 1967, was used to determine the proportion of the load from
Michigan lands. There are gaging stations present at Mottville and Miles and samples
were taken at these locations during the survey. Mottville is located near the
Indiana-Michigan border just before the St. Joseph enters Indiana. Miles is located
near the same border where the river enters Michigan again. The Michigan load should
be equal to the load at the mouth, minus the load at Miles, plus the load at Mottville.
Using this formula, it was determined that Michigan contributed 51% of the total
phosphorus (P) load of the St. Joseph River.
The total calculated amount of phosphorus (P) contributed to Lake Michigan from
Michigan lands and waters based on 1964 data was 1.728,806 pounds. The amount
calculated from 1965 data was 2,721,838 pounds. This 54% increase can be attributed
to the higher flows and more land runoff in 1965 than in 1964.
26Q>:26l
-------
2871
The following is a comparison of average river flows over the period of gage
record to the average flows for 1964 and 1965. A check of the stations with the
longest periods of record reveals that 1964 was a relatively dry year with flows
averaging 30% below the long-term average, while 1965 was a slightly "wet" year
with flows approximately 7% above the long-term average. This would indicate that
1965 better represents the "'average'' flow of Michigan tributaries to Lake Michigan.
Basin
No.
1
3
4
9
12
14
15
17
19
20
21
. 22
23
25
26
Surface Waters
Menominee
Ford
Escanaba
Manistique
Boardman
Manistee
Big Sable
Pere Marquette
White
Muskegon
Grand
Black (Holland)
Kalamazoo
Paw Paw
St . Joseph
uses
Period
of
Record
(years )
53
11
24
27
13
14
23
26
8
43
39
5
35
14
35
Average
Flow For
Period
of
Record
(cfs)
3,098
324
895
1,330
186.
1,933
137
608
367
1,889
3,362
45.2
1,296
373
3,025
Average
Flow
For
1964
(cfs)
2,123
300
673
1,179
163
1,697
129
513
301
1,334
. 1,631
42.5
770
284
1,464
% of
Average
Flow
87
88
84
71
48
59
76.1
48
Average
Flow
For
1965
(cfs)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A..
190
2,059
N.A.
739
458
2,191
3,416
77.7
1,188
438
3,043
% of
Average
Flow
102
106
121
115
101
92
117
100.6
Conclusions:
The estimated total phosphorus (F) contributed by Michigan to_ Lake Michigan
in 1965 was 2,700,000 Ibs. or about 7,400 Ibs/day. fn~is figure was obtained by
multiplying average PO^ concentrations obtained from a year-round monitoring program
times average yearly flows of surface waters tributary to the lake. It should be
recognized that some of the basins(40%) are not monitored for water quality or for
flow and assumptions and extrapolation of data had to be made to allow calculation
of-the total phosphorus load. .Thus the 2,700,000 Ibs. is at best a rough estimate.
The 1965 figures were used because they most nearly represent an average year for
flow discharge to Lake Michigan.
If the 2,700,000 Ibs. of phosphorus were spread evenly throughout Michigan's
Lake Michigan basins it would equal about 90 Ibs. of phosphorus per square mile per
year, or if spread equally among the Michigan population it would equal about 1.2. Ibs.
of phosphorus per person per year. It is obvious that the phosphorus load is not
spread evenly throughout the basins or equally among the population; Some of the
phosphorus discharged in the upstream portions of the basin is utilized in the stream
and may never reach the lake. Thus the 2,700,000 Ibs. per year is the amount actually
discharged to the lake and not the amount discharged throughout the basin.
262
-------
TABLE 2
PHOSPHORUS CONTRIBUTED TO
BY
MICHIGAN'S TRIBUTARY BASINS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Flow at Mouth
Basin
Number
^
. 2
3
1
5
6
7
1
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
26
River Basin Naue
Henoninee (Mien.)
Cedar
Ford
Cscanaba
Days
Rapid
Vhiteflsh
Sturgeon
Manistique
Pine (Boyne - Jordan)
Elk
Boardraan
Betsie
Manistee
Big Sable
Lincoln
Pere Marquette
Pentvater
White
Muskegon
Grand
Black (Holland)
Kalamaeoo •
Black (South Haven)
Paw Pan
St. Joseph (Mich..)
Miscellaneous Basins
TOTAL
Drainage
Area
(Sq. Miles)
2,087
387
177
911
73
137
322
212
1,150
370
152
295
252
2,120
206
99
710
172
190
2,660
5,530
176'
2,060
287
111
3,033
3.528
29,000
1961
Calendar
Year
Average
CFS
1,170
320
730
1,550
278
220
1,980
210
530
121
390
1,510
1,810
113
990
181
320
1,250
1965
Calendar
Year
Average
CFS
1,010
190
920
1,850
322
250
2,200
250
770
179
590
2,180
3,860
210
1,530
312
500
2,201
Average POn Content
1961
Average
Soluble POU
.15
.02
.15
.02
.01
.28
.02
.01
.01
.01
.06
.13
.56
.09
.12
.29
.29
.30
1965
Average
Soluble POU
TO/1
.15
.01
.15
.01
.03
.13
.01
.10
.10
.01
.09
.12
.16
.21
.07'
.19
.19
.25
Phosphorous Contributed by Basin
Ibs. Phosphorous
(POi,-P) per
Calendar Year
1961
113,916
1,101
1,157
71,095
1,016
1,907
1,182
2,951
20,182
1,801
2,879
10,037
3,019
25,710
5,151
2,622
13,761
805
15,192
127,111
669,006
6,603
77,311
31,615
60,115
213,175
168.991
1,728,806
Ibs. Phosphor
(PO,,-P) per
Calendar Ye
1965
98,360
2,581
3,181
89,596
601
1,131
2,666
1,755
12,011
6,272
7,661
21,100
1,688
11,283
16,231
7,800
19,992
1,162
31,175
193,215
1,152,795
32,722
69,531
108,800
159,061
357,266
275.890
2,721,838
ous Pounds Pr
(P04-p) p
ar Contribute
1961
51.6
11.1
8.7
75.6
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
1.9
6.1
110.5
12.1
12.1
26.5
26.5
18.6
1.7
31.0
17.9
121.0
37.5
37.5
120.7
136.1'
80.3
17.9
osphorous
er Sq. Mi.
d by Basin
1965
17.1
6.7
6.7
95.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
17.0
17.0
71.0
6.7
6.7
78.8
78.8
67.6
6.8
70.1
72'.6
208.5
185.9'
33.8
379.1
358.3
117.8
78.2
Population
by Basin
1960
61,000
2,000
1,500
13,600
6,500
2,000
2,500
1,000
9,000 •
12,100
.12,500
29,100
1,000
31,100
3,100
3,100
23,800
7,100
20,100
192,000
919,000
51,000
. 117,000
29,000
50,500
211,300
133,100
2,281,900
Population
per SQ. Hi.
30.7
5.2
3.1
11.5
89.0
11.6
7.8
1.7
6.2
33.5
27.7
99.7
15.9
11.7
15.1
31.3
32.2
13.0
11.0
72.2
171.6
289.8
202.1
101.1
113.7
69.7
37.7
78.69
Pounds Phosphorous (PO^-P)
per Person per Year
1961
1.78
2.20
2.77
5.23
0.16
0.95
1.79
2.95
2.21
0.15
0.23
1.36
0.76
0.83
1.76
0.58
0.11
0.76
0.66
0.71
0.13
0.19
1.19
1.20
1.15
1.27
0.76
1965
1.51
1.29
2.12
6.59
0.09
0.57
1.07
1.76
1.33
0.51
0.61
' 0.72
0.12
0.16
5.21
2.52
2.10
0.16
1.72
1.01
1.21
0.61
0.17
3.75
3.15
1.69
2.07
1.19
Hot*: 1) Flow for basins 2, 5, 6,'7, 8, 10, 11, 13. 16, 19, and 24 were obtained from yield ratios of similar basins.
2) POtf values for basins 2, 3, S, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 25 were obtained from yield ratios of similar basins.
3) POi* values for basins 1 and 4 were obtained from comprehensive surveys.
t) The values used for the "miscellaneous basins" were averages of all basins.
CO
-4
TO
-------
2873
1 R. W. PURDY
2 MR. STEIN: we will recess now. Our
3 present: plans call for a reconvening at 9:30 at
4 the same place tomorrow at which time we will hear
5 from Wisconsin. The Wisconsin presentation, includ-
6 ing its participants, is estimated to take about
7 two hours.
8 After that we will have questioning of
9 Mr. Schneider on the Federal Recommendations
10 and conclusions. If anyone has anything he wants
11 to contribute, he should get in touch with his
12 State representative or the Chairman, because
13 this phase of the conference may be coining to a
14 close.
15 We stand recessed until 9:30\tomorrow
I
16 morning.
17 (Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., an adjournment
18 was taken.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
» U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : I9U O—3I2-M7 (VOL. 5)
------- |