Muskegon Lake Area of Concern

Remedial Action Plan: 7994 Update

DRAFT prepared for Michigan DepaHment of Natural Resources by Public Sector Consultants inc. March 7994

Modified Report.. October 7994 Pub& Advisory Council Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Jerry Engle, Chair Kathleen Evans, Vice Chair Karen Bednarek Allen Bell Ernest Bly Ron Byersmith Roland Crummel Thomas Drake James B. Edrnonson Robert Fountain Mark Gillette Ray Grennan Elizabeth GutseIl Mark Kutches William Moore Gregory Mund Ronald Patten Charles Pistis Robert Ribbens Chuck Tidal1 Tim Westman

Remedia/ Action Plan Team Michigan Department of Natura/ Resources John Wuycheck, RAP Team Coordinator, Surface Water Quality Division Rudy Blue, Surface Water Quality Division Heidi Hollenbach, Environmental Response Division Nik Kalejs, Wildlife Division Amy Lachance, Waste Management Division Jenny Molloy, Surface Water Quality Division Rich O'Neil, Fisheries Division Joy Taylor, Air Quality Division Janice Tompkins, Surface Water Quality Division

Consuttant for the RAP Update Process and Preparation of the Drafi Document Pubfic Sector Consultants, Inc., Lansing, Mkhigan Jack Bails, Project Director Leslie Wells, Researcher and Writer Wilma Harrison, Editor Leslie Brogan, PAC Facilitator Carol Barish and Jeff Williams, Technical Support hr: Photographs by David Kenyon, Michigan Department of Notwal Resources; hignby Jt$iq Fdlwn, Public Seaor ConsulWllS. Contents .

GLOSSARY ...... vi

IMRODUCTION ...... 4 Remedial Action Plan Process ...... 6 Muskegon Lake AOC Pubkc Advisory Council ...... 7 Muskegon Lake AOC MDNR RAP Team ...... 9 1 7987RAPFlNDINGS ...... 10 W8terQuality ...... 11 Cultural Eutrophication ...... 11 Toxic Substances ...... 11 Contaminated Sediments ...... 12 Benthic Community ...... 12 Fishery ...... 13 Population ...... 13 Contaminant Levels ...... 13 Tainting ...... 14 Impaired Uses of Muskegon Lake ...... 14 Impaired Uses of Muskegon Lake Tributaries ...... 14 Sources of Pollution to the A OC ...... 15 Point Discharges ...... 16 Municipe/ Discharges ...... 16 Industrial Discharges ...... 17 . Nonpoint Sources ...... 18 Urban Storm Water ...... 18 Agricutrural &no ff ...... 18 Contaminated Sediments ...... 18 Groundwater Contamination ...... 18 P.A. 307/MERA Sites ...... 18 CERCLA/Superfund Sires ...... 19 Air Gnissions and Deposition ...... 19 2 FlNDlNGSSINCE7987 ...... 20 WaterOualiry ...... 20 Muskegon Lake ...... 21 Discharges to Lake Michiom ...... 23 Sediment Contamhation ...... 24 Benthic Community ...... 28 Fish ...... 28 Population ...... 28 General Descrjption ...... 28 Effects of Toxic Contaminants ...... 29 Effects of Exotic Species ...... 30

iii Habitat Loss ...... 31 Toxic Contamination ...... 31 Depletion of Dissolved Oxygen ...... 31 Development ...... 31 MDNR Fisheries Division Management Goals ...... 33 Wldlife ...... 35 Population ...... 35 Habitat ...... 37 Tributaries ...... 38 Bear Lake Watershed ...... 38 Unnamed Tributary. Little Bear Creek, Bear Creek ...... 38 Bearfake ...... 39 Muskegon River ...... 39 FourMileCreek ...... 40 . Ryerson Creek ...... 40 Ruddiman Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Ruddiman Pond ...... 41 GreenCreek ...... 41 Mosquito Creek ...... 41

3 7994: SOURCES OF POLLUTION ...... 42 NPDES-Regulated Point-Source Discharges ...... 42 Municipal Discharge ...... 43 Industrial Discharges ...... 44 Accidental Discharges ...... 48 Nonpoint Sources ...... 48 Urban Storm Water ...... 49 Agricultural Runoff ...... 49 Sediments ...... 50 Dredging ...... 50 Groundwater ...... 51 P.A.307fMEU Sites ...... 51 Zephyr. Incorporated ...... 54 Marathon tipe tine Co .. Releases at Wood Street ...... 55 Marathon Pipe tine Co.-NortC, Muskwon Terminal ...... 55 Teledyne Continental Motors ...... 55 Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (Formerly Lakey Foundry) ...... 56 Mobil Oil Co . (Secony Oil Co.1. Loss at Sson and McCracken Streets .... 56 Former City of Muskegon Wastewater Treatment Plant ...... 56 Former City of Muskegon Dump ...... 57 HaRshomMarina ...... 57 Fonner Grand Trunk Railroad Car Ferry Dock ...... 57 Chevron Termnal ...... 57 Amoco Terminal ...... 57 Merle Boes Amoco lPetro Pantry) ...... 58 CERCLABuperfundsites ...... 58 Former Ott/Story Facility ...... 58 Duell-Gardner Landfrl ...... 59 Othersites ...... 60 Efforts by Muskegon County ...... 60 Air Emissions and Deposition ...... 60 Current Studies and Programs ...... 61 Mercury ...... 62

1 4 1994: IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE A OC ...... 64 Problems Identified by the PAC and the RAP Team ...... 64 The 14 Use Impairments: Status of Each in the Muskegon Lake AOC ...... 65 . Restrictions on Human Consumption of Fish and Wildlife ...... 66 Tainthg of fish and Wildlife Flavor ...... 66 I Degradation of Fish and Wldlife Populations ...... 69 Fish Tumors and Other Deformities ...... 69 Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems ...... 69 Degradation of Benthos ...... 70 Restrictions on Dredging ...... 70 I Eutrophication or Undesirable Algal Blooms ...... 70 Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption ...... 71 Beach Closings ...... 71 I Degradation of Aesthetics ...... 71 Added Costs to Industry and Agriculture ...... 72 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations ...... 72 I Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat ...... 72 5 7987 RAP: RECOMMENDED STUDIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS ...... 73 6 7994: CURRENT AND SCHEDULED STUDIES AND PROGRAMS ...... 75 State and Federal Studies and Programs ...... 72 Atmospheric Deposition ...... 75 Fishery ...... 76 Lake Michigan ...... 77 Land and Water Management ...... 77 Surface Water Quality ...... 77 Wldlife ...... 77 Muskegon County Soil Conservation District Plograms ...... 78 7 7994 UPDATE: DATA GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 79 DataGaps ...... 79 Recommendations ...... : ...... 80 Measures to Abate Eutrophication ...... 80 Measures to Determine the Effects of Development and Exotic Species on Habitat . 82 Measures to Reduce Levels of Toxic Substances ...... 82 RAP Team and PAC Coordination ...... 83 Glossary and Acronyms

ACUTE TOXICITY Causes severe injury or death soon after a single exposure or dose.

ADVISORY See consumption advisory.

AOC Area of concern

AQD Air Quality Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

BACKGROUND Naturally occurring.

BENEFICIAL USE A productive use of a water body by humans or animals. (See &o impaired beneficial use.)

BENTHOS or BENTHIC COMMUNITY Organisms that live on a lake or river bottom.

BIOACCUMULATION The uptake and retention of chemical substances by orgaoisms from their environment (e.g. food and water).

BIOLOGICALOXYGEN DEMAND The amount of dissolved oxygen used wheo a substance biologically dcgrodts in an aquatic system.

BTEX Beruene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.

BTX Bezmm, toluene-xyleoe

CERCLA Federal Comprehensive Environmeotal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (See &o Superfund.)

CHRONIC TOXICITY Causes injury or death after long-term exposure.

COLD-WATER FISH SPECIES In Michigan, primarily trout and salmon.

COMBINED SEWER Sewers that haodle both urban storm water and sanitary sewage. During wet weather they can become overloaded and overflow, causing untreated wastewater to be released directly to surface waters. (See &o sanitary waste.)

CONSUMITION ADVISORY A caution issued by the Michigan Deparhmt of Public Health about eating a certaio kind andlor amount of fish or fish from a particular locale.

CULTURAL EUTROPHICATION Accelerated aging of a lake caused by human activity that increases nutrients or solid loadings or both. (See &o eutrophication.)

DDD Fodwhen DDT breaks down in the savironm~~t.Can biosccumulste in organisms and is very persisteot.

DDE Formed denDDT breaks down in the ~~viro~m~lt.Can biooccumulate in organisms and is very persistent.

DDT Dichlorodiphsayl-4ichlo~e.A long-losting chlorinated hydrocarbon used as ao insecticide; now bpnned from use in the United States because it bioacwmulates. Residual amounts remain in the aquatic savitonment due to its historic use and persistence. DISSOLVED OXYGEN Free oxygen in the water; required by most aquatic organisms.

DOMESTIC WA!TIEWATER Sanitary waste.

DROWNED RTVERMOUTH Type of lake formed when the mouth of a river is separated from the receiving lake by a natural obstruction such as a sand dune.

ECOSYSTEM The interacting system of a biological community and its emironmental surroundings.

EPA U.S. Environmental Protectioo Agency

ERD Environmental Response Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

EUTROPHICATION A general term used to deScribe the aging process of a lake; over time a lake progresses from beiig deep and biologically unproductive to being shallow rod very biologically productive. (See ulso cultural eutrophication.)

EXOTIC SPECIES Species not native to an area.

FCMP Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program; conducted by the Surface Water Quality Division of the Michigan DepPrtmat of Natural Resources.

FISH-CONSUMPTION ADVISORY See consumption advisory.

FISa TAINTING Chemical odors or taste in fish.

FLOODPLAIN hdsre~ over which a river flows during peak flow periods.

FREE PRODUCI' Chemical products, such as gasoline, that have not yet mixed with groundwater and sit on top of an aquifer.

GROUNDWATER GRADIENT The diffmnce in eledoa between two locations at the top of a aquifer, determines the direction in which groundwater will flow.

GSI Ground- and surface water interface (pint of intemctiw)

IJC Internatid Joint Commission, composed of represeotatives of the United Stntes and Canada; responsible for monitoring the implem~ltatiwof the Great hkes Water Quality Agnemmt betwscPl the two nations.

IMPADRED USE or IMPAIRED BENEFICIAL USE (kdo beneficial use.) A productive use of a water body which has been degraded or destroyed.

INDICATOR SPECIES A particular species whose presena or relative abundnna has been demonstrated to be directly related to a puticular environmental condition.

Ll'ITORAL ZONE Shallow water habitat.

LOADING Addii a rubrturce to a water body.

vii , MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MDPR Michigan Department of Public Health

MERA Public Act 307 of 1982, the Michigan Environmental Response Act

METRO FACILITY The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System plant at which Muskegon Mearea wpstewDterisw.

MOE Ministry of the Environmnt (Ontario)

NONPOINT SOURCE DISCBARGE Diffuse, does not have a single point of origin. (Sce dopoint-source discharge.)

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; the federal program for controlling discharges of poUutPnts from point sources into the waters of the United States.

ORGANIC Refming to or derived from living organisms or, in the case of chemistry, the class of chemical compom& that contain aubon.

ORGANIC LOADINGS Particles of decomposed plant and animal material.

OUTFALL Discharge point.

PAC Public advisory council

PAH (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon or polyaromatic hydrocarbon). A componmt of crude .nd refined pdrcdeum and d;most are fond during incomplete combustion of organic maw, also may be released from to d spills, l&g of asphalt mad surfaces, and wear of vehicle tires. Highly persbtin the eaviropment and biopccumulate in- orgmims. p- p- Variable affecting water quality, e-g., heavy d,nutrient, pH.

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl. A class of persistent chlorinated hydroarbon chemicrrls, toxic at low levels and bioaccumulate. Indusbinl use of these chemicals first was restricted in the 1970s.

Breaks down slowly or not at all.

pH A meesurt of the hydrogen ion activity in solution, expressed in 'standard unitswon a scale of 0 (highly acid) to 14 (highly basic); 7.0 is neutral.

PLUME The @my m ~~vironmmtrlmedia, such as air or water, takes from a puticutpr point.

POINTSOURCE DISCBARGE A single, idcatifioble source kg., a pipe or smokestack) of a discharge. (See 4LFO nwpoint source discharge.)

PROCESS WASI'EWATER Efflumt from industrial processes.

PURGE WELL A well used to remove and treat contamhkd groundwntes.

IUP RemsdiPlActionPiPn

viii RECHARGE Replenish water to an aquifer.

RULE 57(2) A rule promulgated under Michigan Public Act 245 of 1929; sets standards for the maximum presence of rubstPnces in water.

RUNOFF The portion of precipitation that travels over the surface of the land, compared to that portion that infiltrates.

SANlTARY WAm Nonindustrial sewage.

SOLID LOADINGS Particles of mPtcaiol fuch 8s 4,silt, partially decomposed plant d Mimal mated, d undissolved industrial wastes.

STRATIFICATION Occurs whea there arc significant temperature differences between the top and bottom of a deep Wre. During dfication, water layers am of different densities due to temperohm, and they do not mix.

SUPERFUND Federal Hazardous Waste Trust Fund; established to clean up contaminated sites under the CERCLA progrpm. (See aLro CERCLA.)

SURFACE WATER Rivers, lakes, streams, bogs. and so on, as differeatiated from groundwater.

SWQD Surface Water Quality Division of the Michigan Departmmt of Natural Resources

TEMPERATURE SI'RATIFICATION Scc stratification.

TOXICS In this document refers to toxic chemicals.

TURBIDlTY A cloudy condition or degree of opaqueness of water due to the suspension of silt or organic matter.

TURNOVER The nodsp~g and fall mixing that occurs in moderately deep lakes that stratify. During tunrover the physical .ad chemical mesureme~llsue nearly the swne from top to bottom of the lake.

VOLATILE Evqombs dily.

WARM-WATER FISH SPECIES In Michigan, most species other than trout or r9lmon.

WMSRDC West Michigan Shoreline Rcghd Developmeat Commission Executive Summary

Preparation of this update of the 1987 Remedial Action Plh for the Muskegon Lake Area of Concern focused on the following five objectives:

Ensuring participation in the process by a public advisory council as well as a team of specialists from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Documenting water quality data collected and analyzed since the plan was published in 1987

Analyzing the current status of AOC use impairments

Making recommendations that if carried out will lay the foundation for the next phase of the process, implementing specific measures to remediate the water quality problems of the AOC

Identification of data and information gaps.

These objectives wcrr achieved.

The Muskegon Lake AOC Public Advisory Council was actively and effectively involved in the process, as was the MDNR RAP Team, which assisted the wnsultant, pubic Sector Consultants, Inc., in collecting information and also provided technical support in analyzing data and interpreting the results to the council.

The update summarizes the results of the 1987 Remedial Action Plan and presents information developed over the last six years in the AOC. The information reveals that considerable progress has been made in addressing known point sources of pollution to Muskegon Lake Area of Concern and in taking steps to remediate groundwater contamination. Samples collected in the navigational channel (outlet) from Muskegon Lake to Lake Michigan indicate that no significant changes have occurred since 1987 indicating that conditions have stabilized. Levels of phosphorus, un-ionized ammonia, dissolved oxygen, pH, and total dissolved solids do not exceed the limits established under the Michigan water quality standards to protect aquatic life, and, with minor exceptions, this also is true of heavy metals measured at this location. Although 28-day caged-fish studies conducted in the upper portion of the navigational channel show that certain toxic chemicals still are present, the rates at which the fish are taking up the toxics are lower in the Muskegon Lake channel than in several other rivermouths in the state.

These factors indicate that the Muskegon Lake AOC is meeting WQS, but Muskegon Lake and similarly situated large drowned-rivermouth lakes are integral components of the larger, Lake Michigan ecosystem. For example, fish and wildlife move freely between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake, and many species depend on habitat in the Muskegon Lake AOC at critical stages of their life cycle. Significant impairments to water quality or natural habitats in the Muskegon Lake 'AOC can affect the well-being of Lake Michigan as well. Intensive water sampling of the Muskegon River for toxics is currently being conducted as part of the Lake Michigan lakewide management plan. '

The public advisory council and the MDNR team have identified 10 of 14 impairments to uses of the waters of the Muskegon Lake Area of Concern; the following five are of most concern to the PAC:

Restrictions on human consumption of certain AOC fish

Degradation of fish and wildlife populations

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

Degradation of benthos

Restrictions on dredging

To address the water quality problems, both PAC and MDNR RAP Team members favor employing an ecosystem-wide approach, which would incorporate consideration of the physical, chemical, and biological components of the area of concern rather than focusing on the individual impairments without consideration of their relationship to each other and the ecosystem as a whole.

Nonpoint sources of pollution, including urban storm water runoff, agricultural runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and atmospheric deposition are suspected sources of pollution to the Muskegon Lake AOC, but further studies are needed to quantify the contribution and effects of these sources. There is need for vigilance, however: Current regulatory efforts to control point sources of pollution and to identify and remediate sources of groundwater contamination must be maintained; while without question there is need for attention to nonpoint sources of pollution, it must not come at the expense of regulation of point sources.

Several specific recommendations are set out in this update. The first outlines measures to address eutrophication of Muskegon Lake, including abatement of both nutrients and solid loadings (i-e., particles of material such as sand, silt, partially decomposed plant and I animal material, and undissolved industrial production wastes). The second sets out actions to determine the effects of development and exotic species on fish and wildlife habitat. The third proposes measures to reduce the levels of toxic substances reaching the lake. Also suggested are steps to ensure that community representatives and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources together develop common goals and objectives critical to successfully continuing the remedial action process.

Finally, it is worth noting that when meaningful public involvement occurs in the RAP process, objectives and outcomes reflect local concerns. Residents of the AOC are very sensitive to the pollution problems that have occurred in their area. A significant number of the AOC population live on or near Muskegon Lake; they have observed the degradation that has occurred in the area, and many have been affected directly by groundwater contamination. Quality of life is important to individuals, and recreation and tourism are important to the local economy. Area residents are eager to understand the factors that affect water quality in the area in which they live, and they are willing to invest time and effort to improving it. The recommendations in this update reflect local concerns and identify steps that can lead to specific actions to remediate the water quality problems of the AOC. In troduc tion

International efforts to protect and manage the Great Lakes began in 1909 with the Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada. The treaty created the International Joint Commission (UC), consisting of representatives appointed by the leaders of the two countries. Accord was furthered with the Great Lakes Water Quality agreements of 1972 and 1978; the latter was revised in 1983 and 1987.

In 1985 state and province representatives on the UC Water Quality Board identified 42 tributaries to the Great Lakes that potentially can negatively affect the quality of the lakes; these are referred to as areas of concern (AOC), and there are 14 in Michigan. The 1987 revisions to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, referred to above, includes guidelines for preparing remedial action plans (RAPS) to restore the beneficial uses of the AOCs and thus ameliorate their threat to the Great Lakes.

Muskegon Lake is a designated AOC, and a RAP for the lake was prepared in 1987. This document is an update of the 1987 RAP and follows the spirit of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement guidelines; it incorporates data and information about the Muskegon Lake AOC generated since 1987 and input from a local public advisory council (PAC) as well as a team of technical specialists from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).

Muskegon Lake is a 4,150-acre, drowned-rivermouth lake north of the City of Muskegon that discharges to Lake Michigan through a channel. The lake has several tributaries, of which Muskegon River is the largest, supplying 97 percent of the water flowing into the lake. Other significant tributaries are Bear Creek, Bear Lake, Ryerson Creek, Ruddiman Creek, Four Mile Creek, and Green Creek (see Map 1). Although the immediate drainage area around Muskegon Lake is predominantly wooded, there are some open fields, wetlands, and impermeable urban surfaces. Soil types in the lake's 2660 mi2 watershed range from highly permeable sandy soils to poorly drained mucks and peat; the primary soil type, however, is sand. Sandy soils are very permeable, thus the groundwater in the area is vulnerable to infiltration of contaminants. MAP 1: Muskegon Lake and Tributaries

North Branch

LAKE

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultanls, Inc., using map fromGeological Survey Dlvlslon, Mlchlgan Department of Natural Resources. Recreation and tourism are increasing in Muskegon County, and Muskegon Lake is one of the attractions. The number of registered boats in the county has increased 20 percent since 1987 173,981; Muskegon Lake has 14 marinas and 6 boat launching facilities. The lake currently supports a valuable sport fishery consisting primarily of perch, walleye, large- and smallmouth bass, sunfish, northern pike, crappie, bullhead, sucker, steelhead, brown trout, and coho and chinook salmon. It also is a breeding, migratory, and wintering habitat for a variety of waterfowl.

Degradation to Muskegon Lake began in the mid-to-late 1800s with waste discharges from a sizable logging and lumber industry in the area surrounding the lake, which gradually gave way to other industries, including a paper and pulp mill, chemical and petrochemical companies, an electric utility, and several foundries; the south shore of the lake has been particularly heavily industrialized. In addition, the communities of Roosevelt Park, Muskegon, and North Muskegon discharged municipal wastewater to Muskegon Lake, and by the 1960s lake quality had deteriorated significantly. However, by 1973 most municipal and industrial wastewater from the lake area was diverted to the metro facility of the new Muskegon County Wastewater Management System as a means to improve the lake's water quality. Currently, 22 industrial and municipal facilities have permits to discharge wastewater into the lake and its tributaries under strictly regulated conditions (in 1987 there were 16).

Despite the improvement, in 1985 Muskegon Lake was designated an AOC because of water quality and habitat problems associated with the historical discharge of pollutants into the AOC, and the potential adverse effect the pollutants could have on Lake Michigan. The high levels of nutrients, solids, and toxics entering the lake had caused a series of problems including nuisance algal blooms, reduced oxygen in the lake's deeper water, tainted taste of fish due to petroleum products in the water, and contaminated sediments. The pollutant discharges also were suspected of contributing to the degradation of benthos (bottom-dwelling organisms, also referred to as the benrhic community), the contamination of fish, and the reduction in fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, the development of chemical, petrochemical, and heavy industries was causing localized groundwater contamination that was moving toward the lake and its tributaries. ii REMEDIAL A C TION PLAN PROCESS

In 1987 the revisions to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement instituted a requirement that for each AOC, (1) the status of 14 specific impairments to beneficial uses of the waters of the AOC (e.g., supporting a fishery, providing acceptable drinking water) be identified, and (2) remedial action plans to reduce or correct the impairments be prepared. A RAP is to be prepared in three stages, and Michigan officials view them as parallel rather than consecutive steps in the process because work on all three can proceed concurrently. Stage 1 defines the problem, including a determination as to which of the 14 use impairments exist, the causes of impairment, and the source of contaminants of concern.

Stage 2 identifies remedial measures needed to restore beneficial uses.

0 Stage 3 confirms that beneficial uses have been restored.

A key element in the RAP process is the participation of a local public advisory council (PAC) that represents the community surrounding each AOC. Local participation in identifying problems and in identifying and implementing remedial actions is critical to the eventual success in restoring beneficial uses (by human, animal, or aquatic life) of the water body. Another critical component of the RAP process is involvement of representatives from the state natural resources agency-in Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)-and other relevant agencies. The MDNR RAP Team provides the technical expertise needed to evaluate conditions, identify problems and potential remedial actions, and inform and assist the PAC.

MUSKEGON LAKE AOC PUBLIC ADVISORY COUNCIL

During preparation of the 1987 RAP there was very little participation by the public. In 1989 Muskegon Lake residents became interested in reactivating the Muskegon Lake RAP process, and community members attended the first annual Citizens' Conference on Michigan's Areas of Concern, hosted by the MDNR in 1990, where they strongly supported formation of a Michigan Statewide Public Advisory Council (SPAC) to ensure long-term, statewide RAP implementation. Community representatives were nominated for council membership, and as of February 1991 Muskegon Lake was represented on the newly formed SPAC. In addition, throughout 1991 community members committed to organizing PACs for both Muskegon Lake and White Lake (a nearby lake also designated an AOC), attended informational community meetings about developing PACs for AOCs. The meetings included MDNR, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and IJC staff and were hosted jointly by the Muskegon Lake and White Lake SPAC representatives. In January 1992 the Lake Michigan Federation hosted a citizen workshop to gather public input on how to form public advisory councils for both lakes.

A grant to the Lake Michigan Federation from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, with assistance from the SPAC, enabled a Muskegon LakedWhite Lake steering committee to begin enlisting public members and communicating with the general public about environmental concerns relating to the lakes and also the RAP process. During summer 1992 the steering committee distributed three newsletters, held three public meetings, prepared a slide show, surveyed Muskegon Lake and White Lake residents about their opinion on the state of the lakes, and gave close attention to attracting a balanced, broad-based membership. Representation came from the general public, and the environmental, business, and public sectors. The members indicate that it was difficult to get business representatives to participate. -C*YI-*Yt" l'

1

By September 1992 a PAC for each lake was established, and the Muskegon Lake PAC began meeting monthly.

Ln October 1993 the MDNR contracted with Public Sector Consultants, Inc., of Lansing, Michigan, to update the 1987 RAP, incorporating information generated since 1987 and including the active participation of a PAC. The update was to be completed within a four month time frame. At this point the informal group membership was augmented and officially recognized by the MDNR as the PAC for the Muskegon Lake RAP.

PAC membership ranges between 20 and 25 area residents and is balanced among general public/community organizations (6 members at the writing of this report), local and state government (7), businesdindustrial (3, and environmental/conse~~ationinterests (4). In addition, other interested people attend the council's meetings and have been added to the PAC mailing list. Due to time constraints in developing the RAP update, the PAC increased its meeting frequency to assist in a timely completion of the project. The chair of the PAC attends MDNR RAP Team meetings to facilitate communication between the two groups.

At the beginning of the RAP update process, PAC members were asked by the consultant to examine the 14 possible use impairments listed in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and suggest which currently apply to the Muskegon Lake AOC, in order of severity. Although the council did so, and added three other concerns to the list, it was a difficult exercise for the members because they felt they did not yet have sufficient information. Despite their reservations, the members reached consensus with the understanding that the list of problems and the rankings are based more on perception than expertise and could change as new information becomes available to the group. (The PAC's decisions and rankings are described in part 4 of this report, 1994: Impcdred Uses of Muskegon Lake AOC.) Insofar as this report is concerned, the PAC wishes to be on record as stating that it is an update only and not the final, definitive document on the Muskegon Lake ecosystem.

The Muskegon Lake PAC's mission statement is, 'The Muskegon Lake Public Advisory Council is a coalition of community interests dedicated to working cooperatively for the improvement of the Muskegon Lake ecosystem through the remedial action process." The following are its long-term goals:

Encourage public awareness and participation in the Public Advisory Council and remedial action plan process

8 Encowage the private and public sectors to promote and provide financial support for the Public Advisory Council's efforts

Review, assess, and provide input into the remedial action plan

Increase recognition and individual ownership of the public's role in maintaining and improving the Muskegon Lake ecosystem Facilitate the development and implementation of a Muskegon River watershed management plan

In addition, the PAC also has adopted the following short-term goals:

Identify and catalog the inputs and conditions affecting the Muskegon Lake watershed

Identify the programs and points of contact responsible for monitoring andlor correcting each of those inputs and conditions

Wherever possible, seek remediation of inputs and conditions that adversely affect the lake and its watershed

In general, make the efforts of the public advisory council members task-oriented in pursuit of these objectives

In exchange for their individual time and commitment, PAC members have certain expectations of the R,4F'-procss and the MDNR technical experts assigned to this AOC: PAC members believe that RAP Team members and the MDNR have the responsibility either to furnish all available information related to Muskegon Lake or identify the appropriate contact person or agency from which to obtain it. The members prefer to review and interpret independently how the various inputs and conditions affect their lake and their use of the lake.

In addition to its role in the RAP, the Muskegon Lake PAC currently is pursuing or is interested in several other activities including publishing a newsletter for general circulation, developing a local repository of RAP information at Hackley Public Library in Muskegon, sponsoring a storm drain stenciling project (imprinting notices on storm drains advising that anything dumped into them goes directly into the lake or tributary), sumying Muskegon Lake residents to determine the level of public awareness about the condition of the ' lake, and creating an educational videolslide show to appeal for public involvement in the RAP process*

MUSEGON LAKE AOC MDNR RAP TEAM

The 1987 RAP was prepared primarily by the Surface Water Quality Division (SWQD) of the MDNR, with informal assistance as needed from other department divisions but without a formal agency RAP team. For this update, the SWQD assembled an official team composed of representatives from its own and the Environmental Response, Waste Management, Fisheries, Air Quality, Land and Water Management, and divisions of the MDNR. The RAP Team identified and provided information for the update, reviewed and advised on the list of AOC use impairments, and evaluated and commented on the draft update. In addition, RAP Team members made presentations to the PAC on specific topics of concern. 7987 RAP Findings

NOTE: Sources for the information in this report are identified in List of References at the end of the document, and reference numbers appear in brackets in the text where the information is presented. Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this first part of the report is from the 1987 RAP [98].

The 1987 RAP reported that water quality in Muskegon Lake and its tributaries had improved over the previous 20 years due to a combination of local, state, and federal pollution control programs. Significant betterment and stable lake quality conditions had occurred after 1973, when the new county wastewater management system began operation and diverted municipal and industrial discharges away from the lake and its tributaries and provided enhanced wastewater treatment. In addition, in 1973 the EPA had authorized the state to administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)program in Michigan. The NPDES program complements the state water pollution control program and requires entities engaging in point-some discharges (occurring at a specific point) of wastewater that may contain pollutants to obtain a pennit from the state that sets limits on discharge prmneters (variables that affect water quality). In recent years the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA, Public Act 307 of 1982) programs had accelerated the investigation and cleanup of Muskegon Lake AOC sites at which hazardous materials historically had been released and had led to contamination of ground and surface waters of the lake and its tributaries. (Sites administered under the CERCLA commonly are called 'Superfund" sites in reference to the federal trust fund from which the monies are generated to support the cleanup activities.) In addition, state and federal regulations adopted in the 1970s and 1980s on handling, storing, and disposing of solid waste and hazardous materials had reduced the potential for fume eavironmental contamination from such sources. WATER QUALITY

Although several studies conducted from 1967 to 1987 had indicated that water quality was improved, in 1987 Muskegon Lake continued to be classified by the MDNR as emophic (in an advanced state of aging; that is, characterized by high nutrient levels, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen in deep water during the summer temperature stratification period, and the presence of nuisance algae), and toxic substances persisted in localized areas of I the lake and immediately adjacent tributaries. I I I I Cultural Eutrophication

Through at least the mid-1970s Muskegon Lake had exhibited classic symptoms of culntral eutrophication, aging accelerated by human activity. Sanitaiy waste (sewage from nonindustrial sources, such as residences and commercial establishments), industrial discharges, and nonpoinr (diffused) urban and agricultural sources were contributing significant quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus, both major causes of cultural eutrophication, to Muskegon Lake. Total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings (inputs) to the lake had decreased following the diversion in 1973 of industrial and municipal wastewater to the Muskegon wastewater management system. The MDNR goal for the presence of phosphorus is less than 30 parts per billion @pb) during ntrnover (periods when a lake is at uniform temperature from top to bottom). In 1967 total phosphorus had been 67 ppb during turnover; in 1986 and 1987 it was 34 and 26 ppb, respectively. Total nitrogen levels were not monitored in the lake until 1978, at which time they measured 919 ppb during turnover; the 1987 concentration was 680 ppb. Nuisance algae had decreased from the 1970s to 1987, improving recreational uses of the lake such as swimming and boating, although based on MDNR data available in 1987, phosphorus loadings needed to be still further reduced to avoid problems of accelerated eutrophication.

Toxic Substances

Heavy metals (such as mercury) and many chlorinated hydrocarbons (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) can be toxic at low levels, are persistent (remain in the environment in their original form for some time rather than breaking down), and some bioaccumuZafe (are taken up and retained by organisms from their environment). Even at low and sometimes undetectable concentrations in water, heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels that cause impairment to the organisms or to animals that consume them.

Although for the 1987 RAP there was only limited information available about the presence of toxics in the water, specific areas of the lake-particularly those adjacent to contaminated industrial sites-and its tributaries were showing high concentrations of toxics in sediments. (Sediments are discussed immediately below, and toxics affecting the tributaries are addressed below under Impuited Uses of Muskegon Luke TdWes.) Despite a reduction in the pollutants being discharged directly into Muskegon Lake, the 1987 RAP documented that in addition to other polluting substances, storm water mf(the portion of precipitation that flows over land) carried by storm sewers to the lake, contaminated groundwater, and contaminated sediments remained potential sources of toxics.

According to 2 study completed by the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC)in 1982 and reported in the 1987 RAP, levels of mercury in water from the Division Street (also known as 11th Street) storm sewer had exceeded Michigan's water quality standards, but the 1987 RAP reported that this was not having a significant adverse effect on Muskegon Lake itself.

Other heavy metals known to be present in Muskegon Lake sediments but not measured by water sampling, such as lead, arsenic, and chromium, are addressed below and in Contmninant Levels under Rshery, also below.

CONTAMMA ED SEDIMENTS

Contaminants in lake sediments are a concern for several reasons: (1) They can become resuspended when sediments are disturbed by storms or dredging, directly affecting water quality; (2) at high levels, contamination in sediments can reduce the production and diversity of benthic organisms upon which fish and wildlife feed; (3) even at concentrations not harmful to the benthic community, toxic materials may be bioaccumulated by benthic organisms and transported to animals higher in the food chain; and (4) some volatile (evaporates readily) organic compounds and volatile metals, such as mercury, can be released to the atmosphere when contaminated sediments are dredged.

Sediments can be an indicator of whether contaminants still are entering the lake system. Deep sediments reveal background (naturally occurring) levels of pollutants; surface sediments contain more recent contamination.

From 1972 to 1987 a number of surface sediments from Muskegon Lake had been analyzed by the MDNR, WMSRDC, Great Lakes National Programs Office of the EPA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 1987 RAP reported that overall levels of metals, phosphorus, and oil and grease in the lake and its tributaries had decreased since 1972. Of the sediments tested, the highest levels of contamination were found in samples taken near the Division Street storm sewer orctfall (point of flow into the lake), at the Michigan Foundry and Supply Company out-,near the mouth of Ryerson Creek, at Ruddiman Pond and Ruddiman Creek, at Bear Lake at the mouth of Bear Creek, and in the south branch of the Muskegon River. Based on the available information, the 1987 RAP author concluded that surface sediment contamination was highest in deep anas of the lake, at storm sewer outfaUs, and near contaminated industrial sites.

BENWlC COMMUNITY

Benthic organisms are favored over plankton as gauges of change in aquatic ecosystems because of their wide distribution, sedentary nature, relatively long life cycles and large size, and sensitivity and population adaptations to environmental conditions. Unfortunately, during the preparation of the 1987 RAP there was little new data available on the benthic community in Muskegon Lake. Based on a decrease in the proportional abundance of oligochaetes (a pollution-tolerant benthic organism used to measure water quality) to other, less- tolerant organisms, there seemed to be an improvement in lake water quality from 1954 to 1980. The areas where there were known to be degraded benthic communities coincided directly with contaminated sediment sites with one possible exception: Although Muskegon Lake near the S.D. Warren discharge showed degraded benthos, no sediment chemical analysis had been performed at this location.

F/SHERY

Popuratsbn

Although specific information about various fish populations was not included in the 1987 RAP, cultural eutrophication and contaminant loadings prior to 1973 .likely had adversely affected both the numbers and the species composition of the fish community.

Contaminant Levels

The only lake-wide impaired use identified in the 1987 RAP was the necessity for co~~~umptionadvisories (cautions about eating) regarding certain fish taken from Muskegon and Bear lakes; elevated levels of PCBs and mercury had been found in samples from large carp, walleye, and largemouth bass.

Contaminant levels in fish are a function of the concentration of the contaminant in the water, the concentration in the fish's primary food supply, the size and age of the fish (older and larger fish generally have higher levels), the fish's habitat (sedentary, bottomdwelling species are more likely than others to concentrate toxics from contaminated sediments), and the fish's level in the food chain (toglevel predators often show higher contaminant levels due to bioaccumulation). In addition, PCBs and many other chlorinated hydrocarbons concentrate in fatty tissue; the higher the percentage of a species's or specimen's fat, the higher the level of contaminant concentration, all other factors being equal. Mercury tends to accumulate in muscle tissue.

The'Federal Food and Drug Administration analytical results obtained in 1986 [I131 revealed that in 40 of 50 fish sampled from Muskegon Lake, the PCB levels exceeded the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement-established objective of 0.1 ppm (parts per million). Dioxin, although detectable in a few samples, did not exceed 10.0 ppt (parts per trillion), the limit then established by the Food and Drug Administration of the US. Department of Agriculture for commercial food products and used by the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH)as the trigger for issuing advisories to the public to halt or limit consumption of certain fish. Heavy metals were measured in most of the specimens sampled, although gulvisory levels have not been established for any metal other than mercury. The 1987 RAP recommended additional fish sampling to determine if further consumption advisories were needed and to determine if the contamination detected in fish from Muskegon Lake and its tributaries was due to local sources, such as historically contaminated sediments, or to regional conditions, such as atmospheric deposition (contaminants falling to Earth through the air).

Tainting

Fish being tainted (having chemical odors or taste) had been reported by the MDNR at various locations on the east and south shores of Muskegon Lake in 1962, 1967, 1968, and 1969. Industrial dischargers of phenol compounds, such as Naph Sol Refinery, S.D. Warren Company, and Teledyne Continental Motors, were suspected as being the sources. A 1976 study concluded that fish no longer were tainted, and the author of the 1987 RAP accepted that finding.

IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAKE

Table 1 shows the historically impaired uses of Muskegon Lake. The 1987 RAP author concluded that the only lake-wide impaired use of Muskegon Lake at the time was to the fishery, as evidenced by the necessity for consumption advisories for carp and walleye due to PCBs and mercuj. Localized problems such as contaminated sediments and related degradation of benthic communities persisted near storm water outfalls, adjacent to contaminated industrial sites, and in deep water, but the 1987 RAP reported that overall, Muskegon Lake was having no apparent adverse effect on Lake Michigan.

IMPAIRED USES OF MUSKEGON LAXE TRIBUTARIES

As mentioned, Muskegon Lake has numerous tributaries, and the lake's water quality, benthic communities, and sediments can be adversely affected if there is pollution in its tributaries. The tributaries are affected by the same pollutants as the lake itself and, based on limited data, the 1987 RAP identified several impaired uses of Muskegon Lake tributaries (see Table 2). A study conducted by the WMSRDC in 1982 and reported in the 1987 RAP had indicated high levels of toxics in several tributaries (see Table 3).

The 1987 RAP reported that contaminated groundwater from the former Ott/Story facility (now owned by Cordova Chemical Company), which is being cleaned up with federal Superfund monies, had significantly degraded the water quality, benthic communities, and fish populations of an unnamed tributary to Little Bear Creek and parts of Little Bear Creek itself. The tributary was affected by organic chemicals from the site's contaminated groundwater plume (the pathway taken by environmental media, e.g., groundwater), and negative effects to Little Bear Creek were documented as far as 1.5 miles downstream from the u~medtributary. Sampling results had indicated that human contact with water from the unnamed tributary or the affected area of the creek should be avoided because it contained elevated organic chemical concentrations. Farther down stream, however, pollutants in Little Bear Creek were less than the MDNR water quality Rule 57(2) guideline levels, and the conclusion reported in the 1987

TABLE 1: Historically Impaired Uses of Muskegon Lake, as Reported in 1987 Remedial Action Plan

Use md Impairment Causes of Impairment Sources of Contamination

Navigation restricted Debris; excessive weed growth Logging industry point- and nonpoint discharges containing phosphorus

Fihabitat eliminated Filling of shoreline Industrial filling activity; Westran Cow. fill

Benthic substrate Substrate covered with lime and S.D. Warren discharge eliminated fibers

Fish tainted Phenols; gasoline; oils Point-source dischargers such as Naph Sol Refinery, Teledyne Continental Motors, S.D.Warren, N. Muskegon STP, Aurora Refining

Benthic populations Dissolved-oxygen depletion; high Point- and nonpoint sources of degraded levels of phosphorus and nitrogen phosphorus and nitrogen; oxygew demanding sediments

Recreation activities Excessive weed growth; algal Point- and nonpoint discharges of restricted blooms; phosphorus and nitrogen; point-source undesirable water taste; odor of dischargers such as Naph Sd Refinery phenols

SOURCE: ~u~chock,John. 1987 RmmdidAction Ran for Muskegon Lnke Area of Concem. Surface Water Oudity Division, Michigan Depemnt of Natural Resources.

RAP was that pollutants from the unnamed tributary were not affecting Bear Lake, Muskegon Lake, or Lake Michigan. The 1987 RAP indicated that state and EPA funds were being pursued to stop the release of contaminated groundwater from the OttIStory site.

The 1987 RAP recommended that the Ryerson Creek, Ruddirnan Creek, and Four Mile Creek tributaries be assessed for sediment contamination and habitat quality.

SOURCES OF POLLUTtON TO THE AOC

The 1987 RAP names as sources of pollutants to Muskegon Lake municipal and industrial point-source discharges (which already had decreased significantly with the diversion of wastewater to the treatment plant), urban storm water discharges, agricultural runoff, atmospheric deposition, contaminated groundwater, and releases from historically contaminated sediments. TABLE 2: Impaired Uses of Muskegon Lake Tributaries, as Reported in 1987 Remedial Action Plan

Tributay and Impaired Use Causes of Impairment Sources of Contamination

Bear Lake Benthos community Contaminated sediments (P, N, Possibly storm water runoff degraded oil and gas, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn)

Recreation activities Algal blooms; extensive weed Shallow lake (maximum depth 3.5 and aesthetics growth; odors meters); organic sediments; degraded storm water runoff

Link Bear Creek Brook trout fishery Contaminated groundwater from eliminated Cordova Chemical (On/Story site)

Fish tainted Contaminated groundwater from Cordova Chemical (OtUStory site)

Aesthetics degraded Obnoxious odor; bacterial slime Contaminated groundwater from Cordova Chemical(Ott/Story site) Big Bear Creek Fish tainted Contaminated groundwater from Cordova Chemical (On/Story site)

Ruddiman Creek bsthetics degraded Visible oil film Urban storm water

3emhic community Urban storm water kgraded

ftyenon Creek Ccreation activities Violation of water quality Urban storm water md aesthetics impaired standards for odor; floating debris; turbidity; visible oil film

3enthic community Urban storm water jegraded

SOURCE: Wuphaok, John. 1987 RundWActrbn #u, for Muskegon Lake AI.. of Con-. Surface Water Quality Wdon, Michigan Dapw8mnt of Natural Rosoumos.

Point Discharges

Munic@al Discharges The metro facility of the 'Muskegon County Wastewater Management System began re!ceiving Muskegon Lake area wastewater in 1973. The facility receives wastewater into aeration lagoons (in which oxygen from the air mixes with the wastewater, activating bacteria that clean the water) and discharges it to two storage reseryoirs. The treated water then is applied to nearby agricultural land. Underground drainage from the TABLE 3: Muskegon Lake Toxic Substance Concentrations Exceeding Rule 57(2) of Michigan Water Quality Standards, as Reported in 1987 Remedial Action Plan

Rule 57(21 Basis of Guideline Level Rule 5712) Toxic Substance Water Body Concentration (PP~) (ppbl Guideline

Trichloroethylene Ruddiman Creek ACV 1.2-Dichloroethane Little Bear Creek CRV Vinyl chloride Little Bear Creek CRV

Mercury (dissolved) Muskegon River, at HLSC Bridgeton

Mercury Muskegon River, HLSC adjacent to Causeway Landfill

Mercury Muskegon River, HLSC adjacent to Zephyr, Incorporated

Mercury Muskegon River, HLSC adjacent to Quarterline Landfill

ACV = Aquatic chronic value. HLSC = Human lifecycle safe concentration, CRV = Cancer risk value. - ~pdatdin 1990 to 0.0613 ugn. SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, Inc., using datn from 1987 Remedal Action Ran for Muskegon Lake Arn of Conmn. - metro facility's application sites is collected and discharged to Mosquito Creek in the Muskegon Lake watershed and Black Creek in the Mona Lake watershed. Both discharges are regulated by NPDES permits. The 1987 RAP reported that discharges into Mosquito Creek from the metro facility had no detrimental effect on the fish or benthic communities of the creek. However, low levels of dissolved oxygen (needed by aquatic organisms) were detected downstream from the metro facility discharge area, and water levels and the floodplain immediately downstream of the discharge point were altered. The 1987 RAP indicated that an industrial wastewater pretreatment program and plans to divert the metro facility's discharges from Mosquito Creek to the Muskegon River were in progress.

Industria/ Discharges In 1987 there were 16 NPDES-regulated point-source discharges to Muskegon Lake and its tributaries. The primary type of discharge was noncontuct cooling water (water used for cooling equipment only-has no contact with manufacturing processes); others included storm water runoff, filter backwash (material screened out or otherwise removed from lake water before the water is used for manufacturing), and treated groundwater. The 1987 RAP document reported that the industrial discharges were not contributing significant amounts of pollutants to Muskegon Lake. Nonpoint Sources

Urban Storm Water Storm sewers potentially can be conduits of conventional pollutants and toxics, including metals and petroleum products. Although in 1987 there were 59 storm sewer outfalls affecting Muskegon Lake and four tributaries, there were no reported combined sewer overflows into the Muskegon Lake AOC. Urban runoff, however, was identified as potentially the source of contamination to Ryerson and Ruddiman creeks and to Muskegon Lake adjacent to the Division Street storm sewer outfdl.

Agricu/tum/ Runoff The 1987 RAP reported that Muskegon County had 62,500 acres of cropland as well as additional acreage in pasture and grassland. Soil erosion due to wind and rain was calculated to be 300,200 tons per year. The 1987 RAP reported that soil . conservation practices should be improved on half the cropland in Muskegon County. In addition to soil, potential pollutants from agricultural runoff to Muskegon Lake and its tributaries are fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and animal waste.

Contaminated Sediments

Even after contaminated sediments settle to the bottom of a water body, they can continue to be a source of toxics if there is a significant disturbance, i.e., a violent storm or dredging, or if benthic organisms become contarninated and then are consumed by an organism higher in the food chain. Generally, sediments are contaminated in Muskegon Lake near industrial point-source discharge sites, at storm sewer outfalls, and in the lake's deepwater basins. The 1987 RAP reported that there was no documentation of the contaminated sediments affecting beneficial uses of the lake, although sediments were identified as a potential source of toxics detected in fish.

Groundwater Contamination

Of the 83 counties in Michigan, Muskegon County has the greatest number of contaminated groundwater sites. The 1987 RAP identified the following as sources of groundwater contamination: contaminated-soil disposal sites, stockpiles of raw materials, application of wastewater and sludge to land, fertilizer and pesticide applications, accidental spills of hazardous materials, septic systems, holding ponds and lagoons for industrial waste, permeable industrial and municipal wastewater disposal cells, landfills, underground storage tanks, underground pipelines, poorly constructed or abandoned oil and gas wells, waste disposal wells, and brine disposal pits. Although the 1987 RAP indicated that contaminated groundwater is a secondary source of pollution to the AOC, there were no documented cases of contaminated groundwater adversely affecting beneficial uses of Muskegon Lake.

P.A. 307/ME%Yl Sites The 1987 RAP reported that 44 sites in Muskegon County have been designated as con taminated by the MERA program. The number of sites directly affecting Muskegon Lala was not dctesmined. CERCLA/Superfund Sites In the AOC the two sites being cleaned up under the CERCLAISuperfund program were suspected of contributing to water pollution: the former OttIStory facility and the DuelllGardner Landfill. At the OttIStory facility, various organic chemical intermediates had been produced for use in manufacturing pharmaceutical and agricultural products. Leakage from disposal lagoons and storage drums contaminated soil and groundwater at the property. Prior to 1987 remedial actions began, including installation of purge wells (used to extract and treat contaminated groundwater) and removal of contaminated soil and drums. The 1987 RAP indicated that the contamination in the groundwater, which migrates toward Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary, was degrading their fish and benthic communities and severely degrading their water quality. Signs were posted in the area indicating the potential danger to public health posed by the contamination. In 1987, $2 million was allocated for remedial measures at the site, including provision of an alternative drinking water supply for area residents. In 1987 the MDNR and EPA were continuing to investigate the site to determine further remedial actions that might be needed.

The DuellIGardner Landfill is a former municipal facility that until the 1960s had received waste from local chemical companies. By 1987 drums and soil had been removed from the site, and a remedial action master plan setting forth the extent of groundwater contamination had been approved but not yet implemented.

Air Emissions and Deposition

In 1987 several industries were emitting pollutants into the air of the Muskegon River watershed, and pollutants from outside the watershed potentially were being carried in by air currents; however, air quality had not been monitored on the long-term basis necessary to ascertain if air-borne pollutants were affecting the AOC. The 1987 RAP recommended increased air monitoring to determine the effects on Muskegon Lake water quality of atmospheric deposition of pollutants. Findings Since 7987

For this update of the 1987 RAP, the consultant reviewed information and data from the several divisions of the MDNR as well as from the MDPH, Muskegon County Health Department, EPA, and literature searches. Anecdotal information was supplied by the PAC. The purpose was to ascertain the current status of numerous components of the Muskegon Lake AOC and identify changes that have occurred since 1987. The following characteristics of the AOC were evaluated: water quality; sediments; benthic community; fish populations, suitability for human consumption, and habitat; and wildlife populations and habitat. Groundwater contamination also was evaluated but is discussed separately-in part 3 of this report, 1994: PoteW Sources of Pollution.

WA 7ER QUALITY

The MDNR has sampled water at the south bank of the navigational channel between Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan from 1963 through 1993 [60]. Samples were generally taken on a monthly basis to monitor a range of water quality paramerers (variables affecting water quality, e.g., heavy metals, nutrients, pH level). Similarly, until 1981 samples were taken from the Muskegon River, upstrtam from Muskegon Lake. Periodic monitoring of selected water quality parameters also has occuned in the southwest basin of Muskegon Lake ~91. Using information obtained from samples taken at these three locations as well as from other studies, the 1987 RAP author concluded that since 1974 there had been significant improvement in the quality of Muskegon Lake water. A review of the available data collected since 1987 both from the lake's outlet and the southwest basin indicates that there has been no notable change in the water quality of Muskegon Lake and its channel to Lake Michigan. Samples from the southwest basin of the lake appear to meet Michigan water quality standards for un-ionized ammonia (the form of nitrogen most toxic to aquatic life), pH, and dissolved oxygen and also.MDNRYsgoal for phosphorus (see Table 4.) Water entering Lake Michigan from Muskegon Lake is meeting Michigan water quality standards (see Table 5).

TABLE 4: Water Quality Data for Southwest Basin of Muskegon Lake, 1887-89

Paameter 1987 1988 1989 Michigan Water Quality Standard

Un-ionized 0.7-2.8 0.5-.86 0.58-.60 20 for cold-water fish ammoniaa (ppb) protection 50 for warm-water fi protection Phosphorusa (ppb) 21-33 21-24 22-24 c 30b Dissolved 9.5-1 1.4 11.3-1 1.4 1 1.6-1 1.7 >5 for warm-water fish oxygen' (ppm) protection pH (standard unit) NA 7.5-8.5 7.5-8.8 6.5-9

NA = Not available.

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, In&, using data from Surface Water Qudity Division. Michi- D0p-n~ of Natural Resources.

'During spring turnover. I'The level for phosphorus has been established as a god, not e standard.

Muskegon Lake

The 1987 RAP indicated that phosphorus and total nitrogen had decreased significantly in Muskegon Lake since 1978. The MDNR Surface Water Quality Division goal-a standard has not been set-for the average phosphorus present in a lake is 30 ppb or less during spring and fall turnover. The Muskegon Lake water samples in April 1988 and 1989 showed phosphorus concentrations averaging less than 24 ppb.

The level of un-ionized ammonia was calculated using available information, and it is determined that levels in Muskegon Lake since 1989 are far below the Michigan water quality standards of 20 and 50 ppb during spring turnover, set to protect cold- and warm-water fish, respectively.

The presence of dissolved oxygen in deep areas of the lake during mid-summer and winter temperature stratification also is an indicator of water quality. The 1987 RAP reported that oxygen depletion in Muskegon Lake during stratification had abated since 1975 both in amount and duration. However, despite phosphorus concentrations not exceeding the 30 ppb-during-turnover goal in the last several years, during periods of temperature stratification significant dissolved-oxygen depletion still occurs. In September 1988 dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the upper 35 feet of water in Muskegon Lake were above 8.6 ppm. In depths from 40 to 65 feet the concentrations decreased rapidly-to below 1 ppm at 60 feet and deeper. Similar dissolved-oxygen depletion was revealed in June, July, and August 1989 samples. TABLE 5: Water Quality Data for Muskegon Lake Outlet to Lake Michfgan, 1986-1992 , 1991 1992 Mlchlgan Water Ouallty Standard

Un-ionized ammonia. 1.5-1.9 0.3-0.34 20 for cold-water fish protection tppbl 60 for warm-water fish protection Dissolved oxygen' 8.2-1 2. NT >5 for warm-water fish (PP~) 5 protection , pH (standard unit) 7.6-8.7 7.8-8.86 6.5-9

Total dissolved solids (PP~) Phenols (ppb) 0.2T-0. 0. IT-0.5 None 9 0 Cadmium tppm)

Chromium (ppml

Copper tppm) 1.3-5.5 1.3-5.4 1.5-5.4 1.0-4.7 1.1-3.6 Lead IPP~) 1.2-4.8 <1.0-8.6 <1.0-4.9 <1.0-4.1 <1.0-6.7

Zinc (PP~) <4.0-46 13.0-32. <4.0-25. <4.0-29. 4.2-24.4 4 2 3 Arsenic tppm) NT <2.0 <2.0 1.1-1.5 1.4-1.5

T IValue measured but below detactlon criteria. NT = Not tested.

SOURCE: Public Seotor Coneultants, Inc. usina data from Surface Water Quality Divieion, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

During spClng turnover. It is difficult to determine, based on the information currently available, whether the effects associated with cultural eutrophication @ugh nutrient levels, low dissolved-oxygen concentration during summer temperature stratification, and the presence of nuisance algae) still are decreasing in Muskegon Lake. Comprehensive, quantifiable information is needed about nutrient contributions from the Muskegon River, smaller tributaries, NPDES-regulated dischargers, and nonpoint discharges to the watershed. The current degree and duration of oxygen depletion needs to be established through more detailed study before long-term trends can be detected. We know that significant portions of Muskegon Lake-those at depths greater than 30-35 feet-currently do not have sufficient dissolved oxygen to support the more desirable fish species at certain times of the year, but without additional study it may not be possible to predict how lake water quality will respond to further reductions in phosphorus and organic loadings (particles of decomposed plant and animal matexial), major contributors to accelerated eutrophication.

1 Discharges to Lake Michigan In 1993 the SWQD completed a study of 13 tributaries to the Great Lakes that evaluated trends in water quality parameters measured at permanent outlet monitoring locations from 1969 to 1991 [61]. The Muskegon Lake outlet channel sampling station was one of the study sites. The trend analysis indicates that annual mean concentrations of phosphorus, copper, and zinc, as measured at the outlet, are decreasing in the Muskegon RiverIMuskegon Lake system. Review of data collected at the Muskegon Lake outlet measuring heavy metals, nutrients, chlorides, biological-axygen demand (the amount of dissolved oxygen used when a substance biologically degrades in an aquatic system), total dissolved solids, turbidify (a cloudy condition or degree of opaqueness caused by silt or organic matter suspended in the water), pH, and dissolved oxygen indicates no significant change from 1987 to 1993 in the annual range of observed levels, and phenol concentrations appear to have decreased. With minor exceptions, the water quality parameters measured monthly at the Muskegon Lake outlet have met Michigan's water quality standards since 1987 (the exceptions are two lead, one zinc, two cadmium, and four arsenic measurements that slightly exceeded standards during the monthly sampling from January 1988 to September 1993).

The SWQD conducts caged-fish studies in selected rivers to determine the presence of contaminants undetectable in water samples. Such studies were conducted in Muskegon River in 1987 and 1990 [53]. After 28 days of exposure to the water in the outlet from Muskegon Lake to Lake Michigan, the caged fish show low net uptake (absorption) levels of the selected chemicals. Chemicals most likeiy to be absorbed by the caged fish are PCBs; compared to the other rivers in which studies were conducted, the Muskegon Lake channel results reveal one of the lowest net uptakes of PCBs. Other contaminants detected at low levels were mercury, dieldrin, DDT, and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT).

The results of the sampling since 1987 indicate that the water entering Lake Michigan from the Muskegon Lake AOC meets WQS. SEDIMENT CONTAMINA TION

Determining pollutant concentration levels through sediment sampling has limitations because deposition rates vary widely and are difficult to measure, sediment composition varies, pollutant concentrations within sediments vary, sediments can be disturbed by storms and dredging, and sampling techniques are imperfect. To illustrate, deposition rates in a hecan be much slower than at a rivermouth. In the former, the rate can be as slow as 118 inch annually, which means that the 5-inch surface samples taken from Muskegon Lake in 1986 and 1990 may have been accumulating for 35 to 40 years. Near a rivermouth, the sedimentation rate can be as rapid as 2 inches annually, which means samples taken from such a location had been accumulating 2.5 years. However, despite the limitations of the sediment sampling information, the results provide a range of concentrations for various elements and compounds that can be compared to existing standards, toxic effect levels, and background levels. In addition, areas of a water body that appear to be significantly more contaminated than others can be identified.

Table 6 presents the range of concentrations found for nine heavy metals in sediments collected from Muskegon Lake in 1986 and 1990 [98,109]. The ranges are compared to the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criteria-the level at which dredged material is categorized as heavily polluted and disposal alternatives are more restricted [98], low- and severe-effect toxicity levels developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)m], and average background levels calculated for Michigan inland lakes [24]. The latter were derived from sediment core samples from 66 lakes across Michigan and represent levels of heavy metals found in the environment before there were extensive human activity and pollution due to industrialimtion. For comparative purposes the current levels of the contaminants in Lake Michigan alsb are provided [98].

1986 data had indicated that the most degradation was found in sediment samples taken (1) near the Division Street storm sewer outfall to Muskegon Lake, (2) mid-lake offshore from Westran Corp., (3) at the mouth of Ruddiman Creek, and (4) offshore from S.D. Warren Company. At all four locations chromium exceeded the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criterion and the Ontario MOE scverc-effect toxicity level; at the Division Street location this also was true for copper, nickel, cmd kad (found to be present at 450, 167, 424 ppm, respectively).

Map 2 shows the locations of the 17 sites in Muskegon and Bear lakes at which sediment sampling occurred in 1990. The data reveal the most degradation at the following sites: mid-lake off the mouth of Ryerson Creek (station 6); near the Division Street storm sewer outfaZl to Muskegon Lake (station 7); near the mouth of Ruddiman Creek (Station 9); farther offshore from the mouth of Ruddiman Creek (station 11); two sites near the S.D. Warren facility (stations 14 and 15); and mid-lake in the south basin (station 13). Table 7 indicates that standards and toxicity levels were exceeded at 14 of the 15 sites sampled in Muskegon Lake. TABLE 6: Comparison of Heavy Metal Concentrations Found In 1986 and 1990 Muskegon Lake Sediment Samples with Selected Standards and Levels (parts per million)

Ontarlo Mlnlstry Average U.S. EPA of Envlronment Ontorlo Mlnlstrv Background Level Murkegon Muskegon Dredge Low-Effect of ~nvlronmsnt for ~lchlgan Lake 1986 Lake 1990 Spollr Toxlclty Levet Severe-Effect Inland Lakes Present Lake Heavy Metal (RmwI (Range) Criterion* Toxlclty Level' Mlchlgan Level

Arsenic <6-20 1.2-14 8 12 10.5

Cadmium <2-7.5 <2-14 6 0.6 0.9

Chromium

Copper 5-470 3-500 60 19.7 22

Mercury cO.6-1.3 <0.1-1.13 1 0.05 0.1 1

Nickel <5-193 <6-57.5 50 7.2 2 4

Lead 10-424 < 5.0 40

Selenium <0.5-1.4 0.82 1.2

Zinc 17-610 42'

SOURCE: Publlo Sector Conrultentr, Ina., from lnformatlon prodded by the Michigan Department of Natural Ramourcar.

'Level et wNoh dredged matarlal I8 aetegorlzed am heedly polluted and dirpoed elternetlver ere limited. %eve1 at which OMOE her datertnlnad that polutanta In redlmmt brain to affect aquaria orgenirmr. (Tho United Statar doer not have ouch a rtandard.) *Level at wMch OMOE hrr determined that pollutrnta In aadlment begin to raveraly affect .quetlo organirmr. (The Unltad Stater doer not have ruch e standard.) MAP 2: Muskegon Lake AOC Sediment Sampling Sites, 1990

SOURCE: Publlc Sector Consullanls, InC., udng material from Geological Survey Division and Surlace Water Oualily Dlvkslon. - Michigan Deparlmer hlural Resources. TABLE 7: Contaminants Exceeding Selected Standards and Effect Levels, Muskegon Lake musk amp ling Stations, 1990

Ontario Ministry of Ontario Ministry of Environment US. EPA Dredge Environment Low-Effect Severe-Effect Sampling Stationg Spoils Criterion Toxicity Levd Toxicity Levd

None Arsenic, copper None None Chromium, copper, lead None Lead Copper, lead None Copper Cadmium, chromium, None copper, lead, nickel Arsenic, chromium, Arsenic, cadmium, None copper, lead, mercury chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc Arsenic, cadmium, Arsenic, cadmium, Cadmium, chromium, copper, chromium, copper, lead, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, mercury, nickel, zinc lead, zinc zinc None None None Arsenic, chromium, Arsenic, cadmium, Chromium copper. lead, mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc mercury, zinc Arsenic, copper, lead, Arsenic, cadmium, None mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc Arsenic, chromium, Arsenic, cadmium, None copper, lead, mercury, chromium, copper, zinc mercury, lead, zinc Arsenic, chromium, Arsenic, cadmium, None copper, lead, mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc nickel, zinc Arsenic, chromium, Arsenic, cadmium, None copper, krd, mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc nickel, zinc Arsenc. *omrum, Arsenic, cadmium, None copper. k.d. mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc nickel, zinc None Chromium None None None None

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants. Inc., using information from the U.S. Enviromntd Protection Agency 8nd OnOuio Minim of Envirorment.

'hflap 2 shows the locations of the sampling stations. NOTE: At stations 4 and 12 udiments were composed of sand or wood chips, and no smnples were tden. The Ontario MOE severe-effect toxicity levels were exceeded only at the Division Street storm sewer outfall (for cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc, at 14, 152, 565, and 1,700 ppm, respectively) and at the mouth of Ruddiman Creek (for chromium, at 128 ppm). At all of the sites, however, the EPA criteria for "heavily" polluted dredge spoils criteria were exceeded for arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Sediment samples also were screened for several other toxics, including chlordane, PCBs, aldrin, mirex, DDT, DDE, and DDD (the latter two are breakdown products of DDT); all were under detection levels.

In 1988 sediment samples were taken from the bay east of the former Grand Trunk Railroad Car Ferry Dock and west of Ryerson Creek [loll. The analyses indicate that copper, nickel, and zinc (at 54, 16, 290 ppm, respectively) exceeded the EPA heavily poliuted dredge spoils criteria and the Ontario MOE low-toxicity levels, and chromium (at 60 ppm) exceeded the Ontario MOE low-toxicity level.

Because of the limitations described above in using surface sediment samples, the above-mentioned data are useful in identifying areas where pollutants are consistently present (such as at the Division Street storm sewer outfall and in the deep basin of the lake across from Ryerson Creek), but cannot tell us whether contaminant levels have changed in the last two decades.

BENTHIC COMMUNITY

Benthic samples were taken from Muskegon Lake in 1990 by the SWQD and are currently being analyzed and results will be reported out at a later date [110]. Benthic organisms reflect changes in water andor sediment quality; if there is a significant increase in the relative abundance of species intolerant of pollution, compared to those that are more tolerant, it will indicate that conditions in Muskegon Lake are continuing to improve. Since chemical data on heavy metals and dissolved oxygen are inconclusive, periodic sampling and analysis of the Muskegon Lake benthic communities are essential to measure whether water quality is continuing to improve in response to pollution abatement efforts.

FISH

Population

General Description Muskegon Lake is described by some as one of the most popular and valuable fisheries in west Michigan. The lake maintains an excellent fishery for northern pike, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, yellow perch, sucker, sunfish, crappie, and bullhead. The MDNR conducts general fish surveys on Muskegon Lake, but they document only the number, type, and age of the fish actually collected; accurate population estimates of individual species are very difficult and expensive to calculate in water bodies as large as Muskegon Lake [28,86]. Despite the excellence of the current AOC fishery, there has been some degradation. Walleye spawning runs in the,Muskegon River currently are estimated at 45,000 fish annually compared to the estimated historical runs of 130,000 [28]. In Muskegon Lake, populations of lake sturgeon, Great Lakes muskellunge, and white bass have disappeared or are severely depleted 1861. These declines could be due to a combination of factors, such as ambient pollution levels, introduction of exotic species, loss of habitat, and successful competition by other fish species.

Effects of Toxic Contaminants Although the link between toxic contaminants and the physical condition and reproductive capability of fish in the Great Lakes has not been thoroughly explored [33,773, there is some evidence of relationship. Studies suggest that population declines in lake trout are partially attributable to elevated contaminant concentrations, arid such skin alterations as lesions, papillomas, and other deformities have been linked with the presence of plyaromatic hydrocarbons in some Great Lakes fish [v.

Lymphocystis, a viral-induced skin lesion, has been observed in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Muskegon Lake walleye collected annually in the spring by the MDNR for propagation and stocking lakes across the state [86]. Recent research on Tharnes River walleye in Ontario, Canada, shows that this disorder probably is caused by factors such as stress associated with spawning, not by elevated concentrations of toxic contaminants in the environment 1821. A correlation linking accumulated toxic substance(s) to the presence of external tumor incidences, physical deformities or reduced reproductive capability of Muskegon Lake fish has not been made.

Toxic con taminants also affect the extent to which humans should eat fish. The 1993 MDNR fish contaminant monitoring program (FCMP) annual report states that PCBs continue to be the chemical contaminant most often found in Great Lakes fish, although in most fish the level is not high enough to trigger the issuance of an MDPH advisory that humans should halt or restrict their consumption of fish of a particular species or locale [53]. Generally speaking, Great Lakes carp have higher levels of PCBs and chlordane than do other species, and Great Lakes walleye have higher levels of mercury.

The 1987 RAP identified the MDPH's issuance of consumption advisories because of PCBs in carp and mercury in a all eye taken from the Muskegon and Bear lakes as evidence of the AOC's fishery being impaired.

In recent years fish in Muskegon Lake have been sampled twice by the MDNR,in 1987 and 1993 [52]. In 1987, 29 fish were collected from the lake: 9 largemouth bass, one smallmouth bass, and 19 walleye. Table 8 shows the mean concentrations of the contaminants tested for in the fish samples and the corresponding MDPH consumption advisory trigger levels for each contaminant. Mean contaminant concentrations were all less than the MDPH trigger levels, although elevated levels of mercury were found: (1) In largemouth bass the mean concentration was 0.45 ppm, just under 0.5 ppm, which would trigger a restricted-consumption advisory (cautions certain groups of people, e.g., nursing mothers, against eating any of that particular species from the lake); (2) 2 of the 9 largemouth bass exceeded the advisory level-both were more than 16 inches long; and (3) 6 of the 19 walleye had concentrations exceeding the MDPH trigger level (all were over 20 inches long).

In 1993, 10 fish were collected from Muskegon Lake (5 carp, 2 walleye, 2 largemouth bass, and one smallmouth bass) and also, during a spawning run, 10 walleye were collected from the Muskegon River immediately downstream from Croton Dam. The analyses are not yet finished but will be published in the 1994 MDNR FCMP annual report.

The generd advisory (applies to everyone) recommending that because of mercury contamination, consumption of fish from any inland Michigan lake be limited to one meal a week affects the waters of the Muskegon Lake AOC, of course. For Bear Lake there is an additional restricted-consumption advisory for carp due to elevated PCB levels [63]. See Tributaries below for more detail on fish contaminants in Bear Lake.

Carp and walleye--species most apt to show PCB, chlordane, and mercury contamination-collected from Lake Michigan offshore from Muskegon and White Lakes in 1988 had elevated mean concentrations (6.5 ppm PCBs in carp, 0.46 ppm chlordane in carp, and 0.52 ppm mercury in walleye). Contamination has been detectable in fish as far north in Lake Michigan as Little Bay de Noc. Although limited, this information indicates that the contamination of fish in Muskegon Lake due to PCBs, chlordane, and mercury may be a regional rather than a local problem [53].

Effects of Exotic Species Exotic plant and animal species (not indigenous to the locale where found) can affect native fish populations by competing for food and habitat. Various exotic species have been introduced to Muskegon Lake, and purple loosestrife, Eurasian watermilfoil, common carp, alewife, and zebra mussel have become established. The effect of exotic species on native fish populations and their habitat varies. TABLE 8: Mean Contaminant Concentrations Found in Fish Collected from Muskegon Lake, Compared to Michigan Department of Public Health Consumption Advisory Levels, 1987 (parts per million)

Largemouth Smallmouth Advisory f rigger Contaminant Bassm Bassb WalleyeC Level

Mercury PCB Chlordane DDT

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, kr., using data from Surface Water Quality Division, Nlichigcw, Depamnt of Naturd Resources.

*Nine were tested. 'One was tested. .Nineteen were tested.

Purple loosestrife, a fast-growing, invasive plant can colonize rapidly in shallow wetlands, forming monocultural stands that eliminate essential native food and cover for many plant and animal species. Another invasive plant, Eurasian watermilfoil, has become so dense in some areas of the lake that it impedes navigation and has altered aquatic habitat by crowding out indigenous plant species [3 11.

Common carp, an exotic species, has become fdyestablished in Muskegon Lake, as has alewife. Some sources indicate that the proliferation of the latter abetted the decline or elimination of particular species, such as yellow perch and white bass, in Muskegon Lake. Unfortunately, the lake also was receiving large quantities of pollution at the same time, so it is difficult to say with certainty whether alewife is the predominant cause of certain fish populations declining.

One of the more recent invading species is zebra mussel, which first was observed as established in Muskegon Lake in late 1990 [112]. Its number currently is limited, but it appears to be increasing; observers note that most wood and other suitable substrate, including clams, have at least some zebra mussel attached [30,31]. There are no published studies, however, regarding the colonies' densities and problems with zebra mussel colonization in the lake 130,311. Although there are no scientific data to document that it is occurring in Muskegon Lake, one effect of the presence of zebra mussel can be to substantially increase water clarity, which can lead to improved conditions for the growth of macrophytes (rooted aquatic plants). High populations of zebra mussel Nter large quantities of suspended solids and plankton, resulting in a substantial increase in water clarity, which allows more solar radiation to reach lake bottoms, creating improved conditions for macrophytic growth, possibly creating nuisance conditions. Habitat Loss

Fish habitat has been degraded in Muskegon Lake from toxic contamination of sediments and tributaries to the lake, depletion of dissolved oxygen in deep water, and deveiopment of the shoreline.

Toxic Contamination As described above in Sediment Contamination, certain areas of Muskegon Lake contain contaminated sediments; if contamination levels are sufficiently high, an area becomes uninhabitable for benthic and fish communities. Certain tributaries to Muskegon Lake also suffer toxic contamination and its effect on habitat: Ruddiman and Ryerson creeks have been contaminated by industrial and urban storm water discharges, and Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary by contaminated groundwater from the former OttlStory site. The tributaries are described in more detail below under Tributaries.

Depletion of Diksolved Oxygen As mentioned, at certain times of the year dissolved-oxygen levels at a depth of 40 feet and deeper are not sufficient to support certain fish @es, which limits available habitat. In some extreme cases, dissolved oxygen has been measured at 65 feet at less than one ppm.

Development Since the logging era at the turn of the century, Muskegon Lake hasbeen subject to development pressure, primarily along its south side. Significant alteration of the shoreline (shoreline here refers to the point at which the land meets the lake, not property adjacent to the lake) had occurred by the 1920s. A 1924 lake chart shows that approximately five miles (about 50 percent) of the Muskegon Lake shoreline had been altered by the construction of bulkheads (upright walls separating land and water), docks, and facilities for logging operations. Comparing the 1924 map to a 1972 map shows that the amount of altered shoreline had not increased significantly, but the type of development has changed. More of the area has been "hardened" by shoreline devices such as seawalls, riprap (sustaining walls of piled stones or chunks of concrete), and sheet piling, and the filling along the shoreline has increased. During the last 15 years approximately 160 permits have been issued for marinas, piers, bulkheads, sea walls, dredging, and other development activities on Muskegon Lake [54].

The land use of the shoreline has shifted from predominantly industrial to industrial and recfeational because recreational and tourism uses of the lake have increased in recent years. Watercraft registered in Muskegon County (15,000) have increased 20 percent since 1987 [73,98], and today there are 14 marinas and 6 public access facilities on Muskegon Lake. Because of the increasing recreation demands, the potential for development on the remaining undeveloped shoreline is high. The Fisheries Division of the MDNR believes that development poses the primary risk to the Muskegon Lake fishery-loss of shallow-water habitat. Such habitat, referred to as the littoral tone, serves several important functions, among them providing places for fish spawning, rearing, nursery, and foraging [78]. Disruption-by marina construction and operation, for example, and the installation by residences, businesses, and industries of seawalls, bulkheads, and riprapdegrades or destroys shallow-water fish habitat 1861.

The effect that development in littoral zones can have on fish habitat in drowned- rivermouth lakes is illustrated by the findings from a series of fish surveys conducted by the MDNR Grand Rapids Dhict fisheries staff in 1989, 1990, and 199 1 [69]. The results were used to compare game fish use of natural (undisturbed) and developed littoral zone habitat in White Lake, and, as shown in Table 9, the number of fish is substantially lower in developed areas, where the littoral zone has been disturbed, than in undeveloped areas. Where the shoreline has been developed, there also are fewer species. These surveys can only generally compare fish populations in these areas-they are not intended to be definitive scientific studies.

TABLE 9: Game Fsh in Undisturbed and Developed Littoral Zone Habitats, White Lake

Fish Per Foot Fish Per Foot at Yoar of Sample a Undisturbed Sites Developed Sites Percentage Diffuance

1989 0.104 0.01 8 -83% 1990 0.083 0.007 -92 1991 1.360 0.01 8 -9 9 AVERAGE 0.516 0.01 4 -97%

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, Inc., using data from the fisheries staff of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Grand Ra~idsDistrict Office. To be able to accurately measure fish use of alreadydeveloped shoreline areas or predict the effect of further development, considerably more study is necessary. The Great Lakes Shorelands Section of the MDNR Land and Water Management Division is conducting a study to develop a database for decision making about proposed development on Muskegon and other drowned-rivermouth lakes in Michigan; data are being collected on fish habitat, interrelationships among populations, aquatic vegetation distribution, and other relevant parameters [31]. In addition, information is available about threatened and endangered plant and animal species and can be referenced to identify unique characteristics of a lake that should be considered in deciding whether to issue a permit allowing development.

Secondary potential risks to fish habitat in Muskegon Lake include nonpoint- source pollution from urban storm water runoff and also from sediments flowing into the water and covering existing habitat [8q. There are no studies that quantify the effects of such pollution on fish habitat in the lake, although studies of Ryerson and Ruddiman creeks document habitat degradation from industrial discharges and/or urban storm water runoff. The influence of the Muskegon River watershed as a whole on the fish habitat and communities in Muskegon Lake has been largely unknown; however, a watershed plan being developed by the Fisheries Division of the MDNR may shed some light. The study's objective was to document physical and biological features of the Muskegon River watershed and use the data to formulate fisheries management recommendations and options. The study's findings will be available for public review and comment in 1994 1861.

MDNR Fisheries Division Management Goals

The following are the current Fisheries Division water quality and habitat protection goals for the Muskegon Lake AOC:

Protect Muskegon LaLe for warm-water fish species

Protect tributaries to Muskegon Lake for cold-water and warm-water species

Manage Muskegon Lake and Muskegon River for self-sustaining populations of walleye, chinook salmon, steelhead, brown trout, rainbow trout, and lake sturgeon

Ensure that suitable habitat exists to support the restoration of a warm-water fishery in Muskegon Lake

Provide controls on additional development along the north shore of Muskegon Lake to protect the area's littoral zone

Ensure that the extensive marsh areas upstream and in Muskegon and Bear lakes are protected for northern pike spawning and forage fish

Restore benthic habitat in tributaries and deep lake basins to that which will support a natural fish community WILDLIFE

. Population

The open-water habitat of Muskegon Lake is attractive to a variety of wildlife species. Spring and fall migrating waterfowl such as Canada goose, mallard, blue-winged teal, merganser, and lesser scaup are common visitors. Other wildlife species found in and around Muskegon Lake include mute swan, bald eagle, osprey, mink, otter, and heron. Wildlife populations constantly fluctuate because of both natural and human influences. Historic accounts of the area indicate that prior to the logging boom, wildlife were present in great quantity. Market hunting of waterfowl was prevalent during the 1800s as indicated by this comment from 1890:

You can form no idea how plenty Canvasbacks were through the late fall and winter . . . They were so plenty that they commanded a very small price . . . They brought, at the bay, $.SO a pair, and even at that price, a good shot would bring from $10.00 to $20.00 per day [43].

Environmental toxicology studies in the Great Lakes basin began in the 1950s, when reproductive failure and population declines were noticed in certain wildlife species f17J. Bald eagle, waterfowl, mink, otter, and other fish-eating birds and mammals have been monitored in recent years because of their particular susceptibility to certain toxic chemicals. Documented in numerous studies are developmental abnormalities and reproductive failures in several species in the Lake Michigan watershed due to PCBs, DDT and DDE, dioxins, and other toxic contaminants 1273.

The 1993 EPA Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) says of toxic pollutants in the Lake Michigan watershed,

The effects of PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, and other contaminants are still being observed in the Lake Michigan watershed. Data collected during the 1980s has shown a trend toward improving conditions. Environmental data, particularly fish tissue contaminant monitoring and wildlife monitoring, suggest that progress has been made in reducing the inputs of a number of these substances through bans, . suspensions, and restrictions on substance production and use, and through limitations on point source discharge [69].

Wildlife population trends in the Muskegon Lake area are difficult to determine because there are insufficient AOC-specific data. General observations can be made about several species, however. Bald eagle populations have been closely monitored in the Great Lakes region since the mid-1970s. Bald eagles are at the top of the food chain and feed on a variety of lower species including fish, gull, and waterfowl, as well as carrion. Thus, they are highly susceptible to bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals. DDT and dieldrin have been directly linked with the degradation of the bald eagle population on Lake Michigan shorelines [13], and their use has been banned. In the last several years the number of breeding pairs in Michigan and Ohio has dramatically increased, from 102 in 1981 to 220 in 1992 1131. Overall, the number of nests in Michigan are increasing, primarily in the Great Lakes coastal region. In the Muskegon Lake area, bald eagles have been sighted for several years, but the first pair known to be nesting there in recent times was observed in the lower Muskegon River area in 1992; one eaglet was hatched and successfully raised. The pair nested again in 1993 and one eaglet was hatched, but apparently did not survive because, 2 to 3 weeks after hatching, it was observed missing from the nest. In 1994, the eagles produced one observed egg, but stopped incubation after several weeks. The egg was recovered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and archived until funding is available to have analyzed [4]. Analysis of this egg and others, will hopefully provide some much needed answers about the eagle's reproductive failures. Also in 1993, an osprey pair nested in the Muskegon State Game Area-the first such occurrence in many years [40].

Muskegon Lake and the adjacent wetland habitats comprise one of the four major freshwater estuary wetland complexes along the east shore of Lake Michigan, and these areas have been identified as important habitat for waterfowl [40]. Waterfowl production in and around the Muskegon State Game Area is relatively high compared to regional averages, and high populations of wood duck, teal, and hooded merganser have been maintained in the game area. Due to the game area's large size, breeding areas are isolated from human disturbance, and this may contribute to the maintenance of high waterfowl populations. Annual aerial surveys that count waterfowl are conducted in this region, but beyond that, site-specific population data is not available for most species.

A species doing very well is Canada goose. There has been a significant increase in the Canada goose population on Muskegon Lake in recent years [40], although there are no data available that correlate the increase in local Canada goose populations to improved habitat on Muskegon Lake. Fall flight estimates by the MDNR Grand Rapids District indicate that there has been a substantial increase in recent years, from approximately 100 in 1969 to more than 9,000 in 1993 1441. This trend is indicative of Canada goose populations state wide.

Mink is a mammalian species highly susceptible to the effects of bioaccumulation of contaminants [4]. The LaMP reports that "mink have virtually disappeared from the shoreline areas of large portions of Lake Michigan [77j." Laboratory studies show that captive mink fed diets of Lake Michigan fish have higher adult death rates and reproductive failure than do captured mink eating fish from elsewhere [26]. Along the lower Muskegon River, however, mink populations apjxar to be on the increase. Otter numbers are also increasing in the lower Muskegon River based on an increasing number of accidentally trapped animals and increased sightings throughout the entire district. In 1993 the MDNR proposed the opening of an otter trapping season in Muskegon County permitting the trapping of one otter per trapper. The proposal was not adopted and as of May 1994 is still under consideration by the Natural Resources Commission [40].

Unfortunately, there are no baseline data on reptile and amphibian populations for either the region or the Muskegon Lake area [4,40]. The general consensus, however, is that reptile and amphibian populations are decreasing because, of all species, they are most susceptible to contaminants and loss of littoral zone and wetland habitats.

Habitat

Wildlife habitat can become degraded through toxic contamination, loss or fragmenrarion (breakup or disconnection) by development, competition from exotic species, and human recreational activities.

Toxic substances have made some areas around Lake Michigan virtually uninhabitable by species that depend on habitat adjacent to the lake for shelter or forage [22]. In and adjacent to Muskegon Lake, however, there are no known sites that are officially classified as uninhabitable by wildlife [40].

Development and fragmentation of land reduces the amount of usable habitat for larger-sized wildlife and also threatens smaller and/or isolated species [29]. Regrettably, baseline data specific to loss of or fragmentation of wildlife habitat in and adjacent to Muskegon Lake are not available, but the MDNR Michigan Natural Features Inventory may help: One of its projects is to use original land surveyor notes and other historical sources to compile presettlement vegetation maps, which, when used in conjunction with existing land use maps, could make it possible to estimate how much wildlife habitat has been lost due to development.

Muskegon Lake has been subject to intensive development since the 1800s; logging docks, foundries, factories, storage tank facilities, a power plant, and marinas all have played a role in altering and degrading wildlife habitat. More detail about development along the shore of Muskegon Lake is provided above under Fish, in the discussion of habitat loss.

The effect of exotic species on indigenous plant and animal species also is described above under Fish. Although there are as yet no data to measure the effect of zebra mussels on wildlife populations in the Great Lakes, ongoing research in some European countries documents an increase in waterfowl that feed on zebra mussel Vl]. Research will be necessary to assess whether zebra mussel directly affects, adversely or beneficially, wildlife populations or habitat in Michigan. Such human recreation activities as boating, wind surfing, jet skiing, and swimming affect both plant and animal life. For example, when such activity is heavy, it evokes axtress response in wildlife, which results in their eating less and using stored energy more than normal; prolonged disturbances can reduce the overall fitness of waterfowl. The effects of recreation activities on aquatic vegetation are documented; if vegetation becomes degraded, there is a substantial negative effect on critical wildlife feeding and nesting habitat [71].

The Wildlife Division of the MDNR identifies three factors as currently most threatening to Muskegon Lake important aquatic and upland wildlife habitat. They are, in order of seriousness, (1) the effects of dredging, filling and development, (2) the unwelcome invasion by exotic species, and (3) habitat fragmentation. Dredging, in addition to causing resuspension of solids and possibly contaminants present in sediment, disturbs littoral zones by altering plant communities and disrupting important food chains. Dredging, excavating and abnormal dewatering practices, that expose open mud flats can foster the establishment the invading species of plant called purple loosestrife. Once established, loosestrife grows in large monotypic stands that out compete more beneficial native wetlands species. Since loosestrife has little food or cover value, their invasion represents significant loss for wetland wildlife species. Fragmentation of Muskegon Lake wildlife habitat from development has eliminated many wildlife travel corridors with the result that suitable habitat is isolated and less accessible to wildlife [4O].

TRIBU TAMS

Bear Lake Watershed

The Bear Lake watershed consists of the unnamed tributary to Little Bear Creek, Little Bear C-kek, Bear Creek, and Bear Lake.

Unnamed Tn'butary, Little Bear Creek, Bear Creek The 1987 RAP indicated that the unnamed tributary to Little Bear Creek and portions of Little Bear Creek were severely degraded from infiltration of contaminated groundwater from the former Ott/Story site. The most recent extensive evaluation of these tributaries was conducted by the SWQD in 1985 and found that their condition had not improved since 1978.

A strong chemical odor, bacterial slime, anaerobic (without oxygen) sediments, and degraded benthic communities had been found in the unnamed tributary and in Little Bear Creek downstream of the confluence with the unnamed tributary 1861. An additional study, to determine the toxicity of the waters in both, was conducted by the SWQD in 1985: Water in the u~medtributary was found to be chronically toxic (causing injury or death after long-term exposure) to Ceriodizphnia dubia (an invertebrate used in standard toxicity testing); low dissolved-oxygen levels, which can negatively affect benthic organisms, were found in the unnamed tributary and in Little Bear Creek near the tributary; and toluene found in the unnamed I tributary exceeded the aquatic chronic toxicity level established under MDNR water quality standards [45]. Although new studies have not been conducted in the area, pollutants from the OttIStory site continue to enter the creek, and it can be assumed that the water quality, sediments, and benthos in the area continue to be degraded. Construction of purge wells and an extensive treatment system is scheduled for 1994 [19]. (A more detailed description of planned remedial activities is presented in part 3, under CERCLA/Supe@nd Sides.)

Bear Lake The 1987 RAP recommended that sediment in Bear Lake be tested to determine if they were the source of the chlordane and PCBs found in carp collected from the lake. The SWQD collected and analyzed surface sediments in 1988 [105], but the results of the analysis were inconclusive-high levels of sulfur in lake sediments interfered with the detection of PCBs and chlordane.

In 1990 Bear Lake surface sediments were tested further, including for heavy metal contamination, at two sampling stations (locations A and B on Map 2), one at the north end of the lake, near the Bear Creek inlet, and the other at the south end, near the outlet to Muskegon Lake [109]. Chlordane and PCB concentrations were below detection levels (500 and 5,500 ppb, respectively). For heavy metals, the Ontario MOE severe-effect toxicity levels were not exceeded for any, but the EPA heavily contaminated dredge spoils criteria were exceeded for copper, lead, and zinc (test levels were 5 1.5, 230, and 94.4 ppm, respectively) in the south portion of the lake. (The EPA criteria and Ontario MOE levels are explained above under Sediment Contmnination.)

As reported in the 1987 RAP, analyses in 1986 of fish from Bear Lake had indicated the elevated presence of PCBs in large carp, and by 1989 the MDPH had issued a restricted consumption advisory for Bear Lake carp [58]. Fish contaminant monitoring was conducted again in fall 1993, and results are expected in 1994.

Muskegon River

Because specific data about water quality in the Muskegon River upstream of Muskegon Lake has not been collected since 1981, the current status of the water entering the lake cannot be fully evaluated, but there is some information from other sources that give an indication of the current status of the river.

Sediment samples collected in 1988 from the north branch of the Muskegon River near the treated-groundwater discharge from Zephyr, Incorporated, revealed that lead (at 725 ppm) exceeded the EPA heavily contaminated dredge spoils criterion and both the Ontario MOE toxic effect levels; chromium (at 32 pprn), copper (23 pprn), and nickel (19 ppm) exceeded Ontario's low-toxicity effect levels. As part of the MDNR fish contaminant monitoring program, 10 carp were collected from the river in 1991 and analyzed for toxics 1533. The mean concentration for each evaluated parameter was significantly under the MDPH consumption advisory trigger level. (The mercury level was 0.12 ppm; dieldrin, 0.008 ppm; PCB, 0.25 ppm; chlordane, O.O94 ppm; and DDT, 0.359 pprn.)

Carp were collected from the Muskegon Lake navigational channel in 1993 for tissue analysis [94]. In the five fish, the average polyaromatic hydrocarbon level was elevated (3.95 pprn), the highest in the five rivers tested (the others being Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, Grand, and Manistique). The source of the contaminant and the significance of the elevation are unknown at this time.

Four Mile Creek

In 1988 sediment samples from Four Mile Creek were analyzed for PCBs and found to be below the detection level of 3,000 ppb [100]. Sediment samples from Sanford Bayou, at the base of Four Mile Creek also were taken in 1988 after a pipe carrying wastewater to the metro facility ruptured [99]. Cadmium, chromium, copper, and nickel (at 17, 5 10, 140, and 191 ppm, respectively) exceeded the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criteria and the Ontario MOE low- and severe-toxicity levels. Lead and zinc (at 117 and 566 ppm, respectively) exceeded dredging and low-toxicity levels. Mercury was present in amounts below all standards for toxicity levels.

Ryerson Creek

In 1988 and 1989 sediment and biological contaminant surveys were conducted for Ryerson Creek by the SWQD, as recommended in the 1987 RAP [92]. Sampling occurred at stations one-third, one-half, and one mile upstream from Muskegon Lake. The testing indicated that the station closest to Muskegon Lake is the most degraded: Amounts of copper, lead, and zinc (188, 702, and 657 ppm, respectively) exceeded the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criteria, and lead and copper also exceeded the Ontario MOE severeeffect levels.

Water quality in the creek was characterized by high levels of suspended solids, growths of bacterial slime, and increased turbidity. In addition, the water had an odor of sewage, although there are no known sewage inputs to the creek. Evaluation of the creek's benthic community and fish habitat indicated further degradation by sand deposition. The SWQD noted that conditions had improved slightly since a survey in 1972, but the stream's sediments, benthic communities, water quality, and fish habitat remained problematic [107J. Ruddiman Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Ruddiman Pond

The 1987 RAP recommended that sediment and biological contaminant surveys also be conducted for Ruddiman Creek and an unnamed tributary, both of which flow into Ruddiman Pond, and in 1988 and 1989 testing was carried out by the SWQD [103]. Samples were taken at four stations: two on Ruddiman Creek and two on the unnamed tributary. In the creek the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criteria were exceeded for all heavy metals tested except cadmium at one sampling site and mercury at both. Levels of chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc (1,690, 234, 208, 576, and 776 ppm, respectively) exceeded the Ontario MOE severe-effect toxicity levels, indicating that the benthic communities may be degraded due to contaminated sediments.

From the unnamed tributary, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc in sediment samples exceeded the EPA heavily polluted dredge spoils criteria, and chromium, copper, lead, and zinc (at 171, 270, 668, and 815 ppm, respectively) exceeded the Ontario MOE severe-effect toxicity levels, again indicating potential degradation of the benthic community.

In addition, at each sampling station there was a deposit of fine particulate sediments two to three feet deep that had severely degraded habitat and benthic communities; the worst case was at the station near Barclay Street on Ruddiman Creek, where only a limited number of one species of benthic organism were found.

The analyses reveal that Ruddiman Creek and the unnamed tributary to Ruddirnan Pond both suffer impdwater quality.

Green Creek

Biological and sediment surveys have not been conducted for Green Creek. Its drainage basin historically has been undeveloped but in recent years has experienced substantial residential growth. Potential pollution sources are septic systems and storm water and agricultural runoff.

Mosquito Creek

The 1987 RAP indicated that the floodplain characteristics and water level of Mosquito Creek had been altered by discharges from the metro facility. In 1991 discharges from the facility to Mosquito Creek were diverted to the Muskegon River [7J, but there have been no surveys conducted since that would assess the current condition of the creek. 7994: Potential Sources of Pollution

, NPDES-REGUL A TED POINT-SOURCE DISCHARGES

The SWQD district staff reviews the compliance status of NPDES-regulated dischargers by examining the monthly discharge monitoring reports submitted by the permittee; site visits and special studies supplement this information. The staff evaluates the overall level of compliance with established permit limits, including attention to repeated violations, severe violations, and indications that the permit holder has operational or equipment problems.

Random permit violations and minor operational problems often are resolved informally between the permit holder and the SWQD district staff without formal enforcement action being necessary. Repeated effluent-limit violations of a specific parameter, violations resulting from ongoing operational problems, and other types of violations may be addressed through formal enforcement action, which may involve a notice letter, notice of noncompliance, notice of violation, administrative consent decree, or a director's final order. The state.also may pursue a judicial remedy through a civil or criminal lawsuit. Most violations are corrected through a negotiated schedule of actions that will bring a facility into compliance [9].

NPDES discharge permits, which reflect both state and federal regulations, are issued for a maximum period of five years; 1993 was a year in which most Muskegon Lake AOC permit holders were applying for reissuance. The following paragraphs describe the significant issues relating to specific municipal and industrial NPDES permitted discharges to Muskegon Lake since 1987. Municipal Discharge

When the metro facility began operating in 1973, one of the outfalls discharged into Mosquito Creek, which empties into Muskegon Lake via the Muskegon River. During a subsequent site inspection of Mosquito Creek in the vicinity of the metro facility outfall, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior noted that the creek's habitat had changed since the facility began discharging effluent at that location. The creek and a low-lying wooded area nearby had become flooded, and, near the outfdl, the flow pattern of the creek was no longer distinct [71. In addition, in 1986 the creek's dissolved-oxygen levels were found to be below water quality standards, and this too was attributed to the water treatment system discharge [85]. (The effect of the effluent on the benthic community in Mosquito Creek also was tested, in 1986, 1988, and 1989, but was found not toxic to the benthos [46,74,lO3]). In January 1991 the effluent flowing to Mosquito Creek was rerouted to the Muskegon River [7J.

The metro facility has been upgraded since the 1987 Muskegon Lake RAP was prepared. Construction of the upgrades began in 1990 and was completed in 1992. The major changes are

- installation of rapid infiltration beds;

addition of femc chloride capability; ,

extension of the interception ditch;

regrade of the interception ditch to allow part of the water to flow to the rapid infiltration pumping station;

0 installation of riprap in the storage lagoons;

0 improvements in the under drains and surface drainage systems;

0 installation of 40 new irrigation rigs to improve irrigation capacity; and

8 improvements in the aeration and solids-handling systems [7J.

In the last two years two violations of the waste management system's NPDES discharge permit have been detected at the metro facility's Muskegon River outfall: (1) In October 1992 total phosphorus in the effluent was reported to be 0.1 1 ppm, exceeding the permitted level of 0.09 ppm, and (2) in September 1993 the pH level was reported to be 6.0 standard units, under the minimum of 6.5 [71.

According to the SWQD staff, the metro facility now consistently produces a high- quality effluent. Its permit violations had been exceptions not the rule, and the facility does not have a continuing compliance problem with any particular permit parameter [7,9]. hdustrial Discharges . . There currently are 22 point-source discharges to Muskegon Lake and its Muskegon County tributaries that are regulated by the NPDES [Sq. Table 10 identifies the dischargers and indicates the type of effluent the facilities are permitted to discharge. Map 3 indicates where the discharges are located.

The number of NPDES discharges to Muskegon Lake is expected to increase soon because the EPA recently approved Michigan's 'general permit" process. A general permit can be issued to an applicant proposing a surface water discharge of treated groundwater via the use of multi-stage (two or more) activated-carbon technology. For a site or facility to be eligible to receive a general permit, the groundwater contaminants of concern at the site must be gasoline and/or related petroleum products for which BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) adequately will characterize the effluent of the activated carbon treatment. Many applications for general permits have been received and are under review by the SWQD Permits Section [9].

The SWQD district staff, which monitors NPDES compliance of Muskegon Lake AOC industrial facilities, indicates that most are in compliance with their effluent limitations; an exception is Zephyr, Incorporated (permit MI0005045), which repeatedly has violated its BTX (benzene, toluene and xylene) limits during cold-weather months. The MDNR is working to bring the company into compliance [9].

In addition to reviewing monthly reports prepared by NPDES permit holders, the SWQD randomly checks their discharges.

Tests in 1991 of the noncontact cooling water effluent discharged into Muskegon Lake from S.D. Warren Company and the West Michigan Steel Foundry found their discharges not acufeZy toxic (causing death or severe injury soon after a single exposure) to Daphnia rnagna and indicated the facilities discharge quality was in compliance with Michigan water quality standards [47,17).

An acute toxicity assessment in 1991 of the effluent discharged to Little Bear Creek by Nor-Am Chemical Company indicated compliance with Michigan water quality standards [72].

A chronic toxicity test in 1991 of the effluent discharged to Muskegon Lake by Brunswick Corporation revealed that the discharge was adversely affecting the survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and therefore violating Michigan water quality standards [16]. Brunswick is voluntarily cleaning up an area of toluene-contaminated groundwater near the site by using purge wells to extract the groundwater, then passing the groundwater through an air-stripping column to remove the toluene. At MDNR's request, Brunswick conducted four toxicity tests ,- on the effluent from the air stripper in 1992; it was found neither acutely nor chronically toxic to fathead minnows or Ceriodaphnia dubia [110]. TABLE 10: NPDES-Regulated Discharges to Muskegon Lake and Tributaries, 1993

Noncontact Coollng Oroundwater Procerr Permit Holder Permlt Number* Water Clemup Werteweter Other

Amoco Oil Company Brunswick Corporation ~orkumersPower Company -BC Cobb Power Plant Kaydon Corporation-Kaydon Bearin0 Division Marathon Pipe Line Co. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Pipeline hydrostatic test water Marathon Pipe Line Co.. Tank Hydro Tank hydrostatic test Test water Muskegon Co. Wastewater X Management System Muskegon-Hartshorn Marina Nor-Am Chemical Company Ray's Mini Mart

Reeths Puffer School System S. D. Warren Company Sealed Power-Corporate Headquarters Sealed Power-Sanford Street Shaw-Walker Company Teledyne Continental Motors Textron-CWC Castings

West Michigan Dock 6. Market 04880 West Michigan Steel Foundry 26038 Westgate Oil Company 48816 Zephyr, ,Incorporated 06045

SOURCE: Public Sactor Conaultanta, Ino., ualng data from Surfmom Wotor Ouollty Dlvlalon, Michlgnn Dapartmnnt of Natural Reaourcem, Grand Rapids District. 'All pad( numbrrr brdn with MOO, dlrnlnatod harm to aova apooa. MAP 3: Location or Discharge Point of NPDES-Regulated Discharges to Muskegon Lake and Tributaries

LAKE MICHIGAN

B. Shaw-Walker Co. 10. Wesl Mlchlgan Dock and Market \ I* 'a \4 11. Sealed Power-Corp.Haadquarlers 12. Weslgale 011 Co. 13. Teled e Conllnenlal Molos 14. CPCX'C-- -- ~obbpower Plan1 L+& 15. ~uskeon Co. Waslewaler Management Syslem.Mel, '% 17.16. MaralhonRays dlnlPlpellne Marl 18. Zephyr, lnc6rporaled SOURCE: Publlc Sector Consultants, Inc., usln malerlal from Geologlcel Survey Dlvlslon and 10. Reeths Putter School Syslem Sulace Water (luaYty Dlvlslon. Wchlgan Depffment 01 Natural Resources. 20. Nor-Am Chemical Co. Sediment and biological contaminant surveys in 1987 and 1988 of Ruddiman Creek and its unnamed tributary, referred to in part 2, under Tributaries, indicate significant contamination of sediments and degradation of benthic communities. The source(s) could have been past discharges to Ruddiman Creek by Muskegon Piston Ring Company and Textron-CWC Castings and discharges to the tributary to Ruddiman Creek by Kaydon Corporation-Kaydon Bearing Division and Enterprise Brass Works. Because the area is heavily industrialized, storm water runoff from the area also may carry contaminants [log].

Some industries, if their effluent being discharged to the metro facility is of a certain type, are required to pretreat their wastewater before it is discharged to the wastewater management system. To control toxics going to such systems-which are designed primarily to process domestic, not industrial, wastewater-the industrial pretreatment program was initiated to meet requirements of the federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Toxics from industrial waste can accumulate in the sludge of a wastewater treatment facility, resulting in very high disposal costs; in addition, the presence of toxics may affect the treatment processes. As with the NPDES, under the industrial pretreatment program, maximums are placed on the amount of certain chemicals that may be present in industry effluent going to a wastewater management system. The limits are based on four objectives, and the one applied is that which most restricts the particular chemical: (1) the wastewater management system's NPDES permit limits, (2) protection of the system's collection system and treatment processes, (3) protection of the sys~m'ssludge disposal practices, and (4) protection of facility workers' safety and health PI. The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System operates the industrial Pretreatment Programs (IPPs) within Muskegon County. The IPP program required in NPDES Permit No. MI0027391 establishes the state and federal pretreatment requirements for the regulation of-mdustrial users discharging into the Muskegon Metro facility. Metro's Industrial Pretreatment Program is currently under enforcement action by the EPA. EPA issued Administrative Orders to the Metro pretreatment program requirements. The violations prompting the Administrative Orders were related to inadequate enforcement of federal and local effluent limitations and incomplete IPP program development. The compliance schedule requiring corrective actions was extended by EPA. While there are many significant violations still uncorrected by the County, these violations are not known to be directly responsible for any effluent violations at the Metro facility [9].

According to the MDNR, the metro facility has a high percentage of industrial wastewater in its influent, and the unique and complicated method used to treat it-land application-makes it harder to monitor the concentration of chemicals than is the case with other processing systems. However, as mentioned, the MDNR believes the effluent discharged from the metro facility consistently meets water quality standards [2]. ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES .. There have been intermittent, accidental instances of pollution to Muskegon Lake when a metro facility force main (pipe) or pump station has failed. On August 31, 1993, a concrete force main failed near the north end of Biedler Street, releasing 408,000 gallons of process wastewater from S.D. Warren Company and sanitary waste from surrounding communities. A significant amount reached Muskegon Lake because the failure occurred two blocks from the shoreline. The force main pipe failure was attributed to corrosion by external sources of chlorides [9]. The Muskegon County Public Health Department issued an advisory cautioning the public to avoid contact with Muskegon Lake water for three days because of the release [92]. County officials reported that this same force main had failed previously, in 1987 and a better replacement is being designed and will be constructed in 1994 [9].

Of the metro facility lift stations, in recent years station D, located adjacent to Ruddiman Creek, has had the most failures affecting Muskegon Lake: in 1990, 140,000 gallons of raw sewage; in 1991, 1,000 gallons of raw sewage; and later in 1991, 1.23 million gallons of raw sewage. The failures were due to electrical and/or alarm failures. County officials reported that the station was replaced in 1992 and additional storage provided as well, in case of future mechanical problems [9].

Such accidents are random but cause. concern. The discharges released are supplying nutrients that can accelerate the eutrophication of the lake, and the toxics from released industrial -process wastewater can contaminate sediments and affect benthic and fish communities.

NONPOINT SOURCES

As more traditional point sources of pollutants come under control, attention is focusing on pollution from nonpoint sources. Erosion, construction materials, manufactured products, plants and animals, automobiles, pesticides, groundwater, the atmosphere, industrial sites, and accidental spills all can be sources of nonpoint pollution. Comprehensive protection of surface water from nonpoint-source pollution incorporates the following components: watershed master planning, zoning, development restrictions in designated areas, environmental site planning, construction site control, urban storm water runoff management, public education, and water body restoration programs [75,76].

Nonpoint sources of pollution discussed in this update are urban storm water runoff, agricultural runoff, and atmospheric deposition; the first two are discussed immediately below, the last at the end of this part of the document, under Air Emissions and Deposition. Urban Storm Water

I As development occurs in an area, and the proportion of impervious and compacted surface increases, the area's natural ability to store runoff becomes significantly reduced. Drainage systems installed to accommodate urban storm water runoff can alter surface waters because they (1) concentrate the flow (storm sewers collect water from a large area and deliver it to a single discharge point), (2) increase the speed of water entering the lake, creek, or river (due' to the storm conditions and lack of natural percolation), and (3) in dry periods reduce flow because no water is held in the soil that could later seep to the water body. Urban storm water can adversely affect the quality of the water body further by carrying in with it nutrients, bacteria, suspended solids, toxic compounds, warmer water, and trash and debris. Storm water also contributes to soil erosion and to increased sedimentation in water bodies [75].

The federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 require large point-source discharges of storm water to be regulated by NPDES permits, but the regulation applies only to municipalities of medium (100,000-250,000) or large (more than 250,000) population [18]. Although the high levels of contamination in the sediments adjacent to storm water outfalls and tributaries to Muskegon Lake could be due to storm water runoff, no communities that discharge storm water to Muskegon Lake are required to have permits [37$

The same amendments require regulation of construction projects of over five acres. Michigan has chosen to meet these federal requirements through its existing soil erosion and sedimentation control program administered by local governments. Before construction begins, a permit must be obtained in accordance with the Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act; site-specific measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation are required. When a permit holder receives notice of coverage under the act and presents it to the MDNR, the permittee is considered also to be in compliance with the federal requirements. This program is in effect in Muskegon County to reduce runoff from construction sites [55,83].

A third element of the 1987 federal action to control pollution from storm water runoff involves regulating certain industrial production facilities, commercial warehousing sites, waste treatment and disposal facilities, centralized transportation terminals, and raw-material extraction activities. The MDNR recently adopted new statewide rules consistent with federal requirements to control pollution from such sites; the new regulations generally apply when new or expanded uses occur at regulated sites.

Agricultural Runoff

There is very limited information about the type and amount of pollutants entering Muskegon Lake and its tributaries from agricultural runoff. Potential sources of pollutants from agricultural areas are sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and animal waste [98]. A nonpoint-source assessment of the Muskegon River watershed was conducted in 1988 by the MDNR and thesoil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report indicates that throughout the entire watershed, water quality and fish communities are being impaired by sediments and nutrients. The primary sources of the sediments identified are stream banks and agricultural-related soil erosion [673.

The Muskegon County Soil Conservation District, in addition to participating in such community projects as storm drain stenciling, is involved in severd projects to reduce agricultural runoff; these are listed in part 6 of this document, Current and Scheduled Studies and mgrrrms.

SEDIMENTS

Contaminated sediments in water can be a source of pollution when they are disturbed by dredging or a violent storm, because they and the toxics in them can become resuspended. See Sediment Contamination in part 2 of this report for more information on contaminated sediments 8 Muskegon Lake.

Dredging

For activities that would disturb sediments in waters and wetlands-altering the shoreline, placing permanent structures in the water, or dredging and filling-permits are required under federal and state law. The permits, to fulfill both federal and state purposes, specify both the method of dredging (i.e., hydraulic or mechanical) and the method of spoil disposal (e.g., upland unconfined or licensed solid waste Type I1 landfill) [79,80].

Under federal law, such permits are needed for Muskegon Lake. These waters are regulated by the US. Amy Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The applicable state law is the Michigan Inland Lakes and Stream Act and is administered by the Land and Water Management Division of the MDNR. If wetlands will be affected by any proposed development, the provisions of the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act must be met [79,80].

A joint permit application form is used, which may be submitted to either the Corps or the MDNR and is shared and jointly reviewed by the two agencies. The agencies decide which regulations apply in each case. Although for so-called Section 10 waters the federal government exercises independent authority and can issue or deny a permit for regulated activities regardless of state action, the MDNR often is the lead agency for reviewing applications for fill and dredging, and its requirements usually are more restrictive than the federal requirements. For Sectiori 404 waters Michigan is one of two states given delegated authority to control activity in federally regulated wetlands; unless specific concerns are raised by the EPA during the notice period, the final action under state law serves to meet federal requirements [79,80]. In addition to the normal review and notice requirements, the MDNR has instituted special review for fill and dredge activities proposed for lakes with contaminated sediments. Because Muskegon Lake is known to have sediment contamination in portions of the lake, removal and disposal of material dredged from the lake is carefully assessed. The I MDNR Land and Water Management Division consults with the MDNR Waste Management Division on all applications that involve dredging in Muskegon Lake. The latter determines the protocol for the sediment sampling that must occur to complete the application, reviews the sampling results, and sets appropriate restrictions for disposal of the dredged material. The SWQD is consulted if the samples reveal that sediments are highly contaminated and removal would pose a risk to water quality [79,80].

GROUND WA TER

There is considerable documentation of contaminated groundwater affecting tributaries to Muskegon Lake, but there is less about such degradation to the lake itself. The whole AOC is susceptible to groundwater contamination because its sandy, porous soils do not protect aquifers from the infiltration of contaminants. Groundwater is known to be contaminated at many sites and is suspected to be slowly moving toward the lake. This section describes the present and potential effects on groundwater from various contaminated sites. 1 P. A. 307/MERA Sites

The Michigan Environmental Response Act (307 PA 1982, as amended) was enacted to create a priority listing of contaminated sites and establish owner and operator liability. Administrative rules adopted in 1990 establish three types of cleanup-A, B, and C-and set criteria for each.

Type A cleanups require that hazardous substances at a site be removed to background level or a level at which the contaminant cannot be detected.

Type B cleanups are risk-based; that is, the criteria set to guide such cleanups are based on the level at which, using standardized exposure assumptions and accepted risk levels, the hazardous substances will no longer pose unacceptable risk. (For example, for carcinogens, any level above a one-in-a-million risk for increased cancer is unacceptable).

Type C cleanups involve site specific risk assessments, and include provisions for containing .the hazardous substances on site, long-term monitoring and restriction of future site uses to assure there are no unacceptable routes of exposure affecting public health or the environment. MAP 4: P.A. 307 and Superfund Sltes Adjacent to Muskegon Lake and Tributaries

North Branch of Muskegon River

I Zeph I, Incorporaled 2 ~ararhonPipeline Co Releases al Wood St. 3 Maralhor~Pipollne Co In Norlh Muskegon 4 Teledyne Conl~nenlalMotors 5 Michigan Consolidaled-Lake Foundry 6. Mobll Oil Co. (Socony 011 CO~:Loss a1 Slsson and McCracken Slreels 7. Former CII ol Muskegon Waslewaler ~realrnenlblanl 8 Former Cil ol Muskegon Dump B. Hsrlshorn harlna 10. Former Grand Trunk Rallroad Dock II. Chevron Termlnal 12. Amoco Termlnal 13. Merle Boes Amoco (Pelro Panlty) 14. Former OIVSlocy Faclllly @. 15. Duell-QardnerLandlill Olher P.A. 307 Siles Nol Described In Texl

NOTE: The dols and the numbers lndlcale MERA or Su erlund slles; Ihe numbered slles are ident~bb the Envl~onmentdfl~sponse Dlvlslon 01 heMD& Dran Raplds olllca a8 mI Ykely 10 be advefsely allecfng Muskegon Lnke.

~OURCE: ~ubllcSeclor Consullanls, Inc., using inlormallon from GeOl~~l~alSurvey Dlvlslon, Mlchlgan Deparlmenl ol Natural Resources. For this report, the Environmental Response Division of the MDNR Grand Rapids District Office identified 13 sites as those potentially causing adverse affects to the water quality of Muskegon Lake [34]. Map 4 indicates all sites' immediately around Muskegon Lake listed under P. A. 307; not all, however, are necessarily affecting the lake. The sites named by the MDNR and discussed below are specifically identified.

In the following discussion, references are made to Type B groundwater-cleanup criteria and to groundwatedsurface water interface (GSI)criteria. The former are intended to protect human health and the latter to protect aquatic life; their restrictiveness in relation to each other varies [39].

'MDNR NOTE: These sites are known to be contaminated with any one or a combination of hazardous substances that are or may be injurious to human health or the environment. These hazardous substances may include industrial or municipal wastes, pesticides, mlvcnts or heavy mdals. The map indithe approximate center of each sitc where either a source of hazardous substances has bccn ddamhed or hazrvdous substances have bccn detdbut the source is unknown. Each site may be larger or smaller than the map symbol, dcpcndimg on the type, severity or the migration path of hazardous substances. The map symbol indht~~neither the site boundary nor the latad wrtcnt. flow direction, or relative severity of the actual plume of hazardous substances. These sites arc called Act 307 sites from Public Act 307 of 1982, as amended. Sithat arc contaminated as a result of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST)arc on the Act 307 list. However, due to the large number of LUST sitcs as well as their rapidly changing status, they ut not part of the current mapping effort. The Michigan Environmental Rcsponre Act provides for thc identification, risk assessmat, evaluation, and the clean up of contaminated sitcs in the state. All locations on thi, map have bcm vdcd by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. It is important to note that the Act 307 list is under annual revision as new information becomes available. Consequently, if this map was produd prior to the rclasc date of the latest list, it may not reflect the current information due to addition and/or deletion of contaminated sitcs. The Act 307 program is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI, 48909. Please contact the Act 307 section if more infodon is required concerning the 1- proctu or the sitc assessment model used for evaluation. Table 11 provides the Type B-cleanup and GSI criteria for the 15 chemicals referred to in this section. (In all, more than 200 chemicals fall under the combined criteria.)

TABLE 11: Selected Type B and GSI Groundwater Cleanup Standards

Maximum Permitted under Type Maximum Permitted under Contaminant B Cleanup Criteria' (ppb) GSl Criteriab (ppbl

Arsenic 0.02' 1.4O Benzene 1.2 60 Bis Q-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2.5 5 9 Cadmium 3.5' 0.64'd Chromium VI 120' 7.3'

Copper Ethy lbemene Lead Methyl-tea-butylether

Naphthalene Silver Toluene Xylene Zinc

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, Inc., using data from MERA Operational Memorandum t8, Rev& 2, Type 6 Criteria, 1993, Environmental Response Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

'Criteria established by NI~under P.A. 307 of 1982 (MERA); standards are based on risk to humans. 'Standards apply to point at which ground and surface water interface; criteria are based on risk to aquatic life. 'Background mybe substituted as the cleanup criteria if higher than Type B cleanup criteria. GSI value dependent on water hardness.

Zephyr, Incorporated The Zephyr site is located on a sand ridge that forms the north flank of the Muskegon River valley; its south side is in the river's floodplain. The site was used for a bulk supply facility for refined hydrocarbon products; currently, only a portion of the facility is in operation. Two gasoline spills on this site have been documented. The first occurred in 1984 and involved the loss of 180,000 gallons to the ground, and the second, which occurred only a few months later, involved the loss of an estimated 150,000 gallons to the ground. Although limited analytical data are available, both groundwater and soils at the site are contaminated with a variety of organic and inorganic contaminants. Certain monitoring wells show the presence of up to five feet of petroleum pee product (waste that has not yet fully dissolved in groundwater). The concentration of lead in one soil sample was as high as 7,200,000 ppb (the Type B-soil criteria is 2 1 ppm). A limited trench capture system has been installed in the floodplain to try to capture the free product, and a NPDES permit has been issued to regulate the system's discharge to the north branch of the Muskegon River. Zephyr is in violation of the permit because discharges are exceeding the BTX permit levels. The ERD has requested state FY 1994 environmental bond funds to conduct an investigation to ascertain the extent of contamination. Contaminants from this site have the potential to significantly impair the Muskegon River directly upstream of the river's discharge into Muskegon Lake.

Marathon Pipe Line Co.: Releases at Wood Street The site of the releases is located in a low-lying area in the Muskegon River floodplain. Two releases from the pipeline traversing this area have been documented. The first, in 1984, is reported to have occurred from a gravitometer station; a trench capture system was installed after this release to collect free product. The second occurred in 1987 from a leak in the pipeline. The quantity and the nature of the material lost in the spills are not known, but groundwater on site is contaminated with BTEX and naphthalene. Concentrations have been detected as high as 66,600 ppb for total BTEX-and520 ppb for naphthalene.

Marathon recently completed an investigation that delineates its plume from that of Zephyr, located immediately north of this site. The investigation indicated that dissolved product is flowing into the wetland adjacent to the Muskegon River. Marathon is pursuing contracts to design and install a treatment system that will address the entire plume. The system is scheduled to be installed and operating no later than December 1994, depending on when the needed NPDES permit is issued. contaminants from this site have the potential to significantly affect the Muskegon River directly upstream from its discharge into Muskegon Lake.

Marathon Oil Co. -North Muskegon Terminal The terminal is located on a sand ridge that forms the north flank of the Muskegon River valley. The south side of the site is located in the floodplain of the Muskegon River, just west of Zephyr and the location of the Wood Street releases referenced immediately above. The terminal is an operating bulk supply facility; refined hydracarbon products are stored in above-ground tanks. Soils and groundwater are contaminated with petroleum products. Total BTEX concentrations in the groundwater were found to be as high as 151,000 ppb. A trench capture system for free product was installed in the wetland in the mid-1980s. The ERD is negotiating with Marathon for installation of an effective remediation system for dissolved pollutants. Contaminants from this site have the potential to significantly affect the Muskegon River close to its discharge into Muskegon Lake.

Teledyne Continental Motors The Teledyne facility covers approximately 57 acres on the south side of the Muskegon River. The northern portion of the facility is in the floodplain. The site operated as a military and aircraft engine manufacturing and testing facility from the 1920s until the early 1970s. Teledyne bought the facility from the federal government in 1971 and currently uses it for the manufacture of engines for military vehicles. Through the years, waste from the industrial processes was deposited in lagoons and drying beds. This, along with leaking underground storage tanks, has contaminated the soils and groundwater with a range of organic and inorganic contaminants. A purge-well system is presently in place which captures the majority of the contamination plume, and the MDNR is working with Teledyne to implement measures to ensure the complete capture of the plume. The MDNR also is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in addressing proper remediation of soil contamination.

Because of the purge system, contaminants from this site probably are not significantly affecting I Muskegon Lake. i

Michigan Consofidated Gas Company (Former 1akey Foundry) This site, now vacant, is located on the south shore of Muskegon Lake. For a number of years in the early 1900s, a coal gasification plant operated on the property, which now is owned by Michigan Consolidated Gas Company. The plant's location once was near the shore of the lake, but due to filling, the shoreline has been extended out into the lake since the years when the plant was in.operation. Numerous organic and inorganic contaminants (including coal tars) have been detected on the site. Groundwater contaminants exceeding GSI criteria have been detected in samples from monitoring wells at lake side. The MDNR is attempting to get Michigan Consolidated Gas to enter an administrative order by consent, which would result in a Type C I cleanup that would allow the contaminated soil to be left in place and restrict future use of the site by prohibiting disturbance of the soils or inadvertent excavation and removal. The cleanup of the site would, however, involve groundwater remediation so that GSI criteria are met at the interface of ground and surface water, limiting the adverse effect of the pollutants on the lake. The MDNR is attempting to have the remediation system installed and operating by the end of 1994, but the outcome is dependent on negotiations with the company.

Mobil Oil Co. (Socony Oil Co.): Loss at Sisson and McCracken Streets The intersection of Sisson and McCracken streets is approximately 625 feet from Muskegon Lake and is in an area of sandy soils and glacial deposits. In 1971 at least 50,000 gallons of gasoline 1 were reported lost from an 8-inch Mobil Oil transmission line under the intersection. Observation wells and skimmer pumps were installed by the company (approximately 22,000 gallons of gasoline were recovered from 1972 to 1975), and this section of the pipeline was blown clean-of gasoline and Nled with concrete. The unrecovered gasoline likely moved I rapidly through the soil into the groundwater, which is flowing north-northwest toward Muskegon Lake. Although no groundwater samples have been taken to determine the extent of contamination, the MDNR suspects the lake may have been adversely affected.

Former City of Muskegon Wastewater Treatment Plant The site of the former city wastewater treatment plant site is situated between the middle branch of the Muskegon River on the north and by the south branch of the Muskegon River on the south. The facility has not operated since 1972. Sludge from treatment tanks was piled on site, contaminating the soil and groundwater with heavy metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Analyses of water samples from a monitoring well located 20 feet from the middle branch of the Muskegon River reveal the presence of arsenic, and zinc in the groundwater at concentrations exceeding Type B-cleanup criteria. Arsenic, selenium, and zinc concentrations in this well exceed the GSI criteria. The City of Muskegon is currently conducting a feasibility study and risk assessment of this site. Former City of Muskegon Dump The former city dump is located on the Muskegon River flats, between the middle and north branches of the Muskegon River; The dump operated from the early 1960s until 1977, during which inspections revealed numerous violations including burning refuse, failing to compact refuse, failing to cover refuse, and dumping waste directly into the water. Given the dump's location and the many known violations, ground- and surface water contamination are likely, but no groundwater or soil investigations have been conducted to determine the extent of the problem.

I Hartshorn Madna The Hartshorn Marina is located on the southeast side of Muskegon Lake. A release of gasoline occurred at the site during the earlier use of three underground gasoline-storage tanks. Groundwater beneath the site is contaminated with BTEX. Analysis of a groundwater sample from a monitor well located only five feet from the lake reveals that levels of BTEX present exceed both Type B-cleanup and GSI criteria. BTJ3 was not detected in a sample of lake water adjacent to the site, however. A groundwater remediation system installed in 1990 operated for less than two weeks before complications caused the system to be shut down; the system currently is being redesigned and will be operational in 1994. The MDNR suspects that the groundwater contamination at the site is adversely affecting I the lake. Former Grand Trunk Railroad Car Ferry Dock The former car ferry dock site is situated on the southwest shore of Muskegon Lake, and extends into the lake on a man-made peninsula. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with BTEX as a result of a pipeline release on the property and with arsenic, which was in soil transported to the site for fa. Samples from a monitoring well located 30 feet upland from the shoreline suggest that the plume is entering the lake. Concentrations of BTEX in this monitoring well exceed both Type B-cleanup and GSI criteria, and arsenic exceeds the level permitted for a Type B cleanup. Lake sediment on the east side of the peninsula is contaminated with petroleum product; the sediment contamination extends approximately 700 feet along the shoreline and up to 50 feet out into the lake. The respbnsible parties are currently developing a plan to remediate the contamination.

Chevron Terminal The Chevron Terminal, formerly a petroleum bulk-storage facility, is located on Estes Street south of Sherman Boulevard in Muskegon. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with BTEX (total concentrations are as high as 46,500 ppb), methyl-tert- butylether, naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene. The contaminant plume extends to the south branch of Ruddiman Creek directly north of Sherman Boulevard. Based on the presence of ethylbenzene and xylene at concentrations above GSI criteria in a monitor well adjacent to the creek, it appears that the plume may be entering Ruddiman Creek. A Remedial Action Plan is currently being developed by Chevron to address the contamination.

Amoco Terminal At the Amoco Terminal site, a former petroleum bulk-storage facility located on the south side of Muskegon Lake adjacent to Ruddiman Creek, there are significant quantities of petroleum free product present at the water table, primarily in the south portion of the site. In addition, dissolved BTEX is present in groundwater throughout the site. The concentration of BTEX contaminants in a monitor well near the shoreline exceeds both Type B-cleanup and GSI limits, indicating that the contaminants may be entering the lake. Amoco is currently capbring free product at the site through a purge well system.

. Mede Boes Amoco (Petro Pantry) Petro Pantry is a gasoline service station located on the northeast end of Muskegon Lake near the Muskegon River. A gasolinddiesel fuel release was discovered at this site in 1990 when the underground storage tank system was being upgraded. .Free .product was encountered and removed from a monitor well that was installed near the intersection of Whitehall and Holton roads down-gradient (the direction in which groundwater flows) of the underground storage tank system. A free product recovery system is being installed. It has been determined that groundwater at the site is contaminated with BTEX at concentrations above Type B and that the plume is discharging into the Muskegon River. A feasibility study is currently being conducted to determine the most effective remedial option.

- CERCLA/Superfund Sites

The main federal statute governing groundwater cleanup is -the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA. The CERCLA (1) set cleanup priorities, (2) created a process for making responsible parties pay for cleanups, and (3) established the Hazardous Waste Trust Fund (the "Superfund"), which pays for cleanups in emergencies and when the responsible parties cannot be identified or have not yet been made to pay. Although the word 'Superfundw properly should be used only to refer to sites on which Hazardous Waste Trust Fund monies are being expended, it commonly is used to describe all sites on the CERCLA priority list (83 in Michigan). The two CERCLA sites in the Muskegon Lake AOC-the former OttlStory facility and the Duell-Gardner Landfill-may also correctly be called Superfbnd sites because trust fund monies are being used to clean up both.

No new CERCLA sites have been identified since the 1987 RAP and neither the OttIStory site nor Duell-Gardner Landfill have been taken off the CERCLA priority list. Activities that have occurred at these sites since 1987 are summarized below.

former Ott/Story Facility Contamination was discovered at the former Ott/Story facility (now owned by Cordova Chemical Company) in the 1960s. The MDNR became involved in remedial actions at the site in 1977, removing drums and excavating lagoons. In 1983 the facility was closed, and the site's major structures were tom down in the late 1980s. Volatile organic chemicals continue to migrate to the unnamed tributary to Little Bear Creek and to Little Bear Creek itself, degrading their sediments, water quality, and benthic and fish communities [19]. The EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, ERD, and a private contractor worked more than two years to design a treatment facility to remediate groundwater contamination at the site; the design of the treatment facility and processes was finalized in June 1993. Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 1994, at which time an NPDES permit application will be submitted by Cordova Chemical Company to MDNR, and the discharges from the treatment processes will be limited and monitored [19].

The proposed remedial activities will involve extracting and treating groundwater at Little Bear Creek and at several locations on the site and treating contaminated soil. Contaminated groundwater will be extracted by nine purge wells and processed through a complex system involving a diffused air stripper, a thermal oxidation unit to bum off gases, purification through a waste-activated sludge system, clarifiers, an ammonia stripper, and a granular activated carbon filter. The cleaned water will be discharged to the north branch of the Muskegon River. If the remedial actions proceed according to schedule, the groundwater treatment facility will be in operation by 1995, but it is possible that the design will be changed by one of the parties funding the project (the waste-activated sludge system and the ammonia strippr5r may be replaced with a powder-activated carbon treatment). The contaminated soil will be excavated and treated, using low-temperature thermal desorption [19].

Duell-Gardner Landfill At the Duell-Gardner Landfill, waste was disposed of in unlined trenches until the facility was ordered closed by the MDPH in 1974. In addition to the problem of the landfilled waste, approximately 550 drums in various stages of deterioration were found in the woods adjacent to the landfill, and hundreds of laboratory bottles and piles of unidentified sludge-like material were scattered around the base of the landfill. In 1986 the EPA removed the drums, some of the laboratory bottles, the sludge-like material, and some soil from the site.

Surface water from the site drains toward an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek, 500-1,000 feet from the site, and groundwater flows to Bear Creek, approximately 1,500 feet from the site. Fortunately, the initial investigations conducted in 1986 found that 21 residential wells neighboring the property and the tributary to Bear Creek had not yet been affected by the site [5 11.

Remedial investigation field work was conducted from 1986 to 1990 to quantify through sampling and analysis the contamination at the site and to identify remedial alternatives; the investigation .report was completed in 1992. A treatability study also was conducted to identify technologies that can eliminate or reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination in the groundwater and soil; this report also was completed in 1992 [51]. A record of decision delineating the remedial actions that will be undertaken to clean up the site was signed in September 1993. The actions include five major components: (1) extracting groundwater to capture and halt the flow of the contaminated groundwater plume, (2) removing contaminants from the groundwater through carbon adsorption, (3) excavating contaminated soil and subjecting it to low-temperature thermal treatment, (4) constructing a clay cap to cover the old landfill area, and (5) monitoring groundwater to assess the state of remediation. Design of the remedial activities will begin in spring 1994 [51].

Other Sites

There are many other sites in the Muskegon Lake AOC where contamination of groundwater potentially is occurring, e.g., old landfills, underground storage tank locations, abandoned oil wells that remain to be identified and assessed.

Efforts by Muskegon County

Since 1987 efforts initiated in Muskegon County to reduce sources of groundwater contamination have expanded, and the county's solid waste management plan was approved by the MDNR in 1992. The plan endorses recycling to reduce the use of landfills for the disposal of solid waste, and two recycling centers now are operating in the county; additional centers, along with source reduction and composting, are being promoted. In addition, efforts to reduce contamination resulting from waste disposal include the county's household hazardous waste collection program, in operation for the past three years [42].

AIR EMISSIONS AND DEPOSITION

Air, or atmospheric, pollutants can come from natural nonpoint sources (e.g., degassing that naturally occurs from Earth's crust), anthropogenic (human-related) nonpoint sources (e.g., automobile emissions), and anthropogenic point sources (e.g., industrial emissions). Among the factors that determine the effect that atmospheric pollutants have on an area are local emissions, meteorological conditions and seasonal influences, conditions on a particular day, and chemical characteristics of emitted compounds [SO].

Recent studies indicate that pollutants deposited from the atmosphere contribute significant levels of organic chemicals and heavy metals both to land and to surface waters. After being emitted-naturally or from anthropogenic activities-air pollutants can attach to particles and be deposited (referred to as dry deposition), or they may adhere to moisture such &rain or snow and fall with the precipitation (wet deposition). A 1992 study suggests that of atmospheric deposition in the Great Lakes, dry deposition comprises 40 percent and wet deposition 60 percent [2 11. 'Criteria" pollutants (those that the EPA requires states to monitor and ascertain whether their presence exceeds the levels set by established criteria)-nitrogen dioxide;sulEur dioxide, lead, ozone, particulate matter less than ten microns, wbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds-have been monitored over the last 10 years in compliance with the national air quality standards. In Michigan, standards were met for lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide at all sampling sites in 1992 Ithe most recent data available). The following text refers to air toxics deposition (atmospheric deposition) information general to the state of Michigan because there is no site specific information on the atmospheric deposition of air toxics in the Muskegon Lake area, at this time. In addition, not much is known about the distance air emissions can travel from their source, what affects their transport, and the effect of toxic air contaminants on ecosystems. Information obtained from the following studies and programs can be applied to better derstanding atmospheric deposition as a source of pollutants to the AOC. Current Studies and Programs 1 The data available on the amount and types of air pollutants affecting Michigan are very limited. Several studies are being conducted and programs implemented at the state, regional, and federal levels that include air monitoring, modelling, and emission inventories. The result should be better understanding of the sources, sport, and effect of atmospheric pollutants. P A toxic release inventory (TRI) is required under Title In of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 [114]. Title I11 (Right-to-Know) requires reporting by a facility in SIC Codes 20-39 (excludes pesticide manufacturers) that has 10 or more full time employees: that (in one year) manufactures or processes a chemical or chemical category in an amount greater than 25,000 pounds or "otherwise uses" any listed chemical or chemical category in an amount over 10,000 pounds. These facilities are required to estimate and report to EPA and state the total amount of each listed chemical used and released (to the atmosphere, surface water andlor wastewater treatment plant) - either accidentally or through routine regulated plant operations or transporting as waste to other locations. The purpose of the reporting requirement is to inform the public about possible chemical hazards in their community. However, the TRI information must be interpreted with caution. The information provided in theTRI cannot be directly used to draw conclusions about adverse health impacts. The report only covers release and does not show the extent of public exposure to the chemical(s) once discharged to the environment. There are no estimates on what percentage of the chernical(s) discharged to air is deposited into the area of concern. The TRI can be used as a screening tool to identify potential geographic areas where more detailed studies of chemical emissions and human exposure may be warranted. The data represents estimates by the manufacturer rather than results from actual monitoring which would also provide indications of sampling frequency, duration and intensity. The 1994 TRI report, which summarizes 1992 data, is the most recent summary and is available upon request. In 1990 the MDNR Air Quality Division (AQD) began a study that monitored the presence and levels of several toxic compounds in the atmosphere at three sites-Saginaw Bay, Traverse City, and Sault Ste. Marie. Results indicate high variability, but all monitored toxic compounds were found to be under the levels established as being harmful to humans. The study will continue, expanding its database and improving modelling [SO].

Additional monitoring studies are being conducted by the AQD in cooperation with the University of Michigan. These studies, started in 1992 and to conclude in 1994, are monitoring atmospheric concentrations, transport, and deposition pathways of several persistent pollutants including PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin, and 13 trace metals (including mercury) [49].

The AQD is serving as the lead agency for developing a comprehensive, computerized regional emissions inventory database on sources of air toxics emission sources for pollutants of concern for the Great Lakes basin. The inventory, which began in 1990 and wilt continue until 1995, is housed at the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office.

The Michigan Atmospheric Deposition Network, part of the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition sampling network, began in 1981 and was transferred to the University of Illinois state water survey in 1988. The program estimates atmospheric loadings to the Great Lakes and assesses trends [48].

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 mandate that extensive air deposition monitoring and research be conducted for the Great Lakes, certain other lakes in the country, and the ocean coastal areas; the extent of atmospheric deposition of hazardous air pollutants will be assessed [12]. The amendments require the EPA to identify and promulgate standards for the categories of sources (e.g., coke oven, smelters, textile manufacturers) that in total account for 90 percent of total emissions of seven critical classes of pollutants (mercury; PCBs; alkylated lead; polycyclic organic compounds; hexachlorobenzene; and 2-, 3-, 7-, and 8- tetrachlorodibenzo @) dioxin). Another requirement is the study of hazardous air pollutants being emitted from electric utilities; if deemed necessary, the sources will be regulated [48].

In Michigan, new air quality rules (effective in 1992) require that new sources of toxic air contaminants use the best available control technology [49].

Mercury

A pollutant of particular concern in Michigan is mercury; sediment samples reveal that the amount of mercury in the state's environment is increasing. Because of the general uniformity of the increase, atmospheric deposition appears to be the most likely source. In 1992 Governor John Engler requested the Michigan Environmental Science Board to investigate the risks posed to Michigan residents from exposure to mercury, identify its sources and transportation pathways, and propose recommendations to control or eliminate discharges of it into the environment [65]. Unfortunately, information about mercury in the Michigan environment is limited, and because mercury has a great ability to reconfigure when exposed to different environmental media (e.g., water, air), it is very difficult to evaluate. The .current water quality standards Rule 57(2) value of 0.0013 ppb mercury in aquatic systems is a human lifecycle safe concentration.

The science board's study estimates that 50 percent of mercury observed in the environment comes from natural sources, such as the breakdown of soil by microbes and the degassing from Earth's crust. Large, known sources of mercury due to human activity are waste incineration, coal combustion, and latex paint use prior to 1990-91. Local sources can contribute to mercury levels, but the extent depends on how fast gaseous mercury is converted to particulate mercury. Based on preliminary calculations, the study estimates that only 10 percent of the ambient (air-borne) mercury in Michigan is due to human activity in Michigan; the balance could .originate from other regions or be the result of recirculation of previously deposited mercury;

The primary way in which mercury finds its way into people is through human consumption of fish contaminated with methyl-mercury. Methyl-mercury is formed by bacterial action in mercury-contaminated sediments and accumulates, primarily through the food chain, in muscle tissue of fish. Due to high levels of mercury found in tests of fish from Michigan inland lakes, and the potentially hazardous effects mercury has on humans, a general restricted- consumption advisory has been issued that advises members of the general population to limit to one meal a week certain types and sizes of fish. The advisory is more strict for women of child-beaning age and for children, suggesting no more than one meal a month.

The science board report concludes that recently enacted federal and state legislative regulatory programs will help reduce the contribution of mercury to the Great Lakes environment from anthropogenic sources. It also recommends several additional state actions to reduce mercury loadings to the environment and to establish effective trend-monitoring programs for mercury in sediments, water, air, fish, wildlife, and humans.. 7994: Impaired Uses of Muskegon Lake AOC

PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THE PAC AND THE RAP TEAM

In fall 1993, at the beginning of the RAP update process, PAC members were asked by the consultant to list the beneficial uses of the Muskegon Lake AOC that they perceive to be impaired. They also were asked to label each impairment as being of "high," "medium," or "low" concern. Because the members felt that as yet they did not have sufficient information or expertise to be more definitive, the following were identified only preliminarily:

0 The necessity for restrictions on human consumption of fish and wildlife

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

0 Degradation of fish and wildlife populations

0 Degradation of benthos

The necessity for restrictions on dredging

The PAC is concerned about impairments to fish and wildlife for several reasons. Although the restriction on human consumption of AOC fish because of elevated levels of PCBs in large carp and mercury in large walleye and largemouth bass was the only officially listed impairment for the Muskegon Lake AOC in the 1987 RAP, there is concern about other contaminants in fish. Also troublesome to the PAC is the observable loss of fish and wildlife habitat due to development and alteration of the lake shoreline; such loss affects the larger ecosystem, the quality of life of AOC residents, and the natural resourcedrecreation uses of the AOC that comprise a significant part of the economy of the Muskegon Lake community.

The health of the benthic community in the AOC is very important to the PAC, because if benthic organisms are impaired it may indicate the presence of contaminants in the water or toxic materials in the sediments. The PAC is concerned that significant reductions in the number of benthic organisms could limit the abundance of fish and wildlife that depend on them directly or through the food chain. The fact that toxics in water and sediments can be accumulated by the benthos and passed up the food chain to fish, wildlife, and humans, also is problematic.

Finally, the imposition of restrictions on dredging is important because the need for restrictions indicates the presence of contaminated sediments, which adversely affect benthos, fish, wildlife, and, to some extent, human recreational use and enjoyment of some parts of the lake. In addition, the restrictions on disposing of dredged material can increase the cost to the U.S. ~06sof Engineers, which is responsible for maintaining the navigation channel between ~uske~onLake and Lake Michigan, and to businesses and other public agencies when contaminated dredged sediments have to be removed to specially constructed and maintained disposal areas.

To the impaired uses listed above, the PAC added three additional concerns about the AOC: the need for a watershed-wide approach to remediation, development, and resource management; groundwater contamination in the AOC; and the need for greater public awareness about the AOC and its current condition.

The h%DNRRAP Team too was asked by the consultant to identify impaired uses of the AOC, and its listing closely parallelled the PAC's. This enabled the RAP process to move forward immediately; general agreement between the community and the state government experts in Stage 1--definition of the problem-is critical.

THE 74 USE IMPAIRMENTS: STA TUS OF EACH IN THE MUSKEGON LAKE A OC

The PAC, RAP Team, and consultant agreed that structuring the update process rigidly around the current status of the individual 14 use impairments delineated in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement would be difficult and, in the end, probably not best serve this particular AOC. The problem was that dealing strictly and individually with each delineated impaired use would preclude recognizing the interrelationships among them. The PAC and the RAP Team preferred (and the consultant concurred) to invoke an ecosystem approach, recogrlizing that the physical, chemical, and biological components of the Muskegon Lake ecosystem are interdependent, and significant changes in one can affect the others. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement list of use impairments really is a list of symptom, and the apparent abatement of one of the symptoms does not necessarily mean that the problem itself has been eliminated. Evaluated collectively, the 14 use impairments can help fix attention on certain problems, but the participants in the 1994 Muskegon Lake AOC update were cautious about placing too much weight on the status of any one particular use.

In addition, update participants found it difficult to apply the use impairments as delineated to the specific conditions in the Muskegon Lake AOC. For example, "restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problemsn frequently is interpreted to mean problems associated with the use of surface water as a municipal water supply. Neither Muskegon Lake nor its tributaries is used as a primary source of domestic water, but groundwater flowing into the lake and its tributaries is a significant source of domestic water, and contamination of it seriously affects AOC residents and the waters of the AOC as well.

Nevertheless, the 14 impairments have been delineated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and it is necessary to describe to the extent possible the Muskegon Lake AOC in these terms. Table 12 states the status of each use impairment, based on the 1987 RAP and the information contained in this update. The following summarizes the bases of the assigned statuses.

Restrictions on Human Consumption of Fish and Wildlife

For carp and walleye from Muskegon and Bear lakes there are consumption advisories in effect because they have elevated levels of PCBs (in carp) and mercury (in walleye). The fish contamination in the Muskegon Lake AOC appears (the data are limited) to be a regional problem affecting all of Lake Michigan and its tributaries. Toxics are the cause, but the extent of contribution from various potential sources is not known. Both mercury and PCBs have been detected in air deposition statewide, and both also may be present in sediments and storm water runoff. Mercury levels in inland-lake fish appear to have declined during the last 20 years [23]. PCBs in fish have shown some decline regionally since restrictions first were placed on its use in the early 1970s. Large specimens of certain species, however, still contain concentrations of both contaminants above levels of concern. Insufficient data are available to reveal current trends of mercury or PCB contamination of fish in the Muskegon Lake AOC.

Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor

Fish tainted with a chemical taste and odor once were a problem in Muskegon Lake, but no such problems have been reported to the MDNR for more than a decade. The source of the problem likely was industrial and municipal waste discharges to the lake that have been halted. TABLE 12: Summary of Impaired Uses, Muskegon Lake, 1994

'PACIRAP Known or Potential . Change In Last Team Prlorlty lmpalrment Status Extent Suspected Cause Sources 20 Years

X , Restrictions on fish and Known Regional; Toxics Contaminated sediments; Remained the same wildlife consumption lake-wide nonpoint pollytion; atmospheric deposition

Tainting of fish and wildlife Historical; lmproved flavor no current problems

X Degradation of fish and Known Regional; Toxics, nutrient Contaminated sediments; Unknown wildlife populations lake-wide enrichment; nonpoint pollution; physical alteration atmospheric deposition; of shoreline development

Fish tumors and other No current N A deformities problems

Bird or animal deformities Suspected Regional; Toxics Contaminated sediments; lmproved or reproductive problems may be groundwater; nonpoint lake-wide pollution; atmospheric deposition

X Degradation of benthos Known May be Toxics; nutrient Contaminated sediments; Unknown lake- enrichment; groundwater; nonpoint wide; physical alteration pollution; development localized of shoreline

X Restrictions on dredging Known Localized Toxics Contaminated sediments; Remained the same nonpoint pollution

Eutrophication or Known Lake-wide Nutrient Nonpoint pollution lmproved undesirable algae enrichment

Restrictions on drinking ' Known Localized Toxics Groundwater Remained the same water consumption TABLE 12: Summary of Impaired Uses, Muskegon Lake, 1994 (con't)

PACIRAP Change In Last 20 Team Priority lmpalrment Status Extent Suspected Cause Potentlal Sources Years

Beach closings No current problem

Degradation of aesthetics Known Localized Nutrient Nonpoint pollution; Improved enrichment; development physical alteration of shoreline Added costs to industry or No current agriculture problems

Degradation of Suspected Localized Toxics; nutrient Groundwater; Unknown phytoplankton and enrichment; nonpoint pollution; zooplankton populations physical alteration development of shoreline

X Loss of fish and wildlife Known Lake-wide Nutrient Nonpoint pollution; Degraded habitat enrichment; development physical alteration of shoreline NA = Not applicable: impairment not documented.

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, Inc.; includes information from the Muskegon Lake Area of Concern PAC and MDNR RAP Team.

NOTE: Regional refers to Lake Michigan region. Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations

Quantitative information on fish and wildlife populations in the Muskegon Lake AOC is not available. MDNR fish and wildlife biologists familiar with recent shoreline development are convinced that habitat critical to the survival, reproduction, and growth of certain important fish and wildlife species has been impaired by dredging, filling, and related shoreline alteration.

Excessive nutrient loadings have contributed to accelerated eutrophication of Muskegon Lake. Among the problems this brings is a reduction in dissolved oxygen in the deeper parts of the lake during summer and winter stratification, which reduces the habitat available to fish species that require high levels of dissolved oxygen.

The invasion of exotic species, such as alewife, also is thought to be contributing to the decline of certain species in Muskegon Lake. There is concern that new exotic species, particularly zebra mussel, could significantly alter fish populations in the lake.

Because population estimates have not been made for most wildlife species in the Muskegon Lake AOC, it is not possible to determine current population trends. Data available on bald eagles in the Lake Michigan region indicate that their number began to decline in the 1950s, but recent data reveals that the number is increasing, probably in response to lower levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., DDT,PCBs, chlordane) in the environment. MDNR wildlife biologists report that in the lower Muskegon River, numbers of wildlife species sensitive to environmental contaminants, such as mink, otter, and osprey, are observed to be increasing .

Fish Tumors and Other Deformities

No fish tumors or other deformities associated with chemical contamination have been reported in the Muskegon Lake AOC. The tumors found on large walleye in the Muskegon River watershed have been diagnosed as a naturally occurring disorder often associated with stress during spawning.

Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems

Bird and animal deformities and reproductive problems have been historical concerns in the Great Lakes region. Of the native species, such fish-eating buds and mammals as bald eagle, osprey, cormorant, mink, and otter seem to be the most susceptible to environmental contaminants bioconcentrated in fish. Recent studies in the Great Lakes region and observations in the lower Muskegon River indicate that populations of fish-eating birds and mammals previously reduced by environmental contaminants now are increasing. The recent failure of a bald eagle egg to hatch in a nest in the lower Muskegon River, however, may indicate a continuing problem for this species in the Muskegon Lake AOC. Toxic chemicals are documented to have caused reproductive failures in fish and wildlife in the Great Lakes region. Although many chemicals known to have created problems have been banned or their production and use severely restricted, consumer products, incinerated waste, and soils still contain them, and atmospheric deposition, nonpoint storm water runoff, contaminated groundwater, and the release of these chemicals from contaminated sediments are suspect in potentially affecting fish and wildlife.

Degradation of Benthos

Benthic communities are lcnown to be degraded in areas of the AOC. Localized degradation has been caused by toxics and dissolved-oxygen depletion. The sources of the toxics are contaminated sediments, contaminated groundwater, and nonpoint storm water runoff. Shoreline alteration activities, particularly Nling, also have reduced the production of benthic organisms in Muskegon Lake. Studies of benthic communities conducted just prior to preparation of the 1987 RAP indicated that water quality improvements were occurring; the current trend will be updated when analysis is complete on samples taken in 1990.

Restrictions on Dredging

Dredging is restricted in Muskegon Lake because in some areas sediments are contaminated. Prior to 1987, toxic substances were discharged by municipal and industrial facilities. Current restrictions, which apply both to removing and disposing of dredged material, have not changed much in recent years. Both RAP Team and PAC members note that in addition to dredging, other shoreline alterations are a concern from the standpoint of degradation of fish and wildlife habitat.

Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae

The accelerated eutrophication of Muskegon Lake historically has caused serious problems. Nuisance algal blooms, severely depressed dissolved-oxygen levels in deeper portions of the lake, and related degradation of benthic communities are associated with excessive nutrient and organic loadings. Diverting municipal and most industrial wastewater discharges to the Muskegon County wastewater management system reduced point-source nutrient loadings to Muskegon Lake in recent years, and since then nuisance algal blooms have decreased and the severity and duration of dissolved-oxygen depletion have declined. As reported in the 1987 RAP, benthic populations also are showing signs of recovery.

Phosphorus currently is the limiting (controlling) nutrient for algal growth in Muskegon Lake. Although the MDNR goal to limit the amount of phosphorus in the lake has been met, significant dissolved-oxygen depletion still is occurring in deep water when the lake undergoes temperature stratification. It is not clear whether further reductions in nutrient and organic loadings to Muskegon Lake will improve dissolved oxygen levels. More study is needed to identify remaining nutrient and organic inputs, and models are needed to predict improvements to Muskegon Lake that would result from further reductions. Resrrictions on Drinking Water Consumption

Although Muskegon Lake itself is not used for domestic water, the community around it depends on groundwater for drinking water. Groundwater in various areas of the AOC has suffered significant contamination from past waste storage and disposal practices and from accidental spills of pollutants. Significantprogress has been made in identifying and remediating groundwater contamination problems in the last 10 years, but in certain areas groundwater that formerly could be used for domestic purposes remains contaminated. While current remediation efforts are reducing the discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters, and alternative drinking water is available, contaminated groundwater is expected to remain a problem for many Y-• Beach Closings

Human health-related beach closings have not been a problem in Muskegon Lake and neither the PAC nor the RAP Team considers beach use to be impaired. It should be noted, however,. that the Muskegon County Public Health Department issued a threeday health advisory affecting all of Muskegon Lake in 1993 when a force main of the metro facility failed, and 400,000 gallons of sanitary and industrial wastewater were discharged two blocks from the lake. Other three-day advisories have had to be issued in past years due to other failures of the wastewater management system.

Degradation of Aesthetics

The PAC and the RAP Team interpret aesthetics to refer primarily to water clarity and the absence of nuisance algal blooms, oil slicks, and similar visual symptoms of poor water quality. Applying these standards, the aesthetics of the Muskegon Lake are considered, overall, to have improved over the last 20 years. Nuisance algal blooms are not as severe as in the past, oil slicks are not often observed, and the water is clearer. There are a few pI- where aesthetics remain visibly degraded-in shallow water where bottom debris and sludges left from past disposal practices are visible and where current storm water discharges enter the lake.

At the confluence of the Muskegon Lake outlet channel and Lake Michigan, thexe is a stark contrast in the appearance of the water of the two bodies; the outlet water is discolored and often is mentioned by local residents as being of concern. The current and historic sediment loadings of the Muskegon River and the urban storm water runoff fiom around Muskegon Lake may account for most of the difference; soil erosion and sedimentation and nonpoint urban and agricultural runoff are significant problems in the Muskegon Lake AOC and the Muskegon River watershed. Added Costs to Industry and Agriculture

The presence of impairments does not add any known costs to agricultural or industrial use of AOC water.

Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations

Although no direct measurements have been made, phytoplankton and zooplankton (free-swimming or freefloating microscopic plants and animals) in Muskegon Lake likely were impaired in the past from (1) discharges of toxic chemicals that reduced survival and growth of certain planktonic organisms and (2) excessive nutrient inputs that stimulated and supported growth of certain nuisance blue-green algae. Zooplankton, since it is quite sensitive even to low levels of contaminants, frequently is used in discharge toxicity tests. Zooplankton populations near storm water outfalls or contaminated groundwater venting sites, could be locally impaired. In addition, development in littoral zones most likely has impaired the survival, reproduction, and growth of phytoplankton and zooplankton inhabiting these areas. There is, however, no current evidence of lake-wide degradation of either zooplankton or phytoplankton populations, and it is very difficult to establish population trends for such organisms since even under natural conditions their numbers fluctuate widely.

Loss of Fish and WiIdJfe Habitat

Although eutrophication of Muskegon Lake has abated in the last 20 years, during winter and summer stratification, oxygen levels in deep water remain depleted, making these areas uninhabitable for some fish or fish food species. It is not known if reductions in nutrients and organic loadings from nonpoint sources would improve this situation.

RAP Team and PAC members are concerned about development destroying the lake's littoral zone, a critical fish and wildlife habitat. The shoreline continues to be altered by dredging and by installation of seawalls, bulkheads, and riprap. Because the lake is attractive for recreation, residential, and business uses, the potential for further development is high, and the debate about shoreline use likely will continue. 7987 RAP: Recommended Studies and Remedial Actions

The 1987 RAP recommended that several studies be conducted. Following are the recommendations; the status follows each in parentheses:

Assess Division Street storm sewer for sediment contamination and habitat quality (sediment samples were taken, and water was tested for mercury)

Assess Ryerson Creek for sediment contamination and habitat quality (a complete assessment was conducted)

Assess Ruddiman Creek for sediment contamination and habitat quality (a complete assessment was conducted)

Assess Four Mile Creek for sediment contamination and habitat quality (PCB levels in sediments were analyzed)

Monitor fish contamination in Ryerson Creek and Ruddiman Pond to determine contaminant levels (not conducted)

Analyze Bear Lake sediments for PCBs to determine if sediments are contaminating fish (limited sediment sampling was conducted)

73 Assess. Lake Michigan carp and walleye to determine if contamination levels are similar to those of Muskegon and Bear lakes (assessment conducted) . ..

In addition to the studies, the 1987 RAP recommended that the following remedial actions be instituted; a summary of the status follows each in parentheses:

Place sedimentation basins in the streams to reduce the amount of solid loadings to Muskegon Lake (no specific actions were taken; the recommendation is repeated and expanded in this update-see part 7)

Halt existing and prohibit future subsurface disposal and groundwater recharge of industrial waste without proper treatment; if such activities are allowed to continue, stringent controls should be established on subsurface disposal, and permits for groundwater recharge of treated industrial wastewater should limit the discharge of toxic metals and organic chemicals (several new state and federal statutes and regulations have significantly reduced the potential for groundwater con tarnination)

Require industries generating hazardous waste to transport them to sites regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the final disposal of such material in the Muskegon Lake AOC should be restricted or prohibited because of the area's porous sandy soil (current state and federal laws regulating the disposal of hazardous waste, many upgraded since 1987, severely restrict the design and operation of new hazardous waste facilities; only one commercial facility-located in southeast Michigan-currently is licensed for land disposal of hazardous waste in Michigan) 7994: Current and Scheduled Studies and Programs

STATE AND FEDERAL STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

The studies listed below are being conducted or are planned for the near future and will provide- information and data applicable to the Muskegon Lake AOC. Atmospheric Deposition

None of the atmospheric deposition studies listed below is specific to the Muskegon Lake AOC or Muskegon County, but all arelwill be instrumental in improving understanding of the type, amount, and source of pollutants deposited on the Lake Michigan region from the from atmosphere.

The MDNR Air Quality Division is monitoring air at sites in Traverse City, Saginaw Bay, and Sault Ste. Marie to confirm the presence and amount of persistent toxic pollutants; the purpose is to collect baseline data to use in directing future projects. An initial report was completed in 1993, and additional funding has been received to continue the monitoring, in collaboration with the University of Michigan, for an additional year. The AQD, in collaboration with the University of Michigan, is monitoring mercury at four sites to determine its source(s) and to estimate the associated atmospheric deposition to the waters of Michigan.

As an extension to the immediately above-mentioned study, the AQD and the University of Michigan have received funding from the Great Lakes Protection Fund to establish a regional mercury air monitoring network; the network will be initiated by a regional work group scheduled to begin meeting in spring 1994.

The AQD is the lead agency for developing a comprehensive, computerized regional database on air toxics emission sources for pollutants of concern for the Great Lakes basin. The inventory will be housed at the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office and is expected to be complete by 1995.

The Great Lakes National Program Office is directing a loadings alternatives and mass balance study of Lake Michigan; the study is described below under Luke Michigan. The following pollutants were proposed to be monitored for the atmospheric portion of the study: PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, several pesticides, mercury, and other trace metals.

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the EPA to administer a program to identify and assess the extent of atmospheric deposition of hazardous air pollutants to the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay (on the Atlantic seaboard), Lake Champlain (in Vermont and New York), and coastal waters; the project is referred to as the great waters study. Investigations will be conducted to determine the sources, rates, and adverse affects of hazardous atmospheric deposition. fishery

The MDNR Fisheries Division soon will complete a study of the physical and biological features of the Muskegon River watershed; the report will set out fisheries management options and make recommendations.

The results of the MDNR Surface Water Quality Division's analyses of fish collected from Muskegon Lake in 1993 will be published in the department's 1994 Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program annual report. Periodic monitoring of Muskegon Lake fish will continue. Lake Michigan

The Great Lakes National Program Office is directing a loadings and mass balance study of Lake Michigan for the Lahe Michigan Lakewide Management Plan, beginning in March 1994 and continuing for one year. The purposes are to (1) identify loading rates of critical pollutants, (2) identify rates contributed by three environmental media (tributaries, atmospheric deposition, and contaminated sediments), (3) develop the capability to predict the benefits of specific load reductions, and (4) enhance understanding of the environmental processes that affect the presence of contaminants within an ecosystem.

Land and Water Management

The MDNR Great Lakes Shorelands Section of the Land and Water Management Division is evaluating habitat, fisheries use, aquatic vegetation distribution, and other parameters to develop a database to facilitate decision making with regard to development in selected drowned-rivermouth lakes.

Surface Water Quality

The discharges of the municipal NPDES permit holders will continue to be evaluated for aquatic toxicity by the MDNR at least once every five years.

The discharges of industrial NPDES permit holders will continue to be tested for aquatic toxicity periodically by the MDNR;necessity will be occasioned by permit renewals and/or frequency and seriousness of past problems.

For NPDES permit renewal, industrial permit holders will continue to be required to describe the character of their discharge, and the MDNR will continue to test discharges as deemed necessary.

As part of the fish contaminant monitoring program, caged-fish studies will continue to be conducted every five years in the channel from Muskegon Lake to Lake Michigan.

Sediments in the vicinity of the Division Street storm sewer discharge to Muskegon Lake will be evaluated in late 1994 or early 1995 for heavy metals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~cewill continue to monitor the status of bald eagles (statewide, not specific to the Muskegon Lake AOC). The Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with other groups, will continue to monitor statewide bird mortality and migration patterns.

MUSKEGON COUNTY SOIL CONSERVA TION DISTRICT PROGRAMS

The Muskegon County Soil Conservation district is involved in several projects to reduce agricultural runoff, including the Muskegon and White Lake Water Quality Project, which focuses on reducing sediments and nutrients entering the lakes by providing the following services:

0 Beach grass nurseries-makes beach grass available to Muskegon County residents for transplanting to reduce soil erosion

0 Land resource management-helps landowners with plans to conserve cropland, woodland, wetlands, and shoreline and stabilize stream banks

Technical engineering-designs, lays out, and supervises installation of conservation practices

Agricultural waste management--designs and manages waste systems, including camposting

Conservation tours, educational programs, and a quarterly newsletter-informs youth and adults in Muskegon County about soil conservation 7994 Update: Data Gaps and Recommendations

DA TA GAPS

Following is a list of data gaps identified during preparation of the 1994 RAP update; when studies to remedy the gaps have been conducted, specific activities and programs can be identified to remediate currently impaired uses of the Muskegon Lake AOC:

The type and quantity of nonpoint-source pollution (i.e., agricultural runoff and urban storm water) entering Muskegon Lake and tributaries

Nutrient and organic loadings to Muskegon Lake from its tributaries, NPDES discharges, and nonpoint source pollution.

Water quality information for Muskegon Lake and Muskegon River

Type and amount of pollutants affecting the Muskegon Lake AOC from atmospheric deposition

Sources of toxics contaminating fish and wildlife populations

Characterization of lake-wide benthic community Quantitative information on current fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian populations, and the effect on them of development

Specific effects.of exotic species on endemic fish and wildlife populations

RECOMMENDA TIONS

This update recommends continuance of all pollution abatement and monitoring programs idempeed in the 1987 RAP, including CERCLAIS uperfund and P. A. 307lMERA regulatory actions to clean up contaminated groundwater sites (ensuring that the cleanup standards under these Acts are maintained), regulation of NPDES discharges, and MDNR fish contaminant monitoring to ascertain toxic contaminant trends and update the MDPH consumption advisory for Muskegon and Bear lakes.

Based on data and information generated since 1987 and the input of the Muskegon Lake PAC and the MDNR RAP Team, several studies are proposed to identify the specific remedial actions required to restore impaired uses of the Muskegon Lake AOC.

Measures to Abate Eutrophication

As indicated, realistic goals cannot be established for water quality improvement in Muskegon Lake until a better understanding of the present status of the lake is reached. This is particularly true for issues related to eutrophication. Phosphorus now is the limiting (controlling) nutrient in Muskegon Lake, and concentrations have been reduced to below the MDNR goal of 30 ppb during turnover. Nuisance algal blooms are less commqn, dissolved- oxygen levels in deep portions of the lake have increased, and pollution-intolerant benthic populations are increasing. Several questions remain, however. Is Muskegon Lake still recovering, and is the rate of eutrophication caused by human activity slowing? Can dissolved- oxygen levels in deep areas of the lake be improved significantly with further reductions in phosphorus and organic loadings, or are the oxygen levels now being observed close to those expected to occur naturally in a drowned-rivermouth lake in southern Michigan?

The historic, and in some cases irreversible, changes around Muskegon Lake and in the Muskegon River watershed may limit the water quality improvements that could be achieved from further phosphorus reductions. A better understanding of the factors contributing to the present water quality of the lake is essential in developing a strategy to control existing sources of nutrients and organic loadings and forestall new sources that can develop as land use in the watershed changes.

It is recommended that a nutrient and organic loading model be developed to answer questions relared to the trophic starus (amount of biological productivity) of Muskegon Lake. When the questions are answered, realistic goals and specific objectives can be set. Such a model likely will require at least the following data: Estimates of annual loadings and contributions of phosphorus from storm water runoff, point-source NPDES discharges, and Muskegon Lake tributaries (including the Muskegon River)

Estimates of organic loadings during spring runoff, including measurement of suspended solids, total organic carbon, and biological-oxygen demand

Measurement of phosphorus concentrations in Muskegon Lake during spring and fall, when mixing occurs during turnover

0 Measurement of dissolved-oxygen levels during both winter and summer stratification to determine the current extent and duration of depletion

The critical physical and chemical parameters identified by the nutrient and organic loading model should be analyzed in conjunction with continued biological evaluation of the benthic community of Muskegon Lake. Changes in the relative abundance of certain pollution-intolerant and pollution-tolerant benthic organisms may provide the additional information needed to confirm current lake conditions.

Installation of in-stream sedimentation basins was recommended in the. 1987 RAP as a remedial measure to reduce the amount and effect of solids loadings to Muskegon Lake. Sediment basins have been in place for several years in various trout streams in Michigan-including the headwaters of the Muskegon River-through cooperative public-private efforts to improve trout habitat. The 1987 recommendation regarding in-stream sediment basins is repeated and expanded to include development of a comprehensive soil erosion and sedimentatlatlon-conirolstraegy for the Muskegon River waershed. Such a strategy should include

in-stream sedimentation basins;

stream bank erosion-control measures;

storm water filter basins;

wetland restoration at critical areas to trap sediments and nutrients and reduce the volume of storm water flowing into lakes or rivers of concern; and

application of "best management practicesw (BMP) to land use to control soil erosion from both urban and rural land.

Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures will slow the rate at which solids are deposited in Muskegon Lake, improve aesthetics by increasing water clarity, and improve the habitat for aquatic organisms in both the lake and tributaries. Measures to Determine the Effects of Development and Exotic Species on Habitat

Balancing the economic benefits of development that alters shoreline with'the need to preserve critical near-shore aquatic habitat is a major concern of residents of the Muskegon Lake AOC, local government officials, and the MDNR. The dearth of quantitative data about fish and wildlife populations in the AOC and the cost of acquiring such information have made it difficult to thoroughly assess the biological effect of shoreline alteration proposals. MDNR decision making on individual permit applications involving shoreline development could be substantially improved if quantitative biological information were available. More important, such information would facilitate local land-use planning decisions that could balance long-term economic and environmental concerns.

It is recommended that in addition to the information being collected by the Great tcrkes Shoreland Section of the MDNR Land and Water Management Division, research be conducted to establish objective, quantitative measures of the efect habitat changes have on aruarunudpopuIationsdependent on near-shore areas of Muskegon Lake during at least pan of their IVe cycle. Such studies should (1) inventory and categorize near-shore habitat critical to the survival, growth, and reproduction of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and (2) develop population abundance indices for key indicator species. If resources are not available to support such extensive research, a combination of quantifiable habitat and population abundance factors should be identified that establishes a relationship between lake-wide populations and available habitat.

It isfird2er recommended that current inventories of endangered and threatened species inhabiting the Mukegon Luke AOC be referenced to idennfi habitat critical for mainraining them and also that eflorrs to inventory species continue.

Three exotic species have relatively recently invaded Muskegon Lake: zebra mussel, Eurasian watermilfoil, and purple loosestrife. In other locations, all have shown the potential for exponential population growth. It is recommended that the rate of colonization and population growth of these species in the AOC be monitored so that their eflect on habitat available to native species can be assessed. Purple loosestrife control measures should be implemented if evidence indicates that its abundance threatens significant wetland habitat on or adjadent to the lake.

Measures to Reduce Levels of Toxic Substances

Mercury, PCBs, chlordane, DDT (including its breakdown products, DDD and DDE), and dioxins still are accumulating at low levels in fish, and a variety of heavy metals are present at above-background levels in the sediments of the Muskegon Lake AOC. In addition, recent surveys of fish in Muskegon Lake show higher-than-expected levels of polyaromatic hydmcarbns. Although the level of contaminants in fish taken from Muskegon Lake are in the range of those found in fish from other waters in the region, area residents are eager to have explored every available option to reduce levels of toxic chemicals in Muskegon Lake, particularly those that bioaccwulate in fish.

There are many potential sources of these toxic chemicals, and the extent to which each may be contributing to the problem is not known. In addition to the NPDES programs and programs in place and anticipated to monitor regional air quality and area groundwater, it is recommended that the following studies and pilot remedial actions be conducted: I 8 A detailed analysis of at least one major storm water discharge into Muskegon Lake; the analysis would facilitate identification of potential upstream sources of t toxic chemicals, which could be followed in turn by (1) a demonstration project to reduce or eliminate sources of toxic chemicals in that drainage system, (2) removal of existing contaminated sediments near that outfall, (3) ongoing monitoring of the outfall and the sediments to determine whether the remediation efforts successfully reduce the toxic contaminants reaching the lake from storm water runoff, and (4) sampling the benthic community in the remediated I sediments

. A spec@c study of agricultural run08 in the Muskegon River watershed to determine whether chemical residues, particularly chlordane, are a continuing source of contamination; the study would determine if toxic storm water runoff is a problem (possibly using caged-fish studies, which can detect toxics at lower levels than can water column tests), and if it is, land-management practices could be implemented in a pilot area to demonstrate the feasibility of remedial measures

RAP Team and PAC Coordination

During preparation of this update, the RAP Team and the Muskegon Lake PAC interacted in two ways: the PAC chair attended RAP Team meetings, and members of the RAP Team made presentations to the PAC on various topics. Pooling local resources and technical expertise is critical to the eventual remediation of use impairments in the Muskegon Lake AOC. It is recommended that the interaction between the PAC and the MDhR RAP Team become more regular and coordinuted, this could be accomplished by 8 scheduling quarterly meetings between the two groups,

developing common objectives for the RAP process from this point forward, and

developing a timetable and budget for the studies recommended above.

It is further recommended that membership on the RAP Team be expanded to include representananvesfiom other state and federal agencies whose work ultimately may wmibute to the restoration of the AOC. List of References

1. Association of Greater Grand Rapids Home Builders, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Grand Valley State University's Water Resources Institute, County of Kent Drain Commissioner, Kent County Health Department, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and West Michigan Environmental Action Council. 1993. Residential Development Checklist for Environmental Concerns. 2. Babcock, Robert. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Personal Communication. 3. Barrett, H.B. 1976. The 19th Century Journals and Paintings of William Pope. Toronto, Canada: M.F. Feheley. In Waterfowl Use of the Lawentian Great Lakes. 4. Best. D. 1994. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Lansing, Michigan. Personal Communication. 5. Blasland & Bouch Engineers, P.C. 1992. Supplemental Investigation Results of Fonner Gulf Terminal. Prepared for Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Towson, Maryland. 6. Blue, My. 1993. Municipal Wurtewafer Survey and Inspection Muskegon County Metro Facility. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Grand Rapids District Office. 7. Blue, Prudy. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Memorandum to Leslie Wells, Public Sector Consultants, Inc., Re: Muskegon County - Wrstewater Treatment Plant. 8. Blue, Prudy. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Letter to Tim Westman, Muskegon County Wastewater Management System, Re: Municipal Wastewater Survey and Inspection of Muskegon County Metro Facility. 9. Blue, Prudy. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Personal Communication. 10. Bolattino. Callie. 1993. A Swnmary of Contaminated Sediment Activities U;irhinthe United States Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Intern for Marc Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. 11. Bradford, Susan. 1991. Halting Sprawl. Builder July 1991, 78-84. 12. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Section 112 (m)--Great Waters Study. 13. Colborn, TX. 1991. Epidemiology of Great Lakes Bald Eagles. J. Toxicology and Environmental Health 33(4):395454. In Revised Drafr of Luke Michigan Lakewide Management Plan for Toxic Pollutants. 14. Day, Robert. 1990. Estimated Loadings From Seven Michigan Tributaries and Recommendationsfor Tributary Sampling Snategits. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 15. Dell Engineering,'Inc. 1993. Letter to Heidi Hollenbach of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division, Grand Rapids District Office, Re: Results of Groundwater and Soil Sampling at Hartshorn Marina. 16. Dimond. William. 1991. Acute Taicity Assessment of Brunnvick Corporation Owfall 001 Efluent. Report #MIIDNRISWQ-911075. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 17. Dimond, William. 1991. Awe Toxiciry Assessment of West Midigan Steel Foundry Ourfall 001 Efluen!. Report #MIIDNRISWQ-911112. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 18. Drullinger, David. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Personal Communication. 19. Eagle, Dennis. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division-Superfund. Personal Communication. 20. Ebasco Environmental. 1992. Environmental Toxicie Handbook. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. 21. Eiseareich, Steven and William Strachan. 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes-An Updae. Workshop held at Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, Ontario on Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1992. Sponsored by The Great Lakes Protection Fund and Environment Canada. 22. Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Health and Welfare Canada. 1991. Tau'c Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects Synopsis. In Revised Drafr Lde Michigan L4kmtide Management Plan. 23. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. 1993. Report to Congress on the Great Lakes Ecosystm. 24. Evans. Elwin, Maureen Wilson, and William Creal. 1991. Assessment of Mercury Conramination in Selected Michigan Lakes, 1987-90.. Historical Trends, Environmental Correlates, and PotentialSouracs. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 25. Evans. Elwin. 1992. Mona, White and Muskegon Lakes in Muskegon County, Michigan the 1950's to the 1980's. Report #MI/DNRISWQ-92M61. Michigan Department of Nabral Resources, Surface Water Quality Division for Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. 26. Flint, R.W. and J. Vena. 1991. Human Health Riskfrom Chemical Exposure: lhe Grear Iakcr Ecosystem. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers. In Revised Drafr of Luke Michigan Lokewide Manag~~urtPhn for Taric PoUurants. 27. Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, and G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes Embryo Mortality, Edema, and Deformities Syndrome in Colonial Fish-Eating Birds: Similarity to Chick-Edema Disease. J. Tor and Env. Health VoL 33:455-516. In Revised Drafr of Luke Michigan Lakewide Management Plan for Taric Pollutants. 28. Hartig, Jottn. 1993. A Survey of Fish-Community and Habitat GoaLF/Objedives/Targets and Status in Great Laker Areas of Connm. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 29. Harris, L.D. 1988. The Nature of Cumulative Impacts on Biotic Diversity of Wetland Vertebrates. Environ. Manage. 12675-693. 30. Hein, M.K. 1993. Fish Collection and Habitat Evaluation: Muskegon Luke. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Great Lakes Shorelands Section. 31. Hein, M.K. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Great Lakes Shorelands Section. Personal Communication. 32. Herdendorf, C.E., S.M. Hartley, and M.D. Barnes, editors. 1981. Fish and WiIdlifeResources of the Great Lakes Coartal Wetlands Within the United States, Vol. 5: Luke Michigan. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. In Waterjiil Use of the L4urenrian Grear Lakes. 33. Hesse, JOE. 1994. Michigan Department of Public Health, Interagency Center on Health and Euvironmental Quali.ty. Personal Communication. 34. Hollenbach, Heidi. 1993. Michigan Department of Nahlral Resources, Environmental Response Division. Memorandum to Leslie Wells of Public Sector Consultants, Inc., Re: 307 Sites Potentially Affecting Muskegon Lake. 35. Howard, Alan. 1993. MERA Operational Memorandum #8, Revision 2-Type B .Criteria. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division. 36. Howard, Alan. 1994. Correctiom and Change deto MERA Operational Memorandum M, Revirion 2 - Type B Criteria. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division. 37. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 199 1. U. S. EPA interpretation of storm water requirement in Federal Register, vol. 57, No. 64, April 2, 1992, pg. 1 1408. 38. Jousma, Irwin. 1988. Unpublished Data on 11th Street Storm Sewer. Collected September 1988. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division, Grand Rapids District Office. 39. Jousma, Irwin. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Personal Communication. 40. Kalejs, N. and B. Fuchs. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Muskegon State Game Area. Persd Communication. 41. &slcr-Arnold, Kimberly, and Michael O'Hearn. 1990. Background Concernations of Me.?& and Cyanide in Lower Michigan SoiLr. Prowdings of the 44th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference: Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan. 42. Lachance, Amy. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Personal Communication. 43. Leffingwell, W.B. 1890. Shooting on Upland, Marsh, and Stream. New York, NY: Rand McNdly and Co. In Wate$owl Use of the Laurentian Great Lakes. 44. Martz, J. 1994. Data for Michigan Resident Canada Goose Fall Flight Estimate. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 45. Masterson, Michael. 1985. Aquatic Taricity Asscrsment of Little Bear Creek. Report #MIIDNR/SWQ90/040. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 46. Masterson, Michael. 1986. Aquatic Tau'city Assessment of Efluentfiom Muskegon CouqMetro Watewater Z'kerrm~ntPlant. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 47. McMahon, Megan. 1991. Acure Truicify Assessmenr of S.D. Warren Co. Efluent. Report #MIIDNRISWQ- 911233. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 48. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division. 1992. 1992 AnnuaI Air Quality Report. 49. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division. 1993. Summary of Air Qualify Division Efforts Relared to Air Toxics. 50. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division. 1993. Atmospheric Monitoring of T'c Pollutants of Conmn in the Great Lakes Ecosystem. 51. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Response Division-Superfund. 1993. Declaration for the Record of Decision-Duell-Gardner Landfill Sire. 52. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Flsh Contaminant Monitoring Program. 1989. Results of Fish Contaminant Analysis of Muskegon Lake. Storet No. 610352. 53. Michigan Department of Natural Resource., Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. 1993. Michigan Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 1993 Annual Report. 54. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. 1994. History of Permits Issued for Muskegon Lalre. 55. h¶ichig&i D-t of Natural Resources, Storm Water Pennits Unit. 1993. Permit-&-Rule for Storm Water From Construction Activities Fact Sheet. 56. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 1993. Printout of Violations of NPDES Permits in Muskegon Lake Watershed Fmm 1988 to 1993. I 57. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 1993. Printout of NPDES Permit Holders and Effluent Limits for Muskegon Lake Watershed. 58. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 1993. Printout of NPDES Dischargers' Monthly Average Effluent Reports. 59. Michigan Departmeat of Natud Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 1967-1989. Storet Water Quality Data for Muskegon Me- Southwest Basin. I 60. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 1963-1993. Sbret Water Quality Data for Muskegon River at South Bank of Outlet. 61. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Surface Water Quality Division. 1993. Ambient Water Monitoring in Michigan: Chantnuion and Loading Tre& in the Detroit River and Great Lakes Tributaries 1%9-1991. 62. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Commission. General Rules, Part 4 Wuter Quality Standards. 63. Michig* Department of Natural Resources. 1993 Michigan Fishing Guidc. I 64. Michigan Department of Public Health, Center for Environmental Health Services. 1989. Summmy of I Revisions to the Michigan Sport Fish Consumption Advisory. 65. Michigan Environmental Science Board, Mercury Panel. 1993. Mercury in Michigan's Environment: Environmental and Human Health Connnrr. Prepared at the Request of Governor John Engler. 66. Monosmith, Came. 1994. Michigan Departmeat of Nah~ralResources, Air Quality Division. Personal Communication. 67. Mund, Greg. 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Muskegon County. Personal Communication. .. 68. Muskegon County Chamber of'commerce. 1994. Personal Communication. 69. O'Neal, R. 1989-1991. Fisheries Survey Data for White Lake. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. Grand Rapids District Office. 70. Persaud, D., R. Jaagumage, and A. Hayton. 1992. Guidelinesfor the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sedimen! Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch. 71. Prince, Harold, P. Padding, and R. Knapton. 1992. Waterfowl Use of the Laurentian Great Lakes. J. Grear L&s Res. 18(4):673-699. 72. Quinn, Deborah. 1991. Acute Tdu'ciry Assessment of Nor-Am Chemical Co. Ourfall 001 Eflm. Report #MI/DNR/SWQ-911105.Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 73. Reynolds, M., B. Avery, and P.N. Curtis. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Personal Communication. 74. Saalfeld?Gerald. 1989. Chronic Tariciry Asscssment of the Muskegon County WartewaterManagement System No. I. O.rfall001 and 002 m.Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 75. Schueler, Thomas. Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Urbanization on Streams: A Comprehensive ~trateg>,for Loud Gowrnment. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 76. Schueler. Thonvls and John Galli. me Environmental Irnpaa of Stormwater Ponds. Watershed Restoration SourceBook. Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 77. Science Applications Intematiod Corporation. 1993. Revised Drafr of Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan for Toxic Pollutants. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. 78. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board of Canada, Ottawa. Bull. 184. 79. Shafer, Chris. 1991. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. Memorandum to Land and Water Management Division Field Offices, Regions I, 11.111, Re: Contnm;nntPd Dredge Spoil Restrictive Covenants. 80. Shafer, Chris. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. Personal Communication. 81. Sills, Robert, editor. 1992. Mercury in Michigan's Environment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 82. Smith. I.R., A.F. Johnson, D. MacLennan, and H. Manson. 1992. Chemical Contaminants, Lymphocystis, and Dermal Sarcoma in the Thames River, Ontario. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:608416. 83. State of Michigan's Permit-By-Rule for Construction Activities, Effective November 13, 1992. 84. Superior Environnlental Corporation. 1993. Rqort of Remedial Invcsrigation-Phase 11 of Former W4uoyater Treatment Faciliry, OmaStreet. 85. Suppnick, John. 1987. Report of a Wafer Quality Site Visit at Mosquito Creek and Black Creek, Muskegon Counry, Michigan, Collecred September 1986. Report #25645. Michigan ~kartmentof Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 86. Trirnberger, E.J., A. Hilt, and R. O'Neal. 1994. Michigan Department of Nahual Resources, Fisheries Division. Grand Rapids District Office. Personal Communication. 87. U.S. Environmeatal Protection Agency, Water Division, Region 5, Watershed Management Unit. 1990. Stormwater Management Ordinanccr for Local Governments. 88. US. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Region 5, Watershed ~ana&nentUnit. 1990. Integrated Stream Management Program Reduce Impacts to Aquatic Habitat. 89. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Region 5, Watershed Management Unit. 1990. Impacts of Changes in Hydrology Due to Urbanization. 90. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Region 5, Watershed Management Unit. 1991. Urban Runoff Impacts to Receiving Waters. 91. U.S. Envirpnmental Prokction Agency, Water Division, Region 5, Watershed Management Unit. 1991. Institutional Support for Stormwater Management Program. 92. Vanden Heuvel, Michael. 1994. Muskegon County Department of Public Health, Chief Sanitarian. Personal Communication. 93. Westshore Engineering & Surveying, hc. 1993. Site Investigation Repon at the Former Grand Trunk Railrod Car Ferry Dock on Lakeshore Drive. Prepared for Sweetwater, Inc. 94. Wood, Christine. 1993. Lake Michigan Tributary Screening Studyfor Bioconcenrratable Organic Contaminants in Fish Tusue and Semi-Permeable Membrane Devices. Report #MI\DNR\SWQ-93\064. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 95. Wood. Christine. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Personal Communication. 96. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Urban Targeting and BMP Selection. Prepared for Region V Water Division, Watershed Management Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 97. Wuycheck, John. 1985. A Biological Su~veyof Little Bear Creek and Unnamed Tributary in the Wcinity of Organic Chemical Contaminated Groundwater Seepage fiom the Cordow (Ott/Story)Chemical Company Properzy. Report #04980. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 98. Wuycheck, John. 1987. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Remedial Aaion Plan for Muskegon Lake Area of Concern. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quali!y Division. 99. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Unpublished Data for Sanford Bayou. Collected May 1988. Michigan Departmeat of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 100. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Unpublished Data for Four Mile Creek. Collected October 1988. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 101. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Unpublished Data for Bay East of Grand Trunk Pier. Collected in 1988. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 102. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Unpublished Data for Zephyr Terminal Treated Groundwater Discharge Channel to N. Branch of Muskegon River. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 103. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Acute Toxicity Assessment of the Muskegon Counry Wastewater Management System 'No. I Emnt. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 104. Wuycheck, John. 1988. Acute Toxicity Assessment of the Muskegon Counry Wmtewater Management @stem No. 1 EDuent. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 105. Wuycheck, John. 1989. Sediment Survey ofBear Lakc, Muskegon County, Michigan Conducted in July, 1988. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 106. Wuycheck, John. 1989. Chronic Taricity Assessment of the Muskegon County Wastewater Mmgmurt System No. I Outfall &I1 and 002 Efluet~.Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surfrrce Water Quality Division. 107. Wuycheck, John. 1989. Biological and Sediment Conramimt Surveys of Ryerson Creek, Muskegon Cow, Michigan CoIleded August of 1988 and 1989. Report #MI/DNR/SWQ-891127. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 108. Wuycheck, John. 1990. Biological and Sediment Contaminant Surveys of Ruddiman Creek and Unnamed Tributary, Muskegon County, Michigan Collected August of 1988 and 1989. Report #MI/DNR/SWQ- 901101. Michigan Deptmmt of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. 109. Wuycheck, John. 1990. Results of Sediment Samples Taken From 15 Sampling Stations in Muskegon Lake aud Two Stations in Bear Lake. Michigan Depnrtment of Natural Resowces, Surface Wakr Quality Division. 110. Wuycheck, John. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Surface Water Quality Division. Personal Communication. 111. Wuycheck, John. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Appraisal Unit. Memorandum to Water Quality Appraisal Unit Files Regarding Water Quality Based Effluent Limits. 112. Zebra Mussel Information Office, Michigan Sea Grant Extension. 1993. Zebra Mussel Distribution in Michigan. - 113. Federal Food and Drug Administration. 1987. Fish Contaminant Analytical results for fish samples collected from Mushegon Lake in 1986. . . 114.-Taylor, J. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division. April 1994 memorandum to Joha Wuycbck.