HYDROLLOG‘J’CAL STUDIES OF THE SAGINAW FORMATION IN THE LANSING. MICHIGAN AREA - 1962 Thesls {or Hm Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Assad oIah F irouzian 1963 111w" m a .m, n r 6 now .1 n m U M Y R A R B I L SITY MICHIGAN STATE UFM/E}; Lfifiur .12.? ABSTRACT HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE SAGINAW FORMATION IN THE LANSING, MICHIGAN AREA — 1962 by Assadolah Firouzian The purpose of this investigation was to study the hydrological characteristics of the Saginaw formation in the Lansing, Michigan area. The water-bearing beds of sandstone in the Saginaw formation are the principal source of water for the greater Lansing area including the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan State University, industrial plants and also surrounding townships. The Saginaw formation is the bedrock formation in the area and is overlain by Pleistocene glacial deposits. By comparing the 1945 and 1962 piezometric maps, it was found that the piezometric surface has declined as much as 90 feet since 1945. The main reason for the decline is the increase in the rate of pumpage in the area. This is further indicated by the fact that the deepest portions of the cones of depression are located in the areas where the ground water pumpage is maximum. The average daily pumpage in 1945 was 17 million gallons per day, while the daily average pumpage in July 1962 was 30 million gallons per day in the problem area. The average transmissibility of the Saginaw formation as determined by flow net analysis on the basis of 1962 piezometric map is 23,000 gallons per day per foot. The study showed that the aquifer is recharged from the Grand River at the rate of 3 million gallons per day. The average recharge from precipitation into the aquifer is estimated at 4.8 inches per year which is equivalent to 28 million gallons per day based on the recharge area of an estimated 120 square miles. The amount of water discharged by pumpage is presently balanced by the amount of water recharged into the area. Thus, the cone of depression should remain static if the pumpage is continued at its present rate. HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE SAGINAW FORMATION IN THE LANSING, MICHIGAN AREA - 1962 By Assadolah Firouzian A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to the peOple who directly and in- directly helped and guided me in carrying out this research. I am grateful to Dr. W. J. Hinze of the Michigan State University Geology Department who approved the re- search problem and inspired me by his constructive criticism. I wish to express my deep gratitude to U. S. Geological Survey authorities who sponsored and financed this investi- gation and made available all their office facilities for this study. I I am especially grateful to Mr. Charles Linck of the Board of Water and Light who collected the well location data from well drillers and helped me to get the static water level elevation in the field. My sincere thanks are due to Mr. Kenneth E. Vanlier of the U. 8. Geological Survey for his valuable advice on drawing and analyzing flow nets. Acknowledgments are given to Messers. Paul Giroux and Gary Huffman of the U. S. Geological Survey for data on observation well hydrographs, and to the various well drillers who provided needed well data. Acknowledgments are also extended to the Lansing Board of Water and Light, East ii Lansing water superintendent, and superintendent of the power plant of Michigan State University for providing pumpage data. My thanks are to Miss Gail McKinstry for typing the draft and final copy of my thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Sc0pe of Study . . . . . . . Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AREA . . . . . . . Location and Extent of Problem Area . . . . Geology of the Area . . . . . . . . . . Surface Geology . . . . . . . . . Subsurface Geology . . . . . . . . Parma Sandstone . . . . . . . . . Saginaw Formation . . . . . . . . . Hydrology of the Area . . . . . . . . . Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . METHODS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . The Flow Net: Its DevelOpment and Application . Determination of Discharge and Transmissibility from a Flow Ne t . . . . Application of Flow Nets in the United States . Flow Nets of the Problem Area . . . . . . HYDROLOGY OF THE AQUIFER . . . . . . . . . . Transmissibility . . . Determination of Transmissibility by Flow Net Analysis. . Determination of Transmissibility from the 1945 Flow Net . . . . . . . . . . Determination of T from 1962 Flow Net . . I . Discharge from the Aquifer . . . . . . Changes of Piezometric Surface Since 1945 . . iv 9 E. _. T‘s! '5‘""’ (5?: In”. Us In. . E’s Cs . wt: mugs. vii r-‘I--' \OOOCDQOUIOJCOO) OJ 1—” (J0 r—‘I—’ A00 r—u—w—n \ooow |\) [\J 22 23 24 25 2 £1; 29 Page R9Charge o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 34 Recharge from Precipitation . . . . . . . . 36 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Decline in Piezometric Surface . . . . . . . 41 RQChargG‘ . C O O O O O O O O O O O O 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . o . . . . . . . . . 46 10. 11. LIST OF FIGURES Location of Area of Investigation . . . . 4 Piezometric Surface of the Water in the Saginaw Formation: Lansing Area — Spring 1962 C O O 0 O C O C O O O I O * Hydrographs of 3 Selected Wells in the Saginaw Formation; Municipal Pumpage, and Departure of Precipitation at Lansing 1946-62 . . ll Schematic Diagram of a Flow Net . . . . . 16 Piezometric Surface of the Water in the Pennsylvanian Sandstone. Lansing - May 1945 by W. T. Stuart 0 O O C O O O * Flow Net Based on the 1945 Piezometric Map . * Piezometric Surface of the Water in the Pennsylvanian Sandstone; Lansing - May 31 through August 1962 . . . . . . . . * Flow Net Based on the 1962 Piezometric Map . * Map Showing Decline of the Piezometric Surface in Saginaw Formation from 1945 to 1962 in Lansing Area . . . . . . . . . . * Area Used in Determining Recharge from Piezometric Contours . . . . . . . 36a Diagrammatic Cross Sections Showing History of Decline in the Piezometric Surface . . 43 * Figures found in back pocket. vi LIST OF TABLES Annual Precipitation, Cumulative and Annual Departure of Precipitation Fluctuation of Water Level in Observation Wells from May 30 to June 1, 1962 Coefficients of Transmissibility Determined from the 1945 Flow Net Coefficients of Transmissibility Determined from the 1962 Flow Net Municipal and Industrial Pumpage Decline in Piezometric Surface Determination of Recharge from Grand River into Aquifer Determination of Recharge from Precipitation vii INTRODUCTION Purpose and SCOpe of Study The purpose of this research study was to define the hydrologic characteristics of the Saginaw formation in the Lansing, Michigan area. Special emphasis was given to deter- mining the transmissibility throughout the area by flow net analysis. The study included the following objectives: 1. Construction of a new piezometric map of the problem area. 2. Determination of coefficients of transmissibility by flow net analysis. 3. Determination of changes in the piezometric surface since 1945. 4. Determination of recharge to the aquifer by flow net analysis. Previous Investigation In order to study the general ground water conditions and determine the quantity of water available in the Lansing area, W. T. Stuart (1946) of the U. 8. Geological Survey prepared the first piezometric map of the area in 1945. The study was made because the heavy draft of ground water for 2 domestic and industrial uses had caused a drOp of water level at that time. His piezometric map of the area showed that ground water flow was toward Lansing from all directions, the greatest slope being from the south with less slope from the east and north indicating that much more water was flowing toward Lansing from the south than from the east or north. According to Stuart's calculations the average rate of inflow to the area at the time of his study was from 5 to 9 million gallons per day. He found that the average daily withdrawal of less than 8.5 million gallons a day prior to 1930 did not cause a noticeable decline of the water level in the aquifer since the withdrawal was about equal to the inflow to the area. However, he showed that due to increased pumpage (18 million gallons a day in 1945), the water level, by 1945, had dropped from 12 to 40 feet below the 1930 level. According to Stuart, the total daily pumpage was almost twice the inflow to the area. This indicated that water had to be taken out from storage in order to provide for increased pumpage. Studies of the general ground water conditions in this area have not been made since 1945. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AREA Location and Extent of Problem Area The Lansing area is located in the south-central part of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan (Figure 1). It includes the Cities of Lansing and East Lansing, Lansing and Meridian Townships in Ingham County, Watertown and DeWitt Townships in Clinton County, and Delta Township in Eaton County. The piezometric surface in the Saginaw formation was defined for all of Ingham County and portions of Ionia, Clinton, Shiawassee, Livingston, Eaton, Calhoun, and Jackson Counties (Figure 2). Geology of the Area Surface Geology The glacial drift which covers the rock surface of the Southern Peninsula is the surface formation in the Lansing area. It consists chiefly of a heterogeneous mass of boulders, cobbles, and pebbles in a sandy or clayey matrix. It was deposited by the Saginaw lobe of the Wisconsin glacia- tion which moved southwestward from Canada into the Southern Peninsula of Michigan. C LINTON SHAIWASSEE I | 1 L I..- -_-_-_-_. T! 1§§ ‘I I EATON I" INfHAM " LIVINGSTON I I | .__ WASHTENAW V l 0 MILES zo LOCATION OF AREA OF INVESTIGATION FIGURE | 5 Recessional moraines are the most characteristic surface feature of the area. They are belts of undulating topography which were formed at places where the edge of the melting ice held a nearly constant position for a long period of time. Two moraines that are a part of the West Branch morainic system cross the Lansing area (Leverett and Taylor, 1915). Ome is the Grand Ledge moraine; the other is the Lansing moraine. The Grand Ledge moraine is more strongly deveIOped. It extends southwestward from Lake Lansing to the campus of Michigan State University and then northwestward across the northern part of the problem area. The Lansing moraine passes about two miles south of Grand Ledge to the southern part of the Lansing area where it is breached by the Grand River and Sycamore Creek. The area between the two moraines consists of ground moraine; the southern part of the Lansing area is also composed of ground moraine. Belts of outwash deposits occur along the Grand and Cedar Rivers. Subsurface Geology The glacial deposits of the Lansing area rest directly upon rocks of Pennsylvanian age. Winchell (1861) divided the Pennsylvanian system into the Parma sandstone, the "Coal Measures", and the Woodville sandstone. Lane (1901) intro- duced the term Saginaw series to replace the term "Coal Measures" used by Winchell. The classification of Parma, Saginaw, and Woodville has continued to be used to the present time with some modification of the units included in the 6 Saginaw and Woodville formations. Kelly (1940) included the Woodville sandstone with the Eaton and Ionia sandstones in the Grand River group over- lying the Saginaw formation. The main water—bearing beds of the problem area are beds of sandstone in the Saginaw formation. The lowermost beds of the water—bearing sandstone may be the Parma sandstone. Stuart (1945) used the term "Pennsylvanian sandstone" for the Saginaw formation in his report. The Paleozoic sediments below the Pennsylvanian rocks consist of about 8000 feet of sandstone, limestone, dolomite, shale, and evaporites ranging from Cambrian to Upper Missis- sippian age (Dott, Murray, Grove, 1954). The formations below the Saginaw generally are of low permeability or imper- meable. In the problem area they contain water which is highly mineralized (Stuart, 1945). Parma Sandstone The name Parma sandstone was proposed by A. Winchell (1861) for a "White, or slightly yellowish, quartzose glistening sandstone, containing occasional traces of terres- trial vegetation". The Parma sandstone lies below the mica; ceous sandstones, shales, and coal beds of the Saginaw group. It directly overlies the Bayport limestone and is usually the basal member of the Pennsylvanian system in Michigan. The Parma is a white quartzose sandstone, coarse to conglomeratic. It is cleaner and better cemented than the overlying Saginaw formation. 7 The thickness of the Parma varies from 0 to 220 feet in the area (Kelly, 1940). Saginaw Formation According to Kelly (1940): "The Saginaw group directly overlies the Parma sandstone wherever that formation is present. It is composed of material of fresh water, brackish water, and marine origin and consists of sandstones, shales, coal, and limestones". The sandstones of the Saginaw group are frequently lenticular, nonpersistent, and have irregular bedding. Most of the beds eXposed at the surface are less than 10 feet thick. In some places sandstone beds are thicker and make up a larger part of the Saginaw section. Examples of such places are to be noted in the vicinity of Lansing where beds of sand- stone over 100 feet thick are reported from several wells. The texture of the Saginaw sandstones is usually fine. Quartz is the principal constituent, but is associated locally with decomposed feldspar and usually with abundant white mica. The sandstones contain less than one percent of heavy minerals. Tourmaline and zircon are the most common heavy minerals. Fossils in the sandstone are limited to plant frag- ments. These characteristics indicate a terrestrial origin for the sand in which shifting currents with rapidly alter- nating periods of erosion and deposition played a major part. Kelly (1940) divides the shales of the Saginaw group into three subdivisions: (a) shales with considerable sandy material; (b) shales with little or no sandy material; and 8 (c) underclays. The sandy shales possess many characteristics in common with sandstones. Plant fossils are often found in these shales and probably had a terrestrial origin. The shales of the second group are ordinarily dark in color. They may or may not be limy. The limy shales are regularly bedded. The non-limy shales vary in structure from very fissile to almost structureless layers up to 3 feet or more in thickness. According to Kelly (1940) shales of the third group, the underclays, are structureless white to light gray beds of claylike or sandy texture. They often occur below coal seams and commonly contain irregular nodules of iron carbonate a few feet from the tOp. The average thickness of the Saginaw group is 400 feet and the maximum reported is 535 feet (Kelly, 1940). Hydrology of the Area Drainage The Grand River comprises the major drainage system of the area. It enters the area from the southwest and flows north through Lansing and then west to Grand Ledge. Its drainage area above Lansing is 1230 square miles which repre- sents 22 percent of its total drainage area. Cedar River and Sycamore Creek are tributaries of the Grand River in the area. The Cedar River flows west through the center of the area and enters the Grand at Lansing. Its drainage area above East Lansing is 355 square miles. Sycamore Creek flows north- west from Mason and joins the Cedar River at Lansing. 9 The Grand River drainage basin has gently undulating tOpography and predominantly sandy loam soil. Deposits of sand and gravel occur along the major streams. The beds and banks of the streams consist of the same permeable material. The portion of the surface flow which is derived from ground water is called base flow. The base flow for the Grand and Cedar Rivers has been estimated from flow duration curves of the Surface Water Section of the U. S. Geological Survey. According to this estimation, the amount of base flow for the Grand River at Lansing is 0.26 cfs per square mile which is equivalent to 3.52 inches of precipita- tion per year. The amount of base flow for the Cedar River at East Lansing is estimated to be 0.16 cfs per square mile which is equivalent to 2.17 inches per year. Precipitation Precipitation is one of the major factors that con- trols the general ground water condition in any area. It controls directly or indirectly the amount of recharge to the Saginaw formation. Ground water levels are affected by the quantity, time of occurrence, intensity, and nature of the precipitation. According to the U. S. Weather Bureau, precipitation in the area of investigation is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The wettest months of the year are May and June. Snowfall for Lansing is generally fairly light. 10 The annual precipitation for the area in 1962 was 21.23 inches which was 9.85 inches below the average of 31.08 inches. The variation of precipitation from year to year is shown in Figure 3. Annual precipitation, annual and cumu- lative departure of precipitation from 1946 to 1962 are also shown in Figure 3 and in Table l. The cumulative departure of precipitation is determined by taking the difference between annual precipitation and the average annual precipi- tation and then adding these differences algebraically. The average annual precipitation as determined by the U. S. Weather Bureau is the average of 10 years annual precipita- tion. This value for the last 10 years in the Lansing area is 31.08 inches. Pumpage in billions of gallons .IO .00 730 7.0 170 7‘0 750 740 730 Water level in feet above mean sea level 0.0 +t0 + on 0 Departure in inches Hydragrophs at 3 selected wells topping Saginaw formation showing water level fluctuation,municipol pumpage, and departure of precipitation at Lansing, l946-62 FIGURE 3 12 Table l.--Annual Precipitation, Cumulative and Annual Departure of Precipitation Years Annual Precipitation Annual Departure Cumulative in Inches of Precipitation Departure of in Inches Precipitation in Inches 1946 23.50 -7.58 - 7.58 1947 39.74 +8.66 + 1.08 1948 28.58 -2.50 - 1.42 1949 34.63 +3.55 + 2.13 1950 36.51 +5.43 + 7.56 1951 31.70 +0.62 + 8.18 1952 29.13 -1.95 + 6.23 1953 22.82 -8.26 - 2.03 1954 32.35 +1.27 - 0.76 1955 30.21 -0.87 - 1.63 1956 27.48 -3.60 - 5.23 1957 36.41 +5.33 + 0.1 1958 21.79 -9.29 - 9.19 1959 36.05 +4.97 — 4.22 1960 25.20 -5.88 -10.10 1961 27.35 -3.73 -13.83 1962 21.23 -9.85 -23.68 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION Collection of Data In order to make the general piezometric surface of the greater Lansing area, it was necessary to locate as many wells as possible for which water-level data were available. Most of the data on wells and their static water levels were obtained from well drillers who kindly let us use their files. Records of Federal, State, and private agencies also were reviewed. Approximately 250 wells in 53 townships in Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Ionia, Shiawassee, Jackson, Livingston, and Calhoun Counties were checked. Wherever it was possible, the static water levels of the wells were measured; otherwise static levels obtained from well drillers were used. The elevation of the static water level above mean sea level was determined from Federal and State bench marks. For wells where there were no nearby bench marks, the elevation was determined from t0pographic maps. The accuracy for this type of elevation determination is estimated to be i 5 feet. The tools used for determining the water level elevation were plane table with tripod, alidade, and rod. 13 14 The Flow Net: Its Deve10pment and Application In analyzing ground water problems, a graphical representation of the flow pattern is of considerable assist- ance and sometimes provides the only means of solving those problems for which mathematical solution is not practicable. The first significant development in graphical analysis of flow patterns was made by Forchheimer (Ferris, 1955). A "flow net", which is a graphical representation of the flow pattern, is composed of two families of curves. One family represents the flow lines or paths followed by a par- ticle of water as it moves through the aquifer in the direction of decreasing head. Intersecting the flow lines at right angles is a family of curves termed equipotential lines which represent contours of equal head in the aquifer. The change in potential or dr0p in head between two equipotential lines in an aquifer divided by the distance traveled by a particle of water moving from a higher to a lower potential, determines the hydraulic gradient. The movement of a water particle is controlled by the flow path that involves the least work (i.e., the shortest possible path between the two equipotential lines), therefore, the direction of water movement is everywhere normal to equipotential lines. By considering the above mentioned principles, a flow net is an orthogonal pattern of squares. In ground water problems the flow net is drawn by trial and error so that l5 equipotential lines fit the water level measurements and at the same time form a system of squares with intersecting flow lines. It should be recognized that in flow fields involving curved paths of flow, the elements of the net are curvilinear, so they are not true squares; however, the II corners of each square" are right angles. Determination of Discharge and Transmissibility From a Flow Net The discharge through any path of the flow net may be obtained by application of Darcy's Law, in which (1) Q II PIA Q = Discharge P : Permeability A — Area I = Hydraulic gradient. By considering the flow through a unit thickness and applying Darcy's formula, the discharge for one flow channel through the net will be (Figure 4): (2) A9 = Plb where,¢g gives the flow occurring between a pair of adjacent flow lines (one flow channel) and b is the Spacing of the flow lines. If L represents the spacing between equipotential lines and h represents the dr0p in head, then equation (2) becomes (3) 43g = Rah b L. 16 ’ HOW line X’Kfiquipotential line SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A FLOW NET FIGURE 4 17 As a flow net is designed to be a system of "squares", the ratio b/L is equal to unity and the same potential dr0p occurs across each "square". It follows from equation (3) that the same increment of flow,¢§q, occurs between each pair of adjacent flow lines. So if there are nf flow channels, the total flow, q, through a unit thickness of the aquifer is given by: (4) q = anq. If there are nd potential dr0ps, the total drop in head, h, is given by: (5) h = ndAh. Substituting in equation (4) the values of Aq and.Ah given by equations (3) and (5), results in: (6) q : “f Considering that q represents the total flow through a unit thickness of the aquifer, the equation for total flow through the full thickness of the aquifer will be: (7) Q: 0f E— th d II where Q flow through the full thickness of the aquifer in gallons per day nf = number of flow channels II “d number of potential dr0ps P coefficient of permeability of the aquifer material, in gallons per day per square foot m = saturated thickness of aquifer, in feet h = total potential dr0p in feet 18 Pm = transmissibility of the aquifer, in gallons per day per foot. By substituting T for Pm, equation (7) can be written as: (8) Q = nfT h “a and equation (8) in turn can be written as: (9) T = @— nf h “6. Knowing Q, the transmissibility can be determined from the flow net by using equation (9). Application of Flow Net in the United States The flow net has not been used extensively for analyzing ground water flow problems in this country. Apparently very few hydrologists have tried this method to determine its values and limitations. 'Robert R. Bennett and R. Mayer (1952) used the flow net technique to analyze ground water problems in the Balti— more, Maryland area. According to their report, the trans- missibility values obtained by flow net analysis were in close agreement with the ones determined by pump tests. In addition, they also determined the areal variation in trans- missibility by flow net analysis. This is the great advantage of flow net analysis over a pump test. The transmissibility determined from pump tests represents only a small portion of the aquifer. On the other hand, Bennett and Mayer have shown that the approximate values of transmissibility of a large part of the aquifer can be 19 obtained by the flow net technique. The values and limitations of flow net analysis will be better understood when more hydrologists use this method to study ground water problems related to transmissibility. Flow Nets of the Problem Area A piezometric or ground water contour map of the area under study must be prepared before drawing a flow net. The piezometric surface is the surface which coin- cides with the static level of water in the aquifer or with the height to which water will rise in a well or piezometer in an artesian aquifer. Two flow nets were made for the problem area (Figures 6 and 8). One was made on the basis of a 1945 piezometric map prepared by W. T. Stuart of the U. S. Geological Survey (Figure 5). The other was made on the basis of a map of the piezometric surface during the summer of 1962 which was prepared as a part of this investigation (Figure 7). The piezometric map of 1962 is based on the elevation of static water levels in observation wells and on the static water levels reported by well drillers for other wells in the problem area. For the observation wells equipped with continuous water-level recording gages, the reading on May 31, 1962 was taken as the static level, and for the ones measured quarterly, the closest reading to May 31 was selected as the static level.- The May 31 reading is the average of the daily low and daily high of the water level for each observation well. In order to determine the magnitude of 20 the water-level fluctuation for May 31, the daily average water level from May 30 to June 1, 1962 was determined from the hydrographs of five observation wells. The range of fluctuation of water level was found to be from i 0.03 to i 0.2 feet per day (Table 2). For the other wells, the static water level measure- ment made by well drillers after the completion of the well was used regardless of the date. On both piezometric maps of the area the solid contours are the ones that were used for flow net analysis. To simplify drawing the flow nets, the dashed contours were not used. This did not affect the general pattern of the flow nets. The main objective in drawing the flow net was to make a system of "squares" in which the distances between the equi— potential lines were equal to distances between the flow lines. in Observation Wells From May 30 to June 1, 1962 Table 21 2.--F1uctuation of Water Level Well Water level Water level Water level Fluctua- Number below LSD* below LSD below LSD tion in in feet. in feet. in feet. feet per May 30, 1962 May 31, 1962 June 1, 1962 day 16-1 61.8 61.9 62.03 0.06 17-1 143 142.7 143.1 0.03 9-1 143 143 143.6 0.2 21-1 68.1 68.1 68.45 0.1 23-2 5.42 5.42 5.27 0.05 * Land Surface I Datum HYDROLOGY OF THE AQUIFER Transmissibility The coefficient of transmissibility can be expressed as the quantity of water in gallons per day that flows through a strip of the aquifer 1 mile wide under a hydraulic gradient of 1 foot per mile. It is the product of the field coefficient of permeability times the thickness of the saturated part of the aquifer. The coefficient of permeability as defined by Meinzer is the rate of flow of water in gallons per day through a cross-sectional area of 1 square foot under a hydraulic gradient of 100 percent at a temperature of 60° F. The permeability of a sandstone aquifer is controlled by: the size of the grains, the shape of the grains, the degree of sorting of the grains, and the degree of cementation or lithification and packing. Fracturing and bedding are also controlling factors. There are several mathematical formulas based on the condition of the water table or piezometric surface aropnd a pumped well that can be used to determine the coefficient of transmissibility. These formulas are of two basic types - equilibrium and non-equilibrium. According to the equilibrium fornmla which is also known as the Theim formula, the pumping rszt continue at a uniform rate for a sufficient time to 22 23 approach a steady state condition, that is, one in which the drawdown changes negligibly with time. The basic non-equilibrium formula, or Theis formula, is based on the assumption that as water must come from a reduction of storage within the aquifer,lthe head will continue to decline as long as the aquifer is infinite; therefore, no steady flow exists. The rate of decline, however, decreases continuously as the area of influence expands. These formulas are based on ideal conditions that are seldom found in nature. It is assumed that the aquifer has infinite areal extent; that it is homogeneous and isotropic (transmits water equally in all directions); that it is bounded at the t0p and bottom by impermeable material; that it has a uniform thickness; that water is released instan- taneously from storage with a decline in head. It is further assumed that the discharging well is of infinitesimal diameter, completely penetrates the aquifer, and the flow of the water toward the well is radial or two dimensional. Determination of Transmissibility By Flow Net Analysis One of the main objectives of this research was to determine the coefficients of transmissibility (T) and the variation in T throughout the area. Values of T obtained in the past in this area are based on pump test analysis using equilibrium and non-equilibrium formulas. Stuart used an average value of 23,000 gpd/ft for T when he calculated the amount of inflow into the area. He 24 indicated this value was the average obtained by pump tests in different parts of the area. The method used to determine the coefficient of trans- missibility and its areal variation in this investigation is a flow net analysis. This method is based on the following formula described in detail above: T = Q nf h “a The values of nf and h/nd can be obtained directly from the flow net; Q is the amount of discharge or pumpage. In order to determine the areal variation of trans— missibility, each flow net was divided into sub-areas on the basis of the general pattern of flow lines to the areas of pumpage. In the computations the average daily pumpage in gallons per day, Q, during the month of July was used for each sub-area. Determination of Transmissibility From the 1945 Flow Net A flow net was constructed from the 1945 piezometric surface as defined by Stuart (Figure 5). This flow net was divided into 4 sub-areas marked A, B, C, and D as shown in Figure 6. The pumpage data for each sub—area was taken from the data collected by Stuart in 1945. Using values of nf and h/nd obtained directly from the flow net, the transmissibility was determined for each sub- area. For example, for sub—area A: average daily pumpage, Q, was 5,010,385 gallons a day, the number of flow paths, nf, was 25 23, and the head loss between equipotential lines, h/nd’ was 10 feet; thus: I = Q I 5010385 = 21784 gpd/ft. nf h/nd 230 The values of transmissibility of other sub-areas were deter- mined in the same manner and are shown in Table 3. Determination of T From 1962 Flow Net The 1962 flow net was divided into five sub-areas marked as A, B, C, D, and E as shown in Figure 8. The pumpage data for these sub—areas were obtained from the Lansing Board of Water and Light, East Lansing Water Superintendent, and Michigan State University Power Plant Superintendent. For each sub-area the values of nf and h/nd were taken directly from the flow net, and the transmissibility for each sub-area was determined from equation 9. For example, in sub— area A: average daily pumpage, Q, was 15,852,193 gallons per day; the number of flow paths, nf, was 58; and the head loss, h/nd, was 10 feet; thus: T 2 15,333,193 2 27,331 gpd/ft. The transmissibility values for other sub—areas are shown in Table 4. The average transmissibility in the area was deter- mined from the transmissibilities of the five sub-areas shown in Table 4. This value is 23,628 gpd/ft which is approximately the value Stuart determined from pumping tests. Table 3.--Coefficients of Transmissibility Determined From the 1945 Flow Net Subareas Pumpage Number Head Coefficient of in gal- of flow loss transmissibility lons per paths in in gallons per day (Q) (nf) feet day per foot (T) h A. Northwest field, Maple St. field, Olds'DrOp Forge 5,010,385 23 10 21,784 B. Cedar St. MT field, Air Condition- ing — Lansing Ice and Fuel, Atlas Dr0p Forge 4,052,729 33 10 12,281 C. Pennsyl- vania River— side RM fields 6,026,639 40 10 15,066 D. MSU—East Lansing 952,000 10 10 9,520 Average 14,662 27 Table 4.--Coefficients of Transmissibility Determined From the 1962 Flow Net Subareas Pumpage Number Head Coefficient of in gal- 1 of flow loss transmissibility lons per I paths in in gallons per day (Q) ' (nf) feet day per foot (T) h /nd A. Northwest well fields 15,852,193 58 10 27,331 8. Southeast well fields 5,785,967 30 10 19,286 C. East-Landale wells 524,645 3 10 17,488 D. East Lansing 1,688,000 10 10 16,880 E. MSU 2,972,551 8 10 37,156 Average 23,628 28 Discharge From the Aquifer The discharge from the aquifer takes place in two ways: artificial discharge of ground water by pumpage and natural discharge of ground water either to rivers or evapo- transpiration. The amount of discharge of ground water by pumpage can be measured much more accurately than the discharge to evapotranSpiration and to the rivers. Most of the ground water pumpage in the area was by the following: 1. Lansing Board of Water and Light 2. City of East Lansing 3. Michigan State University 4. Lansing Township 5. Oldsmobile Division of General Motors To determine the average daily pumpage in the whole area, the total pumpage in each pumpage area was obtained for the month of July 1962. The daily average for each area was determined on that basis. The sum of these average daily pumpage in each area was considered to be the total average daily pumpage in the whole area. Table 5 shows the total, daily, and percent of pumpage with reSpect to the total for each area. Figure 1 also shows the total annual pumpage from 1946 to 1962. The amount of ground water discharged to rivers (base flow) is estimated on the basis of a flow duration curve. According to this estimation, the amount of base flow is 0.26 cfs or 117 gallons per minute for Grand River and 0.16 cfs or 29 72 gallons per minute for Cedar River. No data was available on the pumpage from private wells both in rural and urban sections of the problem area. However, according to Tri-County Planning Commission, 56,000 pe0p1e in 9 townships in the Lansing area get water from private wells. Allowing 50 gallons per day per person, the total daily pumpage by private wells is estimated to be over 3 million gallons per day. As is shown in Table 5, the total average daily pumpage in the area is more than 27 million gallons a day which is a 30 percent increase over the total daily pumpage of 17.6 million gallons per day in 1945. The Lansing Board of Water and Light pumps more than 20 million gallons daily or 74 percent of the total daily pumpage in the area. A very noticeable increase was observed in the rate of pumpage for Michigan State University between 1945 and 1962. According to Stuart, the daily average pumpage for the University was 392,000 gallons per day in 1945. The daily average during July, 1962 was about 3 million gallons per day. This is an increase of 86 percent over 1945. The University pumpage has exceeded pumpage by the City of East Lansing. Changes of Piezometric Surface Since 1945 A map of the piezometric surface on May 31, 1962 in the Lansing area is shown in Figure 7. This map was made on the basis of static water levels in observation wells. Several factors such as variations in the rate of pumpage, changes in barometric pressure, recharge from different Table 5.——Municipal and Industrial Pumpage Pumping Total pump- Daily average Percent of Areas age in July pumpage based on pumpage with 1962 (gallons July 1962 (gal— respect to per day) lons per day) total daily average pumpage Lansing 623,000,000 20,096,774 74.06 East Lansing 52,321,000 1,688,000 6.21 MSU 93,397,600 2,972,551 10.92 Lansing Township 60,727,000 1,958,935 7.21 Olds Plant 13,479,000 434,806 1.60 Total 842,924,600 27,151,066 100.00 31 sources, and evapotranspiration cause periodic fluctuations of the piezometric surface. The main factor in the decline of the piezometric surface has been the increase in the rate of pumpage. This fact becomes apparent when the 1945 piezometric map (Figure 5) and the 1962 piezometric map (Figure 7) are compared. By superimposing the two maps, the differences between contours on the two maps can be plotted. Figure 9 shows the decline of the piezometric surface from 1945 to 1962. The map shows that the piezometric surface has declined as much as 90 feet in the last 17 years. The contours of decline of the piezometric surface show clearly the cones of depression developed around the pumping Q) reas. The deepest part of these cones are in the areas where the largest amounts of ground water withdrawal are made. For instance, in the northern part of the area, as a result of heavy withdrawal of water from city wells, the piezometric surface has dr0pped more than 90 feet. In the west, due to heavy pumpage by Lansing Township and also the Oldsmobile plant, the piezometric surface has declined as much as 70 feet. The decline of 10 to 60 feet in the piezometric surface in the East Lansing and Michigan State University areas reflects the increased rate of pumpage in these areas. The hydrographs of observation wells in the area of influence of pumpage show a similar decline in the piezometric surface shown in Figure 9. Table 6 shows the decline of the piezometric surface in the observation wells affected by pumpage. The table gives 32 the static water levels of May 1945 and May 1962 of selected observation wells. If no record of the static water level in May 1945 was available, the level in May 1946 or a later year is shown. Well Number 4N 2W *9-1 4N 2W l7-2 4N 2W 21-1 4N 2W 22-1 4N 2W 24-1 4N 2W 28-1 4N 2W 16-1 * The first number shows sectiOn number and the second number the well number in that section. Table 33 6.--Dec1ine in Piezometric Surface in Feet (Elevations in feet above mean sea level) Location N. Grand River 8 Josephine St. Verlinden Ave. Townsend St. & Olds Ave. 8. Pennsylvania Ave. 8 Grand Trunk Railroad Michigan State University W. Mt. HOpe Ave. 8 Davis Ave. S. Cedar & Jay Street Date 5-1945 5-1947 5-1945 5-1945 5-1945 5-1948 5-1946 Elevation of static 749 761 800 790 825 817 781 level Date 5-1962 5-1962 5-1962 5-1962 5-1962 5-1962 5-1962 Elevation of Decline Decline static level 685 768 770 796 770 in feet 65 34 33 22 55 21 11 feet per year 3.8 2.2 1.9 0.68 34 Recharge Recharge is the process by which a ground water reser- voir is replenished either naturally or artificially. Most aquifers are recharged naturally by precipitation. This primarily occurs in the spring and fall. In the spring, before the growing season commences, rainfall and snowmelt add large quantities of water to the ground water reservoirs. In the fall, after the end of the growing season, evapotranspiration demands are drastically reduced and much of the rainfall is recharged to ground water reservoirs. One of the principal factors controlling recharge from precipitation is the air temperature. This factor is important since it determines the length of the growing season and there— fore, the amount of rainfall lost by evapotranspiration, thus unavailable as a source of recharge. Temperature also directly affects the amount of recharge derived from ice and snow by controlling the evaporation. The configuration of the land surface has some effect on the amount of ground water recharge. On steep s10pes pre- cipitation runs off more rapidly than from a flat surface. The areal extent of the outcrOps and subcrOps of the water- bearing sandstones also is important as more water may enter a formation if its area of intake is large. In the case of artesian aquifers, the permeability and thickness of the confining beds are also the important controlling factors of recharge. The permeability of the surface materials also Controls the amount of recharge. 35 According to Stuart (1945), recharge to the sandstone aquifers in the Lansing area takes place in three ways: (1) direct recharge from surface water in contact with the sand- stones; (2) downward and lateral percolation where the sand— stones are in contact with the saturated sands and gravels of the glacial cover; and (3) the vertical percolation through the poorly permeable clays and shales by means of existing joint systems and solution channels within the clays and shales. The greatest amount of recharge to the aquifers in the greater Lansing area is by means of downward and lateral percolation in areas where the sandstones are in contact with the saturated portions of the glacial material. It is believed that the depressions eroded in the Pennsylvanian bedrock are filled with water-bearing sands and gravels that are recharged by the downward movement of precipitation. Thus, the sand- stone aquifers are recharged when the piezometric surface is lowered below the overlying saturated sands and gravels. Direct recharge of the aquifers in tae area takes place where beds of sandstones crOp out at land surface. Stuart indicates that the formation is recharged directly near Grand Ledge and in some places along the Grand and Cedar Rivers and Sycamore Creek. The flow nets of the area (Figures 6 and 8) show that the aquifer is recharged from the Grand River in sub-areas E of Figure 6 and F of Figure 8. The pinching of piezometric contours and closeness of flow lines in sub—areas E and F and also the presence of sandstone outcrops and permeable drift (Jverlying'the sandstone along this section of the river indicate tflfie direct recharge into the aquifer. 36 The amount of recharge from the river can be obtained from these flow nets by using equation (9), Q : nf X T X h/ . _ “d The values of nf and h/ were taken directly from the flow nd net of each sub-area. Transmissibility for the sub-areas E and F was determined as the average transmissibility of the adjacent sub-areas. The transmissibility of sub-area E of Figure 6 is the average of the transmissibilities of sub—areas B and C of Figure 6. The transmissibility for the sub—area F of Figure 8 was determined from the average for sub-areas A and B of Figure 8. The results of the determination of re— charge from the Grand River for both sub-areas are shown in Table 7. Table 7.-—Determination of Recharge From Grand River Into Aquifer Subareas Number of Head Loss Transmissibility Recharge flow paths in feet in gallons per in gallons (nf) g day per foot (T) per day (Q) nd E (Figure 6) 22 10 13,673 3,008,060 F (Figure 8) 12 10 23,308 2,796,960 Recharge From Precipitation It was possible to estimate the quantity of water recharged to the ground water reservoir from precipitation by a study of the flow nets using the formula Q : TIL where Q = quantity of water in gallons per day crossing each piezometric contour. 36a -__ .4» g o \\ 4 ___ ___ o \ L _____ l acumen 4 \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ \ 0 ~ \ \\ OAVANAUGH \_ / \ \ \ m o x u x | o SANDHILL ' I O l 2 ml" I | 4 Scale Ana and In «tumbling “charge {tom 5* Plcnaflon - pluomomc contours Nofl’luomomc «Moon --.-- -_, Flow Ilnu ‘--—- - ‘-- FIGURE IO 37 T = transmissibility in gallons per day per foot I = hydraulic gradient, in feet per mile L = length of piezometric contour in miles. This method is based on the principle that the volume of water increases as it passes through successive piezometric contours. To determine the recharge in gallons per day per square mile, the difference in the quantities of water crossing each two contours, Q2 - Q1, is divided by the area A between the contours. Area ABEF (Figure 10) was used to estimate the recharge. This area is bounded by flow lines AE, BF which cross the piezo- metric contours at right angles. Using the above formula the amount of ground water moving under contours AB, CD, and EF can be determined. The hydraulic gradients, I, and the lengths of piezometric contours, L, were determined from Figure l0., A coefficient of transmissibility of 23,000 gpd/ft (the average T determined from l962 flow net) was used in all calculations. This value is also the average transmissibility determined by Stuart from pump tests. Table 8 shows the results; the average amount of re- charge is over 350,000 gpd/square mile which is equivalent to 7.6 inches of rain per year. Using the same principle, the amount of recharge was estimated in the western part of the recharge area. As shown in Table 9 the average amount of recharge in this section is over 100,000 gpd/square mile which is equivalent to 2 inches of rain per year. The above mentioned technique of recharge determina- tion is based on the following assumptions: (l) that there 38 is no significant discharge to streams or wells from the re- charge area; (2) that there is no recharge from streams into the recharge area; and (3) that transmissibility is constant throughout the recharge area. 39 Table 8.—-Determination of Recharge From Precipitation East of Recharge Area (Meridian Township) Length of Hydraulic Quantity Section Recharge contour gradient of water area A 02 - Ql Contours line L I Q = TIL Section (sq. g _______ (miles) (ft/mile) (gpd) miles) A gpd sq. mile AB ------ 0.86 20 3 5 600 9 ’ A800 1.1 372,18l CD ------ 1.4 25 805,000 , CDEF l.3 355,6l5 EF ------ 1.9 29 il,267,300 l Average 3 363,898 Table 9.—-Determination of Recharge From Precipitation in Western Part of Recharge Area (Delta Township) Length of Hydraulic Quantity Section Recharge contour gradient of water area A 02 - Ql Contours line L I Q = TIL Section (sq. ___—__— (miles) (ft/mile) (gpd) miles) A q 0 Cl sq. mile AB ------ 1.2 25 690,000 ABCD 0.39 117,940 1 CD ------ 1.3 25 736,000 GDEF 0.51 90,l96 EF ------ 1.2 29 782,000 Average l04,068 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Transmissibility The coefficients of transmissibility determined by flow net analysis are approximate values, but they show the areal variation in transmissibility. The 1945 flow net shows that the T ranges from 9,520 gpd/ft in the central part of the City of East Lansing to 21,784 gpd/ft in the north- western part of the City of Lansing. The 1962 flow net indicated a range in T from 16,880 gpd/ft in the northeastern part of the City of East Lansing to 37,156 gpd/ft in the Michigan State University well field in the southeastern part of the area. The differences in transmissibility determined from the 1945 and 1962 flow nets result in part from the fact that different areas are involved in the two flow nets. For example, the well fields used by Michigan State University and the City of East Lansing in 1945 are several thousand feet from the well fields Operating in 1962. The flow net of 1962 includes a larger area than the l945 flow net. It also should be noted that the 1945 flow net is based on data col- lected about 17 years ago and it is impossible to check the accuracy of all this data. The differences in transmissibility are due in part to the limitations of the flow net technique which provides only approximate answers as do all quantitative field hydrologic methods. 40 41 The differences in transmissibility of the Saginaw formation in the problem area are due to differences in the thickness of Saginaw sandstones or a difference in the permea- bility of the sandstones resulting from variations in the sand- shale ratio. A correlation of geologic and lithologic changes with changes in transmissibility has not been attempted in this study. Determining transmissibility by flow net analysis in— cludes large parts of the aquifer, and eliminates or minimizes considerably the effect of local irregularities. It also prevents the errors commonly made in pump test interpretation. It is concluded that the coefficients of transmissibility determined by flow net analysis are more representative for the whole area than the ones determined by pump test technique. Flow net analysis can be made by using existing data such as was available in Stuart's report of the Lansing area. Decline in Piezometric Surface The study showed that the piezometric surface has drOpped as much as 90 feet since 1945. Although the increased rate of pumpage has been the main factor in the decline of the piezometric surface, there have been other factors which may account for part of the decline. As is shown in Table l, the cumulative departure of precipitation has been -23.68 inches since 1945. In other words, precipitation has decreased 1.3 inches annually since 1945. This decrease in precipitation would have a detrimental effect on recharge to the aquifer which would result in decline of the piezometric surface. 42 The flow net analysis showed that in the section where the aquifer is directly recharged from the Grand River (Sub-area E of Figure 6 and subearea F of Figure 8), the decline of piezometric surface has not been significant. As a result of urban develOpment and industrial ex- pansion since l945, more ground water has been intercepted by industrial and private wells; thus, less water has been available to city wells. This has contributed to the decline in the piezometric surface as has the pumpage by the City of Lansing. In other words, the decline in the piezometric sur- face in the Lansing area has not been due only to pumpage by city wells. Figure 11 shows diagrammatically the gradual decline in piezometric surface with respect to interception of ground water by private and industrial wells in the area. The upper part of the aquifer has been dewatered in the central part of the cone of depression which has develOped in the Lansing area. The extent of dewatering could be determined from the relative position of the t0p of the aquifer with respect to the piezometric surface. This study was not made because of the lack of data. Recharge This study shows that the aquifer is recharged directly from the Grand River and indirectly from precipita— tion. Both the 1945 and the 1962 flow nets indicate that the river recharges the aquifer at the rate of about 3 million gallons per day. The recharge is induced as a result of the lowering of the piezometric surface below the water level in ”__A . . l i {:Pluomemc surfocgru. —,-—- ......... ——T— ————— r ————— 1-.....— Flow lines A-Hydrologic system-Natural conditions Lansing roll: B-Hydrologic system-Moderate withdrawal of ground water Industrial mus Township nus (gimme wells --- u ‘ ‘ C'Hydrologic system-Extensive ground water development DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTIONS SHOWING HISTORY OF DECLINE IN THE PIEZUVETRIC SURFACE FIGURE n 44 the river. Increased pumpage in the area has been the main factor in the decline of the piezometric surface. The area of recharge to the cone of depression from precipitation was determined by analyzing the pattern of flow lines. It is estimated that the area of recharge includes 120 square miles. This area is about 2.5 times the 46 square miles recharge area estimated by Stuart in 1945. The expansion of the recharge area is due to the gradual expansion of the cone of influence resulting from increased pumpage since 1945. According to calculations, the amount of recharge from preci- pitation is not uniform within the area of recharge. In the southeastern part of the area (Figure 10) the average recharge is estimated to be about 350,000 gpd/square mile (Table 7) which is equivalent to 7 inches of rainfall per year; on the other hand, in the western part of the recharge area, it is estimated that 100,000 gpd/square mile is recharged to the ground-water reservoir from precipitation. This is equivalent to 2 inches of rainfall per year. The difference in the rate of recharge in the two areas is believed to be a result of the difference in the permeability of the drift materials due to variation in the clay content. According to Stuart (1945), there are areas west of Lansing where sandstones are sealed from vertical recharge because of impermeable layers of clay and shale. Taking the average of the two figures, the effective recharge from precipitation is estimated to be 4.8 inches per year which is equivalent to 28 million gallons per day. 45 Considering the average daily discharge of 30 million gallons a day, it is concluded that discharge is almost balanced by recharge. Thus, if the present rate of withdrawal of ground water is kept constant, the cone of depression should not expand. If the future rate of ground water withdrawal exceeds its present rate, there will be further decline in piezometric surface in the Lansing area. Thus, increased pump— age will cause excessive dewatering of the aquifer and depletion of the ground water reservoir. For future deve10pment of ground water resources in the area, the well fields should be shifted in the areas where piezometric surface is high. Special atten- tion also should be given to development of glacial drift aquifers. The accuracy of quantitative analysis of ground water mentioned above is based on the accuracy of the data from which the piezometric contours were drawn. The quantitative determination of ground water will become very important in future deve10pment of ground water resources in the Lansing area if pumpage exceeds its present rate. The quantitative study of ground water is essential as it gives data on the safe yield of the aquifer with respect to pumpage. The safe yield of a water-bearing formation is the maximum rate at which water may be withdrawn without impairing the quantity or quality of the sUpply. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bennett, Robert R., and Meyer, Rex R., "Geology and ground- water resources of the Baltimore area": Dept. of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources, State of Maryland, pp. 98-110, 1952. Dott, Robert H., and Murray, Grover E., "Geological cross section of paleozoic rocks, central Mississippi to northern Michi— gan": AAPG, 1954. Ferris, John G., "Ground-water hydraulics": U.S. G. S. No. 28, 1955. Kelly, W. A., "Occasional papers on the geology of Michigan": Mich. Dept. of Conservation, Geological Survey Division Publication 40, pp. 155-218, 1940. Lane, A. C., Michigan Geological Survey Publications, 1901. Leverett, Frank and Taylor, "The Pleistocene of Indiana and Michigan": U. S. G. S. Mon. 53, pp. 239—240, 1915. Stuart, W. T., "Ground-water resources of the Lansing area, Michigan": Geological Survey Division, Dept. of Conser- vation, pp. 13—16, 1945. Winchell, A., "First biennial report of the progress of the Geological Survey of Michigan", 1861. 46 Table.--necorda of the vella whoa. Italic 47 It] to tho Table lavala were used to nah the general piazonazric up of the area c - cm 8 4 0 - land and gravel IS - landatone 51: - lbala C81 - Cain. a - eatiaated 180 - Land aurraca dati- D - Dona-tic II - Iunicipal 0.5.0.8. - U. 0. Geological Survey obumtion walla u - mutual-n Static Static water level 921 1 Location Di-tar Dapth vaul- Uae Elevation Log ele vat ion Huber (in) (ft) level above aaa belov level mu UL ({1} kn 2H Xflh- 16.1 Cedar St. Block 281, 10!. 25 829.1 150' u of Cedar, 50' s of Joy 5:. 20" 517' 62 (5/51/62) uses 855.) 5-20, 3 o c - b5. 511-295, 513-515, 53465. 38-577 1. 17-1 100' v of Logan, mm a minor 20" 120' 152.7 was 858.12 716 (5/31/62) 17-2 65- u or Verlindan, 50' s of Oaborn 12" L17' 1h9.6 was 872.72 725.12 (7/5/62) 19-1 SH, SH, lT' ll of Grand River on Waverly m 2" 87' 5.75 uses 851nm 828. (7/5/62) 25-1 200' I: or h'ancia St. 650- s of some. ' . um- ea. uses 82h.86 m. 21-1 150' a of Tovnaend St. 50' s. 014- m. m... ' u- »:o' 66 (ml/621 uses ewe 766- 22-1 150' U of Pennsylvania, 150' N of Grand Trunk an 558' 55 (5/51/62) uses 825.61. 769. mm 2100- v or larriaon 1900' n or m. nop- ' 10" h55' 85.51 was 855.16 770. (5/51/62) 26-2 120' 1: of A renal Rd., 50' a of amun 5:.“ 5" 115' 51' 1) 81:5 58' to Rock 33 81b. 2 u It. a z rear or Plant 8“ h25' 55.65 uses 8b9.2o Drift 80, I? rscord thfi. 55-275: 796- 28.1 09 or . (5/51/62) 512-287, ss--06 1-1 1500' n r Jon m. 600' z or 5 Haverly o y ' 5' 20m 2k.5h was 880.15 856. (5/51/62) 85 2g Infihn'LHDU1E 31-2 1500' E of Uaverly Rd” 200' II of Jolly Rd. 1h" “0' 19' 878' 859. (8/2/62) 25-1 0.5 mile S of Foreat, 200' H of Collega 5- W was 867.)“ 820. (8/21/62) 9-l 500' E of N Grand River, 100' N of River 15“ L0!.' 155 was 828.81 666. (5/51/62) 11-2 1601: Hood St” show a or Lake ran-1n. no" 1oo- r. of Hood 5:. h“ 211 26' n 885 859. ha 1" Ingnu-nermun )0-1 200' t of College Rd" )5 ailea S ’ For." Rd. "‘ 152' 50' (5/55) 58-1 not 155. Hiawatha Park, H Arbutua Dr. 930' l of Cavanaugh Rd" now a of Dobie Rd. 5" 277' 68' (2/62) D 951 c-25, 3-6o, c-1oo, sn-25o. , 55 58-277 865. ZO-h 5958 3. location 811., 75' E of lag-non, 5720' n o! at. nope 5' 180; to' (6/61) D 851 c-zo, 0-50, c-7o, ska-85', 58-180' 811. 6.1 6163 Pollard, 600' n of Birch Rev Dr.. 60' v of Pollard, Bait nan-in. 2" ll2' 15' D 858.21 6‘6' of cum; 8)“. 21-1 Taco-a 3111-. 2052 W Circle l36' 50' D 859 55' of Canine 829. 18-5 Back of n - no (I-c-pua) 8" 65' 858 775.’ 10-2 75' s or noun. Rd” 600' u or Bayonne Dan, 0.5 all: I: of Okeaoa ad. 2" 1ko' 18' D 852 100' of Coins 858. 11-2 100' s of Orlmdo, 250° 8 of Cornell Hake/62) a 860 857. 8-2 2000' s or mm mm 34., 100' - z of lac-don ad. 86' a 88k r98. (6/62) 1o-1 ' 1ho' a of Lake mm ad.. 565' l of mecca-11o Ava. ' 390 23.5' 11 8k? c-12b, 85-258, 8b-2L2. 33-590 825.5 (63/20/62) 18-1 Marble School - Ban Lanainc 5" 115' 57.5' was 8M.85 810. (5/51/62) 294 “0' I of mtt, 1160' l of Okoaol Road 1" 185' 20' (5/62) 867 c-19, s + 0-59. c-65, s o 0.11», an. 38-115, 33-185 28-1 550' I of Bennett Rd” 1160' I of on.» Road " 320' 50' 376 Drift 80 8563 48 Tabla-decor” of wells vhoee static levels were used to ah the general pine-trio a. or the area.--Cootinued static Cutie water level vaul- level Hell Location Blaster Depth below LID lleestioe no. elevation MIN" (13) (ft) (ft) above one __IL-LLL‘J— 1511: - 021111 5! 21: 22-1 180' u Aurelius 3:1,. 160' s of Holt Rd. 6" 192' 16° 885 56' of as. 869 25-2 1260' s of 1101: R6,, 600' z of [B 127 8" 5.1% 875 870 (5/11/62) 50-1 70' K of Pleasant River Dr., 815' z of Haverly 2" 65' 12' 875 aua1e at 10', a. to 25' 861 51-1 1500' a of Harper 110.. 1700' n or amnnburga Rd. 5' 1ho' 7' 895 52' to rock, 88 886 10-2 6155 Narlcot Dr., 500- s of! Miller Road. 1500- u or Aureliu- 2" 100- 51- 885 72' or (3. 851 6.1 5065 Piper Ave.. 75- u of mp", 550' u or 11-99 2" 100' 10' ’ 872 66' or as. 862 h-e 5900 5 Washington 118., Lo' 8 of Ida-humor. M. 2' 100' 6' 861 51-- of ca; 855 9-1 60W Calson Dr., 550' N off 'Jilloughby 2' 105' 15' 880 72- of a; 865 1"-1 2)?“ 5. Uashington 88., 1780' of! Hillougbby Rd. 2" 112' 21' 892 87' 0! 05; 871 10-5 7020 Aareliul 30.. 70' u or Aurelius 2" 105' 15' 876 57' of ca. 861 7-2 6208 Bishop Rd., 165' u of 14-99 5‘ 101v 15' 88b 5'» 0! an 869 0 10-1 6011 3. Cedar, 150- 1: or 9. Cedar 2" 112' 17' 87b 56' of a; 857 18-1 2172 cuben 118., 1500' I of Holt Rd. 2" 50' +2- 861 56' of as 865 15.2 2102 Hamilton 51., 1060' n of Holt Rd. 2" 120' 20' 888 61' of cs. 868 56-1 150- v of College Rdn 2000' I of Pryer Rd. 3" 70' 12' 891 82' of as; 8T9 11-1 2926 Aureliue 88., 800- s of Miller Flood 2‘ 100' 50' 88» b2' of ca; 853 7-1 2657 Frank 31.. 100' s of Bishop, 50' u of Frank 2" 100' 20' 876' W of a. 856 5-1 ko' H or am Rd. 8 of! 711-99, 1: of Washington, 500' E of Miller M. 2“ 95' 15' 870 62' or 055 855 k-1 650 Lafayett 31.. 500' E off S Cedar 2" ' 28' 885 86' of C35 557 \ Mil. 21 1'4 21-1 2201‘ Soy Rd., 2100' E of Service _ . . to Rock 922 Road” 30' .1 of Coy 5 16 958 29 0 28-1 K of Barnes on Eden 38., 350' 1" 0f .. 369 86' to Rock 959 Barnee, 160' E of Eden 5 IN 7 MI 1'4 ' 35-1 100' H of State 81.. 750' 5 °f .. 67' 2. 96“ 57' to Rock. Shale 962 011- ad. 5 1n 1»: 27-1 710' '-' of Jack-0r- Rd-n 5°' 5 0’ h“ . 968 207' to Roth. 58 952 Fitchburg Rd. 2.], 50' 'J of Eovley Rd., 2600' 5 0f ‘_ 26' 979 76‘ $8. 55 , Sb 955 Plaza 5 25 1*: .. )0. 977 125' of (:83 - 85 9" 19-1 1') miles E of Kelly Rd. 5 m 25 5-1 Junction 111-56 and #92 V “’39 0f .. on 20' 960 95' of 053. all shale 9"o intersection 3 52 27: 2'-' . 7-1 £1557 Barnes, 50' S of Barn". I>00 .. 51' 96) 33 at 55' 952 ‘d of Aurelius 5 1" 15 .. - 985 Rock at 57' 9” 11.1 100' 1: of aaynea, hoo' s of DeCsap 5 3 U" W , fi 2.1 50' E of Aurelius Rd” 50' 8 of .. 5M 8' 9M; Rock 50'. 55 9 Ferns Rd. 3 3-1 100' H of Aureliue, 5500' 8 0f _ 25. 9% 57' W R0“ 92’ Plane 5 89} 5. 896 20.1 In: 11:. ' 87} 15.1 150' a 8mm Rd” 20° " °‘ .. 110' 10' 881 90' of as Shoemsn R1. 2 20-1 250' E at Mex-101m 30.. 550' I 0' h, 250. ,0. 896 came to 105' 866 Sherwood Rd. 2: 1!: 22-1 60' S of Dansflllc Rd” 1280.13 8" 57- 975 9’8 of Clark Rd. In 1!. , 21.1 5500- u or Hest Branch 20., 780 8“ 300. 336 All sun. 866 a of Shenood 20. (8/22/62) 49 Table.--Records of the vells whose static levels were used to lake the general piezoaetric up or the man-continued Static Btstic Hell Diaaeter Depth water level Use Elevation W ester level Number Location (in) (ft) below LSD Olention (ft) shove sea level 1n} Ingham-Rural kl 1: 35-1 50' I of C and 0 RR, 250' E of Cor-Vin Rd. 160- 7' 866 c-70, 30-75, 38-150, sues-160 859 IN 21: 11-1 125' E of Maple 8t., 1200' B of Grand River Ave. 12" 178' 11° ll 89h 0m: 79- 885 MI 11‘. 56-1 60- s of I. Ntnu, 250- n or my: 3:. 8" 555- 2- above 868 Sec-55, 38-155, 321-1115, 511-250, 870 (1001' of 1.3-2H5, 311-575. sad-60, 13-1-60 puaphouse 29-2 100' u of 11.3. 16, 500- u of numey Rd. 515- 95' 89k 819 21: 21-1 100- z of Ferry Rd.. 1770- l of Shervood ad. 6" 280- 50' (5/61) 0 915 c-52, s-8Io, 511-255, 110-275. 885 58-285 1:: 214 29-1 1 mile a or Gale 94., 500- s of . sac-man k“ 187- Iso- 986 s-7o, 0-72, 38-170, 55-187, 906 38-188 50-1 1100- a of ‘n'averly 34., 500- s of seneme Rd. 150- 50' 950 Rock at 72- 920 111 117 28-1 1100' ‘4 or s f‘ity 1.1011, 500- S of Bellvue Rd., 750’ E of Russel St. 12‘ 225- b- h“ u 951 c-68, 5-76, 55-91 93:2 217 1'.- 25-1 100' U of Honey Rd... kooo' x of Rolfe ad. 5" 125- 2h- 959 h5- to Rock, shale 955 10-1 275‘ E of :ity Lilit, 520' I of M-56 6“ 17' 91k Rock at h5- 887 3-1 055' U. Colxlbia, 75' S of U Colxahis 2" 120' 12’ 912 900 5-1 965- n or a Com-61a St. 6" 180- 10.5- 1605 882 872 5-5 500- 1: of "efiar sq... 100- s of County Gravel Rd. 8“ 212- 205 e901 880 114 5. 26-1 .745, s of ms Station 10" 206- 18' 950 mm 55, 511-79 55-87, 511-122, 912 rock-157, ss-zoL, 38465-206 lflfihflflzflflifli 5.5 12 21-1 500' E of N. Ole-0s Rd., 2100' l or Leah Rd. 6" 250' W 916 nun-65, 38-69, 113-225, 38-250 869 5-1 75- 7 Bullet 83., 2900- n or sand “111 8i- 5' 176' 17' 888 c-5o, Sh-Gh, 38-125, 58060-155, 861 33-176 6-1 570- s or Tollege 38., 270- s of Sand 8111 .81. lo“ 95' 15' 331 71. of 083 82': 30-1 100' E of College, 595' R of Bsrper 50' 906 50' to rock 856 5L1 75- s or Harper 81., 5600' a of Okemos m. 5" 25' 898 Rock at 59-, 811-55 875 21-2 250' S of Holt Rd” 250‘ V of Okems Rd. '5‘ 560' 52' 916 85' of (:85 - all shale 861» Clinton County 5H 1H 2L1 100' l 0! Leah 88., 1550' H of Halline Rd. 5" 5' 878 no“ at 97- 871 61! 26 55-2 1211 u. Chadwick 118.. 15 sile ' u of LB 27 5" 258' 68' 862 c-56, 8-108, 0462-, 3-180, 79% 85-258 ”-1 300' U. Cutler 30., 950' U of 115-27 5" 200' 105' 818 c-25, 5.5)., 511-180, 311-200 775 19-1 5121 u. Pratt 30., 1600- u or Dewitt Rd. 5" 185' 16' 792 c-56, 51-95, 311-185, 35-195 776 55-1 255-5 Romd Lske 110., 1600' 1: or Human Rd. 8” 190' 31' 826 s-6h, c-102, 511-192 792 6! 51: 56-1 75' v of Airy-art m. 5‘ 250' 65' 856 c-5o. 0-73, c-80, 340-96, c-120, 792 846-155. 571-155 6! w 6-1 an, an 6" 176- 28- 760 c-6o, 340-70 -96. 0-102, 752 ' c-s-552, 35-176 “-1 898 6" 555- 21' 755- c-18, s-ha, c-121, 30-306, 751 55-555' 6H 5H 5b-1 6600 Cutler 110., 1500- 1: of rraneu 5' 220- 55- 859 3-100, su-205, 03-220 795 6n 2! 16-1 1100- n of Pratt 30., .15 Iile u of 03-27 5' 285- 27' 808 c-2o, o-bo, c-6o, 3-125, 38-1), 781 8h-19) 50 Talon-Records of the vells whose static levels vex-e used to sake the general piezooetric asp or the manomntinued Static Static water level water level Hell Location Dimter Depth belov LSD Use Elevation Log elevation "“5“? (in) (fl) ("-1 above sea level (rt) Clinton Countz.--Continued 617 2!! 13-1 5655 Green Rd., 5300' E of Krepps d- 5" 215' 60' 850 c-78, s-1b5, eta-155. c-166 770 55-5 75' u of LB 27, 2100- u of Cutler Rd. 2' 75- 16- 807 67- of ca; 791 71! 5" )6-1 50' N of Centerline Rd.. 5/h alle . u or Airport 114. 5" 500- 22' e750 cs. to 205-, Shale all the way 728 617 5.! 9-1 50- s. of Church 114. 5/h aile u of Francis 5" 215' ‘0' e750 0710 6H 1H 25-1 9075 a Round Lake 114.. £00- 1: of Bollister Rd., 150' l of Round Lake Rd. '0' 500- 25' 827 150- or 053 802 5'1 5” 52-1 200- 1' of Vacousta 71:1,, 5600- s 0? 03-15 1'" 505' 55' 860 Drift-256, rock-505 826 . 10-1 150' E of Francis Rd.. 20W' ll of nerblson 5" 213' 52' 857 825 5!! w 1L1 .2 nile n of Clark Rd. 5' 152- 26- 810 e 78:- 58 3d 7-1 100' S 0’ Hem-0n Rd- 5“ 155' 2" 815 C-56. 5-57. c-72. c-9o. 511-115. 789 1.5-117. Stu-150, 55-155 51¢ 25! 7-1 2&- E Airport 110., 520- s of am Rd. 5" 225- 86' 858 m- or 083 792 12-2 50' v of Her-bison Rd., 620- 1: or Grove Rd. 3" 200' 50' 856 C5: to 120' 796 517 1'; . 17-1 1160- x at Clark 6' 578- 55- 351. 5-25, 3-55, 5.5-), 540-151, 319 Sh-262, ss+sh-298. 15-506, 115-578, 511-578 11.1 .85 aile H or Peacock Rd. 12' 505- h5- 811 c-h5, Sec-70, c-75. 506-82, 88- 816 155. 511-197. 55-291. 511-296. $3- 595 511-590, 55-855. 511-857, sea-£90 52-1 900' E of 'J section line, 990' l of 3 "6110" 11M- 10‘ plunged 19' 855.2 Drift-122, sn-255, 55-210, 826 to “'0' art-557. 1.3-575, 68-975. Sta-725 5L1 100- u of Center 114., 260- s or State Rd. 2" 250' 15' 856 9‘" of C83 841 5.5- 211 51-1 :74, SH, .55 lile 7; or us 16 6" 195- 55- 0565 862.2 807 27-1 1569- Brooks Rd. 1700' I! of State as. ' h" 255- 67- 868 c-18, 0-56, c-5h, 0-108, 311-150, 801 35-250. 311-255 27.2 209- z of us 27 h' 265- 59- 858 coo-95. 0-106. Sta-215, 33-260 799 '0, 311-265 8 53.2 "216 Turner St. 2200' 8 of State Rd. ' 1.» 260- 1.5- 877 s-118, c-158, s-1k9, 511-185, 78h 55-262 1.; m r Dr.. DeVitt 2koo- s of ”It" 3" 190- 25- 816 c-56, s-72, 30-126, 511-165, 791 511-190 15-1 East end of ‘hlinhrook Dr. 0.5 :11e z of ,5 27 u- 199- 16- 829 c-28, 0-68, c-85, 5-95, c-115, 815 38-199 5': 1‘ 22-1 575- s of Stoll Rd. 950- z of Center Rd. ' 8" 325' 25' 858 855 T; 29 880' 21-1 Theresa Ave. S of Clark Rd. 520- u of turner ' 5" 287- 55- 860 122- to rock, as 805 Eaton Count; HEEL-.2 MI W 10.1 SE: RE, lw' u at (3'1"! Mel B 121 )9 6 ‘ ile R of ind! ' ' ~ ' ‘l a 3“ (5/51/62) was 855.99 816 12-1 31:. 5.4, 150- u of Ribbin 24.. ' N rs nu 5" 581' 50' 55° ° “1 (5/51/62) was 861.91 782 15-1 51: s: 650- u or can: 500- I of’U St. Joe ' 5" 55' (V62) 362 397 2k-1 ho- :- Ht. 8 690- v of us 27 End 78 0‘" 12' 585- 70- 820 c-75, 38-113 800 (fill/62) 1h-1 6525 w. Saginaw, 75- s of Saginav h' 205- ' by 865 120- of on 818 10-h 50- u or u. Saginfl h“ 151- 15- 851 110- of a. 826 15-2 60' z of Canal Rd. 2" 180' 25- 875 88- of a. 81:9 51 Table.--Records of wells whose static levels were used to asks toe general piexoaetric up of the area.--Continued Static Static water level water level Hell Location Di-stsr Depth below 1813 Use Elevation Lac elevation Ember (in) (ft) (ft) above sea level (ft) Eaton county - Deni. Msthp-continusd . 211 In: 8-1 150- s of Island m, 500' z or 31 Pass 13 27 3" 35- 8- 888 noel: at 25' 880 25.1 150- s of Clinton rran, 960- 2 of terry Rd. 5" 150' 55' 952 Rock at 55' . Goals 897 h-1 500- s of us 27 5" 92' 51' 915 can to 72- 882 21-1 520' 8 of Clinton Trail, 120' I of Hand-rs M. 10" 500' 12- 90h 340-20, 0-2h, s-5h, 55-58, 892 311-59, 334611-68, 511-72, 55-158, 1111-11-0 211 7.: 53kh .5 111112 I of Carnal. 5W' 1: 0! ' luck 81.. 10" 502- h- 860 540-20, 311-52, aard rock-72, 856 511-95, ass-150', 80488-176, 811-250. Mix-5C2 52-1 75- s of Clinton rra11, 0.1 an a of lorsan 280' 1.0- e920 250' to rock 880 5-1 155- z of Canal. 114., 200- s of 11118111» 5" 120- 52' 921 Rock at 90- 889 21-1 100- U of Canal Rd" 1900' I Petrieville 1- 180- 56- 909 Rock .1 120-, .11 shale 875 25—1 100' H of Waverly, 1200' I of Bunker k" 120- 51v 910 Rock at 70- .11 1.3 876 9-1 100' 8 of Columbia, 920' E of cum-1 5" 51- 905- 85- of 05¢ - .11 55 below 87- 111 511 6-1 600' z of Royston, 80' S of . 5 mints m. 70- 5' 896- Rock 1.5- 891 7-1 60- n or smu, 1500- u of u Royston 269' 50' 950 Rock 158' 880 111 1.- 27-1 1900- u of Coutl no” 50' n of aunt Hwy 5" 100' 16- 951 Rock «'70- 915 5! 5- 5-1 00 u of (trait: Rd., 800- n of Grand River 10" 5' 857.5 Green 511, 1125', Plugged back 852 to koo- 16-1 8959 E. Uinxisor Rwy” 550' U of 0.11.1 Rd. 2" 110- 22- 865 cs; to 82' 8L1 2-1 1100- 1! Hart 21., “n25- 1: off Crietz 8' 150' 20- 8&1 72- or 05¢ 821 7-1 ho- 1‘. of Rontm, 15ko- s or 2111. wood Hwy 2" 180- W 905 119- of cs; 865 In: 5‘; 15-1 “-51 u. 51. Joe 2“ 00 20' 897 81-- of 03¢ 877 1h-2 200- s. of Center eec 1h 5" 595- 58- 862 8011 7-1 s :b‘11v1s1on, E of Grand beds-e 5" at around 803 80“ level 26-1 300- u or mun 110., 500- H of us 27-78 8' 282- 5|:- 87h Rock #71. 311-255, sass-282' 8m 91-1 80- n or St. Joe mm, 670- a of Brandbent 5" 175- 12' 858 110211 197-511 856 5" 65' 55-]. 2nd place H of Shay-tun Rd. on Kinsel 555' 130' 9’50 270' to rock, all grey shale 800 17-1 5 side of 111.11 110., 5/h ails n of Vernontville Rd. 267- 71- 880 Rock at 221- 809 27: 5..- 5-1 150' H of Chester, 1900' 3 of Kinssl 5'- 150- 5b- 890 Rock 56-, 81:1 856 55-1 60- u of 11.78, 1900- s of 5 Points . 1m. 5“ 11‘5- 6' 890 80' to rock, 38 88a 25-1 200- s of Carlisle m. 2900- v or 11.78 5" 205- 30- <722 100' to rock 882 111 614 27-1 200- s or 3.11 M. 1 an 11 or She ' r 100' e- 860 Rock .1 15-. 1.5 852 18 In: 5-1 200- u of 26 m1. 114., 1/2 ails s of Baseline 5" 165- 80' 978 Rock at 118-, sme 958 2h-1 260- u of Comty line It" 92- 59- 966 Rock .1 W, shale and scale as 927 211 39 £80 580 55-5 - 1!: Hood at. extend - 3: Rich 12" 501' e5.5' 856 940-26, 011-90, 30-166, 511-256, 860 asset-8, 13-250, 38-265, 13-269, 83-230. 1.3-295. 311-501 51! ha “-1 £250 Pinch M, 1100' 11 of Johnson m1. 5' 150' 20' 875 72- of as. 855 20-1 5808 benton 110., Charlotte 5'- 500- 60' 900 c-7b, 0-79, 51-500 8&0 21! bu 55-1 250- s of Clinton Trail, 500- H of east sectional line 5' 500' 95' 878 33) 52 Table.--Records of wells whose static levels were used to gate the general pierc-etric up of the ans.--C0ntinue