REMOTE STORAGE PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE APR 0 1 2018 CAN THE BIG BAYOU BE SAVED? WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPRING LAKE WATERSHED, OTTAWA AND MUSKEGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN By Theresa Elaine Lamott Lauber A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fiIlfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Zoology 1999 ABSTRACT CAN THE BIG BAYOU BE SAVED? WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPRING LAKE WATERSHED, OTTAWA AND MUSKEGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN By Theresa Elaine Lamott Lauber Spring Lake is a SZS-hectare river-mouth lake, lying in a subwatershed of the much larger Grand River Watershed. Appreciated as a resource for recreation, irrigation, and business uses, the scenic eutrophic lake has been plagued during the past several summers with large algal blooms of Microcystis and dense mats of (‘erarophyllum and Rhizoclonium. Through a resident survey, 62% of the respondents found the water quality of the lake as unacceptable. Seasonal water and phosphorus budgets completed in this study suggest that the tributaries, septic systems, and lawn fertilizer runoff were the largest external phosphorus loadings, respectively contributing 44%, 28%, and 23% of the total phosphorus inputs from October to April. From May to September, the largest loadings were again from septic systems (86%) and tributaries (10%). In order to reduce the nuisance algal blooms and rootless aquatic plants, lake nutrient concentrations must be lowered by reducing all external nutrient loadings by implementing best management practices in the watershed to control non-point source runoff. Expanded public education in lake ecology will enhance stewardship for the lake ecosystem and aid in the reduction of nutrients. Because nitrogen may be co-limiting with phosphorus, the development of a nitrogen budget is also recommended. Copyright by Theresa Elaine Lauber 1999 DEDICATION To my community neighbors, that we may always strive to maintain, protect, and restore the natural community around us, so that future generations may also enjoy its aesthetical, recreational, and economical benefits. This study is dedicated to Leon Langeland, a county commissioner and lake board member who died unexpectedly this spring and who truly was a community steward. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Spring Lake Watershed study was a large undertaking and would not have been possible without the help of many people. I want to thank my family and friends for their encouragement and participation in my research and studies throughout the past three years. Thank you to my advisor, Dr. Donald Hall, who was ever SO patient and encouraging and to my other committee members, Dr. Patricia Soranno and Dr. Stephen Hamilton for steering me in the necessary directions when graduate stresses almost became unbearable. Thank you to all who helped with field work: Michelle Carlson, Sarah Best, Sally Birkam, Pam Brown, Colin Brown, Kathy Evans, Steve Churchly, Jon Reichardt, the Kotecki family and my family, Tom, Jan, Jeff, Derek, Matt, Jessica and Emily. Thank you to Philip VanGennep for lending me his family’s global positioning system receiver. Thank you to Johnston Boiler for printing all of the resident surveys and to Joyce and Dawn for helping in the distribution process. Thank you to Matt and Rochelle Kotecki for entering the endless stream of data into spreadsheets. The R. B. Annis Water Resources Institute at Grand Valley State University graciously granted me access to their laboratory and equipment for the water analysis and produced the excellent maps. Thank you to Dr. Rick Rediske and all his laboratory assistants for their patience with an outsider in their lab and to Kurt Thompson and Ramona for the maps. Thank you to Dr. Mark Luttenton for use of his own laboratory and fluorometer and expertise in algae and aquatic plants. And thank you to Lana Brock for all her help in connecting the loose ends and finding the correct pieces. To the numerous residents, neighbors, and fiiends who stopped for a conversation and gave encouraging words, thank you. To my readers who offered advice on writing this document for the general public, Kathy Przybytek, Matt Brower, and Chris Rouech, thank you. Thank you to the lake board for your dedication and witty words of wisdom to brighten my day. Lastly thank you to all of the projects’ financial supporters: the City of Ferrysburg, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Fruitport Township, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, Michigan State University, North Bank Community Fund, Spring Lake Area Resident Association, Spring Lake Township, Village of Fruitport, Village of Spring Lake and the Muskegon Conservation District, the study’s financial agent. vi PREFACE In thought this study began many years ago when I and others recognized the need for water quality data for the Spring Lake Watershed. Three years ago when opportunities arose, I returned to school in order to pursue a dream of teaching. My main prerequisite of deciding upon a Master’s research topic was that I wanted my research to be directly applicable and useful to my community. As my initial hope and thoughts materialized into reality, my study evolved into the community ’5 study, possessive through funding, participation, and fiIture stewardship. About four years ago, large algal blooms occurred on the lake to the dismay of lake residents and visitors. Coinciding also with this Study, the highly visible blooms prompted the formation of the Lake Board of Spring Lake and even coverage by the area newspapers and television stations. The formation of the lake board will enable the community to be represented in decision making through their representatives to address the water quality problems. Although mirroring the formation of the aquatic plant committee in the 19505 organized due to nuisance algae and aquatic plants, the lake board has state granted power to act upon their decisions to improve the water quality of the lake. This study will provide the research and management suggestions to the lake board, enabling them to make more knowledgeable decisions for our community. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................... . ................................ xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5 Pre-European Settlement ................................................................................. 6 European Settlement - 1930 ............................................................................. 9 1930 - 1970 ...................................... . ............................................................... 11 1970 - Present ................................................................................................. 12 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER I: HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................... 14 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 14 GEOLOGICAL FORMATION .......................................................................... 15 WATERSHED AND LAKE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... 17 Recent Formation ................................................................................ 17 The Connection Between the Grand River and Spring Lake ............ 18 Mixing Waters of the Grand River and Spring Lake ........................ 18 Water Levels ........................................................................................ 23 Tributaries and Other Lake Characteristics ...................................... 25 WATER BUDGET ........................................................................................... 29 Scenario 1: No Net Groundwater Exchange ....................................... 32 Scenario 2: Measured Grand River Exchange ................................... 33 Scenario 3: Stormwater Runoff, Groundwater, and Water Budget Intervals ............................................................................................... 34 Spring Lake’s Water Year ................................................... . ............... 38 Water Residence Time ......................................................................... 4O RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 4 1 RECOMMENDATION LIST ............................................................................ 42 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 2: WATER QUALITY ............................................................................... 44 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 44 TROPHIC STATUS INDEX ............................................................................. 44 SECCHI DEPTH AND CHLOROPHYLL A ..................................................... 46 TEMPERATURE, OXYGEN, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAKE ............................................................................................................... 52 NUTRIENTS .................................................................................................... 56 NITROGEN ...................................................................................................... 56 PHOSPHORUS ................................................................................................. 58 viii Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake .............................. 59 Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake’s Tributaries and the Grand River ................................................................................... 62 PHOSPHORUS BUDGET ................................................................................ 66 Lake Storage Mass ............................................................................... 68 Tributary Loading ............................................................................... 68 Atmospheric Loading .......................................................................... 70 Stormwater Loading ............................................................................ 71 Septic System Loading ......................................................................... 72 Waterfowl Loading .............................................................................. 72 Lawn Fertilizer Loading ...................................................................... 76 Residuals for the Phosphorus Budget ................................................. 77 LAKE MACATAWA: ANOTHER LOCAL RIVER-MOUTH LAKE ............... 82 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 84 RECOMMENDATION LIST FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION ......................... 86 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 88 CHAPTER 3: PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE IN THE WATERSHED ......................... 90 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 90 WOODY PLANTS: THE TREES ..................................................................... 91 ALGAE ............................................................................................................. 92 ALGAE, ZOOPLANKTON, AND ZEBRA MUSSELS ..................................... 97 AQUATIC PLANTS AND MACRO ALGAE ................................................... 98 FISH, TURTLES, AND WATERFOWL ......................................................... 108 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 109 RECOMMENDATION LIST .......................................................................... 111 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 113 CHAPTER 4: WATERSHED USES AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESIDENTS ................................................................................................. ....... 115 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... l 15 CURRENT WATERSHED BENEFITS AND LAND USES ........................... 115 LAND USE AND CHLOROPHYLL MODEL ................................................ 124 RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS AND THEIR USES OF THE LAKE ................. 124 RECOMMENDATION LIST .......................................................................... 130 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER 5: CAN THE BIG BAYOU BE SAVED? ................................................. 133 SAVED FROM NUISANCE ALGAL BLOOMS? .......................................... 133 SAVED FROM NUISANCE AQUATIC PLANTS? ....................................... I33 SAVED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE GRAND RIVER? .......................... 134 SAVED FROM FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF LAND AND WATER USES? .............................................................................................. 13 5 SUMMARY OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, PRIORITIES, AND RISKS .................................................................................................... 135 ix APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY METHOD AND MATERIALS METHOD AND MATERIALS ........................................................................ 148 Water Levels ....................................................................................... 148 Water Budget ..................................................................................... 148 Lake Volumes ..................................................................................... I49 Precipitation ....................................................................................... 1 50 Tributaries .......................................................................................... 150 Evaporation ........................................................................................ 1 5 5 Grand River Exchange ....................................................................... 156 Residuals ............................................................................................. 157 Seasonal Water Budget ...................................................................... 157 Water Budget Error ........................................................................... 158 Stormwater ......................................................................................... 1 59 APPENDIX B: WATER QUALITY METHODS AND MATERIALS METHODS AND MATERIALS ..................................................................... 162 Lake and Tributary Water Sampling Regime .................................. 162 Sample Processing .............................................................................. 163 Field Measurements ........................................................................... 163 Water Analyses ................................................................................... 163 Statistics and Graphing ..................................................................... 164 Trophic Status Index .......................................................................... 164 Phosphorus Mass Budget Estimates .................................................. 169 Low and High Estimates for Phosphorus Budget ............................. 172 Loading from Atmospheric Deposition .............................................. 173 Tributary Loading ............................................................................... 173 Stormwater Runoff Loading ............................................................. 175 Waterfowl Phosphorus Loading ........................................................ 175 Septic Systems Loading ...................................................................... 177 Lawn Fertilizer Loading .................................................................... 178 Loading from Sediments .................................................................... 179 APPENDIX C: PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE IN THE WATERSHED METHODS AND MATERIALS METHODS AND MATERIALS ..................................................................... 197 Aquatic Macrophyte Survey .............................................................. 197 Phytoplankton Sampling ................................................................... 198 Zooplankton Sampling ....................................................................... 199 Fish Survey ......................................................................................... 200 Zebra Mussels ..................................................................................... 200 APPENDIX D: WATERSHED USES AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESIDENTS METHODS AND MATERIALS METHODS AND MATERIALS ..................................................................... 219 Watershed Land Uses ........................................................................ 219 Lake Shoreline Type .......................................................................... 219 Resident Survey ................................................................................. 219 Resident Survey Cover Letter ........................................................... 221 Resident Survey Questionnaire ......................................................... 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 239 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1: Drains of the Spring Lake Watershed ............................................................. 17 2: Characteristics of Spring Lake and its Watershed ........................................... 26 3: Seasonal Water Budget Estimates for Spring Lake (x 105 m3) ........................ 31 4: Summary of Water Budget for Each Sampling Interval for the Spring Lake Watershed .......................................................................................................... 36 5: Water Quality Averages and Trophic Status Indices of Spring Lake ............... 46 6 : Summary of Total Phosphorus Budget for Spring Lake (a positive number indicates a gain of phosphorus to the lake, whereas a negative number indicates a loss of phosphorus from the lake) ...................................................................... 67 7: Summary Of Recommendations for Spring Lake’s Water Quality ................... 136 A1: Status and Details of Major Drains in the Spring Lake Watershed .............. 143 A2: The Grand River Water Levels at Grand Haven (m, IGLD) (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) ................................................................................................... 144 A3: Mean Water Levels for Spring Lake (m) .................................................... 145 A4: Stream Discharges (m3/sec) for Discrete Dates (6) and Total Discharge Volume for Intervals (m3) ................................................................................. 146 A5: Calculations for Seasonal Water Budget .................................................... 147 A6: Lake Strata Volumes and Uncorrected Total Lake Volumes ..................... 150 A7: 1997 Precipitation at Muskegon County Airport (inches, T=trace) ............ 153 A8: 1998 Precipitation at Muskegon County Airport (inches, T=trace) ............ 154 A9: Regressions Utilized in Water Budget Calculations ................................... 155 A10: Monthly Pan Evaporation and Spring Lake Evaporation Estimates ......... 156 Al 1: Error Limits and Volumes from Water Budget Components (x 105 m3). 158 xii A12:StormWater Volume Estimates for Spring Lake ........................................ 160 B1: Water Quality Laboratory Methods and Equipment .................................... 165 B2: Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River (mg/l) ..................................................................................................... 166 B3: Total Dissolved Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River (mg/l) ..................................................................................................... 167 B4: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake (mg/l) ............................ 170 B5: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Grand River (mg/l) ...................... 171 B6: Total Phosphorus Concentrations and Weighting Factors for Stratified Sampling Days in Spring Lake ......................................................................... 172 B7: Total Phosphorus Concentrations of Spring Lake Tributaries (mg/l) ......... 174 B8: Calculations for Phosphorus Loadings from Waterfowl on Spring Lake ..... 177 B9: Calculations of Phosphorus Release from the Sediments in Spring Lake ..... 180 BIO: Ammonium Concentration in Spring Lake and the Grand River (mg/1) ..... 181 B11: Nitrate Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River (mg/l) ........... 182 B12: Chlorophyll 0 Concentrations of Spring Lake and the Grand River (pig/1). 183 B13: Secchi Depths of Spring Lake Sites, Lake Average and the Grand River (meters) ........................................................................................................... 185 B14: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH of Stahl Bayou in Spring Lake ....................................................................................... 186 B15: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH at the Spring Lake Sampling Site in Spring Lake .................................................................. 187 B16: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH in Smith Bayou in Spring Lake ..................................................................................... 188 B17: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH at Prospect Point in Spring Lake ........................................................................................ 189 318: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH in Petty’s Bayou in Spring Lake ....................................................................................... 191 xiii B19: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH in Jerusalem Bayou in Spring Lake ...................................................................................... 192 B20: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH at the Fruitport Sampling Site in Spring Lake ............................................................ 193 B21: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Specific Conductivity and pH in the Grand River ..................................................................................................... 194 B22: Alkalinity of Spring Lake and the Grand River (mg CaCO3/l) ................... 195 C1: Algae list for Spring Lake and the Grand River .......................................... 201 C2: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence and Frequency Counts in Jerusalem Bayou .............................................................................................................. 203 C3: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence and Frequency in Stahl Bayou, Spring Lake ................................................................................................................ 204 C4: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence and Frequency Counts in Petty Bayou ..... 205 C5: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence & Frequency Counts in Smith Bayou ....... 207 C6: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence & Frequency Counts in Main Spring Lake ................................................................................................................ 209 C7: Aquatic Plant and Algae Frequency Percentages in Spring Lake ................ 215 D1: 1978 Land Use Acreage in Spring Lake Watershed ................................... 217 D2: 1992-1997 Land Use Acreage in Spring Lake Watershed .......................... 217 D3: Acreage Changes in Land Use from 1978 to 1992-1997 in Spring Lake Watershed ....................................................................................................... 218 D4: Resident Answer Frequencies for the Spring Lake Watershed Survey ........ 231 xiv LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1: Spring Lake Watershed Location ..................................................................... 8 2: Cross-sectional diagram of the Grand River and Spring Lake with its inputs and outputs of water (not to scale) ............................................................................ 14 3: Time-Depth Diagram of Water Temperatures for Spring Lake at the Spring Lake Sampling Site (Celsius) .............................................................................. 19 4: Time-Depth Diagram of Water Temperatures for the Grand River (Celsius). . .. 19 5: Time-Depth Diagram Of Dissolved Oxygen for Spring Lake Sampling Site (mg/l) ............................................ . .................................................................... 21 6: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for the Grand River Site (mg/l) ..... 21 7: Stage Levels of the Grand River, Spring Lake and Lake Michigan (m) ........... 24 8: Map of Sampling Locations in the Spring Lake Watershed ............................. 28 9: Hypsograph of Spring Lake ........................................................................... 29 10: Percentages of Seasonal Averages of Water Inputs and Outputs for Spring Lake ................................................................................................................... 31 11: Scenario 3 Percentages of Inputs (I) and Outputs (0) for the Spring Lake Water Budget, W = Winter, S =Summer ............................................................. 38 12: Cumulative Volumes from Water Budget Intervals from l3Aug97-Oct98 ...... 39 13: Secchi Depths in Spring Lake and the Grand River (meters) .......................... 49 14: Chlorophyll a Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River (,ug/l) ....... 49 15: Chlorophyll 0 Concentrations of Water Layers in Spring Lake (pg/l) ............. 50 16: Relationship of Logarithms of Chlorophyll a(ug/1) to Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River ............................................ 51 17: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for the Fruitport Sampling Site ........... 53 I8: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for the Fruitport Sampling Site...53 19: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for Prospect Point site (Celsius) .......... 54 20: Time-Depth Diagram Of Dissolved Oxygen for Prospect Point Site (mg/1) ...... 54 21: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for Jerusalem Bayou (Celsius) ............. 55 22: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for Jerusalem Bayou (mg/1) ......... 55 23: Box Plots of Total Phosphorus Concentrations at the Spring Lake Sampling Sites, May 1997-October 1998 (mg/1) ................................................................. 60 24: Box Plots of Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Water Layers of Spring Lake, May 1997 - October 1998 ......................................................................... 61 25: Time Series of Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Water Layers of Spring Lake (mg/l) ........................................................................................................ 62 26: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Grand River, Spring Lake, and its Tributaries .......................................................................................................... 63 27: Seasonal Means of Total Phosphorus Concentrations with one Standard Error for the Grand River, Spring Lake and its Tributaries (mg/l) ................................. 64 28: Means of Total Phosphorus Concentration with one Standard Error of Mean for May I997-October 1998 for the Grand River, Spring Lake and its Tributaries (mg/l) ................................................................................................................. 64 29: Total Phosphorus Loadings of Tributaries from Storm Event of July 8, 1997 ........................................................................................................ 70 30: Areas Serviced by Municipal Sanitary Sewers and Septic Systems in the Spring Lake Watershed ................................................................................................. 75 31: Stacked Areas of Algae Relative Abundance in Spring Lake .......................... 95 32: Stacked Areas of Algae Relative Abundance in the Grand River .................... 95 33: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls on Spring Lake, Northern Section .............................................................................................. 101 34: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls in Spring Lake, Middle Section ................................................................................................. 103 35: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls in Spring Lake, Southern Section .............................................................................................. 105 36: Relative Frequency of the Ten Most Abundant Aquatic Plants and Macro- Algae of Spring Lake ........................................................................................ 106 37: Municipality Percentages in Spring Lake Watershed .................................... 1 16 38: 1978 Land Use in Spring Lake Watershed (hectares) ................................... 119 39: 1992-1997 Land Use in Spring Lake Watershed (hectares) .......................... 119 40: Map of 1978 Land Uses in the Spring Lake Watershed ................................ 121 41: Map of 1992-1997 Land Uses in the Spring Lake Watershed ....................... 123 42: Percentage of Respondents’ Answers on Impairments and Problems About Spring Lake ...................................................................................................... 126 43: Percentage for Highest Rankings for Causes of Problems on Spring Lake from Resident Survey ................................................................................................ 128 A1: Soil types of the Spring Lake Watershed .................................................... 142 xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In West Michigan, Spring Lake is the big bayou of the Grand River and is a 525-hectare (1,298 acre) drowned river-mouth lake lying in a 13,412-hectare (33,141 acre) watershed. With 75% of its lands in Muskegon County and 25% in Ottawa County, the Spring Lake watershed is composed of 11 municipalities, of which Fruitport Township and Sullivan Township represent the majority of the watershed land uses. Only five of the municipalities share the benefits of shoreline property: the village of Spring Lake, Spring Lake Township, Village of Fruitport, Fruitport Township, and City of Ferrysburg. The lake has been plagued with algal blooms and dense mats of aquatic plants for the past several summers. As discovered from a survey, 62% of the watershed residents and 83% of the lakeshore residents find the lake water quality unacceptable and blame the problems on leaching septic systems, water exchange with the Grand River, lawn runoff, and industrial discharges. My research identified the sources of nutrients contributing to the increased algal growth as coming primarily from the tributaries, septic systems, and lawn fertilizer. Research conclusions and recommendations: 0 Water inflow and outflow from Spring Lake is seasonally dynamic. During the months from October to April, the lake received 95% of its water from the tributaries and 25% from precipitation. The mean water residence time for the lake during this period was 4.9 months. From May through September, water sources were from the tributaries (87%) and precipitation (13%). Summer water residence time averaged 11.2 months. From October through April, water loss from evaporation was 5% and during the summer season evaporative loss was 24% of the lake volume output. The volume of groundwater exchange is unknown and its quantification is recommended for future studies. Water exchange between the Grand River and Spring Lake is most likely influenced by water inputs from the watershed, water temperature, and wind. Similar water temperatures between the Grand River and Spring Lake, which lessen potential mixing barriers, occurred four times out of the 17 monitoring dates. Although some mixing does take place, the overall effects Of intruding waters of the Grand River on Spring Lake are probably not large. Future research is recommended to quantify the importance of this potential source of water. The lake is eutrophic, nutrient-rich, with shallow water clarity depths (Secchi depths), and high phosphorus, nitrogen, and algal concentrations. Average lake clarity depths were 1.1 meters for the summer and 2.0 meters for the winter. Annual concentration means in the lake were 0.08 mg/l for total phosphorus, 0.25 mg/l for nitrate, and 40 [lg/I for chlorOphyll a. A molarity ratio of nitrogen to phosphoms of 11:1 suggests that nitrogen and phosphorus are potentially co- lirniting nutrients for algal growth. Although a nitrogen budget was not completed for this study, it is recommended due to its potential role in co-limitation. Seasonal phosphorus budgets suggest that during October to April: the tributaries, septic systems, and lawn fertilizer respectively contributed 44%, 28%, and 23% of the total phosphorus inputs. From May to September, the largest loadings were septic systems (86%) and tributaries (10%). Although internal loading of phosphorus may be occurring, no in-lake management techniques to reduce this loading are recommended until a nitrogen budget and nutrient limitation/dilution experiments are completed. Otherwise, expensive management techniques may be misdirected and wasteful. Aquatic plants cover approximately 27% of the surface area of the lake and provide habitat for aquatic organisms. Although this amount of coverage is good for fisheries, some nuisance plants, Ceratophyllum and Rhizoclonium, do exist and hinder recreation. The wetlands beyond the perimeter roads of the lake were not included in this study and need to be documented for plant and wildlife Species because wetlands are important for water quality. Because 79% of watershed residents surveyed pinpointed increased algae and aquatic plants as a water quality problem, the management of aquatic plants is important. To reduce the blooms of the nuisance blue-green algae, Microcystis, external loadings of nutrients need to be reduced. Best management practices in the watershed, including connecting to the municipal sewer system, reducing fertilizer use, developing buffer strips, and managing stormwater are recommended. Residents are encouraged to rake the dense aquatic plant mats of Ceratophyllum and Rhizoclonium from the water and to practice other management techniques which include controlling runoff into the lake, composting away from the shoreline, and using non-phosphorus fertilizer and detergents. Forests (6,355 hectares) are the largest land cover in the watershed and are known to contribute relatively low phosphorus concentrations in runoff water. Residential area (1,990 hectares) and crop land (1,909 hectares) are known to contribute DJ higher concentrations of phosphorus in their runoff. The monitoring of land use plans and changes are recommended through the development of a watershed-wide land use committee. A watershed resident survey revealed that knowledge of lake ecology is marginal, but 60% of the respondents wanted to know how to minimize their impacts on the watershed. Expansion of public education opportunities is recommended as an essential factor for the long-term management of the Spring Lake watershed, and include programs for continued lake and stream monitoring. INTRODUCTION Historically known as the Big Bayou of the Grand River, Spring Lake is situated on the border of Muskegon and Ottawa counties in central West Michigan. Its watershed is 134 square kilometers (52 square miles) and its waters are collected in its basin, Spring Lake (Figure 1). The watershed covers Fruitport Village, Fruitport Township, and parts of Sullivan Township, Egleston Township, Crockery Township, Ravenna Township, Spring Lake Township, Moorland Township, City of Norton Shores, City of F errysburg, and Spring Lake Village. The Spring Lake Watershed is actually a subwatershed of the much larger Grand River Watershed, which is 14,431 square kilometers (5,572 square miles) (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1970). Prior to this study, water quality data for the Spring Lake Watershed were very limited, consisting of only two single samplings in 1967 and 1981 by the state, and periodic measurements since 1986 of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and Secchi depths by participants aboard the R. B. Annis Water Resources Institute / Grand Valley State University’s research vessels. This lack of data and the belief of many people that the lake’s water quality is unacceptable provided the impetus for this study. The lake’s water quality problems were commonly blamed on the Grand River, which connects with Spring Lake between the City of F errysburg and Spring Lake Village by way of a dredged channel. Therefore in this study, the Grand River’s influence upon Spring Lake is one of the topics that will be addressed along with these objectives: fl Assess the current water quality of Spring Lake and its controlling factors. 2. Assess the watershed residents’ perceptions and attitudes about Spring Lake and its uses. 3. Suggest management actions for water quality improvement. The water quality of Spring Lake is influenced by historical changes in the land use and practices in the watershed. In order to understand what influences have driven the changes in Spring Lake, the past needs to be revisited. The following historical overview summarizes the major changes that affected the Spring Lake Watershed during four specific periods: pre—European, European settlement to 1930, 1930 to 1970, 1970 to present time. Pre-European Settlement Similar to the Muskegon and White Rivers, the Grand River and its bayous (including Spring Lake) were areas of diverse habitats for many different plants, fishes, animals, and birds. The Native American tribes of the Sac, Fox, Kickapoo, Muscotan, Chippewa, Pottawotamie, and Ottawa fished, hunted, and farmed in the area. Although they used seasonal grass burnings to control weeds (Lillie 1980), the Native Americans’ impact upon the watershed did not seem to drastically alter the Grand River Valley, because old growth forests and many animals existed abundantly when European explorers arrived (Lillie 1980). The Native Americans’ population density and cultural impacts on the Spring Lake Watershed are thought to be minimal. FIGURE 1: Spring Lake Watershed Location ........ FIGURE 1 "1 Spring Lake _ Watershed Project l Location Base Map 3 ,. «A» f ’ N A Legend D Spring Lake Watershed Boundary - Lakes and Ponds Tl Rivers, Streams and Drains m“ Township and Municipal Boundaries ‘— State and Federal Highways / r, County Roads — Residential Streets """" Section Lines 1 0 I ---------- 5:?! Miles 1 0 1 Kilometers L V Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community Fund, and other local groups. Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community , ) ' Foundation, North Bank Community Base Information - MIchigan ' ' Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). f Infomation Services Center "‘- RB. Annis Water Resources Institute \v Grand Valley State University [umpnn SC“ Europeans disu 1,55in of i00t aticraton year Elmer Valley bet 19813. Crockery is 5:51 logs 110: itoreiine hosted mm. the lumbr at wind erosion the bottom of Britain streets Axis were also . to contact a s; .rt'r’v ‘ B} 591.25 most 01 LE: fumben'ard. C Eta-e commercial 3.] xi Learn Bayou. . European Settlement - 1930 Europeans discovered that as part of a wooded river ecosystem, Spring Lake offered a diversity of food and shelter fi'om the rougher waters of Lake Michigan. After the exploration years of 16605 through 17005, fur trading became important in the Grand River Valley because bear, beaver, mink, muskrat, and river otter were abundant (Lillie 1980, Crockery History Group 1996). Soon afterwards, the lumbering era began when the first logs floated down the Grand River in 1838. At its height, the Spring Lake shoreline hosted six lumberyards (Lillie 1980, Kitchel 1969). Logging mostly during the winter, the lumberrnen almost completely cut the forests leaving the soils exposed to water and wind erosion. Vast amounts of soil were eroded and carried with the snow and rains to the bottom of creeks and lakes. A log slide existed on the lake between Alden and Buchanan streets in the Spring Lake Village (Kitchel 1969). Lumbering wastes, chips and planks were also commonly used as fill along the shores and wetlands and even were used to construct a “sawdust road” across a portion of the Grand River in 1852 (Lillie 1980). By 18905 most of the lumberyards closed due to the depletion of surrounding forests. The last lumberyard, Cutler & Savidge, ceased Operating in 1904 (Kitchel 1969). Other commercial businesses also depended on lake and watershed resources. In Jerusalem Bayou, clay mining for bricks began in 1859 and continued until 1871, when it was then moved to Stahl Bayou and where it operated between 1874 and 1906 (Kitchel 1969). The Spring Lake Iron Works located near Fruitport on the west shores of the lake operated during 1879 to 1912, utilizing iron ore from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to make pig iron (Kitchel 1969). Their wastes were dumped in the ravines and shores making man-made land that is noted on the United States county soil maps (USDA 1968). Johnston Boiler, the oldest continuous industry on the lake, began making engines at its present location in 1887 (Lillie 1980, Kitchel 1969). F arrners raised fi'uit and vegetables and shipped them from the lake shores (Lillie 1980). Spring Lake Clinker Boat Company was founded in 1887. In 1898, the Spring Lake Ice Company was built on Strawberry Point and sold out ice from the lake until the 19305 (Kitchel 1969). Recreational activities on the lake included regatta races beginning in the middle 18705. Good fishing was advertized in Chicago newspapers to attract tourists. Speckled bass, blue gill, and perch were caught by the bushel (Kitchel 1969). Tourism became a lucrative business. Catering to visitors in the 18705, many large homes and hotels were built: Spring Lake House, Pomona House, The Willows, The Lorimer, Prospect Point Manor, The Pines, and many more (Kitchel 1969). As a result, population densities began to rise seasonally and more permanent residents settled in the area. In 1869, the Village of Spring Lake was incorporated and enacted several ordinances one of which forbad the dumping of “dead animal, fish or putrid meat entrails, oyster or clam Shells, decayed fruit or vegetable, or any other filthy or offensive substance in or upon any public street, etc. or on the surface of the ground in any lot or river or lake or on any bank thereof in the Village” (Kitchel 1969). By 1911, the Village of Spring Lake had a primitive sanitary sewer which dumped into the Grand River. Later in 1928 and 1936, the village sewer system was updated and the village residents were mandated to connect (Kitchel I969). 10 1930 - 1970 The population around the lake continued to grow as the tourists began to recognize that the area was not only a nice place visit but a place to live. More cottages and homes were built with septic tanks or dry wells for sanitary systems and gray water from sinks and tubs may have also been dumped directly into the lake. Recreation on the lake increased. Advertisements for good fishing were still common. Speed boat and sail boat races were held weekly (Kitchel 1969). The beaches in the Village of Spring Lake and Fruitport were popular spots for swimming. The Pomona Pavilion in F ruitport was built 1941 and attracted many band groups and visitors until it burned down in 1963 (Kitchel 1969). Beginning in 1946, a duck farm began operating on 68 acres with 3,300 feet of lake frontage at Harbor Point. Blowing feathers and all night quacking from about 35,000 ducks led neighbors to take the farm to court in 1952. Court action forced the closure of this business which was sold in 1954 (Grand Haven Tribune 1952, 1954a). In 1954, the nuisance algal blooms prompted a weed control meeting with representatives from Spring Lake Township and the villages of Fruitport and Spring Lake. The formation of the Spring Lake Algae Control Committee was authorized in Aug. 17, 1954. (Grand Haven Tribune 1954d & e). This committee hired Dr. B. P. Domogalla from the Applied Biochemist & Associates of Butler, Wisconsin to apply chemicals to kill the algae and aquatic plants (Grand Haven Tribune 1954b). The herbicide was a mixture of copper sulfate and arsenic which was a predecessor to the company’s patented Cutrine formula (Burris 1997) and was applied to the water from platform-type boats (Grand Haven Tribune 1954c). In 1955, Applied BioChemist was hired again to spray the algae and 11 aquatic weeds for $15,000 (Grand Haven Tribune 1955f). The lake was sprayed three times that summer. After the first 6,000 pounds of algalcide spraying, the lake cleared of its green hue and remained that way for only several weeks. The second spraying began in the middle of July to kill the rebounding population of algae (Grand Haven Tribune 1955g) The Spring Lake Algae and Weed Committee eventually evolved into the Spring Lake Improvement Association which held its first annual meeting in 1956 (Grand Haven Tribune 19S6h). In that same year, approximately 27,000 feet of shoreline was sprayed once for weeds and three times for algae (Grand Haven Tribune 1956i). Ironically, while Dr. Domogallo did not “guarantee permanent relief,” a state conservationist said “while not a cure or permanent solution, it (the Spraying) has been reasonably successful adequate treatment of four years may be most permanent” (Grand Haven Tribune 1954j). 1970 - Present During this period, many environmental laws were passed which accelerated the efforts to improve our use of land, air, and water. Laundry detergents were no longer produced with phosphates. The state permitted fewer whole lake algae and aquatic chemical weed treatments but allowed residents to apply treatments with a permit. The Village of Spring Lake closed their sanitary system near Millpoint, which dumped treated waste into the Grand River. Afierwards, the village connected to North Ottawa Wastewater Treatment in 1972 with the City of Ferrysburg and parts of Spring Lake Township following in 1982 (Krohn 1997). Although efforts increased to reduce pollution, some pollution had already occurred in and around Spring Lake. Some businesses and industries such as Superior Plating, Anderson, Amoco, and etc. have become groundwater hazards because of leaking chemicals (Koches et al. 1995). Heavy metals were discovered in the lake sediments: moderate to high levels of arsenic, zinc, iron, cadmium, nickel, manganese, chromium, and copper (Thorpe 1994). The pollution is a reminder that past practices may have long-term effects on the community. Spring Lake continues to be a popular recreational and residential area. Focusing on recreational safety and the water quality of Spring Lake, the Lake Improvement committee that began in the 19505 became the Spring Lake Area Residents Association. Recently, the Lake Board was formed to address the water quality problems of the late 19905 because Spring Lake continues to provide many irreplaceable benefits for the community. Conclusion The watershed of Spring Lake has undergone many changes in water and land uses that have impacted its waters in some way. The resulting effects are present in the quality and quantity of its water, soils, lake sediments, plants, and animals. The following chapters address the current water quality status of the lake and the effects of some past influences, beginning with a study of the lake’s water sources. 13 CHAPTER 1 HYDROLOGY INTRODUCTION To address the question of the Grand River’s effect upon the water quality of Spring Lake, the exchange of waters between the river and Spring Lake and other sources of water were studied. This exchange and other water sources are all part of Spring Lake’s hydrology, the study of water movement in the watershed. The Spring Lake Watershed has many different inputs and outputs of water: precipitation, springs (from groundwater), seepage (to groundwater), streams, evaporation, and the Grand River exchange (Figure 2). Beginning as a small ditch in Sullivan Township, the water becomes the larger stream of Norris Creek and eventually widens into Spring Lake. Hence, this watershed represents a dynamic water gradient collecting water from its upper reaches to its channel connecting to the Grand River. U Precipitation ll Evaporation Tributaries Exchange 7 . == Grand River Spring Lake Groundwater Outflow to inflow including Groundwater, Springs Seepage FIGURE 2: Cross-sectional diagram of the Grand River and Spring Lake with its inputs and outputs of water (not to scale) 14 By the time the water reaches the lake, it is not just water. Water accumulates and transports nutrients and other substances as it travels (W etzel 1983): 0 Through the atmosphere, 0 Through water bodies such as the lake, streams, and ditches, - Through the soil as it filters down to the water in the ground (groundwater), - Over the soil if it can’t be absorbed, - Over impermeable surfaces where it is usually directed to the closest water body via a storm drain or other means. Nutrients, just as those in garden fertilizer, are the primary food necessary for the growth of all aquatic plants. Through its course, water also transports soil, decomposing plant and animal tissues, chemicals, fast food containers and other litter. Therefore, knowledge of the hydrology of the Spring Lake Watershed is essential to understand and manage the water quality, plants, and algae. GEOLOGICAL FORMATION The flow of water and its dissolved and suspended contents is affected by the shape and texture of a watershed’s terrain. The soils and topography of the Spring Lake Watershed were drastically altered many times by the glaciers. Two hypotheses exist concerning the formation of the watershed and its flow of water. An early geologist believed that the State of Michigan was on a gradual upward rebound after the massive weight of the glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago (Scott 1921). The upward movement of the land plate was not equally distributed and the east side of the state rose quicker than the west Side, tilting the state. The tilt caused the pooling of waters on the western side of the state forming the drowned river-mouth or river-valley lakes such as Spring Lake, Lake Macatawa, Muskegon Lake, and White Lake. The other hypothesis suggests an effect caused by water movement in the Grand River. The Grand River is a meandering river in 15 its lower reaches, etching out soils and depositing them in other areas. Soils in the area of the river and Spring Lake’s mouth were deposited in this manner by the Grand River. In an 1867 map, the far west comer of the Spring Lake Village —where a hotel, brewery, and condominiums are now situated — was identified as Shallow wetlands and wild rice beds (Lillie 1980). In the past when water levels were lower, the deposition of soil in this area may have been so great that the passage of water coming out of Spring Lake into the Grand River was impeded and caused back flooding, forming Spring Lake. It is also possible that discharges of seasonal flooding from Spring Lake into the Grand River may have periodically washed out the sediment accumulation in its connection to the Grand River. Spring Lake was probably formed from a combination of these geological events and the flow of Grand River. Water movement is affected by the texture of the watershed — the soils. Water infiltrates through different soil types at different rates, with sandy soils being the most rapid. Spring Lake’s watershed is underlain by 100 to 300 feet of glacial deposits, including sandy soils from the bottom of a glacial lake that preceded Lake Michigan (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1970, U. S. Department of Agriculture 1968, 1972). AS tributary or stream waters cut through these sandy deposits, deep ravines, such as those along Norris Creek north of Pontaluna Road in Fruitport Township, were formed. When the stream current slowed, the soils were deposited and formed flood plain areas such as the wetland area north of Fruitport Village along Norris Creek. The large clay deposits of Stahl and Jerusalem Bayou, which were mined for bricks, may have been deposited in this same manner long ago. Willow’s Bay also has banks of clayey soil. The watershed soil types 16 are illustrated in Figure A1 of Appendix A. WATERSHED AND LAKE CHARACTERISTICS Recent Formation The draining Of wetlands by ditches, ponding of small tributaries, constructing and draining of roads, and dredging of the waterways have also altered the watershed. After the arrival of European settlers, laws were enacted to drain Michigan wetlands for highways (1819), tillable land (1827), and human health (1839, 1846) (Hulka 1996). The current Michigan Drain Code was adopted in 1956 after many years of revisions. In the Spring Lake Watershed, there are 20 major drains totaling 43 kilometers (about 27 miles) in length and are monitored by the drain commissioner of each county (Table l & Table A1 in Appendix A). Stortnsewer drains for street and housing development runoff are also common around the lake and tributaries. There are at least 81 outfalls fi'om such drains around the lake (for locations, see maps in chapter 3, Figures 33, 34 and 35). Water entering from each of these drains has traveled over and through surfaces and in the process removed and dissolved substances to be deposited into a stream or the lake itself. TABLE 1: Drains of the Spring Lake Watershed DRAINS NUMBER OF DRAIN S LENGTH OF DRAINS kilometers (mile) Ottawa County 7 8.45 km (5.3) Muskegon County 5 13 34.9 km (21.7) Stormwater 81 ? TOTALS 101 43 km+ (27+) 17 The Connection Between the Grand River and Spring Lake Another change in water movement resulted from the dredging of the channel connecting Spring Lake and the Grand River. In 1867, the depth of the channel was about 2.7 meters (9 feet) (Lillie 1980) and hindered the movement of larger boats. The first recorded dredging by the government was in 1902, but by 1904 sediments had filled the channel and caused a ship grounding (Kitchel 1969). The last dredging was in 1989 by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (NOAA 1990), and the channel is currently about 5 meters deep (16 feet) and 77.5 meters wide (254 feet). The increased channel depth increases the likelihood that larger volumes of water may mix between Spring Lake and the Grand River. Mixing Waters of the Grand River and Spring Lake Water has special characteristics that can impede different types of waters from mixing easily. If the temperature or density of the waters greatly differs, the two waters resist mixing. The water with the highest temperature will flow to the top layer and the water with the lowest temperature will flow to the bottom. One way to explore the possibility of mixing waters between the Grand River and Spring Lake is to look at temperature and dissolved oxygen depth profiles through time. 18 V. ‘ l 0 ._ l:.-' 12.1, I if/'. 1 page .55 : firs-:54“ 2 . r V i3; as a: i 5 3 = 4 0;; se a: 3 73.51“ m 5 :G;':‘Eic 0.513;; - m :0 :3, 33 33 E 1' E Q 6‘5." (33¢. '0 ;- 7.594. 7—L’ido 003 O D .3: 54': "i 8 can 33.3.0 c .5. v i ” i 3 "1 9—xrco ".01 f» 0 ~.° ': “-d O , xi ?%1\1%—1L , i. A #397" Oct97 May98 ’ Dec98 July 97 Feb98 Au g98 DATES FIGURE 3: Time-Depth Diagram of Water Temperatures for Spring Lake at the Spring Lake Sampling Site (Celsius) DEPTH (m) 1.1-"1'11 1"‘151311'1’5 '. i 1 I I" April97 Oct97 M3593 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 4: Time-Depth Diagram of Water Temperatures for the Grand River (Celsius) l9 The lake temperatures at the Spring Lake sampling Site remained constant for a longer period than the Grand River water temperatures, which fluctuated more rapidly than Spring Lake (Figure 3 & 4). The river water warmed and cooled faster than the lake water. From late winter until early summer, the lake is usually colder than the river. If river water is forced into Spring Lake during this period, the river water would flow on top of the lake water. During the summer (August 1997 and June 1998), the lake waters warmed to a similar temperature of the river, beginning a period of potentially easy mixing of the waters. In late summer, the lake temperatures were higher than the river until the - lake began to cool in the fall. In late summer if the river is forced into Spring Lake, the river water would flow to the lower lake water layers that are similar to the river’s temperature. The water temperatures of the river and the lake were again similar in September 1997 and December 1998, easing mixing barriers. Of the 17 sampling times, only four times were the differences between river and lake water temperatures one degree Celsius or less. During these four occasions, the river and lake water may have easily mixed. Dissolved oxygen time-depth diagrams are also useful in the analysis of potential intrusion of water from the Grand River. Since the Grand River is usually well-oxygenated (Figure 6 & Table B21) and Spring Lake has lower dissolved oxygen levels most of the time (Figure 5 & Table B15), unusual high dissolved oxygen levels in Spring Lake’s water layers could indicate that water from the Grand River is flowing into Spring Lake. 20 O o (I a J O N O o o DEPTH (m) .h I O\ .. I .. 3F333'7Sb3; .. --O - O O Apr Il97 Oct97 May98 D6698 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 5: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for Spring Lake Sampling Site (mg/l) DEPTH (m) N r—I U.) "-I "-1 I"I I I I I II I I" I l .2. '. April97 OCI97 May98 DCC98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 6: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for the Grand River site (mg/l) 21 The periods of similar water temperatures but different dissolved oxygen levels, August 97, September 97, December 97, and June 98 showed no unusual high dissolved oxygen levels at the Spring Lake site compared to the deep water Site of Prospect Point (Table B17). Nor were there any high dissolved oxygen levels found during the other sampling dates. The lack of high dissolved oxygen levels at the Spring Lake site may be indicative of several possibilities: the Grand River is not a large intruding source of water, the water from the Grand River is physically mixed within the channel, or the Grand River input spreads out into a very thin layer in Spring Lake; thereby, reducing the contrasting dissolved oxygen levels that are detectable at the Spring Lake sampling site. The exchange of waters between the Grand River and Spring Lake is also likely to be greatly influenced by the wind direction and speed because wind can “pile up” water on one side of large water bodies. During a measurement period of two hours in July 1997, a flow reversal was observed when wind direction changed from northerly to southerly and water began to flow from the Grand River into Spring Lake. A study on the Detroit River explored the relationship between wind direction and flow reversals (Derecki and Quinn 1990). This study found that collected data should be in time spans of no greater than 15 minutes to document the wind direction and flow reversal relationship. Although data for this study were not acquired to that extent, there were 36 days during the winter and 49 days during the summer when the prevailing wind was from the south to southwest (October 1997 - September 1998) (Midwestern Climate Center 1999). If wind speed from these directions was high enough and sustained long enough (Rutherford 1994), the Grand River waters could be laterally pushed into the channel of Spring Lake and possibly affect 22 Spring Lake water quality. Water Levels Since Spring Lake is connected to the Grand River and thereby Lake Michigan, the water levels of Spring Lake are similar to those of the river and Lake Michigan. (See Appendix A for methods and materials.) Stage levels of the Grand River at Grand Haven and Lake Michigan reflect the same trend found in the average water level of Spring Lake; whereas the stage level of Grand River at Grand Rapids do not reflect the stage levels found in the lake (Figure 7). Therefore, Spring Lake’s water levels seem to be greatly dependent upon Lake Michigan water levels and do not seem to be strongly dependent upon the water levels and discharge of the upper Grand River. 23 Water Level (m) 178 -‘ .9 N 0 ii I SI :10): éi’é Fma :l—‘J 93- (D I O HO Alllll 'rwr'r Si-fi"..ii - II .09 Am lxl II ——I—' <- .;;:;-—-::is I.IL-..II.' :‘::%-.-:tt :i:§§-'..ifl: .Tll&.iif T3"i-—.'.‘ff - f p ”-4 O w Relative Water Level (m) c': N I -o.s iiizzéiséeizzigisg.3:15;;_::;2::9:j~="** I .O as ‘4. 177.4 177.2w1ylll'llllll‘l Grand R1\ er at Grand Haven, MI . ............................................. Ll ....................................... . .............................. . ............................. 177 ................................................... ‘.‘ ll .......... .. ................. "fill-1"- iil. , .............................. 176.3 F”Afl‘d‘llhltl-li‘,”in“ Water Level (m) 176.4 . .. . ,.. . .................... I Lake Michigan at Ludington, M] -------------l ............................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... 1766 .... ......................................................................................................... .. ................. . ....... . .......... . ..................................................................................................................................................................... Water Levels (m) 176.4 May97 June97 Aug97 Oct97 Dec97 Feb98 April98 June98 Aug98 Oct98 FIGURE 7: Stage Levels of the Grand River, Spring Lake and Lake Michigan (m) 24 Tributaries, and Other Lake Characteristics Although the trend in Spring Lake’s water levels follows the lower Grand River and Lake Michigan, Spring Lake is also influenced by its many tributaries. Willow’s Hill Creek and Vincent Creek join Norris Creek, forming the largest tributary, which enters the lake near Fruitport (Figure 8). Norris Creek’s average discharge is 1.9 m3/sec during the winter season (October - April) and 0.5 m3/sec during the summer season (May -September). Steven’s Creek, Jerusalem Creek, Smith Creek, Beckwith Creek, Gildner Creek, Timber Creek, and many other small intermittent streams also contribute to Spring Lake, but with much smaller discharges. The total average discharge from the small streams is estimated as 0.7 m3/sec during the winter season and 0.4 m3/sec during the summer season. The measured and estimated stream discharges are reported in Table A4 in Appendix A. The lake has a surface area of 525 hectares (1,298 acres), although in previous studies it has been listed differently: 925 acres (US. Army Corps of Engineers 1970) and 1047 acres (MDNR 1967). The average volume of the lake is 3.1 x 107 m3 (Table 2). The ratio of the watershed area to lake area (26:1) reflects the relationship of the size of the watershed to the size of the lake. There are 26 hectares of upland for each hectare of lake surface, suggesting that changes in land use may strongly affect the lake. I will discuss land uses in the following chapters. As Table 2 shows, the shoreline length is large — 23 miles — and the shoreline development ratio is 5:1. Because the shoreline is irregular in shape, this large ratio implies that effects from development around the lake may be high by providing more waterfront property for development. Shoreline effects such as storrnwater ninoff may be great. These ratios are important in the water budget study 25 because any changes in upland areas have direct and indirect influences on the flow of water into Spring Lake. For example, if more housing developments with storrnwater drains are built, more runoff water would enter the lake. TABLE 2: Characteristics of Spring Lake and its Watershed Characteristic Size Size (metric) Watershed area 51.8 miles2 134 kilometers2 33,141 acres 13,412 hectares Lake surface area 2.03 miles2 5.3 kilometers2 1298 acres 525 hectares Lake volume 1.1 x 109 feet3 3.1 x 107meters3 Shoreline length 23 miles 37 kilometers Average Depth 19.7 feet 6 meters Maximum Depth 42 feet 12.8 meters Watershed to Lake area ratio 26:1 26:1 Shoreline development ratio 5:1 5:1 Another type of graph which characterizes Spring Lake is a hypsograph (Figure 9). The graph shows the relationship of lake’s water area and depth. Spring Lake has a large shallow water area and then its area decreases rapidly with depth. 26 FIGURE 8: Map of Sampling Locations in the Spring Lake Watershed 27 Stevens Hill Cr. 28 orris Cree Sternberg . ' a.- as. O """" i,..-.--------‘¢--- " ‘ In" I O l I I FIGURE 3 Spring Lake Watershed Project Sampling Locations j Legend Spring Lake Watershed Boundary County Roads 7 ‘ Lakes and Ponds Rivers, Streams and Drains Spring Lake Sampling Locations 0 I Tributary Sample Locations A Grand River Sampling Location J 0 l Miles 1 0 1 5E Kilometers Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Digital Muskegon Soils compiled by Natural Resources Conservation Service. Digital Ottawa County Soils - ' MIchigan Resources Information System Base Information - MIchigan Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). Information Services Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University HGIRE9 “It WATER BLDG The accounting These inputs ant groundwater inc ion drains. eta] blotting bUdQE’l 0.0 I I j I 3.2” n E I 2 64— _ m . D 96* r 128 l l 1 I 0 ll 22 33 44 55 AREA (m2 x 105' FIGURE 9: Hypsograph of Spring Lake WATER BUDGET The accounting of all the water inputs and outputs in a watershed is called a water budget. These inputs and outputs include precipitation on the lake surface, streams, inflow from groundwater including Springs, outflow to groundwater (seepage), stormwater runoff from drains, evaporation from the lake surface, and the Grand River exchange. The following budget equation incorporates these sources and losses of water: AL = P + T - E i R L = the change in the lake volume P = precipitation on the lake’s surface T = inflow from tributaries E = lake evaporation R = residuals (unmeasured components and error) 29 The streams, the connecting channel to the Grand River, lake water levels, and precipitation were monitored to estimate the water budget of Spring Lake. Several attempts were made to directly measure the flow in the channel connecting Spring Lake to the Grand River but this was difficult due to boat traffic and flow reversals. Groundwater was not directly measured. Net groundwater exchange is commonly obtained by difference in a water budget equation, but this could not be done for Spring Lake because the exchange with the Grand River could not be accurately measured. Therefore, the residual contains not only error but also the exchange with the Grand River and with groundwater. The calculated inputs and outputs are in Table A3 in Appendix A, along with the methods and materials for the water budget calculations. Instead of an annual water budget, Spring Lake’s water budget was developed in intervals, then separated into seasons because stream discharges, precipitation, and evaporation seemed to vary greatly with the seasons. In the winter season (October - April), tributary inputs accounted for 95% of the measured inputs into Spring Lake, whereas lake precipitation was only 5% (Figure 10). Tributary sources accounted for 87% of the inputs for the summer season (May - Sept) and 13% of the inputs were from precipitation on the lake. Tributary inputs were higher in the winter season due to the winter snow melts and spring rains. The winter season also spans seven months and the summer season spans only five months. Evaporation was greater in the summer budget, 25% of the outputs, than in the winter (5%) because of higher temperatures and no ice cover. During the winter, the lake lost 1% of its average seasonal volume (- 3.8 x 105 m3 / 3.08 x 107 m3 x 100) and during the summer, the lake 30 gained 0.2% of its average seasonal volume (0.63 x 105 m3/ 3.13 x 107 m3 x 100). Precipitation 5% Winter 11 13% Summer Evaporation 5% \Vinter Exchange 25% Summer Tribu tarics 95% Winter 87% Summer Spring Lake Net Grand River + Springs + Seepage U 95% Winter 75% Summer Springs Seepage FIGURE 10: Percentages of Seasonal Averages of Water Inputs and Outputs for Spring Lake TABLE 3: Seasonal Water Budget Estimates for Spring Lake (x 105 m3) Season Average Average Average Average Lake Tributary Precipitation Lake Average Volume Input on Lake Evaporation Residuals Change Surface Winter -3.82 + 97.66 + 4.91 - 4.80 - 101.6 Summer +0.63 + 5.88 + 0.87 - 1.47 - 4.33 The residuals of the water budget are the leftovers from the budget accounting (Table 3). For instance, if an unmeasured large volume of water is flowing out of Spring Lake (output) and a smaller unmeasured amount of water is coming into the lake (input), the net residual for this example would be negative output because the output is greater than the input. Changes in the volumes would increase or decrease the magnitude of the residual. If the input was greater than the output, the net residual would be a positive input. In the Spring Lake budget, the residuals are large and negative and include the net groundwater 31 exchange, the Grand River exchange, direct stormwater drain inputs, and error. Notice that the residuals are net estimates that could be a combination of water input and output volumes of the two flows, the Grand River and groundwater which were not adequately measured. In the winter the average residual is 95% of the outputs, and in the summer the average residual is 7 5% of the outputs. To explore the residuals, scenarios can be developed to look at possible net flows: 1. Assume net groundwater flow and stormwater input are zero, therefore the residual is the net exchange with the Grand River. 2. Estimate the net exchange into the Grand River based on the discharge measured on one date, and assume the remaining residual is due to the net groundwater exchange and stormwater runoff 3. Estimate stormwater runoff from drains and assume that the net groundwater exchange is positive, and study the water budget intervals. Scenario 1: No Net Groundwater Exchange In some lakes the net annual inflow and outflow of groundwater are nearly balanced, meaning that groundwater flow out of a lake into the groundwater table is similar to the groundwater flow into a lake (Lerman et al. 1995). For Spring Lake, if we assume that the net seasonal groundwater exchange and stormwater runoff are minimal, then the residual would be mostly due to the Grand River exchange. Both seasonal residuals are negative, indicating a net flow out of Spring Lake. The two seasonal residual averages can be used to estimate flow velocity out to the Grand River by dividing the volume in m3 by the average number of days in the seasonal intervals (49.4 for winter and 7.25 for summer) and by the cross-sectional area of the channel (244.9 m2). This daily flow is converted to m/sec thereby providing possible channel flow velocities out of Spring Lake: winter channel flow of 9.7 x 10'3 m/sec (0.0097 m/sec) and summer channel flow of 2.8 x 10" m/sec (0.000000028 m/sec). In this scenario one, net summer channel flow velocity is 32 much smaller than the winter net flow, suggesting perhaps that more equal exchanges may occur between the Grand River and Spring Lake during the summer. Both of the net scenario flows are quite possible, especially since measured channel flow velocities were 0.04 m/sec out of Spring Lake and 0.05 m/sec into Spring Lake (see the next scenario). The lack of stormwater input is not a reasonable assumption since there is definitely stormwater drain input into the lake from the 81 stormwater outfalls; nor is the assumption of no net groundwater flow reasonable. Net groundwater flow has been documented as being significant in other Michigan lakes (see scenario 3). Therefore the assumptions of no net groundwater exchange and no stormwater input are not reasonable for Spring Lake and scenario one should be rejected. Scenario 2: Measured Grand River Exchange To estimate a volume for the net exchange with the Grand River, let us use the measured channel discharge as the constant rate of water flowing through the channel connecting the Grand River and Spring Lake, even though this most likely varies in time and with the wind. The channel flow between Spring Lake and the Grand River was successfully measured on 21 July 1997 during a time span of two hours. Taken at various places across the channel, these flows going into the Grand River were measured: 0.016, 0.014, 0.04, 0.075, 0.056, 0.081, 0.04, 0.08, and 0.078 m/sec. When the wind direction changed from the north to south, these flows were measured going into Spring Lake: 0.083, 0.071, and 0.0 m/sec. Averaged, the flows are 0.04 m/sec flowing from Spring Lake and 0.05 m/sec flowing into Spring Lake. The discharge out of Spring Lake was 9.8 m3/Sec and the discharge into Spring Lake from the Grand River was 12.2 m3/sec. The difference, the net 33 discharge from the Grand River into Spring Lake, is 2.4 m3/sec. Although this discharge is from a single sampling period and is most likely not representative throughout the year, let us assume that this is an average summer net discharge from the Grand River. An average summer volume input into Spring Lake was calculated by multiplying the average number of days in the summer season and converting seconds to days for a volume of 15 x 105 m3. Now a recalculation of the summer water budget including the estimated net flow of Grand River into Spring Lake was completed: lake change (0.63 x 105 m3) - tributary input (5.88 x 105 m3 ) - precipitation (0.87 x 105 m3 ) - Grand River input (15 x 105 m3 ) + evaporation (1.47 x 105 m3 ) = new residual. The new residual of —19.6 x 105 m3 suggests that the net groundwater exchange is large and it would be seeping out of Spring Lake into the groundwater table. A flow into the groundwater such as this seems highly unlikely; even Gull Lake’s largest outflow into the groundwater was estimated at only 1.4 x 105 m3 (Tague 1977). When a recalculation was redone for the winter season, the 3, again indicating large outflows into the residual became even larger, -116.6 x 105 m groundwater. Therefore, because the large outflows into the groundwater seem improbable, the average net exchange between Spring Lake and the Grand River must be much lower than the measured net discharge of 2.4 m3/sec into Spring Lake. Stormwater runoff in this scenario is zero, even though an input does exist. Thus, scenario two is rejected. Scenario 3: Stormwater Runoff, Groundwater, and Water Budget Intervals Stormwater runoff (non-tributary runoff) was not directly measured from the outfalls, but I believe it can be reasonably estimated and inserted into the water budget intervals to give new calculations for residuals (Appendix A). I also suspect that Spring Lake has a significant net groundwater input into the lake (a positive component) because: 1. The watershed consists of mostly sandy soils through which groundwater can readily flow. I have observed springs on several banks around the lake. Since these springs were above lake water level, they indicate that the groundwater water table is above the lake level and groundwater is flowing into the lake at those areas (Jerusalem Bayou, Willow’s Bay, Stahl Bayou). Topography around the lake is high except near the Village of Spring Lake and the City of Ferrysburg. Therefore following topographical gradients, groundwater mostly likely flows into the lake except possibly near its connection to the Grand River. Two other West Michigan lakes, Gull Lake in Kalamazoo County and Glen Lake in Leelanau County, have net inflow into the lake from groundwater. Although topography and size of these watersheds are different from Spring Lake, both consist of mostly sandy soils like the Spring Lake Watershed. Gull Lake had an annual net groundwater input of 45% of all inputs, a winter groundwater input of 124% of the winter tributary input, and a summer groundwater input of 90% of the summer tributary input (Tague 1977). Glen Lake’s annual net groundwater input was 170% of its tributary input (Keilty 1996). Assuming that the water budget component for groundwater is a net positive, let us now study the sampling intervals used to produce the water budget. The stormwater interval volumes were averaged for each seasonal water input: 18,513 m3 for the winter and 3,284 m3 for the summer (Table A12). 35 TABLE 4: Summary of Water Budget for Each Sampling Interval for the Spring Lake Watershed g" 3 fig. '5 E'- E E '5 7. E g EA g i i Residuals Intervals E E A 5 ° 5'8 .5 "I? E "T 7" “E '§ E‘s 1°=° § 3 '2 Iii-é a": 3 e (x10’m3) o .= '6 é - E 35 a -— 2° 3 E g - 353 fig 55 av 5v 3 '3 39 6May-23May97 0.57 0.19 8.24 0.12 -1.04 0.00 -6.75 6June-1July97 3.09 1.02 13.02 2.23 -3.53 0.08 -8.72 July-2July97 0.56 0.18 0.78 0.07 -0.24 0.00 -0.05 July-8July97 -0.43 -0.14 5.95 0.66 -1.41 0.02 -5.66 July-9July97 1.52 0.49 0.67 0.00 -0.24 0.00 1.08 July-14July97 -0.17 -0.06 4.10 0.09 -1.41 0.00 -2.95 4July-23Jnly97 1.86 0.60 4.13 1.24 -212 0.05 -1.43 3Ju1y-12Aug97 0.39 0.12 16.56 2.35 -394 0.09 -14.67 2Aug-13Aug97 0.26 0.08 0.76 0.00 -0.21 0.00 -0.30 9May-30May98 2.17 0.74 0.83 0.00 —0. 15 0.00 1.48 8July-19July98 1.69 0.58 0.57 0.07 -0.24 0.00 1.29 0Aug-19Sept98 -3.99 -1.40 14.85 3.62 -3.17 0.14 -l9.42 ummer AverJage 0.63 0.20 5.88 0.87 -1.47 0.03 -4.68 3Aug-22Nov97 -l8.85 -6.07 97.65 10.36 12.61 0.39 -114.64 2Nov97-l 1131198 -9.61 -3.30 110.07 4.87 6.05 0.18 -1 18.69 lJan-31Jan98 1.04 0.37 56.32 1.03 0.00 0.04 -56.35 lJan-22Mar98 11.18 3.95 192.87 5.31 2.31 0.20 -184.88 9Sept-I60ct98 -2.86 -1.02 31.39 3.00 3.02 0.11 -34.34 Minter Average -3.82 -1.21 97.66 4.91 4.80 0.19 -101.78 Positive residuals occurred during the three intervals of 8-9 July 1997, 29-30 May 1998, and 18-19 July 1998, indicating a net inflow of water from the Grand River and groundwater (Table 4). Assuming that groundwater is a positive net input, then this residual suggests that the net exchange with the Grand River is an input during these intervals. The percent change of the lake volume from the initial interval volume for all three intervals is less than 1%, meaning that the net input was relatively small compared to the entire lake volume. Mostly likely, this small input did not influence the lake’s water quality. For instance, suppose the average total phosphorus concentration (a nutrient) in 36 the lake during the 29-30 May 1998 interval was 0.06 mg/l and the river total phosphorus concentration was 0.1 mg/l. Then if the residual was entirely from an input from the Grand River, the river input would cause a total phosphorus change, (0.74%)(0.1 mg/l) = 0.00074 mg/l in the lake. This is a very minute change in the concentration of the lake and would not greatly affect the lake. Because only three intervals had positive residuals, the net inflow from the Grand River and groundwater is most likely episodic as previously discussed and would have a small overall influence on Spring Lake’s water quality. The other residuals of the water budget intervals are negative, suggesting a net outflow from Spring Lake into the Grand River. Since the net groundwater input is assumed to be positive, it is most likely that groundwater is a larger influence on the water quality of Spring Lake than is the Grand River. The possibility also exists that the interval periods masked the inflow from the river or the sampling dates missed the occurrences of large inputs of river water. The interval components suggest that another source besides precipitation on the lake and the tributary inputs influences the change in lake levels. If precipitation volumes are compared to lake volume changes, there are conflicting directions of volume change. Some precipitation inputs are reflected in a loss of lake volume, not a gain in lake volume which is expected. Hence as discussed in the water level section, Spring Lake seems to be greatly influenced by Lake Michigan water levels. Even though the Grand River seems to be a lesser influence, quantification of the exchange between Spring Lake and the Grand River is recommended because direct measurements in this study were minimal. 37 Preetprtatlon (I) U Stormwater (I) W 4.8% W 0.2% S 12-8%I Evaporation (O) S 04% W 4.5% l . . Exchange ll 3 240/0 Tributaries (I) W 95% Spring Lake S 86.8% Springs <= Seepage Net: W 95.5% 0 S 76% O FIGURE 11: Scenario 3 Percentages of Inputs (1) and Outputs (0) for the Spring Lake Water Budget, W = Winter, S =Summer The average input from Stormwater outfalls during the winter season was 0.2% of all the inputs and during the summer season was 0.4% (Figure 1 1). The average residuals were 95.5% during the winter and 76% during the summer of all the outputs; the decrease in the summer percentages reflects the increase in evaporation. Of the three scenarios, this water budget scenario seems to be the most realistic. Spring Lake’s Water Year Typically a water year in a hydrological system is considered to begin at the low water period and in Midwestern temperate areas, this period usually begins in September 30. For this study of Spring Lake, the water year begins with the interval that includes September 1997 and ends with September 1998. Cumulative volumes of the water year’s inputs and outputs are represented in Figure 12. 38 mam J l L l I l3Aug-22Nov97 311an—22Mar98 '30Au2-19sept98 l lJan-31Jan98 l8July-l9July98 22Nov97-1 IJan98 29May-30May98 l9Sept- l 60ct98 Water Volume (10"5 cubic meters) _.._ Tributaries - n- Precipitation —o— Stormwater —n— Evaporation-Ch- Resrduals FIGURE 12: Cumulative Volumes from Water Budget Intervals (x 10’ m3), l3Aug97- Oct98. For the water year of 13 August 1997 to 19 September 1998, the cumulative totals for the inputs are 47,316,000 m3 for tributaries, 2,525,000 m3 for precipitation on the lake, and 95,000 m3 for stormwater outfall. Cumulative totals for the same period for the outputs are 2,452,000 m3 for evaporation from the lake and 49,121,000 m3 for the residual. As percentages, the input volumes are 94.7% for the tributaries, 4.9% for the precipitation, and 0.2% for the stormwater and for the output volume percentages, 5% for evaporation and 95% for residuals. The cumulative change in water storage for the water year was -1,637,000 m3 which is 3% of the residual. This small percentage suggests that the residual is real and not an artifact of the methods. This real residual of the exchange of groundwater and the water between the Grand River and Spring Lake needs to be quantified. Without these measurements, the largest input into Spring Lake is fi'om tributaries and the largest output is the net outflow, via the Grand River or groundwater exchange or both. 39 Water Residence Time Knowing the amount of time that water remains in a lake also aids in the description of its water flow and water quality. The theoretical amount of time for all of the water to be replaced in a water body is called the residence time. The maximum residence times for Spring Lake is 4.9 months for the winter season and 11.2 months for the summer season as calculated from the input sums of tributaries and precipitation. The annual residence time is 6.8 months as calculated from the cumulative water inputs. Inputs of water from groundwater or the river would reduce these residence times. During the winter season, Spring Lake is theoretically flushed completely, meaning that the water at the beginning of the season is completely replaced with incoming water by the end of the winter season. Because the summer residence time is longer than its seasonal length, the summer waters are not flushed out of the lake. The summer waters are not completely replaced in volume until the winter season. Therefore, the waters that flow into Spring Lake during the winter season are the “initiator” waters, with all their nutrients, for the following summer season. Although during the summer season there are additional inputs of nutrients into the lake, the winter waters provide the nutrient starting levels for plant and animal growth that occurs in the following summer season. The lake’s flushing rates and lower residence times may enable the lake to clean itself in time. The relationship of hydrology to water quality will be fiirther addressed in the next chapter. 40 RECOMMENDATIONS Limited in scope, this study could not fiilly describe the water budget because the exchange with the Grand River and groundwater could not be measured, nor daily changes in the lake water level. Although an attempt was made to measure the exchange between the Grand River and Spring Lake, this potential flow of water still remains unknown for most of the water year and needs to be quantified because management recommendations for water quality are dependent upon its potential influence. If the Grand River is a large input into Spring Lake, management recommendations for Spring Lake water quality would be extremely difficult to attain because it would involve addressing nutrient sources throughout the entire Grand River Watershed. Whereas, if the Grand River input is relatively small as I predict, management recommendations would include only recommendations for the Spring Lake Watershed. Therefore, to more fully understand the water budget, additional research incorporating the groundwater exchange, the Grand River exchange and daily changes in the water level is warranted before any expensive in-lake management techniques are undertaken. The groundwater exchange may be estimated by conducting a groundwater flow analysis that estimates potentiometric gradients from well information (Lerman et a1. 1995). These estimates may then be used to modify the water budget. Because of possible influences on the lake’s water quality, the water exchange with the Grand River should be monitored throughout an annual cycle. The exchange may be measured directly with an electronic flowmeter that measures instantaneous flow reversals. This instrument would best be mounted several feet fiom the bottom of the channel or on one of the bridge pilings for 41 several periods within each season. For these data to be useful, wind direction and speed would need to be recorded at a minimum of every 15 minutes (Derecki & Quinn 1990). If local airports do not record at this interval, then an anemometer would also need to be obtained and mounted. Depending on the monitoring instruments, the data may be stored for certain periods or may be directly connected to a computer for instantaneous downloading. Ifone cannot be borrowed from a federal or state agency, the flowmeter would need to be purchased, ranging in price from $3,000 to $10,000 or even more depending on the model. For any modification of the water budget, water levels will need to be monitored. I suggest that the daily monitoring of the lake and stream levels become another activity for the LakeWatch volunteers on Spring Lake, a program coordinated by Michigan State University - Ottawa County Extension. The trained volunteers currently take lake water samples and other water quality parameters in an effort to begin long-term monitoring of Spring Lake. RECOMMENDATION LIST - Quantify the exchange of water with the Grand River and the groundwater exchange before expensive in-lake management techniques are undertaken. - Expand water level monitoring of the lake through the LakeWatch program. SUMMARY - Spring Lake’s hydrology is seasonally dynamic with a winter residence time of 4.9 months, a summer residence time of 1 1.2 months, and an annual residence time of 6.8 months. 42 Spring Lake receives its water input from tributaries (95%), precipitation on the lake (4.8%), stormwater outfalls (0.2%) in the winter; and tributaries (86.8%), precipitation (12.8%), stormwater outfalls (0.4%) in the summer. The outputs in the winter are evaporation (4.5%), and residual (95.5%). In the summer, the outputs are evaporation (24%) and the residual (76%). The residuals are composed of the net groundwater exchange, which is predicted to be positive, the net Grand River exchange, and also reflect the cumulative error in the budget. Waters between the Grand River and Spring Lake do mix, but the Grand River is believed not to be a large input into Spring Lake. Besides precipitation on the lake and the tributary inputs, other factors, especially the backwater effect from Lake Michigan, seem to be influencing the water levels of Spring Lake. Because of measurement difficulty and their potential influence on management recommendations, the exchanges between the Grand River and Spring Lake and groundwater need to be studied further in order to fiIlly understand the hydrology of Spring Lake. 43 CHAPTER 2 WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION A lake is a reflection of its watershed. Spring Lake’s reflection, its water quality, is the result of its hydrological gradient and land use within the watershed. Therefore activities happening within the watershed, from its northern reaches in Sullivan Township to its shoreline, affect the lake’s water quality. Climatic events, such as precipitation, wind, and temperature, affect the water quality and trigger algal blooms (Lathrop et a1. 1998). To begin to address the possible causes of algal blooms, many aspects of water quality are examined and then compared to another drowned river-mouth lake. TROPHIC STATUS INDEX The water quality of a lake is sometimes simplified into a trophic status index, a number that can be used to rank its water quality among other lakes. In September 1981, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) reported that Spring Lake’s trophic status index was 59, the lake was eutrophic, and at a depth of 30 feet, very little dissolved oxygen was present (MDNR 1981). 0 Eutrophic is a trophic state classification for lakes derived from water quality. There are three basic states: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. As lakes age over thousands of years, the lake’s trophic state may progress from oligotTOphic to mesotrophic to eutrophic. Oligotrophic lakes are usually clear, free of weeds, and low in nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes range between the Oligotrophic 44 and eutrophic characteristics. Eutrophic lakes are subject to frequent algal blooms, high in nutrients, and usually weedy (Cooke et a1. 1993). These trophic states are not a good or bad classification but rather one of water quality and age. A lack of dissolved oxygen in lower water levels affects the deep cold-water fish and other organisms that need oxygen to breathe. Low oxygen levels are also termed as anaerobic or anoxic conditions, during which the organisms surviving in the deep must obtain their oxygen from other processes or move to another water level with more oxygen. Low oxygen levels at the bottom of the lake also cause nutrients to be released from the sediments, increasing the nutrient concentration in the overlying layer of water. Trophic status index numbers are calculated from equations using a variety of water quality factors. Using Carlson’s equation, a range of numbers from 0 - 100 are possible with the lower numbers corresponding to Oligotrophic lakes and the higher numbers to eutrophic lakes. The status index numbers are used to compare one lake to another and also used as comparisons as a lake changes through time (Carlson 1977). Currently, Spring Lake’s trophic index ranges from 70-66 depending on the season (Table 5). This trophic status measurement is based on the amount of chlorophyll a (a measure of algal abundance) and total phosphorus concentrations. However, based on the Secchi depths (water clarity depth), the index is 57 - 60. The 1981 index of 59 that MDNR reported was calculated solely from the Secchi depth of September 2, which was 1.06 meters. Although the trophic index calculations from single dates such as was done in 45 1967 and 1981 are not from the recommended summer averages, the numbers do provide an instantaneous picture of the lake. The lack of abundant earlier data makes establishing a trend difficult, but what is available suggests that in the past 30 years the lake’s trophic status has changed little; therefore the water quality of the lake is also most likely to have been similar throughout these years. (See Appendix B for the methods, materials, and detailed data tables for this chapter.) TABLE 5: Water Quality Averages and Trophic Status Indices of Spring Lake Average Total Average Average Phosphorus, Chlorophyll a, Secchi Depth Epilimnion Epilimnion (m) (mg/1) (Pg/l) November 4, 1967 .08 not measured 1.73 * TROPHIC STATUS *67 *52 September 2, 1981 .056 not measured 1.06 * TROPHIC STATUS *62 *59 June - Aug 1997 .07 41.8 1.00 * TROPHIC STATUS *66 *67 *60 June - Aug. 1998 .10 36.2 1.15 * TROPHIC STATUS *70 *66 *58 (Sept. 97- Sept. 98) .08 41.0 1.26 * TROPHIC STATUS *67 *67 *57 (1967 and 1981 data are from MDNR STORET records) SECCHI DEPTH AND CHLOROPHYLL a Secchi depth was one of the variables used to calculate the trophic status index for Spring Lake. Secchi depth (water clarity) is the depth that one can see through the water. This depth is approximately half the depth of the photic zone, the region where plants and algae can utilize the sunlight that is penetrating the water (Wetzel and Likens 1991). If the 46 Secchi depth is large, the photic zone is deep, and the water is clear. High levels of suspended sediments, algae, and dissolved organic compounds such as tannins will decrease Secchi depths. Decreasing Secchi depths are also caused by human activities on the lake and water, including activities that disturb the bottom sediments, increase sediment inputs, and increase nutrient inputs. In time, reductions in these activities may lead to larger Secchi depths for the lake, although only to a certain degree. Each lake is unique in its own “natural” aspect and will improve only within its “natural” boundaries or limitations. For instance the deep water clarity depth of Higgins Lake in central Michigan is not a realistic goal for Spring Lake because the lakes are very different in composition and in hydrological characteristics. Since 1986, Grand Valley State University has operated an educational program for students and the general public aboard the D. J. Angus. The participants commonly measured Secchi depth, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in Spring Lake. The range of Secchi depths during May through September are 0.6m (Sept. 1988, July 1992, July 1995) to 3m (May 1991) and during October are 0.8 (1991, 1992, 1995) to 1.25m (1994, 1995) (R. B. Annis WRI/GVSU 1986-1995). In comparison, Secchi depth means for all lake Sites during 1997 and 1998 for this study ranged from 0.61-1.69m in the summer (May- September) and 1.56-1.58m in October (Figure 13 & Table B13). In Spring Lake as in all lakes, Secchi depths, algae concentrations, and nutrient concentrationss are all correlated to some degree with each other and each parameter may be used in trophic status index calculations (Carlson 1977, Stauffer 1991). Usually if 47 more nutrients are available, the algae concentrations are higher and the Secchi depths are smaller. Algae concentrations are easily observed by testing the water for chlorophyll a, as was done for this study (see Appendix B for methods and raw data). Chlorophyll a is a dominant light-absorbing pigment in plants and algae and it is commonly used to represent algae concentrations. Summer and annual chlor0phyll a concentrations in Spring Lake’s epilimnion range from 36.2 - 41.8 ,ug/l (Table 5). Chlorophyll a concentration means and standard errors for the entire sampling period (May 1997 - October 1998) were 35.912 g/l 4: 1. 72 for the epilimnion, 22.4/2g/1 :1: 3.51 for the metalimnion, and 22.4,ug/l i 1.48 for the hypolimnion. Chlorophyll a concentrations varied seasonally (Figure 14) with the highest concentrations in the summer because warmer temperatures in the summer increase growth in algae populations. Higher chlorophyll a concentrations correspond to lower Secchi depth readings during the summer (Figure 13). The different water layers of the lake also vary in chlorophyll a concentration between seasons (Figure 15). Marshall and Peters (1989) showed that in eutrophic lakes, chlorophyll a concentrations will rise in early spring, then decline, then rise again in late summer and early fall. Spring Lake fits this seasonal description of two distinct blooms in the spring and fall (Figure 14). 48 Secchi Depth (meters) 0 T r I I I \— 1 P \ -: 2 ‘ I 4 3 ,_ -4 LOCATION ---- Grand River 4 1 l 1 1 1 ............. . Spring Lake April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 13: Secchi Depths in Spring Lake and the Grand River (meters) Chlorophyll a (Hg/l) 350 I I I r T 280 ‘- .. 210 — ‘ 140 ‘ \ ‘ 70 “\i " \/ ,/ 0 l I l l l April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb97 Aug98 DATE Location Grand River """"" Spring Lake FIGURE 14: Chlorophyll a Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River (pg/l) 49 80 I I I H I "is 60 _ 3: U E g, 40 __ 8 O E U 20 Water Layer Epilimnion I ................ Hypol' ion 0 —_— M t l' ' April97 Oct97 May98 Dec93 e 3 “mm" J uly97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 15: Chlorophyll a Concentrations of Water Layers in Spring Lake (ag/l) When Spring Lake’s total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations are log- transformed and graphed (a simple model), the variance is large and the correlation is low (Figure 16). Increasing chlorophyll a concentrations in Spring Lake does not correlate well with increasing phosphorus concentrations as seen by the wide spread of Spring Lake data points. This tendency illustrates Marshall and Peters’ warning that variances from chlorophyll a may be large due to large episodic algal blooms which tend to make model use difficult. A lack of linearity in Spring Lake may also be due to the small range of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations. In the lake, total phosphorus concentrations may be high enough to support larger populations of algae but other environmental factors, such as light limitation by shading, nitrogen limitation, and 50 predation from zebra mussels, zooplankton and other organisms (Stauffer 1991) may be limiting algae growth. A more linear relationship is seen in the Grand River data; whereas the total phosphorus concentrations increased, chlorophyll a concentrations increased. Since the correlation between the logarithms of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations in Spring Lake is low, this simple relationship (model) cannot be used to predict chlorophyll a concentrations from total phosphorus concentrations or vice versa. 3 I T T C O :1 , :3 E '55 2 b # :éiiflo d '2‘ i )‘(5 1‘. ‘1 Cf) .‘ .1. o is . - 5’ g at. is: .5: it”; 93" X igfo U s 4‘ . as?!“ X 9 a 1- o ‘ A ’It 0 I l I -2.0 -1.5 -l.0 -0.5 0.0 LOCATION Log Total Phosphorus 0 Grand River 3 Spring Lake Epilimnion FIGURE 16: Relationship of Logarithms of Chlorophyll a (rig/l) to Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Concentrations in Spring Lake and the Grand River. 51 TEMPERATURE, OXYGEN, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAKE Temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, specific conductivity and pH are all important water quality characteristics for plant and animal growth that were measured and analyzed (Table B14 - B22). The pH of the surface water ranged from 7.9 to 9.3, which is toward the basic end of the pH scale and is common in many Michigan lakes with high alkalinity. Alkalinity of the epilimnion for all the sites ranged from 114 to 183 mg CaCO3/l. Temperatures in the epilimnion ranged from 3 to 15°C during the winter and 11 to 26 °C during the summer season; as an example see the time-depth diagrams for Fruitport and Jerusalem Bayou (Figure 17 & 21). At the deepest sampling site, Prospect Point, the hypolimnion ranged from 2.8 to 20.6 °C during the entire sampling period (Figure 19). In eutrophic lakes, dissolved oxygen concentrations tend to decrease as depth increases while total phosphorus concentrations tend to increase from the surface to the bottom of the lake. Dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion ranged from 6 to 15 mg/l throughout the year, while during the summer the hypolimnion concentrations decreased to detection limits (Figures 18, 20, 22). Because low dissolved oxygen levels began at about 7 to 8 meters deep, approximately 9% of the entire lake volume and virtually the entire hypolimnion became uninhabitable for cold-water fish during these periods. When the water layers of a lake diverge in dissolved oxygen concentration, temperature, and other dissolved compounds, the lake is stratified. During the 1997 and 1998 summers, stratification in Spring Lake occurred during the summer, usually beginning in late June and ending during the fall turnover in late September or October. It is during this period of stratification that cold-water fish may become stressed. 52 DEPTH (m) A ’- iii: :L_ 1", I _ I _ r ::: ::: , _ . . . - April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 17: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for the Fruitport Sampling Site (Celsius). 1 52 s - _ m [-t ‘14 Ill . Q : 4 . 7 .. . _;': :.. ’::'l":.-_.' 1 April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 18: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for the F ruitport Sampling Site (mg/1)- 53 0.0,: A 2.23: é E 44....3 n4 9 6.63 88 11. .. ~ 5 - 3‘ i * April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 19: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for Prospect Point site (Celsius) 0." E E 4-4: ,_ - A: E ...... ‘1 6.6" 8. April97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 20: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for Prospect Point site (mg/l) 54 Q 0 L .- .- ,. .. .,- .. ..- , - .‘. - .-' . . ...- . ‘-' " .. "' ,...-‘- 0 ( "’-u.._- A ..-()-n «0'. 4!: {Eé‘d DEPTH (m) -. .:.. ..-.-.......,,,_,.. l.- .. . ‘- ' -.... ...., .--...., ,, ...yr...-. -. . .. . .,. -.. ,. ,. . .4... . '.: gimf it”: .: "1" ‘3‘: ::ggto-t'. April97 Oct97 May98 96°98 July97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 21: Time-Depth Diagram of Temperature for Jerusalem Bayou (Celsius) node o c i N —;Lu"o p o : jxéo 5’0 c:; ' 7.;31; :bbi DEPTH (m) . A 0 I U l ~5ch so 9.. L L"; "4.1, t J - A V ‘ l , - LAA 2 -Uv v .«V April97 Oct97 May93 Dec98 July97 Feb98 Au {1% DATE FIGURE 22: Time-Depth Diagram of Dissolved Oxygen for Jerusalem Bayou (mg/l) 55 NUTRIENTS Nutrients are food sources that plants, including algae, must have to live. The most commonly discussed nutrients in aquatic ecosystems are phosphorus and nitrogen, both of which are available in some form and quantity. If the supply of one of these nutrients is less than demand (i.e., it is limiting), then algae that are tolerant to minimal levels of the limiting nutrient will usually begin to dominant (Wetzel 1983). For example, if nitrogen was not available in the water in its soluble form and phosphorus was plentifiil, the common algae will usually be types that can obtain nitrogen directly from the air. The relationship between algae types and nutrients will be discussed further in Chapter 3. NITROGEN Nitrogen is abundant in the air, precipitation, groundwater, and runoff. More specifically, air pollution, fertilizers, and combustion are the predominant human-caused sources that increase local and global pools of nitrogen (Berner and Berner 1996). Loss of nitrogen from a lake is through its outflow, to the atmosphere by denitrification, and to the sediments by sedimentation (Wetzel 1983). The forms of nitrogen measured for this study were ammonium and nitrate. Ammonium is the form of nitrogen preferred by most plants, algae, and bacteria; and, measured concentrations are usually low (Wetzel 1983). In Spring Lake, the ammonium concentrations in the epilimnion ranged from <0.05 to 0.14 mg/l, and in the hypolimnion they ranged from <0.0S to 1.77 mg/l (Table B10). The upper end of these ammonium ranges is quite high for Michigan lakes. In Spring Lake, nitrate concentrations ranged from <0.0l to 1.1 mg/l in the epilimnion and from <0.05 to 0.70 mg/l in the hypolimnion (Table Bl 1). Average nitrate concentrations in the 56 epilimnion were 0.14 mg/l for the 1997 summer, 0.16mg/1 for the 1998 summer and 0.25 mg/l for September 1997 through September 1998. Ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus concentrations are useful to predict which nutrient is limiting algae growth, and therefore which nutrient requires loading reductions for algae management. Redfield’s ratio, 16:1 (nitrogen to phosphorus), is the ratio of nutrients that algae need for normal growth (Wetzel 1983). The average nitrate concentration in the epilimnion for the entire sampling period was 0.28mg/1 or 0.02mM, and ammonium concentrations averaged 0.083mg/l or 0.0059mM. The sum of nitrate and ammonium molarities give the disssolved inorganic nitrogen level of 0.0259mM. In the epilimnion for the same period, the mean total phosphorus concentration was 0.07mg/l or 0.0023mM. Spring Lake’s ratio of N:P is 11.3 : 1 (0.0259mM : 0.0023mM); nitrogen is eleven times more abundant than phosphorus. Since the ratio is less than Redfield’s ratio, nitrogen and phosphorus may be co-limiting. Co-limiting nutrients suggest that throughout a growing season, nitrogen and phosphorus could be alternating as limiting factors for algal growth. Hence, in order to reduce algal growth, loadings into the lake for both nutrients need to be reduced. Although only a phosphorus budget was constructed for this study (see the rest of this chapter), additional research including a nitrogen budget and a nutrient limitation/dilution experiment is suggested before expensive in-lake management techniques are initiated for phosphorus reductions in Spring Lake. 57 Another critical limit for algal blooms has been suggested as 0.3 mg/l dissolved inorganic nitrogen and 0.01 mg/l of phosphorus during spring and fall overturn (Wetzel 1983). Spring Lake exceeded those critical limits; the average overturn concentrations for 1997 and 1998 were 0.71 mg/l for nitrate and 0.04 mg/l for total phosphorus. Needless to say, algal blooms did occur during both summers, and nutrients drive the dynamics and composition of the algae. PHOSPHORUS From May 1997 to October 1998, water samples from Spring Lake, its tributaries, and the Grand River were analyzed for total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total dissolved phosphorus (methods and materials are in Appendix B). Total phosphorus is just as its name implies; the sum of all types of phosphorus compounds in the water sample, including phosphorus within living and dead cells and other suspended solids. Soluble reactive phosphorus is the measurement of the most readily available form of phosphorus. Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus are usually very low in well-lit surface waters of lakes because when available, this form of phosphorus is immediately absorbed by algae and other plants (Wetzel 1983). In the winter season, the soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations in the epilimnion of Spring Lake (surface water layer) ranged from <0.01 to 0.08 mg/l and in the hypolimnion (lower water layer) ranged from 0.01 to 0.07 mg/l. During the summer season, the soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations in the epilimnion ranged from <0.01 to 0.1 mg/l and in the hypolimnion ranged from <0.01 to 0.78 mg/l (Table B2). Total dissolved phosphorus is another partitioning of total phosphorus and is the phosphorus remaining in the water after 58 particles and algae have been filtered from the water sample. During the winter, concentrations of total dissolved phosphorus in Spring Lake were 0.01 to 0.12 mg/l in the epilimnion and 0.03 to 0.04 mg/l in the hypolimnion. During the summer, the total dissolved phosphorus in the epilimnion ranged from <0.01 to 0.13 and in the hypolimnion ranged from <0.01 to 0.58 mg/l (Table B3). Primary sources of phosphorus into lakes often include precipitation, stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, and streambank erosion (Berner and Berner 1996). Many times phosphorus sources also include leaching from septic systems, discharge from sewage treatment facilities, and point-source discharges from industries. Fortunately, no discharge from sewage treatment facilities is known to flow directly into Spring Lake and only one permitted point—source discharge exists, but it is not a source of phosphorus. Johnston Boiler Company is permitted by the government to discharge a maximum of 25,000 gallon/day of boiler test water into the channel between Spring Lake and the Grand River. The discharge is regularly measured for flow and temperature (MDEQ 1996). Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake Most of the sampling sites on the lake were similar to each other in total phosphorus concentrations except for the hypolimnion and metalimnion of the deepest sites, Prospect Point and Spring Lake (Figure 23), indicating that internal loading from sediments or from new sedimenting debris may be occurring at the deepest layers. Because the epilimnion and hypolimnion concentrations of the other sites are similar, the bayous do not seem to differ in total phosphorus concentrations and thus probably respond similarly to lake 59 mixing and stratification. These other sites include Fruitport, Jerusalem Bayou, Petty Bayou, Smith Bayou, and Stahl Bayou (for locations see Figure 8). 0.8 l l 1 1 I I I 0.7 — _ E 0.6 r _ :1 0.5 — _ El 1 * g 0.4 — t , fl 3‘ .3 0-3 7 _ an 3 0'2 b i WATER LAYER ° H 0.1 L g m g t4 w w ‘ DEpilimnion o o I” L I if g 1 :Hypolimnion ' "“ Metalimnion Fruitport Petty Spring Stahl Jerusalem Prospect Smith SITE FIGURE 23: Box Plots of Total Phosphorus Concentrations at the Spring Lake Sampling Sites, May 1997-October 1998 (mg/l). Box plots provide much detail about the raw data. The line or notch in the box is the median which is the middle of data. The length of the box illustrates the central spread of data. The lines outside the boxes show the spread of the data and the asterisks and circles beyond the lines are extreme data outside the spread. Spring Lake’s total phosphorus concentrations in the surface water layer, the epilimnion, varied less than in the lower water layer, the hypolimnion (Figure 24 & 25). The unweighted total phosphorus means of the water layers were 0.07 mg/l i 0.003 (standard error) for the epilimnion, 0.09 mg/l :1: 0.015 for the metalimnion, and 0.10 mg/l d: 0.011 for the hypolimnion. These water layer statistics include all dates and sampling sites, 60 therefore the means are generally robust and the hypolimnion in this case is the lower water layer, whether stratified or unstratified. During the summer stratification, the greater range of total phosphorus concentrations in the hypolimnion (Figure 25) is most likely due to the episodic inputs of algal blooms, sedimentation of the dead algae, and loading from the sediments (Stauffer 1991). 0.8 l 1 1 0.7 — 0 e 9 0.6 ” — O!) o E T; 0.5 — “ E’. .9 ° 0 4 _ ,. O r ,2 0.3 L :3 ‘ A E 0.2 — " * — O I— 00 L 1 1 Epilimnion Hypolimnion Metalimnion Lake Layer FIGURE 24: Box Plots of Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Water Layers of Spring Lake, May 1997 - October 1998. 61 0.8 l l l 1 l l! A 0.7 r e S 5 0.6 — x ‘ Q E 0.5 "— r e u a _ § _‘ 5' 0.4 x X . E 0.3 - ’F - 3 x Water Layer § 0.2 - "' r o Epilimnion 0 1 __ 4 XHypolimnion ’ "l'Metalimnion I l L 0.0 April 97 Oct 97 May 98 Dec 98 July 97 Feb 98 Aug 98 DATE FIGURE 25: Time Series of Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Water Layers of Spring Lake (mg/l) Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake’s Tributaries and the Grand River During the sampling period, total phosphorus concentrations in the Grand River, Spring Lake, and its tributaries fluctuated seasonally. The Grand River had the highest concentrations and the tributaries had the lowest concentrations (Figure 26). In the spring, Spring Lake’s concentrations were more similar to the tributaries’ concentrations. Then as the summer progressed, the total phosphorus concentrations in Spring Lake increased until the following winter and spring and became more like the concentrations found in the Grand River. These concentration differences begin to show the hydrological characteristics which exist in this water system. Usually water bodies lower in the 62 landscape are higher in nutrient concentrations and other suspended solids due to point and non-point sources. Therefore since the Grand River is the lowest in landscape, nutrient concentrations in the Grand River will usually be higher than those found in the tributaries that flow into Spring Lake. However, high nutrient loads in the tributaries may occur with large precipitation events, especially after long dry periods because pollen, dust and other things that settle on structures are picked up with the stormwater runoff. These types of events usually happen during the summer. Seasonally, total phosphorus concentrations from the Grand River, Spring Lake, and its tributaries were the highest in the summer and the lowest in the winter (Figure 26 & 27). 3 I I I I I 3 .2 T “ M E E .8 3‘ .2 .l a. SITES 3 "' ‘ Grand River — “3 Spring Lake Epilimnion — + Tributaries 0 ' ‘ Well April 97 Oct97 May98 Dec98 July 97 Feb98 Aug98 DATE FIGURE 26: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Grand River, Spring Lake, and its Tributaries 0.2 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) O l 'l' 71* l m SEASON 0.0 ' ' — 0 Summer Grand River Tributaries Spring Lake '3 Winter FIGURE 27: Seasonal Means of Total Phosphorus Concentrations with one Standard Error for the Grand River, Spring Lake and its Tributaries (mg/l) 0.2 3 EL ‘3 3 0.1 - — J: .1. T a. .L o .a a. '3 ’5 I I- J l J Grand River Tributaries Spring Lake FIGURE 28: Means of Total Phosphorus Concentration with one Standard Error of Mean for May 1997-October 1998 for the Grand River, Spring Lake and its Tributaries (mg/1) ’ 64 All of the following are the means with one standard error of the mean that are illustrated in Figure 27 & 28. Overall total phosphorus means were 0.09 mg/l :1: 0.0047 for Spring Lake, 0.04 mg/l :1: 0.0033 for its tributaries, and 0.09 mg/l i 0.0043 for the Grand River. During the summer, total phosphorus means (not volumetrically-weighted) were 0.1 mg/l :1: 0.0057 for Spring Lake (volumetrically-weighted mean for Spring Lake was also 0.10 mg/l), 0.04 mg/l i 0.0034 for its tributaries, and 0.1 mg/l :t 0.0034 for the Grand River. During the winter, Spring Lake’s total phosphorus averaged 0.06 mg/l 1 0.0024, its tributaries averaged 0.03 mg/l i 0.0064, and the Grand River averaged 0.08 mg/l i 0.011. So, during the summer, why is the total phosphorus concentration in the lake higher than its tributaries and more closely aligned to the Grand River? Several phosphorus sources are possible: internal loading from the sediments, exchange with the Grand River, fertilizer runoff, precipitation directly on the lake and stormwater runoff. One way to differentiate between these phosphorus inputs is to develop seasonal mass budgets. PHOSPHORUS BUDGET Construction of an annual and seasonal phosphorus mass budgets provides estimates of the phosphorus inputs into Spring Lake, and then questions pertaining to these loadings may be addressed. The phosphorus budget equation is similar to the water budget equation. Appendix B contains information on how the individual components were calculated. Phosphorus loadings with low and high estimates are summarized in Table 6. AlTPmcl :[TPm‘b]+[TP l+[TPductl+[TPscpac]+[Tanl precip + [TP fen iii [ TP residual ] A[ TP m, ] = Change in lake mass of total phosphorus [ TP “,1, ] = Tributary mass loading [ TP pm“, ] = Atmospheric loading on lake surface [ TP duck ] = Waterfowl loading [ TP “pa-c ] = Septic system loading [ TP m ] = Stormwater runoff loading [TP f,_.,,] = Lawn fertilizer loading [ TP mid“, ] = Residuals 66 3 Me- 3%. 8 _ N- M _ M- MN. MS. MS _- as. M _ v- 2232 $3 $2 $2 3M $2 axe: $8 :8 5. SN MM 2 o 0 com M: X snare :33 $3 :3 $2 cam axon cam :36 save $3 NM 2 M 2 M N M M _ $8333 OMMN as: :2 a? $3 $8 §M $3 $8 So as. SN Moe 3N M2 8M M2 8 39% 25% :M cam as; $0.0 $3 $3 9% a: as. 3 me «M M M _ 2 a M 533955 .xM . sM .5 as; a: axoM exam xM 0% 2: Ma 8 v M M a 2 M. 222852 68% see as? axe $2 $2 $3. $3 $3 Mam Me: ME MM em 2 may M3 MMM 3:333 5&3 SM- 5. 3:- 3 Me MM e2- EN. EN. 8.3 ex. .wa § .msc ex. .9: E. .wa ex. .3 ax. .3 ex. .wa ex. .me ax. .wa ouaemumm 0383mm 0353mm 0383mm oumemumm 0383mm w a 0 Bo w own 0 Bo w. owfig Bo ._ E _ a a q a E . >< a a .m < a 825m 1552 BEE—i .8255 A83 2.: Eat maonqmosdwo M8— “ 8.865 398:: 028mg a £223 .83 2: 2 38.38% mo Emm a 8:865 “38:: 0328a 8 8.3 macaw com How—63m M22325 .83. mo meE:m H o mama; 67 Lake Storage Mass Seasonally, the phosphorus mass in the lake seems to vary mostly due to flushing rates as in other lakes (Dillon 1975). The net loss of phosphorus from Spring Lake during the winter occurs during the lake’s period of lower residence time and higher flushing rates (Table 6). During the summer, the lake gained a net average of 6.3 kg of phosphorus during its lower flushing rates and higher residence time; yet, on an annual water year basis, the lake had a net loss of 131 kg of phosphorus. During the summer periods, Spring Lake began to take on the appearance of a lake with a longer retention time and more eutrophic conditions. High flushing rates decrease the likelihood of sediments and phosphorus settling to the bottom of the lake (Dillon 1975, Galicka 1992). In fact during high flushing rates, lake total phosphorus concentrations should be similar to the concentrations found in the major inflows of water to the lake (Cooke et al. 1993). Although the mean total phosphorus concentration in the lake during the winter was 0.06 mg/l and the tributary mean concentration was 0.03 mg/l, the mean concentration of the spring overturn of the lake was 0.045 mg/l which is similar to the summer and winter tributary means. The difference between the winter lake and tributary concentrations may be caused by loadings from septic systems and other external and internal phosphorus SOUICCS. Tributary Loading The tributaries contributed an average of 293 kg (44%) of phosphorus to the lake during the winter season and 23.5 kg (10%) during the summer season, and for a cumulative total of 1893kg (67%) (Table 6). The phosphorus contribution was higher during the winter 68 because the larger flows, including snow melts and spring rains flush the soils of the watersheds. Some common agricultural and residential practices in the fall and the spring, such as manure and fertilizer applications, may contribute to the higher concentrations in winter season. During the summer, except during storm events, the tributaries are usually at baseflow levels, consisting primarily of water originating from groundwater instead of overland runoff. Because groundwater is usually low in phosphorus concentration and summer stream discharge is low, the summer phosphorus loading from tributaries is low. Phosphorus loading in tributaries is directly related to volume of input (Lathrop et al. 1998, Gordon et al. 1992). When summer storms do occur, higher loads flow into Spring Lake. Norris Creek at Pontaluna Road and Steven’s Creek at Pontaluna contributed higher loadings than the other tributaries during one storm event (Figure 29). High phosphorus loadings can also be the result of soil erosion. During storm events and the spring flush, soil erosion was observed at road crossings, especially at Vincent Creek at Bridge Street, Norris Creek at Third Street Bridge and Rhymer Creek at Mt. Garfield Road. Tributary loading can be reduced through best management practices (BMPs) for agricultural and residential land uses and also by stabilizing eroding banks at road crossings. 69 an O 8 8 ............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................ . . v . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . r . r . r . . i . . . . . . . . . Total Phosphorus Loading (mg/sec) C 18May 97 81ul)97. 10am 256cm 81ul)97, 7am 81u1)97, 4pm -- Norris@Pont. -I- Willows@Pont. + Jerusalem --—I= Stevens@Pont. FIGURE 29: Total Phosphorus Loadings of Tributaries from Storm Event of July 8, 1997. Atmospheric Loading Atmospheric loading includes wet and dry deposition directly on the lake’s surface. Atmospheric loading for Spring Lake was calculated by using the average of Gull Lake’s combined wet and dry phosphorus measurements (Tague 1977). In Spring Lake’s budget, precipitation directly onto the lake contributed an average of 3% (18.5 kg) of all the phosphorus inputs during the winter, 1% (3.3 kg) for the summer, and 3% (95kg) for an annual total (Table 6). Because Spring Lake’s watershed area to lake area ratio is not extremely large (26: 1) , the relative importance of loading from precipitation is higher than some other types of lakes (Cooke et al. 1993). Reigler found that for Ontario lakes with a 30:1 ratio, precipitation contributed 9% of the phosphorus loading; whereas, for lakes with a 10:1 ratio, precipitation contributed 23% of the loading (Cooke et al. 1993). Spring Lake’s precipitation loading percentage was slightly lower than the Ontario lakes, which may be due to climatic variability, error in the phosphorus measurements in precipitation, and greater importance of other external or internal phosphorus sources. 70 Fortunately, atmospheric loading was small into Spring Lake, because this source cannot be easily altered by the residents in the watershed —— atmospheric loading is a regional source of phosphorus. Stormwater Loading During the winter, stormwater loaded 1% of the phosphorus inputs and during the summer, the loading was 0.7% of inputs; both of which are very small when compared to the other inputs. Since no combined stormsewer and sanitary systems are known to exist around Spring Lake, the stormwater phosphorus loading is caused from overland runoff from commercial and residential areas (urban land use). When compared to agricultural lands, urban areas, such as portions of Spring Lake’s shoreline, export higher concentrations of dissolved phosphorus, which can be easily absorbed by algae and aquatic plants (Soranno et al. 1996). The area used to calculate these figures was a conservative estimate that did not include the impervious areas of roofs, driveways, and parking lots. Although stormwater loading is small at this time, high loadings can occur with large rain events and efforts should begin to reduce this loading source. Reductions of phosphorus in stormwater can easily be achieved through various practices such as more frequent street cleanings and cleaning of stormsewer sediment traps (USEPA 1996). Runoff can be reduced by constructing driveways, parking lots, and sidewalks with materials that allow some penetration of water. Construction of stormwater retention ponds or grassy areas can also be used to reduce the amount of nutrients in runoff by allowing time for infiltration into the groundwater. 71 Septic System Loading Within the watershed, 91% of the watershed area is serviced by mostly septic systems and 7% is serviced by mostly municipalisanitary sewer (Figure 30). Approximately 895 lakeshore residential homes surround Spring Lake (Przybytek 1999) and about 27% or 242 of the 895 lakeshore residents continue to be serviced by septic systems. It was estimated that the lakeside residences with septic systems contributed a total of 1.34 kg of phosphorus per day for a winter average of 188 kg, summer average of 204 kg, and an annual total of 491 kg (17%). These sources are 28% and 86%, winter and summer respectively, of all the total phosphorus inputs. The septic system loading is greater than stormwater and waterfowl loadings. This phosphorus source should be eliminated to reduce the nutrient input into the lake. Recommendations to reduce this source are suggested later in the chapter. Waterfowl Loading If waterfowl populations per lake surface are high, their excretion can be a large source of phosphorus into the lake (Portnoy 1990, Manny et a1. 1975). Average daily waterfowl numbers on Spring Lake were approximately 118 during the winter season and 110 during the summer. Gulls, mallards, domestic ducks, Canada geese, swans, coots, loons, wood ducks, and mergansers were observed and counted (Appendix B). Their phosphorus contribution to Spring Lake is very low compared to the other sources: 0.4% (winter), 2% (summer), and 0.6% (annual) . Their minimal loading does not diminish the importance of the current endeavor of educational signs to stop waterfowl feeding. Waterfowl excretion boost nutrients in localized areas as observed at a common waterfowl feeding site, 72 F ruitport Boat Landing. The droppings along the shoreline increase the nutrients in the runoff and thus probably increase algal growth in that immediate area. Waterfowl have a tendency to congregate along the shoreline areas which many lake residents seem to enjoy: lawns sloping directly to the lake’s edge. Not only do these areas attract waterfowl but the lawn does not slow runoff as quickly as other types of plantings. Planting flowers, shrubs, and taller grasses along the shoreline border will establish a buffer strip that will discourage waterfowl and aid in runoff retention. 73 FIGURE 30: Areas Serviced by Municipal Sanitary Sewers and Septic Systems in the Spring Lake Watershed 74 75 FIGURE 30 Spring Lake Watershed Project Sewer and Septic Service Areas Legen d E Spring Lake Watershed Boundary Sewer and Septic Service Areas , 4,: mum-50%) m Manly Septic m Mostly Sewer .1 Lakes and Ponds Rivers. Streams and Drama Township and Municipal Boundariel """" Section Lines State and Federal Highway! County Road: Relidenlial Streets 0 1 $5 Miles 1 0 1 Kilometers Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Base Information - MIchigan . Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). Infomation Services Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University Lawn I fertiliz Lake 1 taken b LaboraI only tip that res fertilize. Nice 21 to 24°, 0 iSaPPUe remitted (73% of fefllllm amOum rate of 5 1‘0, so .0 0f “11h phr 10“: mtr. Lawn Fertilizer Loading Fertilizing with phosphorus fertilizer is another source of phosphorus loading into Spring Lake. In 1997, soils from seven different lawns scattered around the lake’s shoreline were taken by John Nash and tested for phosphorus at the MSU Soil and Plant Nutrient Laboratory. Results confirmed that all soil samples were saturated with phosphorus and only applications of non-phosphorus fertilizer were recommended. Of the lake residents that responded to the watershed resident survey (see chapter 4), 73% of the lake owners fertilized their lawn or garden at least once a year (16% about once a year + 24% about twice a year + 33% fertilized more than twice a year). This is a high percentage compared to 24% around Gull Lake in the 19705 (Tague 1977). If phosphorus-containing fertilizer is applied to soil that is saturated with phosphorus, the additional phosphorus cannot be retained and runs off into the lake during the next rain. Supposing that the 653 residents (73% of 895 lake residents) who fertilized once a year used 40 pounds of a common lawn fertilizer containing 3% phosphorus (28-3-3) in April during the winter season, then the amount of phosphorus loading into the lake is approximately 155 kg for an areal loading rate of 50 mg m'2 yr". This amount is almost as large as the septic system loading and is 23% of all loadings. Because of this high percentage of possible loading, lawn fertilizing with phosphorus should be eliminated immediately and only non-phosphorus fertilizer with low nitrogen should be applied, in the minimum amount necessary. Often golf courses are sources of large loadings of phosphorus but this does not seem to be the case on Spring Lake. The Spring Lake Country Club golf course is situated on the lake’s shores in Petty’s Bayou just east of the public boat landing. For the past several 76 years, low-phosphorus and often non-phosphorus fertilizers have been applied to the golf course. Management of the greens includes applications of organic fertilizer but this includes relatively small areas away from the lake. Concerned about their potential influence on the lake’s water quality, the Spring Lake Country Club began in 1995 to analyze water samples throughout their drainage system for nitrate, ammonium, and total phosphorus. Runoff from the fairways and greens flows into a drainage system which transports the runoff to a series of two retention ponds then finally into the lake. During a period in 1995, which included several rain events, the average concentrations in the second retention pond were 0.02 mg/l for total phosphorus, 0.37 mg/l for nitrate, and 0.2 mg/l for ammonium (Richter 1997). These average total phosphorus concentrations are lower than Spring Lake’s concentrations and are more similar to the tributaries’ concentrations, but the retention pond’s average nitrate and ammonium concentrations were higher than the lake’s concentrations. Buffer zones are also maintained around the ponds and the lake shoreline. Overall, the golf course’s drainage system, fertilizer applications, and buffer zones are examples of good management practices for water quality. Residuals for the Phosphorus Budget The residual contains error and all sources and losses of phosphorus that were not measured: net exchange from the Grand River, net exchange with groundwater, losses to the sediments by sedimentation, and internal loading from the sediments. The influence of phosphorus inputs from the Grand River and groundwater inflows is thought to be small. Although total phosphorus concentrations in the Grand River were usually higher than the 77 lake, the phosphorus contribution from the river is presumed to be small because the discharge into Spring Lake is believed to be small. Until the channel flow between Spring Lake and the Grand River is studied in more detail, the river’s contribution of phosphorus into Spring Lake will remain unknown. As for groundwater, a well about one half mile northeast of Stahl’s Bayou was sampled and tested along with the lake samples during one event. The total phosphorus in the well sample was 0.01 mg/l, which is very low. Phosphorus in groundwater is typically this low and therefore is probably not a large source of phosphorus, but is more likely an important source of water for dilution. Assuming that the error and the phosphorus loadings from the river and groundwater are minimal, the residual must be mostly due to internal loading, sedimentation, and loss to the Grand River. Since net residual is negative, this indicates an overall loss of phosphorus, which includes phosphorus leaving Spring Lake’s water column by going into the Grand River as well as sedimentation, which can be offset by the release of phosphorus from the sediments. Phosphorus is lost to the sediment by the sinking of dying organisms, suspended solids, and phosphorus bound to calcium carbonate precipitates (Kelts and Hsu 1978). Phosphorus readily binds with calcium carbonate precipitates, which are produced by algae and other aquatic plants during photosynthesis (Kelts and Hsu 1978). I commonly observed this precipitate, called marl, on plants and bottom sediments in several of the bayous and bays, especially in Willows Bay, Petty’s Bayou, and Stahl Bayou. The phosphorus associated with carbonate minerals readily dissolves in oxygen-depleted water and thereby contributes to the internal loading in lakes. 78 Although phosphorus sedimentation rates were not measured, they are probably a significant part of the residual. Sedimentation rates in a variety of lakes have been recorded, ranging from 0.5 to 50 g/mzday (Evans 1994). Lake Mendota, an eutrophic lake in Wisconsin, had sedimentation rates of 3.5 - 33 mg/mzday while Lake Michigan, an Oligotrophic lake, had rate of 0.24 - 1.2 mg/mzday during the summer (Hicks et al. 1994). Because Spring Lake is a eutrophic lake, sedimentation rates are probably more similar to Lake Mendota and would be influenced by water residence times. Therefore, the sedimentation rates for Spring Lake would be higher during the summer season and lower in the winter season. The large difference between the winter residual of -689 kg and the summer residual of ~23] kg suggests that more phosphorus is leaving the lake via the connection to the Grand River during the winter when sedimentation rates are low, and also possibly indicate that internal loading is larger than sedimentation rates during the summer when flow out into the Grand River is probably lower. Large internal loadings may occur in eutrophic lakes during very productive periods because often these types of lakes have hypolimnions that are depleted of dissolved oxygen, which triggers the release of phosphorus from the sediments into the overlying waters. One of the causes of low dissolved oxygen levels in the hypolimnion is the oxygen-consuming process of decomposition of algae and other organisms. An indication of internal loading is an increase of phosphorus in the hypolimnion as the summer progresses. During stratification, the total phosphonis concentrations in the hypolimnion were higher 79 than the epilimnion. If the concentrations in the hypolimnion are assumed to be from phosphorus being released from the sediments, the rate of concentration change in the hypolimnion can be used to estimate a phosphorus loading rate from the sediments (Auer et a1. 1993) (Appendix B). Other studies have found loading from sediments during high oxygen levels (no stratification) to range from -2.0 to 9.6 mg/mzday, and during stratification with low oxygen to range from 1.2 to 150 mg/mzday (Reckhow and Chapra 1983). Therefore, during periods of no stratification in Spring Lake, loading from sediments is probably very small, but not so for periods of stratification. A hyper- eutrophic lake in New York had a mean phosphorus release rate of 13 mg/mzday from the sediment and was the lake’s second highest source of phosphorus (24% of all the inputs) (Auer et al. 1993). Spring Lake’s mass loading from the sediments during the summer stratification was estimated to be 1.93 mg/mzday and contributed 529 kg of phosphorus to the lake during the summer. This potential amount of phosphorus loading is the highest among all the other inputs during the summer (Table 6) and may be a deep phosphorus source for the algae, Microcystis (see chapter 3). But increasing flushing rates during the fall may aid in diluting and flushing out the higher phosphorus concentrations in the water. If the external loadings of phosphorus are lowered and the algal blooms are reduced, the dissolved oxygen levels in the hypolimnion should rise because decomposing organisms are reduced. Then, internal loading from the sediments should also be reduced in time, aided by the seasonal flushing of the lake. Internal loadings are derived from phosphorus-rich sediments and recent organic sedimentation of decaying matter. Phosphorus concentrations of Spring Lake’s sediments 80 ranged between 820 to 750 mg/kg from cores taken in October 1997 (Rediske 1999), which are lower than Michigan’s average background level of 1,160 mg/kg (MDEQ 1998). The sediments consisted of black organic silts and woody fragments. The sediments also contain moderate to high iron concentrations, 18,500 to 24,600 mg/kg (Thorpe 1994). High iron content in sediments interacts with phosphorus in an interesting relationship. In water with oxygen, iron will bind to phosphorus; but, in water with low oxygen levels, the phosphorus is released from the iron (Cooke et al. 1993). Thus as long as the oxygen remains in the hypolimnion, the sediments in Spring Lake should bind and retain phosphorus because of the high iron content. Internal loading can also occur through the resuspension of sediments. Resuspension of sediments containing nutrients is a common event in shallow lakes (Cooke et al. 1993, Reddy et al. 1996). The main body of Spring Lake is deep but the bayous are shallow with maximum depths ranging from 5 to 6 meters (17 to 21 feet), and may be functioning as sources of resuspended sediments. Resuspension is primarily caused by wind, forming surface and internal waves, seiches, especially during large storms (Evans 1994, Gloor et al. 1994, Pierson et al. 1994). In another large deep lake with a mean depth of 9 m and a maximum depth of 21m, internal waves caused a marked increase of resuspended sediments and nutrients in the hypolimnion (Pierson et al. 1994). During the summer when the hypolimnion has decreased to a sufficient depth, resuspension fiom internal waves can have “important consequences on both the redistribution of lake sediments and the internal loading of phosphorus” (Pierson et al. 1994). Phosphorus reduction of this loading mechanism is difficult to achieve due to its strong climatic driver. 81 Even aquatic plants influence the release of phosphorus and sediments, particularly through their ability to reduce sediment resuspension (Dieter 1990). Many aquatic plants obtain much of their phosphorus from the sediments and may release large amounts of phosphorus into the water while decomposing (Wetzel 1983), as can happen after herbicide treatments. A potential but most likely small phosphorus source, the rooted aquatic plant area in Spring Lake covers 27% of the lake surface and is important for good fisheries (see Chapter 3). LAKE MACATAWA: ANOTHER LOCAL RIVER-MOUTH LAKE Spring Lake is one of the many drowned river-mouth lakes along the western shore of Michigan. These lakes have some similar characteristics but yet each seem to be unique in its land use and water quality problems. Spring Lake and Lake Macatawa are two such lakes. Located in southern Ottawa county, Lake Macatawa is an 1800-acre drowned river-mouth and its watershed encompasses 175 square miles, over three times as large as the Spring Lake watershed. The average depth of the lake is 12 feet and its maximum depth is 40 feet. The Macatawa River and Pine Creek are its major tributaries along with other smaller tributaries contributing to the lake’s residence time of 58 days. Classified as a hypereutrophic lake, Lake Macatawa has had historically high nutrient levels, nuisance algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and high sediment loading. Forty-four point sources from shoreline industries and businesses contribute approximately 5436 kg/year of phosphorus (12,000 pounds/year) directly to the lake (MDEQ 1998). The tributaries contribute 57,078 kg/year (126,000 pounds/year), draining agricultural lands and comprising 68% of the watershed area. In 1997, the lake’s average spring total 82 phosphorus was 0.125 mg/l. The lake’s watershed area to lake area ratio is 63, as compared to Spring Lake’s 26, which indicates its extreme vulnerability to land use change in the watershed. Currently, local and state groups and agencies are developing and initiating a phOSphorus reduction strategy in an effort to obtain a lake phosphorus concentration of 0.05 mg/1(Macatawa Area Coordinating Council 1998). The phosphorus reduction strategy primarily targets non-point sources, recommending measures such as stormwater retention, green belts along waterways, and agricultural best management practices. Although the lake occasionally stratifies, causing anoxic (no oxygen) conditions in deeper waters and thereby possibly causing the release of phosphorus, this source of phosphorus was not considered a major source (MDEQ 1998) and was not included in the reduction strategy: Using Spring Lake as an example, phosphorus loading from the sediments most likely occurs during anoxic conditions and may occur under the same conditions in Lake Macatawa. As long as the point and non-point sources continue at the same levels, internal loading will be of a lower relative importance to other sources (Cooke et al. 1993). But if point and non-point sources are lowered, the internal loading should not be ignored because its relative importance will increase as the other source loadings decrease. The lingering effects of loading from sediments should not be dismissed because of difficulties in obtaining measurements or finding solutions. Therefore, I suggest that the current strategy be revisited to include a missing component of the phosphorus budget, internal loading from sediments, not only for a holistic view but also to aid in realistic future scenarios for the lake. 83 RECOMMENDATIONS Without precise knowledge of the inputs from the Grand River, internal loading, and groundwater, the largest known phosphorus loadings into Spring Lake are currently thought to be the tributaries, septic systems, and lawn fertilizers. All of these sources may be reduced by various methods, and thus reduce phosphorus concentrations in the lake. It is not a lost cause as some peOple may believe. If all phosphorus sources are reduced along with nitrogen sources, the natural flushing of the lake should enable this watershed and lake to rebound more quickly than other lakes with lower flushing times. Reduction of loadings from leaching septic systems can be completed through connections to a municipal sanitary sewer system or better maintenance of septic systems. All homes around the shoreline of the lake and tributaries and those near these water courses should be connected to a sewer system. One way to insure this connection is through local ordinances and enforcement. Local municipalities can develop ordinances that mandate sewer hook ups when a residence changes owners. If a city sewer connection is unavailable, the residents should properly maintain their septic system to minimize leaching into the lake system. Home*A* Syst, an excellent MSU County Extension program for homeowners, recommends that waterside septic systems be pumped every 3- 5 years (MSU Extension 1997). Perhaps, a joint venture between the municipalities and local septic system pumping businesses is in order. During the spring cleaning season, fetninders could be sent to residents around the lake about septic system maintenance. 84 In Spring Lake, loading from the tributaries was higher than the septic system loading during the winter season. Tributary loading is best reduced by diversion and reduction of point and non-point sources (Cooke et a1. 1993). No known point sources exist along the tributaries; therefore, the non-point sources must be addressed. Non-point sources are many diffirse sources that jointly increase nutrients in runoff from the land and is therefore highly influenced by land use and the practices upon that land. State and national programs strongly recommend best management practices, BMPs, to reduce non-point source loadings (USEPA 1996). Many BMPs have been developed for homeowners, agricultural entities, and other businesses and include objectives such as reduction in fertilizer applications, runoff control, and soil erosion control. Specific BMP techniques are: 1. Sigma]; infiltration and detention basins, sand filters, vegetated filter strips, constructed wetlands, detention dry basins, streambank stablization. 2. Non-structural: pollution prevention, watershed planning, vegetated buffer areas, street sweeping, stormsewer inspections and cleanings, limitation of impervious surfaces, setback requirements around wetlands and shorelines, protection of wetlands and water resources, strategic planning and zoning so as not to degrade water quality, public education and fertilizer reduction (EPA 1996). The highest potential phosphorus loading among both seasons may be from internal loading during the summer, which is influenced by the stratification of the lake that is ultimately controlled by the climate. If summer stratification does not occur or occurs on a limited basis, loading from the sediments becomes less important in that water year and the other sources become more important. Because nitrogen reduction may be equally as important as phosphorus reduction, expensive in-lake management efforts to reduce this internal phosphorus loading should not be undertaken until additional research is 85 completed. All other phosphorus inputs need to be minimized in order to achieve long- term reduction of phosphorus in the sediments. For long term management of this lake with higher flushing rates in the winter and lower flushing times in the summer, lowering phosphorus levels in all inputs will in time lower sedimentation rates to the sediments and thus lower potential internal loading. This study is limited because phosphorus loading from the Grand River and groundwater could not be measured. More precise estimates of phosphorus loading from the tributaries may be gained by more frequent sampling of the main streams. Because nitrogen may be co-limiting with phosphorus, a nitrogen budget like the phosphorus budget, should be developed to pinpoint nitrogen loadings that may be reduced through management. Furthermore, a nutrient reduction/dilution experiment should be completed in the lake (Dodds et al. 1993, Elser et al. 1990). This type of container experiment will provide information on nutrient concentrations and corresponding algal concentrations which can be used to establish goals for nutrient and algae concentrations in Spring Lake. RECOMMENDATION LIST FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION Wit - Quantify the Grand River and groundwater exchanges. - Complete a nitrogen budget. - Complete a dilution/reduction experiment. - Sample the main tributaries for phosphorus and nitrogen more frequently. 86 th e B r - Provide and enforce sewer connections for shoreline residences. - Develop local ordinances limiting phosphorus fertilizer use and encourage the use of phosphorus-free fertilizers. - Construct retention ponds for stormwater runoff. - Sweep streets often to reduce sediment and nutrients in stormwater runoff. - Clean and maintain stormsewer sediment traps. - Continue monitoring of the lake water quality. 0 Encourage stewardship by expanding public education on watershed ecosystems and nutrient reduction practices. 0 Maintain and restore shoreline wetland areas which act as sediment and resuspension traps. 0 Reduce impervious surfaces in new developments. 0 Control soil erosion along shoreline of the lake and tributaries especially at road crossings by working jointly with owners, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and county soil conservation districts. Residents 0 Connect to city sewer when it is available. 0 Maintain septic systems by pumping every 3-5 years. 0 Eliminate lawn fertilizing with phosphorus-containing fertilizer and use only non- phosphorus fertilizer sparingly. - Stop dumping of leaves, limbs, grass clippings or other plant debris into the lake, 87 tributaries or wetlands. - Maintain compost piles away from the shoreline. - If aquatic plants are raked out of the water, place in compost pile away from shoreline. - Control soil erosion and stormwater runoff by establishing a buffer strip along the shoreline. - Use low phosphorus soaps in dishwashers and other applications. - Re-direct rain gutter runoff to lawn or another grassy area instead of directly into the lake. 0 Irrigate lawn and gardens appropriately, without causing runoff. - Maintain or restore shoreline wetlands for sediment and resuspension traps. 0 Reduce impervious surfaces. SUMMARY 0 Spring Lake is a eutrophic lake with high summer nutrient and algae concentrations. - Nitrogen and phosphorus are most likely co-limiting nutrients in the lake. - Influenced by climate, the higher flushing rates in the winter season result in a “lower trophic status” during this period, as in most lakes, but during the lower flushing rates of the summer season, the lake responds as a higher trophic status lake with low Secchi depths and high algae concentrations. 0 The highest phosphorus loadings are from tributaries, leaching septic systems, lawn fertilizer and possibly internal loading from the sediments. 88 Municipalities and residents can reduce the phosphorus loadings by incorporating best management practices and connecting to sanitary sewer system. Additional research to complete a nitrogen budget and to quantify the exchanges with the Grand River and groundwater is recommended before any expensive in- lake management techniques are implemented. 89 CHAPTER 3 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE IN THE WATERSHED INTRODUCTION We humans are mutually tied to other species around us through the food web and habitats. Initiating the web are plants, including the algae in the lake, because they are able to convert sun energy into plant tissues and sugars by utilizing absorbed nutrients. Animals then consume the plants for their energy. For example, a food chain within a lake may consist of an algae being eaten by a minute animal in the water column (zooplankton); the zooplankton is eaten by a minnow; the minnow is eaten by a trout or waterfowl, which may be eaten by a human. Another connection that humans have with plants and other animals is our shared habitat, a living space with all the resources for survival. Just as we need space, food, and water to live, so do plants and animals. Changes in habitats may diminish the quality and quantity of the present plant and animal life. If the habitat is altered and the plant and animals do survive, their number and health may be threatened. If these organisms do not survive, other types of plant and animal species that are tolerant to the changes begin to expand into the habitat. Alterations may include physical manipulation of the land or water, elimination of food and water sources, introduction of nutrients and pollutants, or even introduction of other plants and animals. Although not all habitat changes are harmful, human actions have tremendous impacts on habitats and affect the type, population, and health of plant and animal species. This chapter will give historical and current descriptions of some plant and animals in the watershed and explain how some of practices may be altered to prevent or minimize undesirable habitat and 90 biological changes. WOODY PLANTS: THE TREES Trees not only provide shade for residential homes and habitat for birds and animals, but shoreline trees also provide habitat for many aquatic animals and prevent deep mixing of lake waters. As shoreline trees age, they may fall into the water forming refiige areas for fish and other animals and also provide a centuries-long carbon source (D. Christensen et al. 1996). Spreading residential areas correlated with decreasing shoreline tree falls and it was estimated that 200 years of tree growth in residential areas is necessary to replace the missing habitat and carbon source in some Michigan and Wisconsin lakes (Christensen et al. 1996). Boating around Spring Lake, one discovers that Spring Lake exhibits this correlation with very little tree falls in the lake, with most of the falls occurring in Stahl Bayou which are rapidly being removed. Deforestation of shoreline trees have also been found to expose the lake surface to stronger winds, causing a deeper mixing of water, thereby reducing the lower cold-water layers which are necessary for cold-water fish like trout (France 1997). Currently threatened, Spring Lake’s shoreline trees are dense only in portions of Petty’s Bayou and areas where small tributaries enter the lake. Although not usually given much thought, trees are important for the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Tree species and populations have changed throughout the years. The Natural Features Inventory from the original surveyors’ notes of the 18005 provides an overview of the dominant tree species and land features from that time (Comer et al. 1995). Around the lake, the dominant tree species were white pine, white oak, hemlock, maple, white and 91 black ash, beech, birch, and black gum. At the back of Smith’s Bayou, a tamarack and cedar swamp existed and north of F ruitport a manipulated alder and willow wetland was noted. Remains of these wetland types can be observed today. Large areas of Spring Lake Village and the City of F errysburg, especially where Spring Lake connects to the Grand River, were identified as manipulated Great Lakes Marsh. Other small landscapes including wetlands were under-represented in the Historical Natural Features Inventory due to the surveyors’ methods (Comer et al. 1995). Elsewhere in the Spring Lake Watershed, particularly along Norris Creek, these additional tree species were documented: basswood, sugar maple, and sycamore. The forest along a section of Vincent Creek has been designated as a “notable significant” example of the mesic northern hemlock-oak-maple forest (Reese et al. 1988). From my observations, all of the above tree species still exist in the watershed but populations of tamarack and cedar are extremely low and the marshy areas near the Village of Spring Lake and the City of F errysburg are now entirely man-made land. ALGAE Unlike trees and other terrestrial plants, algae absorb their nutrients directly from the water instead of from the soil and some algae species can even obtain nitrogen directly from the air. If nutrient concentrations are high like they are much of the time in Spring Lake, algal populations will increase until some other factor limits their growth such as exposure to sunlight, temperature, or turbidity of the water. When phosphorus and nitrogen alter in available concentrations, algae species may change depending on their needs and tolerances (Reynolds 1984). Because Redfield’s ratio was lower than 16:1 in 92 Spring Lake, algae growth is predicted to be co-limited between nitrogen and phosphorus (Chapter 2). Microcystis, Apham'zomenon, and Anabaena are all types of blue-green algae that are found in Spring Lake but only Apham‘zomenon and Anabaena can fix nitrogen directly from the air. The algae that has caused the green cast on the lake during the summer for the past few years is due mostly to Microcystis, which cannot utilize nitrogen from the air. If nitrogen concentrations were reduced in Spring Lake, Microcystis growth would decrease and may be replaced by a type of blue-green algae that can fix nitrogen from the air, such as Aphanizomenon and Anabaena. Because algae obtain their nutrients from the water (or air for some types), we can influence their growth and abundance through nutrients in runoff from our common practices and uses of the land. Algal groups that are present in Spring Lake and the Grand River are the blue-greens, diatoms, greens, dinoflagellates, cryptophytes, and chrystophytes. (Appendix C contains information on the materials and methods for this chapter and species lists.) Both micro and macro algae exist in Spring Lake and the Grand River. Compared to Spring Lake, the Grand River is the most productive water for algae with a total of 36 species. Whereas in Spring Lake, 39 species were identified and are listed in Table C1 (St. Amand 1999). Of the 49 algal species in Spring Lake and the Grand River, the most common genera were Melosira, Asterionella, F ragilaria, Microcystis, Scenedesmus, Apham'zomenon, and Cryptomonas. Diatoms, Melosira, Asterionella, and Fragilaria, were the most common algae in cooler weather; and blue-green algae, Microcystis and Aphanizomenon, were most prolific during the summer (Figure 31 & 32). These types of algae are common for eutrophic lakes, rivers, and reservoirs (Kohler 1994, Galicka 1992, Bayne et al. 1990). Since the Grand River and Spring Lake are connecting bodies of water, each may serve as an inoculant source of algae and thus it is not surprising that many species are common in both waters. In another river-lake system, lake algae species that were dominate in the spring grew into larger populations in the river; but during the summer, the blue-green populations were greater in the lake than the river (Kohler 1994). In comparison to this river-lake example, Spring Lake’s dominating group in the spring was diatoms which became more abundant in the Grand River during late spring (Figure 31 and 32). But, only for a short time each summer were the blue-green populations greater in Spring Lake than in the river even though individual blue-green colonies were larger in Spring Lake. These seasonal differences may be due to the differences in the flushing rates of the lake and the river (Kohler 1994). 94 _ c97 - D rrrrr is // ,4 Greens §Bluegreen Dinotlagellates D Chrystophfles Cryptophytes FIGURE 31: Stacked Areas of Algae Relative Abundance in Spring Lake. The species with the highest ranking of abundance “ithin each group and date is stacked on top (vertically on the graph) of the previous group like blocks and is then like a running sum of the highest abundance ranking of species within each group. 20 0 . . 6May97 4Jun97 8.~\ug97 ZRSept97 14Dec97 20.\la_\‘)8 24Ju198 l70ct98 - Driroms % Greens :_ . ue- er. Dinoflagellates [:J Chrystophytes T1 Cryptophytes FIGURE 32: Stacked Areas of Algae Relative Abundance in the Grand River. 95 Causing the algal blooms the past two summers, Microcystis cells are unique in their chemical and physical structure and reach prime growth in water temperatures between 20-30°C (Fallon & Brock 1981). The colony-forming algae are capable of altering their buoyancy, producing a toxin, over-wintering in the sediments, and efficiently utilizing sunlight. Microcystis cells absorb harmfiil ultra-violet light with alternative pigments and thus are protected from the rays and can continue growth when other algae cannot (Paerl et al. 1983). Large colonies of Microcystis can migrate through the water column to depths as great as 4.5 meters below the surface to utilize nutrients in the deeper metalimnion (Brooks et al. 1998). The algae can also produce a hepatotoxin which has been historically attributed to some animal deaths (Kalbe 1984) and scientists continue to study and debate its toxicity (Aguiar & Azevedo 1998). One such study found no correlation of mice deaths to the ingestion of water from which Microcystis had been filtered, but warned that the results should not imply that Microcystis blooms are completely harmless to the health and hygiene of humans (Kalbe 1984). Therefore when Microcystis blooms occur in Spring Lake, common sense is warranted. Another quality enabling this species is its ability to over-winter by settling on the top few centimeters of the bottom sediments in water as deep as 18-24 meters (Fallon & Brock 1981). The blooms decline because of unfavorable temperatures or rapid temperature declines, physical flushing during high precipitation events, and turbulence from wind mixing (Paerl et al. 1983). Unsightly, the blooms may be controlled by reducing nutrients. 96 ALGAE, ZOOPLANKTON, AND ZEBRA MUSSELS Algae populations are also affected by what eats them: 200plankton, fish larvae and mussels. Like algae, zooplankton species, which are minute aquatic animals, come in all sizes and eat a diversity of food: algae, bacteria, and other zooplankton. Larger zooplankton, like Daphnia, can eat large algae species such as Microcystis (Schoenberg & Carlson 1984). Daphnia are not common in Spring Lake but the smaller cousin, Bosmina, are abundant and cannot eat the large colonies of Microcystis. The lack of large populations of Daphnia may be a result of high predation by planktivorous fish such as perch (Shapiro & Wright 1984, Mazumder 1994). Even the presence of the common carp, which are in Spring Lake, have been correlated with decreasing aquatic plants and decreasing Daphnia populations (Lougheed & Fraser 1998, Hason & Butler 1994). Other Spring Lake zooplankton are Diaphanosoma, Leptodora, Asplanchna, Brachionus, Kellicottia, Keratella, and copepods -— all are not herbivores, Leptodora is predaceous. The large blooms of Microcystis may also be influenced by the zebra and native mussel populations. Some researchers believe mussels cause a change in algae composition and sizes (Pace 1998, Welker & Walz 1998). Zebra mussels are capable of filtering lake water at a rate of 8 cm3 m’zday'l for food (Pace 1998). In the Hudson River, zebra mussels have increased water clarity, decreased phytoplankton populations particularly blue-green algae, and decreased smaller zooplankton populations like Bosmina (Pace 1998). Zebra mussels were first observed in Spring Lake by some area residents about five years ago. Their population has since expanded to cover many solid or fibrous substrates such as pilings, water pumps, and even aquatic plants. Although their impact 97 upon the aquatic system is not completely understood, zebra mussels are common in Spring Lake and were observed in 90% of the transects sampled for the aquatic plant survey and were most commonly found on the aquatic plant species, Ceratophyllum and Elodea. Despite the presence of zebra mussels, the water clarity in Spring Lake has not increased like the Hudson River. AQUATIC PLANTS AND MACRO ALGAE Aquatic plants, macrophytes, are a crucial component of lakes and wetlands. They minimize sediment resuspension and provide refuge for small fish, food for waterfowl, and habitat for many aquatic insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Aquatic plants may grow floating on the surface, completely submerged, or partially submerged as emergents. Although most of the plants receive their nutrients from the sediments through their roots (Barko et al. 1991, Nichols 1991), a few aquatic plants are essentially rootless, such as coontail (Ceratophyllum) and bladderworts (Utricularia), and absorb their nutrients directly from the water like algae. Aquatic plants, like terrestrial plants, range in tolerances although virtually no plant can survive along a shoreline that is constantly pounded by waves or has unstable sediments (Nichols 1991). Hence, in Spring Lake there are areas that are sparse in aquatic plants, while other areas, like the bayous, are prominent aquatic plant zones (Figure 33, 34, & 35). The aquatic plants and macro algae of Spring Lake cover 141 hectares (348 acres) which is about 27% of the lake’s surface area. Only about 32 hectares (80 acres or 6%) of the 98 lake are covered with each types, emergent and macro algae. Thirty-one different plant species were identified in Spring Lake. This species number does not include exposed wetland areas nor wetlands beyond the lake perimeter roads of Pontaluna, Third, Fruitport, and Spring Lake. Spring Lake’s surface coverage of aquatic plants falls within the sparse to medium range of plant coverage for fish diversity, abundance, and size (Randall et a1. 1996). Medium to high (31-70% of bottom coverage) produced the highest levels of fish diversity, abundance, and size (Randall et al. 1996). Angler catch rates of largemouth bass were generally greater “when macrophyte cover was highest” (Maceina & Reeves 1996). For good fisheries in Spring Lake, the coverage and diversity of aquatic plants need to be conserved. 99 FIGURE 33: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls on Spring Lake, Northern Section 100 101 vlCKORY ST. FIGURE 33 Spring Lake i Watershed Project Aquatic Plant Transects Legend Spring Lake Boundary (NOAA) Plant Transect- 6 foot Bethymctrie Contour 12 foot Butlryrnetnc Conbur 18 foot B-dryrnetn'c Cor-tour Submerged Plants Emergent Plants Mum-Algae Stormwukr Outfa11' (81) A — Riven, Stream- md Drums m Township and Municipal Boundarie- """ Section Lina L zoo o zoo coo coo 3001000 555: Feet 0 200 23 Meters Spring Lake Watershed Project: / compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local govemment entities, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Base Information - MIchigan Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). Infomation Services Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University FIGURE 34: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls in Spring Lake, Middle Section 102 WEST SPRING LAKE RD. 103 FRUITPOFlT RD. j . ‘/ .(// ----- a ............ K g P12 1% .31 i. ,;,'14 KELLY ST. 148TH AVE. FIGURE 34 Spring Lake Watershed Project Aquatic Plant Transects wag S Legend Spr'mg Lake Boundary (NOAA) Plant Tnmecu 6 fool B-drymetric Contour 12 foot Bldrymeu'ic Contour 18 foot Bathyrnetric Contour Submerged Plant: Emergent Plants Macro-Algae Stonnwlter Outflfll (Bl) Riven, Streams and Drain HrE§DIHII Tovnlhip and Municipal Boundfliee """ Section Lines (7 #J 200 0 200 400 600 8001000 Feet 200 0 200 Meters Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Base Information - Michigan Resources Information System (MIRIS). Infomation SerVIces Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University FIGURE 35: Aquatic Plant Map and Stormwater Outfalls in Spring Lake, Southern Section 104 flAN WAGONER ST. Spring La - 105 FIGURE 35 Spring Lake Watershed Project Aquatic Plant Transects N wait» S Legend — Spring Lake Boundll'y (NOAA) — Plant Transects —_ 6 foot Badrymetxie Contour 12 foot Bethymetn'c Contour —_ l8 foot Batirymetric Contour [:1 Submerged Plants W bursa-«Hun- Mum-mm A Slounwm omn- (81) — Riven, Streams Ind Drains "~ Tmilip Ind Municipal Bounties """ Section Lines 200 o 200 400 600 8001000 5555 Feet ~ 8 200 Meters Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Base Information - Michigan Resources Information System (MIRIS). Information Services Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University Nymphea Najas flexilis Vallisneria Vaucheria Rhizoclonium Myriophyllum spicatum Potamogeton pectinatus Heteranthera Elodea Ceratophyllum O 100 - Plants & Algae Relative Frequency % FIGURE 36: Relative Frequency of the Ten Most Abundant Aquatic Plants and Macro- Algae of Spring Lake. Although the percent coverage and diversity of aquatic plants need to be preserved in Spring Lake for the fisheries, nuisance plant species do exist. Ceratophyllum (coontail) was the most common plant throughout the entire lake and therefore is most likely a nuisance species for people boating, docking, and swimming (Figure 36, Table C7). Since Ceratophyllum is a drifting rootless plant that absorbs its nutrients directly from the water, the abundance of this species reflects the high nutrient concentrations in Spring Lake. As discussed in chapter two, the nutrients may be from the tributaries, storm water runoff, septic system leaching, lawn fertilizer leaching and internal loading. Hence when nutrient concentrations are reduced through management practices, the large populations of Ceratophyllum should decrease. See Tables C2 -C 7 for details of aquatic plant transects. 106 Other abundant species were Rhizoclonium, Vaucheria, Heteranthera, and Myriophyllum spicatum. Rhizoclonium and Vaucheria are both types of macro algae. The relative frequency between these two algae species in Figure 36 is deceptive; Vaucheria, a blue- green felt-like algae occurs in most transects because it grows on shoreline rocks, whereas Rhizoclonium formed huge dense beds of thick horsehair-like algae weighing down other aquatic plants. These large algal beds are indicators of high nutrient loadings, possibly from leaching septic systems, leaching lawn fertilizer, stormwater runoff, and resuspension of sediments. Each of these sites, near Fruitport boat landing, Greenwood Bay, St. Lazarus Retreat House, and between the Smith Bridge and the yacht club, needs to be investigated for potential loading sources (Figure 33, 34, 3S). Often confused with Cladophora, Rhizoclonium was microscopically identified by its net-like chloroplasts (Prescott 1964). Heteranthera, water star-grass, was present in 54% of all the transects and was found in areas showing recent signs of disturbance resulting from seawall construction or dredging. This plant species has been shown to become a dominant species in disturbed areas. In a Wisconsin lake following mechanical harvesting of aquatic plants, the rare Heteranthera immediately expanded to become the dominant plant for eight years (74% frequency) (Engel 1990). Another spreading plant species, Myriophyllum spicatum, commonly known as Eurasian water milfoil, was present in about 50% of the transects. This plant spreads most commonly by fragmentation, but its current populations were sparse to medium and were dense only in a few isolated areas in Petty’s Bayou. Continued disturbance of sediments and aquatic plant beds may increase the frequency of Heteranthera and Myriophyllum. The macro algae, Rhizoclonium, will continue to flourish with high nutrient concentrations in the lake. 107 FISH, TURTLES, AND WATERF OWL Lakes that are connected to rivers serve as important refiige, forage, and nursery areas for fish (Van DenBrink 1996). Not only is Spring Lake connected to a major Michigan river but it is a short distance from Lake Michigan, lending to a diversity of the fish species (Randall et al. 1996). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources completed a fish survey in 1978 and documented the following fish counts (the number following the fish count is the average length in mm): 3 brown trout (585), 2 northern pike (755), 14 yellow perch (180), 320 bluegill (150), 149 pumpkinseed (150), 98 black crappie (165), 53 channel catfish (337), 1 steelhead (670), 56 white sucker (430), 25 red horse (373), 2 yellow bullhead (240), 49 quilback carpsucker (350), 7 sheepshead (360), 3 bowfin (590), 45 carp (550), 34 alewives (no average given), 1 golden shiner (180), 264 gizzard shad (93). During the 1998 angler survey, the following fish species were caught by anglers around the seven different fishing sites that were sampled (see Appendix C for methods and materials): smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, shad, bluegill, pumpkinseed, crappie, catfish, sheepshead, pike, perch, alewives, sucker, and muskellunge. During February 1999, a large fish kill consisting of mostly alewives occurred with most drifiing ashore along the Fruitport area. A few pike, smallmouth bass, and carp were also observed among the hundreds of dead alewives. It is not known yet what caused this kill but some researchers speculate that it was possibly caused by a lack of food (200plankton) (Alexander 1999). Historically, cold-water fish have existed in Spring Lake, indicating that temperature and dissolved oxygen levels have been sufficient. As discussed in Chapter 2, dissolved oxygen 108 levels in the hypolimnion decreased to very low levels during summer stratification. These levels are not sufficient for cold-water fish and put an additional stress upon the fish during this period. If improvement of cold-water fisheries is a lake management goal, then dissolved oxygen levels must be improved by reducing the lake’s productivity through nutrient reductions along with maintaining the present aquatic plant coverage. Other aquatic life observed were snapping and painted turtles which were commonly seen on the remaining tree falls around the lake. Waterfowl that were observed and counted during the angler creel survey were gulls, mallards, domestic ducks, Canada geese, swans, coots, loons, wood ducks, buffleheads, and mergansers (see chapter 2). RECOMMENDATIONS A drowned river-mouth lake, Spring Lake, is very much like a floodplain lake and most likely contributes to the biodiversity of the Grand River Watershed and should be managed as such. The diversity of life within the waters of other floodplain lakes is greater than that of its river and “contribute significantly to the total biodiversity of the entire riverine ecosystem” (Van DenBrink et al. 1996). Phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and aquatic plant species all exhibited increased biodiversity in the studied floodplain lakes, thus emphasizing the importance of variation in hydrology and lake morphology. Any alteration in hydrology such as flow velocities and water level fluctuations would cause a change in the biodiversity and should not be attempted (Van DenBrink et al. 1996). 109 Management for the nuisance aquatic plants and blue-green algae is recommended. Because the aquatic plants are a nuisance in localized areas such as around docks, I recommend the harvesting of aquatic plants by the residents in these areas and very limited use of chemicals on Myriophyllum spicatum by professionals. No large scale mechanical or chemical management for aquatic plants are recommended because - if good fisheries is desirable, the aquatic plant coverage of the entire lake is presently minimal, - harvesting obstacles such as docks and submerged objects are present, - disturbance may increase the abundance of Heteranthera, - fragmentation may spread Myriophyllum spicatum, - small fish and invertebrates may be reduced (Engel 1990) 0 some herbicide applications actually increase the available nutrients in the water when the plants decompose. Mechanical or chemical management of aquatic plants are believed not to alter the plant species found in a community even though species abundance may change (Fox & Murphy 1990) Although chemical applications of copper-based formulas are effective in controlling micro and macro algae for short periods (Hallingse & Phlips 1996), the applications increase copper levels in sediments, are toxic to zooplankton and bottom invertebrate organisms (Cooke et al. 1993), and the decomposing algae release nutrients resulting in a rebound explosion of algae. This is what most likely occurred during the whole-lake algal treatments in the mid-19503 on Spring Lake — a rebound growth of algae following 110 algalcide treatments. About 10 areas around the lake have been chemically treated for aquatic plants and algae by professionals in the past four years. Chemical application for algae management is a very short-term approach (weeks if not days) that regenerates the cause of the algal blooms — high concentrations of nutrients. For resourceful management of blue-green algae blooms, their nutrient supplies must be lowered by reducing internal and external loadings of phosphorus (Soranno et al. 1996). RECOMMENDATION LIST To the Municipalities and Lake Board Reduce external loadings of nutrients from septic systems, tributaries, stormwater runoff, and lawn fertilizers. Zone the back portions of each bayou as wetland sanctuaries for aquatic wildlife and plants. Motor boat access in these areas should limited to trolling motors or less. This action will reduce the amount of “chopped up” plants and their spread by fragmentation, resuspension of sediments from boat propellers, and will protect habitat area for plants and wildlife such as fish. Complete a wetland inventory of plants and animals for the Fruitport wetland north of the Third Street Bridge and other wetlands beyond the perimeter roads to expand the baseline data of the lake and watershed and to aid in the protection crucial wetland areas. Investigate the shoreline areas where macro algae are a nuisance for nutrient sources. Before any costly in-lake management technique is implemented, complete studies 11] detailing groundwater and the Grand River exchange and a nitrogen budget to understand the nutrient status of Spring Lake more fully, so that more detailed management recommendations can be developed. Completion of a reduction/dilution study will also aid in establishing realistic management goals for nutrient and algae concentrations for this particular lake. Recognize that when algal blooms are reduced, the increase in water clarity may cause a slow increase in aquatic plant growth. When increased aquatic plant growth occurs, additional in-lake management techniques for aquatic plants may be required. Encourage homeowners to rake out their nuisance plants by beginning a composting share program. Chemically manage the lake for only Myriophyllum spicatum in the isolated areas in Petty’s Bayou. i ' ent Minimize chemical treatment of algae and aquatic plants because the causes of the problems are not being addressed but compounded. Rake or pull nuisance aquatic plants out of the water and place in compost pile far from shore. If a plant fragments, try to collect all pieces. This technique is very effective (Luken & Thieret 1997). Share your compost pile with watershed neighbors. Maintain and restore shoreline trees. If any have fallen into the lake, let them remain if safety is not compromised. 112 Reduce sediment disturbance because it aids in the release of nutrients and spread of some aquatic plants. SUNIMARY Although tree species have changed little since the 18805, their density seems to have changed with only small areas of dense shoreline trees remaining along the back reaches of some bayous. Thirty-one aquatic plant species were identified in Spring Lake and covers about 27% of the lake’s surface. This number of species does not include wetland emergents. Thirty-nine algae species were identified in Spring Lake as compared to the 36 in the Grand River. Most species were common among the lake and the river. Algae abundance for most of the algal groups was higher in the Grand River than Spring Lake during most of the water year. The 1997 and 1998 summer algal blooms were mostly of Microcystis, which can utilize nutrients from lower water layers and its growth may be limited by other factors besides nutrient concentrations. The zooplankton species, Bosmina, are more abundant in Spring Lake than Daphnia, possibly lending an indirect effect on the blue-green algal blooms. C eratophyllum, a rootless aquatic plant, and Rhizoclom’um, a macro algae, formed massive nuisance beds in several locations around the lake and obtain their nutrients directly from the water. Residents are encouraged to rake the plants 113 from the lake. Lower internal and external loadings of nutrients should lower algal concentrations. No large-scale chemical or harvesting management projects are recommended to control algae or aquatic plants because of nutrient rebound, harvesting dangers, and toxicity. For good fisheries, the amount of aquatic plant coverage and plant diversity need to be preserved. The Spring Lake Watershed most likely contributes to the biodiversity of the Grand River Watershed. 114 CHAPTER 4 WATERSHED USES AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESIDENTS INTRODUCTION Area residents and visitors use the lake and watershed for a variety of activities that depend upon their perceptions of the land and water quality. For instance, algal blooms are unsightly, causing many people to be discouraged from swimming, boating, and participating in other lake activities. People not only form perceptions about the environment’s quality and make decisions about activities in the watershed; they also change the environment through their use, thus forming a cycle of perceptions, actions, and consequences. Throughout the years, the quality of the watershed has spurred the area’s economy through fur trading, logging, tourism and many other types of business ventures. I believe that the quality of the environment will continue to form the basis of the local economy. This chapter will explore how perceptions, economics, and the environment are intertwined by studying resident’s perspectives and watershed land uses, all of which will aid in the writing applicable management suggestions for this community. (See Appendix D for materials, methods, and detailed data.) CURRENT WATERSHED BENEFITS AND LAND USES Seventy-five percent of the Spring Lake Watershed lies in Muskegon County while the other 25% is in Ottawa County. It consists of 11 different municipalities (Figure 37). The townships of Fruitport, Sullivan, and Spring Lake form the majority of the watershed area. 115 Norton Shores (1.20%) Egelston Township (1.59%) Moorland Township (0.53%) , Ravenna Township (5,23%) '. 5. ”Spnng Lake Village (1.07%) m? ' ' ‘ o Crockery Township (5.13%) .. , ., ‘ Spnng Lake Tovmshrp (15.67 /o) . . - FWSb"'3(2'93°/°) ~ 5.2.: ~ Fruitport Villascussao) Sullivan Township (26.90%) Fruitport Township (37.70%) FIGURE 37: Municipality Percentages in Spring Lake Watershed The watershed provides a wide variety of useful area for agriculture, industry, residential, open space, and recreation (Figure 38, 39, 40, & 41). The predominant 1992-1997 land use areas in the watershed include forests (6355 hectares), residential (1990 hectares), and crop land (1909 hectares) (Table D2). Among all the municipalities, Fruitport Township has the largest percentages of these land uses: 40% of the residential areas in the watershed, 36% of the industrial areas in the watershed, 44% of the open field areas in the watershed, 51% of the orchards in the watershed, 41% of the forests in the watershed and 34% of the wetland in the watershed. Sullivan Township has the highest percentage of crop land in the watershed (3 2%) and barren land in the watershed (65%). Since 1978, 34% of crop land has changed to some other land use, while orchards and specialty crops have increased by 67% (Table D1 & D3). Although wetlands have been lost in the past, wetland acreage in the watershed has 116 basically remained unchanged since 1978. These wetland areas should remain unchanged and unthreatened because of their importance to water quality. Wetlands are transitional zones between upland areas and waterways and occur not only along lake and stream shorelines but also may be located higher in the watershed landscape away from the lake or stream. Wetlands, in general, minimize the effects of flooding, maintain water quality, and “serve as centers of biological diversity” (Lewis 1995). Most of the wetlands remaining in the Spring Lake Watershed are riverine (along the streams) and lacustrine (along the lake). During flooding periods, riverine wetlands remove sediments and nutrients from the water (Whigham et al. 1998). Although these wetlands seem to have little impact on nutrients in the water during non-flooding periods, little is known about their interactions with groundwater (Whigham et al. 1998). Spring Lake’s riverine wetlands such as the one near Fruitport are sediment and nutrient traps, depending on the water level and other hydrological factors, and are thus extremely important for Spring Lake’s water quality. Lacustrine wetlands, wetlands around lakes, minimize resuspension of sediments (Dieter 1990) and are habitats for many aquatic organisms. Through the years, these shoreline wetlands have most likely been filled and replaced with various types of seawalls. Spring Lake’s shoreline is currently composed of about 23% of rip rap (rock) shore, 47% of solid seawall (concrete, block, steel, or other) and 30% of natural type shoreline. Because the transition in depth from shallow to deep water at most solid seawalls is quick, it seems fewer aquatic organisms would find this type of seawall inhabitable. But in a rip rap shore, the transition is more gradual, therefore more plant and animal species would be 117 able to inhabit the area. Thus when constructing or reconstructing seawalls, residents should choose a rip rap type over solid seawall types. Different general land uses have been related to nutrient concentrations in tributary runoff. Agriculture runoff has the highest mean concentration of total phosphorus (0.16 mg/l) while urban runoff (0.09 mg/l) and forested land (0.02-0.03 mg/l) have lower mean concentrations (Cooke et al. 1993). The uses of the land affect the runoff and all its water bodies. A lake is truly a reflection of its watershed. It is fortunate that forested lands remain the highest proportion of land use in the Spring Lake Watershed because this type of land use has a lower nutrient concentration in its runoff If this amount changes, it can be expected that the water quality of Spring Lake will decline. Land use changes in the watershed should be accompanied with aggressive best management practices as discussed in the following list of land use recommendations. 118 7000 l l l 1 l 1 T I T 6000 r ‘ I '., E 4000 _ ‘ m a E 5:", :: 3000 . 55¢ I Spring Lake Village _ 55' U Spring Lake Township 2000 — a. 55 - D Ferrysburg Fifi: EE ‘3 Fruitport Village “1 £3 BlumqmnlbumflMJ 1000 7’ I Sullivan Township .:5 4 ______ ‘“ Other \ e 9“: os‘vsé'fa SS?" 0,69%? 0 Sign “’9 We. oLANDUSE FIGURE 38: 1978 Land Use in Spring Lake Watershed (hectares) 7000 6000 5000 Hectares ,3 9¢§°Q992°ti9 §b°‘f:{‘o\ 0:»,$:; 96 ‘05:“ 3096 We 25” LANDUSE FIGURE 39: 1992-1997 Land Use in Spring Lake Watershed (hectares) 119 FIGURE 40: Map of 1978 Land Uses in the Spring Lake Watershed 120 . ....... p_—---—-_.-----j.-_.——— 1...: a. ‘ I - -.. -......--_- s -------------- s --------------------------- L ---------------------------- x , , i ..-.... . . . t . f- l | . . M.W ., ; t..-“ : : . , . I r . k : I“, , .- , . I I : za=..+..._‘.ew»..... I ' : . . :‘ . i . . - . . . “-1 : : 2' : : , . ____I l . i f i i : 4| . . . . . . . . , . i i i i I . _. . r q ' t ' I .' ' ' : . . i -' . . r . . . r . _______________ »__’_'__—_ . . r ----- +-~---v-------—L-— +------ —----_-~»---- v-...-._-.__.._ s. ,s s see-svss se‘vf‘ .s... .,,, v t k .J .v-- i ‘ gpzigzg"h : ”3.00 s VS§§§>g . '32“ ’. - '1'” III. .\ . , s WOQOOOOvO 9 99y.. :fl‘dz‘fz‘fVfii’ss ~“sc , v s "Y'-‘-‘-'--"- .A wk. :2. :..s .z“ .s.s.s.s.s.s.s .s 0:} \\\ ~ 0.1-i? / u r. )t s.O.rI. .11" l, “1.» “minimum M. ..s "k \\\ O - ss’ ”;s’¢9Q§S» H.. ....\? ... 0‘0”.”OC... \\\\\\: : s. “‘33:. s': '.z. .‘. N. . + w. . Q . A ’ 0‘ .ige...‘,r..1.fi.: _ 0. '[ll‘ji::; 3‘s w .O/ :3»? s.s s.s ss..s ':':‘ s"s '.ss 1‘. p. s.-|z ::s::.:.s 51 ' ss ’sss’ ’ ”A, s’s’s’szs.s°o.s 0:0. : 0 sss.s .s.s s ss . ::: 1..--..__-._--.-.--- 121 5 5 . 5 FIGURE 40 """ Spring Lake ‘ ‘ Watershed Project 1978 Land Use and Cover --1---- f ‘ Legend D Spins Lake Watershed Boxndary m Township and Municipal Boundaries -‘O-----------‘-—‘--- ...... ~- """"""" Sectionhnes -u---+--.------ Land Use and Cover 1978 Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with : the help of supporting local : : government entities, Community 7 77777777777777 7 """"""""""""""""" n‘ """"""" “g """""" Foundation of Muskegon County, ' 1 i Grand Haven Area Community ‘ Foundation, North Bank Community ' Fund, and other local groups. ................. 5 ' Base Information and Original Land Use 5 5 and Cover Data (1978) - Michigan ' i Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). - .......................................................... ,,,,,,,,,,,, Infomation Services Center RB. Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University u-----+---_ FIGURE 41: Map of 1992-1997 Land Uses in the Spring Lake Watershed 122 uu up. r... f “nun“! --—~.._—---——Io-I I I I I I i +-—-.—..--.-‘_ ..90\ § o-oo\\ H {IR \ . ' o I. . I, ———————— ‘I I \ x V I. x ‘ . ..‘ ...... - ‘ m 4 I ‘c ”9:49." ' \ f ' ‘ . ‘ i o... O o . . O o o D . ‘ . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. w..- —. ----~_- 1..------...--. wm—--—..- I l an I- O \‘\\ ‘0 o o 000 ‘ o I\-_ I. 9:. ‘ 1\ ~ >~ , -.‘.\\\\\ o ‘ ’0’; NR I. m. Iooo'o'4\.\“\ ‘ ....4,...I .’_£69‘.O I I I I I I I' l I I I I I +--.-_ o '3‘". o .--.-----.---+---_------.- I I I I I I . I o 9 0 0’0”. D o 0’ ‘ ‘15 ' ' ' ooooorooooo ’r’” ..I‘ I neoclsocpon _ x ., - ' ‘ 1' ' . 1‘ “ "9 II-IIIIIIIIIII I l :50... o o :- VT I. , ' o o I ¢§b o I o . o . . I v I .. Q ‘ Q Q fi \ —\..+-__._ I _DA 0.. ’0‘3399. I ‘I‘Illo I. o 0 .‘.°.'.’.‘.' . :1!.v.v.v‘3‘u.’.e. 9:... . Q ‘OAQ‘O_‘_O.: I tooofiooeogoooo 9004-- I .o...o O .0.0.0.0..».‘D.Q 0 O. o o ' o o o o o 0”. 0’4 . ‘3. I o o I o .' . . .- ’33!» 0‘0. ’9'. I '9 O O 0 0‘. I ' u...- QflIVIHI. _ 9 ~ o I 'O'Jr! ' 0.9.0.0 l . O . Q . O O ' I Oovo‘ O ooooooooooe~g 0.9.0.05»! ,I o 0 .°“.“-‘.’.’:‘.‘.“"* ' \ ..A . gfifl“. ‘.....:..'i’\\\\\\ ‘ ‘ ......‘..I “4“. .\ I‘..¢oo o ’7 II."\1’IIFI ' o ;‘ O ' . .9 . . . 0:0} ' 3.? 0.3;?- Q . 0 . -' ‘u' . ‘ '2 .C O O O o .o f’. {a . - \ ‘ e “x fa. —.. «”4: - O 7»? A. AOOOOOOOOO Io'€:’"o° All”: “53:.“ ”oi: ' I '25“ I V I I l 4 I I I I I I I I I _--.---+-._...--.._._. 123 o—Q-o-Oi-ao ----------a.--- .. ------------‘------ oooooooo ......................................... _-_- - c n-— -- --—-------- ---.---------- --_--------——- —----o--------- ----~- ---------------------------- ‘-°-‘ ......... C I C U I f l I I U 0 I I | I ' C I C C .-_----r-------------+-—-----—-----—+------------- . a I I I I I I I U U . I U . I U . U I I I | I U I I I . O----+----- ------’- -O------ .-f u-—-—--—.-- -n-----+_-_- 1992-1997 Land Use and ----- FIGURE 41 Spring Lake Watershed Project Cover S (— --------------------------- Legend D Spring Lake Watershed Boundary w Township and Mmidpal Boundaries Land Use and Cover 1997 (Muskegon) - 1992 (Ottawa) [HIM Reade-m lndustrial/Commcial Cropland [:3 Opcnl-‘ield m Orchards and Specialty Crops m Fore! - Wetland [:1 m Barren J l 0 l ..... Miles 1 0 1 Kilometers Spring Lake Watershed Project: compiled for Theresa Lauber with the help of supporting local government entities, Community ------------ Foundation of Muskegon County, Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, North Bank Community Fund, and other local groups. Base Information and Original Land Use and Cover Data (1978) - MIchigan Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). Infomation Services Center RBI Annis Water Resources Institute Grand Valley State University LA Re: dex me] con mo< \Vh 199 year Star aVer Tefle inter ofsj [hes “lfic gooc Tefle‘ LAND USE AND CHLOROPHYLL MODEL Recognition that land use changes is reflected in a lake’s water quality has driven the development of many lake prediction models (Meeuwig & Peters 1996). These models include a variety of parameters such as land use percentages, precipitation, and nutrient concentrations in order to predict water quality characteristics like chlorophyll a. One model is (Meeuwig & Peters 1996): log chlorophyll = 0.418 - 0.272 (log retention time) + 0.319 (log p0pulation size in the watershed) - 0.227 (log forested area in the watershed). With the estimated watershed population of 17,291 (U. S. Department of Commerce 1990), 63.6 squared kilometers of forest, and an average retention time of the lake of 0.67 year, this model predicts that the annual mean of chlorophyll a concentration is 25.6 ugfl. Standard error in this model was estimated at 0.338. The measured annual chlorophyll a average was 41 pg/l which is 1.6 times larger than the predicted concentration. Not reflected in this model, which may account for some of the difference, is the amount of internal loading and shoreline loadings from lawn fertilizers and septic systems. If 50% of Spring Lake Watershed’s forests were lost in the future and all other parameters remain the same, the predicted chlorophyll a concentration with this model would be 29.9 ,ug/l which is 17% higher than the first predicted concentration. Although this model is not a good fit for Spring Lake, it illustrates that a loss of forested lands in the watershed may be reflected by an increase in algae. RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS AND THEIR USES OF THE LAKE Human perceptions are the driving force behind lake management. People want to enjoy the lake’s beauty, use it for recreation, irrigation, and business, and they expect the water quality to be conducive for their activities. Recreation on Spring Lake includes activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, and bird watching. Thirty-four percent of the residents responding to the 1998 watershed questionnaire normally visited the lake or streams more than 10 times/year to go boating even though 24% did not own a boat (Table D4 in Appendix D for detailed survey counts). Although 51% felt that 1997 was a typical recreation year, about 40% of the people disagreed because of water quality, no time, or for other reasons. Water quality affected the recreational choices of about 10% of the people. Of the residents that did not think that 1997 was a typical recreational year, they normally boated (43%) and fished (25%) more than 10 times/year. Many watershed respondents (62%) considered the water quality of Spring Lake to be unacceptable, while 83% of the shoreline residents agreed that the water quality was unacceptable. Of the 62% who found the water quality of the lake as unacceptable, 86% felt that fishing was impaired, 100% felt that swimming was impaired, and 70% felt that aesthetics were impaired (Figure 42). They identified the problems of unacceptable water quality as increased algae and aquatic plant growth (93%), water color (83%), and water smell (52%). Fifty-five percent of the respondents agreed that the water quality of the lake had declined in the past 5-10 years and they attributed the problems to increased algae and aquatic plant growth (86%), water color (78%), and water smell (49%). 125 Increased Aquatic Plants Water color Water smell Sewage Litter Other Temperature Don't know Impaired swimmning Impaired fishing Impaired aesthetics Impaired boating Impaired other Impairments and Problems 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Respondents FIGURE 42: Percentage of Respondents’ Answers on Impairments and Problems About Spring Lake The survey recipients were also asked their opinion about the water sources for Spring Lake. When asked to choose the largest contributing water source, 35% chose streams, 32% chose springs, and 21% chose the Grand River. But when asked about the water quality of the largest stream, Norris Creek, 62% didn’t know or were unsure and 30% found the water quality of Norris Creek as unacceptable. Those who found Norris Creek’s water quality as unacceptable felt that the problem was from increased algae and aquatic plants (79%), increased sediments (65%), water color (65%), and water smell (50%). The large percentage of indecisiveness about Norris Creek may stem from a lack of knowledge and awareness of the creek. Sixty-three percent felt that the water quality of the Grand River was also unacceptable and attributed that to sewage (89%), water color (65%) and water smell (62%). This belief about the Grand River was expected due 126 to the many news reports about sewage overflows from Grand Rapids. To explore more of the resident’s beliefs about the lake and its benefits, questions were asked concerning the lake, economics, and health. Most respondents realized that fish must have good water quality (85%) but fewer realized that algae (31%), aquatic plants (54%), and zooplankton (56%) are also important for fish survival. Most respondents recognized the benefits of wetlands as a wildlife nursery (78%), improving water quality (61%), controlling floods (59%), and trapping sediments (54%). Ninety-one percent agreed that their health can be harmed by the land, air, and water quality of the watershed. Interestingly though, only 70% agreed that an ecologically healthy watershed is necessary for economic prosperity. The difference in percentages between these two latter statements may be due to the complexity of the questions and a range of beliefs about natural resource use. Holistic, these questions reflect a lack of knowledge and awareness about lake ecology, the life within the lake and how other nonliving things relate to living organisms. The survey asked the respondents about their practices and about the causes of the water quality problems on Spring Lake. F orty-four percent said their residence was connected to sanitary sewer system and 37% were connected to a septic system. Of the lakeshore residents, 27% of the lake residents were serviced with septic systems. Dishwasher usage was asked because its detergents are a source of phosphates: 24% do not use dishwashers, 34% use them about twice a week and 21% use them about once a day. Car washing is another potential source of phosphates: 54% use car washes, 17% wash their car on the 127 pavement, 8% wash their car on the grass. Another practice, lawn or garden fertilizing is also a source of phosphates and nitrates: 21% do not fertilize, 18% fertilize once a year, 23% fertilize twice a year, 22% fertilize more than twice a year. Their highest rankings of the perceived causes of Spring Lake’s problems were 20% failing septic tanks, 18% the Grand River, 18% runoff from lawn fertilizer, 15% industry/business discharge (Figure 43). When asked it they contribute to the pollution of the watershed, 27% responded as definitely not, 14% responded as probably do, 34% responded as yes, but try to minimize it, and 18% responded that they don’t know. Sixty percent of the residents wanted more information on how to minimize their impacts. Therefore many residents do want to improve their practices around the watershed and place the blame of poor water quality on practices that can be easily changed — leaching septic systems and fertilizer runoff. Septic systems Lawn runoff Grand River Industry discharge Agricultural runoff Duck and animal drOppings Other Stormwater Acid rain Air pollution 0 5 10 15 20 25 - Percentage for Highest Ranking FIGURE 43: Percentage for Highest Rankings for Causes of Problems on Spring Lake from Resident Survey. 128 To aid in the writing of management recommendations now and in the immediate firture, several ranking questions about management were asked. The highest top ranking issues in the watershed were 36% for pollution and 23% for water quality. Addressing speed and congestion (23%) and requiring safety education (20%) were the top-ranking suggestions for boating management. Forty-four percent felt that safety education was the highest ranking for managing swimmers. The top-ranking suggestion for improving businesses and industries treatment of the lake was reducing waste (49%). The respondents’ top ranking of improving the residents’ treatment of the lake were to connect to sanitary sewer system (22%) and to protect and restore wetlands (10%). Pollution and water quality were important issues to the respondents who also felt that residents should connect to sanitary sewer system and to protect wetlands. These answers are reflected in the management suggestions throughout this study. Other survey questions were asked about the residents’ characteristics. Sixty-four percent of the respondents knew their property was located in the watershed. Forty-five percent of the respondents’ residence or property was located on the lake, bayou, or streams, while 50% were located elsewhere in the watershed. Seventy-five percent lived on their watershed property. The largest proportion (27%) of the respondents have lived in the watershed for more than 25 years, 24% have lived in the watershed between 6-15 years, and 17% between 1-5 years. Eighty percent lived in single family homes, did so year round (74%), and their household was composed of 1-2 persons (46%) and 3-4 persons (30%). Sixty-two percent were male and 34% were female of the age 36-45 years old (21%), 46-55 years old (27%), 56-66 years old (21%), and more than 66 years old (21%). The majority of the respondents have attended college (77%) and have an income between 520,000-879,999 (47%). The “common” survey respondent was a 46-55 year-old male from a family of 1-2 people who has lived year round, away from the shore, for more than 25 years and knew that he lived in the Spring Lake Watershed. RECOMMENDATION LIST Tt niiliti nLakBar - Address pollution and water quality issues in the watershed because 62% of watershed respondents and 83% of lakeshore respondents said the lake water quality is unacceptable. - Begin a watershed wide land use committee as a subcommittee of all the planning and zoning boards to monitor and plan land usage within the entire watershed to bolster awareness that changes in land use will affect water quality. - Protect and restore wetlands. - Maintain and restore forested areas along all shorelines, lake and tributaries. 0 Increase public education within all age sectors including adults on lake ecology and how common practices in and around the home influence water quality. Home*A*Syst and Lake*A* Syst programs, coordinated through Muskegon Conservation District and Ottawa County MSU-Extension office, specifically address these practices. - Encourage schools and colleges to actively observe the lake and its tributaries as a form of education and long-term monitoring. 0 Expand LakeWatch to include a StreamWatch by training volunteers in stream 130 monitoring. 11mm - Actively participate in programs to increase knowledge about the watershed ecosystem and expand your stewardship of the natural environment. Home*A*Syst and Lake*A* Syst programs provide usefiil resource booklets. - Choose rip rap seawalls over solid seawall when possible. The sloping rocks provide more habitat for aquatic organisms than solid seawalls. - Restore and protect wetlands. Do not fill wetlands as they provide a habitat to ' many species, filter water, retain sediments, and control floods. SUMMARY - Fruitport and Sullivan Township have the highest percentages of land use types among the 11 municipalities in the watershed. - Currently, forest (47%), residential (15%), and crop land (14%) are the largest land use acreage in the watershed. - Wetland areas have remained unchanged since 1978 and are important for water quality, sedimentation, and biodiversity. - Only about 30% of the shoreline remains natural with the remaining 70% are divided between rip-rap shores (23%) and solid seawall (47%). o If forested lands are lost in the watershed, a lake model predicts that an increase in algae concentrations may occur. - Watershed survey respondents clearly identified pollution and water quality as 131 important issues in the watershed and 62% find the lake quality unacceptable. The residents’ use of the lake is primarily boating and fishing and is influenced not only by time constraints but also by the lake’s water quality. Overall knowledge about lake ecology by the residents is minimal. Sixty percent of survey respondents are willing to learn how to improve their practices so as to minimize their impact on the watershed. 132 CHAPTER 5 CAN THE BIG BAYOU BE SAVED? SAVED FROM NUISANCE ALGAL BLOOMS? Yes, the summer algal blooms of Microcystis and other algae species can be reduced. The current water quality conditions of Spring Lake can improve with widespread commitment to reducing nutrient inputs, phosphorus and nitrogen, through watershed-wide management techniques. During the winter, tributaries load 293 kg, septic systems load 188 kg, and lawn fertilizer runoff loads 155 kg of phosphorus into the lake, respectively contributing 44%, 28%, 23% of the total phosphorus input. Loadings from external non- point sources in the watershed, such as these loadings, are commonly addressed through best management practices that include buffer strips, sanitary sewer systems, compost piles, erosion controls, fertilizer reduction, and other agricultural practices. The highest phosphorus loadings during the summer are from septic systems (204 kg, 86%). Although internal loading fiom sediment may be large, no expensive in-lake management technique should be initiated until a more detailed water budget and nitrogen budget is developed. In the long run, reductions of the external loadings will eventually lead to a reduction in the internal loadings. The water residence time of this lake will aid in the lake’s recovery by flushing out nutrients. SAVED FROM NUISANCE AQUATIC PLANTS? Yes, because aquatic plants cover only 27% of the lake and nuisance growth of these plants occur only in localized areas. Ceratophyllum, Elodea, Heteranthera, Potamogeton 133 pectinatus, and Myriophyllum spicatum were present in at least 50% of the sampled transects. Because of their dense growths, C eratophyllum and Rhizoclom'um, a macro algae, are most likely the nuisance culprits, disrupting boat movement and swimming. Shoreline residents can control these nuisance plants by raking or pulling them out of the water and then depositing the plants in a compost pile away from the shoreline. Use of herbicides to control them should be minimal because most applications contribute to the problem —— high nutrients in the water and sediments. Besides, a lake completely devoid of plants is an unrealistic goal for a lake such as Spring Lake since plants are a necessary habitat and food source for many aquatic organisms. The back reaches of each bayou are fertile shallow areas for aquatic plants and animals and should be zoned as sanctuary areas with limited motor access. This action should decrease the amount of plant fragmentation and resuspension of sediments. When algal concentrations are reduced and water clarity increases, increased aquatic plant growth may occur. If this occurs, the aquatic plants will need to be managed more aggressively. SAVED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE GRAND RIVER? No, unless Spring Lake is diked from the river, Spring Lake and the Grand River will always mix to some degree provided that the River and Harbor Act for dredging its 18 feet deep channel remains active (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981). The degree of mixing is most likely greatly influenced by the flushing rates, water temperature, and the wind. During the winter season, Spring Lake’s water residence time was 4.9 months and was 11.2 months during the summer; hence, more water exited Spring Lake and influenced the Grand River during the winter than the summer season. Since some mixing 134 does occur, it is not surprising to find similarities in their composition of phytoplankton and other water characteristics. The exchange of waters between the Grand River and Spring Lake along with the groundwater exchange need to be quantified more accurately due to the potential influence of these sources of water on Spring Lake’s water quality. SAVED FROM FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF LAND AND WATER USES? Perhaps. I believe the management goal for Spring Lake and its watershed should incorporate the needs of the residents for long-term beneficial uses (centuries). Any goal other than this would embrace immediate economic rewards and have potentially devastating consequences upon the watershed ecosystem. How can long-term management be achieved? Empowering the people through education will enable them to make wise decisions about their land and water use practices. Only through public education can some ecosystem management obstacles be overcome: widespread lack of knowledge on the dynamics and fiinctions of the ecosystem that transcends municipality boundaries and fiscal years and the public perception that immediate economic and social value of a resource outweighs the risk of future ecosystem damage (N. Christensen et al. 1996). Education based on watershed research will expand public knowledge, disperse the economical and environmental haze of misunderstandings, and enable the community to plan for long-term management of the watershed ecosystem. SUMMARY OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, PRIORITIES, AND RISKS In Table 7, all recommendations are prioritized along with difficulty, risks, and cost and are listed as high, medium, low. These rankings are to serve only as a guidance tool. 135 .355. >6. >6. >6. am... .6 8...: 856 ..a .6 om: .2555 van 8: 85:8. 285.8598: uwfisoucm. $08 2.. smack: 85.8... 83%. 53.9.5. .. >6. .. gm... «8:853 o... 5 8:8. 5.56 8.35 use 555:2. 3953.. 50:888. 38.8.05. 8.5.63. Bo. >6. 5585 55.85 485.858 8:258:55: a 80.580 .8..u.88. 5:58.65. 85:73. 55.85 .56. 55.85 5585 5:2: 8.5 8.95.52. 2.. 9.0.3... 2.65.63 5.. 8.5.5.55 .5533 9:962 .UO6. >6. :5.— .wctozceE 58.7. .5" 3.2 2.5560 .882... .2982: on .55 838.. 5950385 .5552... 48.2558 6: 6: .. .55. 5 802.2 a. =3 38 8.2.. 03532.8 .8558“. a ma .5. 52.288. .«8.8..ok. 853.8% 55.85 .855 gm... 5»... .8wo5: 8.. 835.. 55.55 a 8.85 .88.... Emcee: 2. .55 880.. .88m85 .5653: 630.58 .0: .o: .. >55 .. .808. 2. =8 88 8.65. 3.52.5.8 639.558 a an .3 50:288.. .5585... 85:8: 55.85 .725: s»... 5»... 655.85“. 85... .580 2.. .5. 8.5.6532» b.5630 gum 385560 .80 3.5. 5.855 5.6....— 555585583. 5.50 8.55 98.3 macaw 6.. 55.885583. .0 5.55% H mama... 136 58.8.0... .3 .8858 2. o. 6002 56. 2. ...>» 5.8 .50.... 3.5.5.560 a .. 8.03.: 6.2. 0.35. a M5830 8.5.80. .Eu 50:388.. 058 56... 50.. .55 3.85.2 ..:0:...50>0.. =2. :00.» 8588 .55 50:38:52. 8.. 55... 5.50.52 .8580... 505.596.. .6 0582. 5.5... 5...... .8..m.0.a>> 2.. 5 «0.5.5.555 ..a 5.5:: 5 058 .55 3.855 55.85 >6. >6. 55.85 >6. 55.85 55.85 >6. >6. 55.85 >6. 55.85 .. .8. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. >6. 55.85 >6. 55.85 55.85 >6. >6. >6. >6. >6 . 55.85 55.85 >6. 55.85 55.85 >6. 55.85 55.85 55.85 55.85 55.85 55.85 gm... 5.. a... 5.. 5.. a... a... 88.05 5.0.0 .053 .. 055... 0.53.... 5 0.8.0:. .5539. a 5.. 5.... 50509255 0.33.. a 6.0.69 50535525 5 0.5.0:. 02.053051. .55...."— .0........>> .55 .55.. 0.53.... .o. 39.5. :08 .3 55:2. .05. 05.x 8.525.... .5. .33 85.0.5... :5 mg... 80... 8.8.0.. 0.0.8. .5: 5353,. “505.508.. >6: M55558 8:? 88...... 2.5.62.5. 0058.. 8.00.... 80>». 35.3.0: 5.5. .0302. 56.... 5255: .50 :85 553.86.. .5. 5:05.68 5550...? :6 «.0»: ..a 5.. 85:... 55.858 0.35. .5053. 8.8.5.... v... .5a 0...“. 0... .5505 205.0: 6. 505.8. 5580...... 8.25.8.5 0.68. .5. .85... 605558 on: .5... 0.5362538. : 58m. 85.0.9... m8? .5: 558.0 .80. .a 8.8.0 :8 .8500 82.6.. :05? .58.. 8.50.0. 0:55.. .053 8.. t3... 8:058. 05.0.5980: 58 05.0.2... 2.. 8.. 8.80:8 .030... 00.050 .5: 0.5.6... .588. H. m5... 137 32 32 .52 8:608 00:35.06 .5860» 00:60... 32 32 .52 8:608 .00.... 29.0..» 850:0 6 :30. 2.65.. :0..:u ::: 60.60.: .52 32 >6. 8:608 .000: 02.06.... 06.8. 65. 23:62 8:608 32 .52 8:608 02.06.... 0... mg? 2..» 8:6: 0 6230.»..— 8:608 >6. 8:608 8:608 .6358 6 00...». 26... .05: .96 .6300... :E 2.. 082.0 32 >6. 8:608 8:608 .80063 30: 3:03.88 :2? 0000......» 3232.8. 00:60: .52 32 >6. Aw:— ..—6:E «20:3 52...? .A_0.2..:o..::0 0:062.» 6:: 2.2... 0.035 32 32 22 Am:— .m:2.a2_::0 :05: 6.. 6:: 80:33:06 2 0:08 032686.32 83 .03... 2.. 2 .6 69.0.0.2 0.27. 2.. 82.. .350 32 32 .52 :::. 0:: :::—:8 a 2 250.. 8...: .26 :0 6:: 32:26 was.» .033. £0.50. =0 5: .880 9.668 6:: 22:: 80.... .500: box: .88 .65 $2.6» a 68:60.. 2 MES—3.0.. .= 32 32 .52 gm... 202:5: .6 0.0%. :26 :0 m2»: 00:60. 6:: 0.02—E0: 0:668:95: $8. 003 3:. 32 .52 .3:— .E..0.A 9... .096 ._ w:_:.::: .3 80.2... 2.:2. 82050 :a 20.202 .02.:0m 80:95:50 0.00890: 782.02 6:: 0.2206 82.960280 8:608 32 22 .3: >830 2.. £95.... 60.808880: 2:058: 0:35 02...: .80: .2...— _E:._:2:ma .6: .52 32 .22 a»... 6.8038: 6:260:60 60:80.03 68. 003 2 0.0225: 302.0%. .52 32 8:608 an... :06? 0.... 6 .:o 3:2: 26:9. 00:02:: ::: 6 3.0.: 8:608 8:608 8:62: .3.— ..6:a_.03 0.8.0.0.. 6:: 80.9.: 8:62: 32 8:62: a»... .0626: :2...» .039. 3.0 o. 60:50 35550 :80 9.5. £88... 5.3.... £3.33 3:8. 2 59? 138 APPENDICES 139 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGY METHODS AND MATERIALS 140 FIGURE A1: Soil types of the Spring Lake Watershed 141 142 FIGURE A1 """" Spring Lake = g i g Watershed Project ’ g Soil Type by Series —- _‘ - ! i g E E :1 (1 Li fish-'1 ' | i. l :r N g T. It «9 mum“ l 1 “I!” “$.15“; ii 1‘ W E T:; * \ 1" “I . ‘ i s . 2:12., 5111 r“;‘.‘l : .". .----TT‘.’-T.,'§TTT,.TT-'- i 5 i :It'd .,- --i--- (T ‘ 1.; ”I“ : i 5 3- 7’ I 5 D s’mmwmmmm P v ‘ "1 TK;;E;5{‘¥‘.~»‘ SoilshySoilSeries-U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service :3- .1 .............. i--- "mm-“1M 1 z. E E E rm"... 8“ : ___________ 1. ______________ j ______________ i--- v -:I;.gji1§:i‘j § § 5 1 ._:i:{?_ : _________ L .............. i ........ E m- TwndlipundeieipllBoundmes T '. ~r 35f; E 1 E ...... Tin-"L """ Sectionune- i . E E 1 o 1 i p ‘ 5 a : :::—— .. 3‘" ------------ I -------------- 1L -------------- E --------------- 4 ........... Miles I‘ is: V i E i ' g 5 1 o 1 : : : : =5: }_ I : § 5 Kilometers ; 2 . j : Spring Lake Watershed Project: 3 5 5 5 T compiled for Theresa Lauber with v 5 5 5 3 the help of supporting local E ' 5 5 : government entities, Community 3 3 Foundation of Muskegon County, . .............. t ............... , ______________ i ______________ i ____________ Grand Haven Area Community E 5 Foundation, North Bank Community 5 E Fund, and other local groups. . Digital Muskegon Soils compiled by E 5 5 5 Natural Resources Conservation ""f """"""" * """"""" 1‘ """"""" T ------------ Ir --------- Service. Digital Ottawa County Soils - '. 3 5 MIchigan Resources Infomation System ‘-, 3 3 Base Infomation - MIchigan 5 E 5 Resources Infomation System (MIRIS). ’ '7 """"""" E‘ ------------- L -------------- 4:- -------------- :t ............ Infomation Services Center ' : i : RR Annis Water Resources Institute : E E Grand Valley State University TABLE A1: Status and Details Of Major Drains in the Spring Lake Watershed DRAIN CONTRIBUTES TO 6.? D STATUS E ._r [:3] LL} OTTAWA CO. Bowen/Spencer Vincent Creek 0.7 1904 Cleaned last in about 1967 Castle Spring Lake. Perry’s 0.2 1975 Inspected regularly since 1988 Hickory Spring Gildner Creek 0.7 1988 Cleaned. relocated in 1998 Lovell Park Storm Spring Lake 0.2 1957 Not a drain, but inspected since 1988 Spring Lake Spring Lake 0.5 1909 Lower end cleaned in 1997 Spring Lake Spring Lake, Smith 2 1977 Maintained since 1988 and last major VanderWall Creek going into Perry's 0.7 1906 Last maintenance in 1993 MUSKEGON CO. Artibey Norris Creek 1 1902 Cleaned last in 1983 Bowen Vincent Creek 1.3 1900 Cleaned last in 1981 Bussing Rhymer Creek 0.5 1926 Cleaned last in 1982 Dolph Norris Creek 1 1906 Cleaned last in 1981 Eadie Norris Creek 3.5 1899 Cleaned last in 1995 Farkas Willow Hill Creek 2.5 1927 Cleaned last in 1981 Harvey Jerusalem Creek 0.2 Not a drain, cleaned last in 1997 Knudsen Norris Creek 1.4 1919 Cleaned last in 1981 Norris Norris Creek 2.9 1899 Cleaned last in 1981 Rice Norris Creek 0.9 1900 Cleaned last in 1985 Westover Norris Creek 3 1907 Cleaned last in 1982 Wooley Marsh Rhymer Creek 2 1917 Cleaned last in 1987 Youngs Norris Creek 1.1 1899 Cleaned last in 1985 Information from Ottawa and Muskegon County Drain Commission Offices. 143 _m 3: 3: 3.: 3: 3: 2: 3.3.— 2.6: 3: 3: as: 3: 3: 3: as: 3: 3.: 3.: 3.: on 3.3.— 2.3: 3: E: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3.: S: S: 3.: 3.: 2 362 he: 3: 3: 3.: 3.: 3: 3.: 3.: 3: 3.: 3.: ”a 3.3.— 3: 3: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3: S: 2: E: 3.: R 0.92 3: E: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3.: 3.: 3: 3 :32 3: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 2.: 3: 2.: 3: 2 :3: 3: 3: as: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3.: 2.: 2: X no: he: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3.: as: as: E: 3.: 2 3.2.— 5.3.— 3.: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 2.: 3.: E: 3.: 3.: S 3.3.— 2.3: 3: 3.: 3.: as: 3: 3: as: 3.: 3.: 3.: a 3: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3.: 3: 3.: ms: 2 3.2.— 3: 3.: 3.: 2.: 3: 3: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 2 ad: 3: 3.: 3.: 3.: E: 3: 3: S: as: 3.: 3.: 2 ad: 3: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3: E: 3: 3: ms: : he: ”.02 as: 3: E: 3: 3: 3: E: S: E: S: E: 2 0.32 M32 3.: as: 2.: 3.: 3: 2.: as: 3: 2: 3: 2 :2.— wé: 3: 3.: i: as: 3: E: 3: S: 2.: S: 3 2.62 3: as: i: as: 3: 3: 3: cs: 2: 3.: 2.: 2 3: E: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: S: 3: S: 2.: 2 :0: 3: 3: 3.: 3: 3: as: 3.: 3: 3.: S: : 2.6: 3.: 3.: 3.: cs: 3: 3: E: E: 2.: E: 3.: as: o. :3: ”.2.— 3.: 3: 3.: E: 3: E: as: S: 2: 2: S: 2.: a :2: M3: 3.: 3: 2.: 2.: 3: 3: S: 2.: 2.: 2.: as: a :0: 3.: 2.: 3.: 3: 3: cs: 2: 2: E: 2.: 5 M32 3: 3.: 3.: E: 3: 3: 3: 2.: 3: S: 2.: E: e 3.3.— 3: as: 3.: 3: 3: 3.: 3: 3.: 3.: 2: 3: 2.: n M3: 3: 3.: E: 3: 3: S: i: 2.: 3.: S: v ”.2.— 3: as: 3.: 3: 3: 3: 3.: S: 2.: 3.: 3.: n ad: ad: 3.: 3: as: 3: 3: 3.: Z: 2.: 3.: 2.: 3.: N 3.32 3.: as: E: 3: 3: 3: 2.: 3.: 2.: _ 35 ”38 ”32 3:2 3:2 362 3:2 32 :8..— 33 38a 882 350 358 Sui 3:3 32:: 83: >8 Afioofiwcm .3 3.50 >EL< .m .3 849 6b 533 9.80 “a £054 533 .38 9.80 2:. HN< mqm..=§->.3§ E e 3.3 2.3 m3 3.... $3. 33 NR... 33 was... 9 5:33.35 So 5o 23 3o 23. $3 $3 3.3 :3 23 9 3:33-35 33 3 :2 3o .5 .c 33: 2: .o :3 mm; 33 e 5:523: who who 33 3c 2: .c Soc ”:3: 33 E; 83 e 35:35:: 8.: :3 83 8.9 m: .o 33 ES 33 $3 $3 0 8332-83. 2.x ”2 33 3o .2 .c, v.83 23: m: .9. c: .9. E3... 0 3.82253. 8.8 .3 32 3c :3 32¢ N03: «:3 a _ .o 33 $32 on: 22 32 8c 33.. $3: 23... 33.. 33.9.. :3... 0 ”302-5%: :22 33 33. 3c 33: $3.. 83... 3;. :3... as: 0 $322.52: ~33 N3 33. 3o :3... £3: 8. .9 33... 2: .o. 22., e 35:32: So: 92 $3 8.: $3 $3 35 £3 2 3 £3 0 was": 78:22 3.3 So 2 2 3o 23... v8.9. 359. 2 3.. ”8.? $3... 0882232: 912.: 5 $8 we. 5 m3 383:: AuomkEv A83 Ev A82 EV 88km: 38:5 603 Ev A83 .5 oE=_o> « 3885 m m wwcoo>x , a m 73.8:— Lon 25:? 099.85 :28 03:5 3.. aa ass—Econ. 9.29:0; 9.28:0; 8:5 30,—. 09285 30,—. 850 3 E825 8 §Em 528an as 305% 8 96:3» 8 382 .85 9.5 2238:: 8.: oE=_o> ems—:85 :33. new AOV $ng 8285 2848225 83285 885m nv< ”.59; 146 8:: so :2: .88 888.-.:82 :: .5. .88: .89 8:: .87. 85: .8828 :::: .82 :8: so :2: .88 8.: .92 8328-88. H837. .m< 03:... E 5.82%: :32 9.20 .m> 3.:. 88.: 88:58 .05. 8:3 ... 8.:- 8.. 8m. : 8: 8.: 8.: 8: 38m 8: .:. 0832 8:.- .-..m 2: S: :N 2.: 8.: 8:8 8:- 3:- 8:- 8.38788.“ 8.. :N: w: : 8: . 8.: 8: 8.8: 8.. 8:. «8:- 8...:8.->..:§ a... 2: m. . : ::: . : 8.: ::::N 2 .~ 8:. :::. 882813928: :8:- .N: 8.. : ::: . : ::: 8:. m 8: N8: :8: 8:32-83. 8.:- 8: 8...: 8.: 8. a: 8:. 8:. m 3.: :8: ..: 882.3538 3..- 2.: w: : 3.. 8 8: w. ... :3: 8.. .: 8:: 88.28-88. 8:- 2... x: . .: ::: : 8: :. ... 8: . m h . .:. 8:: :8: 88...... 78-38 8.. E: w: : ::: . : 8: 8.: m 8... 8:: .8: 88.29:...» 8:- .Z a: : 8.: c m: 8: 8.. . m 8:. ::: :::: 88.5-8.3: 8:- E: a: _: 8.: . 8: 8.: 8... .8. 8.: :::: :8: 88.8-83. 8:- 8: x: : MN: m. 8.. 8.: 8.8: ::: :8: :3. 8.32.85. 8:. 8.. 2.: 2: : ::: z: ::::- 8: :::. :8:- 8828-828. 8...:- 8... 8:: 8.: 3... N: 8.8 8.8: 8:.- 3:. 8892 8...:- 8: 85: 8. :::. :N 8: 8.... . m :58 8:- 8:- .8.:- 8.002-308. 8.3..- .2 8:: :8. 8 8... 8.8. 3......“ .2... :::- ::- :eazmm-Ei : :8- 8: o 8.. :N ::: 8.8 :::: 8.. m:- .~m:- 88: Ta... 8:. .- 8: 8.2. 8m 8.: 8 8:. 8:: 8...: S:- Nm:-._.2:. 88: 78.622 3.... .- 8.: 8.2. :3. 8:. S. 3.: 8.8 :28 8:.- ..2:..~8: 8.62285: ) d ) Du al. \.I D fil- ) 9 nil V X A 1.N ) X 1 X U: m U 9 xwm mum. wmm. m ma 1mm 0.9 0......A mus-tom FEB—xv me m.d,M. 9m... 9m. Wm. Ow WM w JP m.a-9 s so w 1 M1 am. :98 mm! sm 1 322.: m.223. am 6.: L-mm. no 6m w n (sum (mm. a .1 m... m. We. u m w. (W. m m. 9 a 9 mu m ( u u .n... .w. u a M I . a s W. N. no :owcsm 38>? 8.88% .8 2.0.3.3.:U Hm< mama:- 147 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGY METHODS AND MATERIALS Water Levels For Spring Lake, staffs were located at the mouth of Spring Lake, Smith Bayou, Jerusalem Bayou, Norris Creek at Third Street Bridge, Petty’s Bayou and in the channel between Spring Lake and the Grand River. The means of the lake levels were calculated from at least two of the staff readings. Two different water levels, or stage levels, were obtained for the Grand River: readings at Grand Haven and readings at Grand Rapids. Weekday readings from Grand Haven were acquired from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997-1998). Hourly stage readings from Grand Rapids, which were used to determine the daily mean, were acquired from the U. S. Geological Service in Lansing (1999). Lake Michigan stage levels were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s web site (1999). Water Budget A water budget was estimated from varying interval periods of precipitation, stream inputs, evaporation, and lake volume change. A L = P + T - E :t R L = the change in the lake volume P = precipitation on the lake’s surface T = inflow from tributaries E = lake evaporation R = residuals 148 Lake Volumes The change in lake volume was estimated by subtracting the initial lake volume fi'om the final lake volume during that interval. Volumetric stages of the lake were found by using a 1990 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration bathymetric map of Spring Lake and metered staff gauges (Lesack & Melack 1995). If lake levels were not measured for a particular date, they were estimated from a regression with Grand River stage levels at Grand Haven. See Table A9 below for the regression equation. A Tamaya Digital Planimeter Planixle on the 1990 lake bathymetric map was used to measure the volumes of the four lake strata using this equation,h/3 (A1 + A2 + (A1A2)“2 ) (Wetzel & Likens 1991). To calculate the total lake volume and surface area, the strata were summed (Table A4). Standard error of planimeter usage was :t 0.08 or i 0.04% and a conversion error of O. 12%. Since a 1990 map was utilized, corrections were applied to obtain current total lake volumes. A current Lake Michigan water level from Ludington, 580.1 feet (NOAA 1998) and current Grand River level at Grand Haven, 579.9 feet (US. Army Corps of Engineers 1997- 1998) were averaged and compared to the level used in the 1990 map which was the 1955 Lake Michigan level of 576.8 feet. The water level difference was 3.2 feet or approximately 1 meter. For current lake volumes, a correction of 5.2 x 106 m3 was added to the lake volume obtained from the bathymetric map. 149 TABLE A6: Lake Strata Volumes and Uncorrected Total Lake Volumes Strata Layer Depth Layer Volume (x 10‘ m3) Top Layer Surface to 6 feet 7.70 Second Layer 6 feet to 12 feet 5.72 Third Layer 12 feet to 18 feet 4.90 Fourth Layer 18 feet to 28 feet (average 7.38 depth of bottom layer) Total 25.7 Precipitation Beginning May 1997 and until Sept. 1998, precipitation was measured daily from 1 tipping bucket rain gauge located about 0.5 miles northwest of Stahl Bayou by the Kotecki family. These precipitation recordings were compared to the precipitation records from the Muskegon County Airport, which is approximately 1-2 miles from the northwestern corner of the watershed. Very little variation existed; therefore, airport precipitation records were utilized (Table A7 & A8). For water budget calculations, daily precipitation within an interval was summed for the interval precipitation and multiplied by the surface area of the lake to obtain interval precipitation volume on the lake surface. All interval precipitation volumes were averaged for the seasonal water budget. Tributaries Stream discharges were calculated from the multiplication of the cross-sectional areas and tributary velocities as measured by surface floats and when available, a pygmy flow meter. For cross-sectional areas, depths were measured every half meter and along three consecutive transects and averaged. Three to five surface velocities were timed within 150 these transects and the harmonic average was calculated. Average differences between the velocity measurement methods were approximately 20%. Since all stream bottoms were predominately sand, no correction factors were included in the discharge calculations. Tributary stage levels were also noted when discharges were measured. Stream stage levels were recorded from posted staff gauges and other permanent structures such as bridges at 10 sites on 7 different streams: Norris Creek @ Pontaluna, Norris Creek @ Stemberg, Norris Creek @ Third, Rhymer Creek @ Mt. Garfield, Willow’s Hill Creek @ V Pontaluna, Steven’s Creek @ Pontaluna, Jerusalem Creek @ Rycenga Park, Smith Creek @ 168'“, Vincent Creek @ Bridge, Vincent Creek @ 130th (Figure 8). Afier a range of different stage levels and discharges were recorded, stage vs. discharge regressions were calculated to estimate discharge directly from stage level. See Table A4 for measured and estimated discharges. Log functions were used only when relationships were improved. Discharges and the stage/discharge relationship for Norris Creek at Third Street bridge were not used because of very low adjusted R2 , due most likely to direct influences from Spring Lake. Instead, the summed discharges from Norris Creek at Pontaluna Road, Vincent Creek at Bridge Street and Willows Hill Creek at Pontaluna Road, which are the main feeder streams into Norris Creek, were substituted for the total Norris Creek discharge. Small streams such as Beckwith Creek and Gildner Creek were occasionally measured and discharges were approximately 0.01m3/sec. Due to minimal individual influence of these small streams, including Timber Creek, and two unnamed tributaries flowing into Petty’s Bayou and through Fruitport, their individual discharges were 151 summed for an estimated total discharge of 0.05m3/sec was used for the water budget. The following Table A9 records the regression equations. Assuming that discrete tributary discharges taken during the interval were representative of a daily discharge during the interval, the discharges for the tributaries during a discrete measuring interval were summed, converted to cubic meters per day, and then multiplied by the number of days in the interval to obtain the total interval volumes from the tributaries. The average of the interval volumes was calculated for each season for the water budget. This method of calculation assumes that the discharge for a measured interval remains the same for that interval and its error has been estimated at 12% of absolute mean (Cooke et al. 1993). 152 E c E c E c c c c S c 3.. Ed 3 d d Ed _d d d H md Ed H dm Ed Ed d H o d d Rd E d Ed om Ed Ed Ed Ed c w _ d d d d 2 d d H mm H vmd Ed d m _ d d d d ._. d mvd Ed 5N Ed Ed mmd d o :d d o o o 2d Ed om Ed Ed d d d H H ._. d _d H Ed mm Ed Ed d d Ed d H Ed 2d Ed H Ed E H H C d d Ed d H d E. Ed Ed E. mm Ed ._. c :3 c c c o c c ._. mod 2 d d H d ._. cod v: d Ed d 31 Rd 3 Ed 3 d d d md d mmd H c d Ed d om H d Ed nd d. d ,_. Ed d d 0 Ed 2 o c c P o o o mod c o o :3 w. d d d Ed mmd 3.3 d d ._. d d a. E d Ed d 2...— d Ed Ed Ed :d 9 Ed Ed 2 d Ed d d Ed d Ed 2 d Ed E. d. dd 2 d Ed c vd Ed Ed E SE c Ed ._. ._. E d ._. wmd d d Ed d d Ed Ed d Ed 2 Ed Ed .r d Ed c d d Ed d Ed Ed 2 d Ed d d E d d E. Ed mmd E. Ed ._. 2 m _ .c cod c S... :.c c c o c .r .r E c. H Ed 3 d :d H d d Ed d. S d H Ed o d d .r d d md d Ed H H k d w Ed d d d d d d n _ d ._. ._. Ed ._. K. Ed Ed d d c d omd d H .r E. H d m _ d m _ d d Ed d d 0 Ed mvd Ed 0 H m Ed Ed o _ d d d .r d d Ed Ed md Ed v Ed Ed 3 c Ed ._. d ._. Ed d 9 Ed m d de Ed E. d Ed d wmd d d d Ed N d wvd d d ._. d 0 Ed d N. .d d d_ .d _ 8Q .62 60 Eom M3. 33. 2:: ENE =3< .34 now 5.: an Gambia—t deduce tome? 3550 2336.32 3 2282985 30. K< mAm02 80 Bow SE 22. 0:3. >22 _ta< 32 no..— S: ED doomed“... wagons :09? 5:200 come—v.32 E 5333605 Eo— Hw< mqm Qwfiv 302m .3330 o... a. 3.32.83830 32023.32... .30... ”mm mama... 8.8333: 3.3.... u 3.5 3.3.3 3232.32. .0883?— u N .: 568.3933: M I £228.52). n E deified”: u m :33... 3:3 33.... 3:3 33 .33 3.3.3 33.3 33.3 :33 33.... 2.3 :3... 333.3 333.3 .6: 33% 33% eed Ed 2d Ed bed wed med med wed eed Ed N_d eed med wed do...w_o.$=: 33.3 2.3 33.3 33.3 3.3 :3 3.3 :3 :3 3.3 3.3 31.3.33 bed 2d Ed 2d eed wed med wed wed eed med wed wed wed .1583 med oed odd :d bed med wed wed eed eed wed med Nmbfim 33.3 33.3 33.3 :3 3.3 :3 3.3 :3 33.3 33.3 33.3 :3 3.3 33.3 5.5.33 wed mwd emd NNd wed med wed wed wed wmd med med Niefiomfioemoa wed mwd emd NNd wed med wed wed Ned mwd Ed med wed .I..Eon:ooemoi eNd eed med med de med N238: 82.383 eed :d :d eed eed wed med med e_d eed eed eed med Nm..=.oe.ooemo.£ eed :d :d eed eed wed med med e_d eed eed med eed 5358.02.39... w. .e eed wed med wed w. .e med wed NIB—.3 warn—m w. .e m _ .e wed wed med med w. .e and .wd e. .e med med 5.8.3 macaw .303. . 333. 3.33 33 33:: .32: .3123 8a... .302 .3332 3333 3.3:: 333.3. 3:233 3:3... wee. nee. 33> 4.3.383 3 3.1.32: 171 TABLE B6: Total Phosphorus Concentrations and Weighting Factors for Stratified Sampling Days in Spring Lake 5 "' c: "' r: '5 Dates 5 3 g .2 23 .2 *5 c: 53-0 u. E :: (L. E E" E) g... cu .. C Q I: t: O 0 V 0 = f: = '5 m E '5 E: 2 "’ g: .2 W E 'E0 c: A = '50 :1: a O C L— '-_-: -- a 3 C .. A '8 O “E E O Q 0 0 E g; 0 C: E u i 8- g. 2 v '53 .3 a: I 2 3 “‘ l6June97 0.95 0.775 0.05 0.225 0 16 0.07 151u1y97 0.95 0.775 0.08 0.225 0.41 0 15 26Aug97 0.54 0.872 0.1 0.128 0.62 0.16 27Sept97 0.38 0.91 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.09 lSJun98 0.79 0.813 0.06 0.187 0.15 0.08 6Aug98 0.95 0.775 0.12 0.225 0.42 0.19 19Sept98 0.42 0.9 0.11 0.1 0.30 0.13 Low and High Estimates for Phosphorus Budget For the seasonal low and high estimates, the uncertainty error estimates fiom the water budget were utilized for the lake mass, deposition, and tributary loadings. The lower error limit volumes for lake storage, precipitation, and tributaries were subtracted from the average volumes to obtain the low budget volume which was multiplied by the appropriate total phosphorus mean. The same method was employed for the high estimate but the limit volume was added to the average volume. For the annual total, the commutative water budget sums were used. 172 Loading from Atmospheric Deposition Loading of phosphorus directly onto the lake surface consists of dry atmospheric deposition and wet precipitation, neither of which was directly measured during this study. Other studies have measured the concentrations in different locations throughout Michigan and results vary widely. For the closest location to this watershed, an United States Environmental Protection Agency study from l980 found atmospheric phosphorus load in Grand Haven, M1 to be 236 lbs/mz/yr (Keilty 1996). This annual loading was not used because of difficulties in extrapolating it for the interval periods. Another study done at Gull Lake had measured both dry and wet deposition and estimated loading at 275 kg/year (Tague 1977). Tague also reported mean concentration as 37.6 mg m‘3. This concentration was then multiplied by each season’s precipitation volume in the water budget to obtain the mass loading from the atmosphere. Tributary Loading Total phosphorus concentrations for tributary samples are in Table B7. Seasonal averages were obtained by averaging the concentrations in each season: winter 0.03 mg/l and summer 0.04 mg/l. These concentrations were then multiplied by the average tributary inputs from the water budget to obtain the loading mass for the tributaries for each season. 173 3232.9... b23533. 833...... N .. .202 .33 .333 33 3.3.3 :33 3333 3333 3333 .33 3.33 33333.33. 3.3333. 33.3 333 .33 333 33.3 .33 .33v 333 333 333 33.33333 33.3 333.53.... 33.33 333 333 83 5.3333333 :23 333 .33 .33 .33 333.333.3333 33.3 .33 .33 .33 .33 ..33.®....Em 33 33.3 333 33 33.3 33 3.3323333333333353 ‘ .33 333 .33 33 .33 .33 333 .33 .33 33323333333333.3333 .33 .33 33.3 333 333 .33 33.3 333.335.3383 .33 .33 33.3 333 333 333 333 33.3 83 33.33.33.233 33.3 .33 33.3 33.3 .33 .33v 83 3.332.333.5335 33.3 33 333 .33 333 .33 .33v :33 .33 83 ..33.3..m©.3333.> .33 333 333 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.9 333 .33 3.332333333333233 .33 33.3 333 333 33.3 33.3 8.9 333 33.3 .33 ..3§.3.333®333_33 33.3 33.3 :33 3.3 .33 .33v .33 3.332333333333332 33.3 333 :33 333 3.3 .33 .33v 333 33 .33 333233335332 33.303. 33.3333. 33.3.3. 3333233 333233 3333.3. 3.3033 335.33 3333:3332... DEE. 8.33.3.3... 8.3 Q... m ..o 3:0..3c3coocou mac—.3323. .38... Km. mag... 174 Stormwater Runoff Loading Stormwater runoff from the 81 stormwater outfalls was not measured but was estimated from precipitation volume on street area within 500 ft of the shoreline (Appendix A). Total phosphorus concentration in stormwater runoff is usually higher than tributary concentrations because of the additional inputs of debris and other urban residues. The mean total phosphorus concentration in stormwater from all land use types is 0.5 mg/l as reported by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (USEPA 1996). This mean was used as the estimated total phosphorus concentration which was multiplied by Spring Lake’s stormwater runoff volumes to give the stormwater loadings of phosphorus. The low estimates were half of the average estimate and the high estimates were double the average estimates. The annual estimates were calculated from the cumulative sums. Waterfowl Phosphorus Loading Phosphorus loading from waterfowl excretion was estimated from the waterfowl counts completed during the random angler survey and observations on lake sampling days. The angler survey was a bus route design with random starting times, starting sites and survey days and was conducted from April through August 1998. For each season, averages were obtained for each type of waterfowl. All duck averages were multiplied by an estimated number of days spent on the lake to obtain duck-days (Table BS). Then the duck-days were totaled for each season and then were multiplied by goose excretion rate (28 droppings per goose-day), droppings dry weight (1.17g per dropping) and the percentage of phosphorus in droppings (1.34% phosphorus) (Manny et a1. 1975). Although a goose may excrete more than the average mallard, utilization of the goose 175 rates was felt to provide a fair rough estimate for the lake during an average interval. Gulls were separated in the calculation because phosphorus in gull droppings was found to be 4 to 16 times greater than the phosphorus from Canada goose droppings (Portnoy 1990). Gull-hours were necessary for calculations instead of days and were obtained by multiplying gull-days by 12 hours to obtain gull-hours. For each season, gull-hours were multiplied by 3.12 droppings per gull-hour and 8.1 mg of total phosphorus per dropping (Portnoy 1990). Finally the gull and the duck-goose calculations were added together for each season’s waterfowl phosphorus loading (Table B8). For low estimates, the average was divided in half. For the high estimates, the average was doubled. For the annual, areal loading rates for the winter and summer averages were calculated (0.846 mg m'2 yr‘1 and 2.20 mg m’2 yr" respectively) and summed for a total rate. That rate was converted to a annual load and then for its low and high estimate, a half and its double was taken. 176 TABLE B8: Calculations for Phosphorus Loadings from Waterfowl on Spring Lake Winter (Oct. - April) Summer (May - Sept.) Average Est. Average 3 g0 Average Est. Average m ’90 Counts Days Duck- 3 no Counts Days Duck- E i 0“ days Zing on days fig Lake ,2 3? Lake ,2 E o. On / I Mallard 5.3 60 318 10.2 152 1550.4 7 Domestic 1 1 200 2200 10.8 152 1641.6 / Duck / Canada 5 60 300 / 23.7 152 3602.4 / Goose / Mute Swan 11.6 60 696 / 11 152 1672 / Loon 1 6O 60 / 0 0 0 / Bufflehead 25 60 1500 / 0 0 o / Merganser 5 60 300 / o 0 0 / Wood duck 2 60 180 0 o 0 / Coot 0 o 0 I 40 30 1200 / r / Duck Total 105.9 / 5554 2.4 95.7 / 9666.4 4.2 Gull 12.4 60 744 0.23 15 152 2280 0.69 I . Waterfowl 118.3 / 7 2.63 110.7 4.89 Total // / A Septic Systems Loading Phosphorus loading from septic systems around the lake was calculated from a published phosphorus loading rate of 0.8 kg of phosphorus per capita-yr multiplied by the number of lake homes connected to septic systems and then their occupancy in person and year (Tague 1977). The number of lake homes connected to septic systems, residence time and occupancy numbers were obtained from the resident survey: approximately 242 of the 895 residents (27%) around the lake are serviced by septic systems, average 0.875 year per 177 residence, and average 2.9 persons per residence as indicated by the resident survey (Appendix D). The occupancy rates does not include estimates from St. Lazare Retreat House, parks, or boat landings. [TP septic] = (.8 kg/capita-yr)(242 residences)(.875 yr/residence)(2.9 person/residence) The annual load of total phosphorus was 491 kg or a daily load of 1.34 kg. Since the year per residence was not a whole year, it was assumed that the residences were occupied during the entire summer season (5 months for a weighting factor of l) and only occupied 4.6 months of the winter season (weighting factor of 0.66). The daily load was multiplied by each season’s weighting factor and the number of days in the season to obtain the seasonal loading from septic systems. Low estimates were calculated as one half of the average and high estimates were double the average estimates. The map of the septic and sewer regions was compiled from information gathered at each of the municipalities from current 1998 plat maps or water/sewer billings (Figure 30). Three types of areas were designated for ease of assignment: mostly sewer (above 50%), mostly septic (above 50%), and mix (50% septic and 50% sewer). Lawn Fertilizer Loading From the watershed resident survey responses, lakeshore residents responded as 16% fertilize about once a year, 24% fertilize twice a year, and 33% fertilize more than twice a year for a total of 73% fertilizing at least once a year. Each time a resident fertilized, it was assumed that they used 40 pounds of a common phosphorus-containing fertilizer, 28- 3-3. Calculations were completed as in Tague 1977. For the winter average, it was 178 assumed that 73% of the entire shoreline residents, fertilized once in the spring or fall. For a winter low estimate, it was assumed that only 16% of the residents fertilized in the spring or the fall and for the winter high estimate, it was assumed that in addition to the 73% fertilizing residents that 24% fertilized again. For the summer high estimate, it was assumed that 33% of the residents fertilized again. Then for the annual estimates, areal loading rates from each seasonal estimate were calculated and added together for a low, total, and high rate and finally converted to a loading mass. Loading from Sediments To obtain an estimate for loading rate from the sediments, the assumption was made that the change in hypolimnion concentrations is equivalent to the change in the release rate from the sediments. Therefore the rate of change in the hypolimnion’s total phosphorus concentrations was used as the release rate from the sediments. The hypolimnion volumes were weighted against each other and the weights were multiplied by the changes in total phosphorus concentrations (Cooke et al. 1993). These concentrations were then divided by the number of days in the period to get the daily rate (Table B9). The average of the daily rates was 0.0009 mg/(l day) and was converted to cubic meters and then was multiplied by the average hypolimnion volume during stratification (5.3 x 106m3) and divided by the estimated sediment area. Since the sediment area was not measured, the surface area of the measured bottom strata was assumed to be a good substitution (2.42 x 106m2). The outcome of this calculation was a sediment loading rate of total phosphorus of 1.93 mg rn'2 day1 from the sediments. Multiplying this daily loading rate by the average number of stratified summer days (111) and converting to kg gave the summer 179 loading of 529 kg. The winter loading was assumed to be zero. TABLE B9: Calculations of Phosphorus Release from the Sediments in Sprin Lake Interval Period g go fi 3 E 3 Release Q :5 c: g ‘3 CD a 1: Rate “5 00 o c: E 3‘:- g o O ._ a 'a o e = a “8:5 (mg/I per 0 3 E "3 “7 8 U 8 E d E ” t. o E E- 0 3 i 0 = E o a- ., a 9 a... a3 Z '5 g m 8 o S '5 g m in > 1.1.. r: 8 $3.2 "‘ 3 E .E g 8 o. g 1:, 3 2 E- U o. 5 28May97 0.05 28May-16Jun97 20 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.02 0.001 17Jun-15Jul97 29 0.21 0.41 0.25 0.05 0.0017 l6Jul-26Aug97 42 0.12 0.62 0.21 0.03 0.0007 12May98 0.04 12May-151un98 35 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.02 0.0006 16Jun-6Aug98 52 0.21 0.42 0.27 0.06 0.0012 7Aug-19Sept98 44 0.09 0.30 0.12 0.01 0.0002 Average 0.0009 180 ..v . 33 .... ..0, 33.0 33.0. 33...... 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.3 33.... 33.0 ....38 33.3 33.33:... .3 ...... ..,.. .... 33... 33. .. 3.3.3 .3 33... 33... 33... 33.3 33.3 33.3.. .3330 3 . .3 3.. .52. 52.8. 3.3 ...... ..0. 3 . .3 3 . .3 .33 3 . .3 33.0. 33.. 33.. 33.3 ....3 33.3 .....3.3.. .0 3.3 ...0 33.0 :3 33.0 33.3 :3 .2333... .o . 3 ..0. . g 33.0. 33.0 33... 3.3 3 . .3 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.3 33.3 33.0 5.3.33 .838 .... 33.3 3:83 33.... ....3 .... .3... 3.3 33.3 .3 33.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 :3 333 5.3.1 3...... 3.3 33..., 33.0. 33.0. 33.0 3 . .3 .293 33.0... 33.3 33.3.4. 33.3.. .3 ..0 .... ...... 33. . 33.1 33.3 33.3 33.0 33...... 33... :3 33. 33.0 .333 3...... 33.... 33.30 3.85. .03.. ..0 ..0. ...... 33. . 33... ....3 33.3 3.3 33.0 33... 33.0 33.0 33.3 33.3 .32... .05 .... .. 33. 33. 33. ... 33.x 33.3 .3 33.3 33.3 33. . ....3..:.. 3.3 ...... . .. . x 33... 33.3 33. 33... 33.0 33.0. 33.3 33... 33.0 33.3 .3. ....E ..0. .. 33. 33. 3 . .3 33.... 3 _ .3 33.- 33.3 33.3 33. . :32...an 33 ..0 . 33... 33.0. 33.3 3 . .3 33.0 ...3 33... 33.0 .3 33.0. 5.5....an ... .... 33.3 .3 33... 3.3 33.- 33.3 33.3 ......3. 33... 2 ...a. ...... 33.0. 33...... ..3 ..0. .... 33.0. 33.0. 33.3 :3 33.0 33.0. 33.0 333 3.3 33.0 5...... 33.3 .33.. 3.3.3....5333. ..0 ...... 33. 33.0 33.0. 33.0. 3.3 33.3 33.3 ...3 5.6.3.8 3... .. 2 53...... 33.0 .33.. 3.0.3.3383: 33.0 33.3.8.3: ..3 ..v ..0 ....0 33. 0 33.0 33.3 33.0 333 33.0 33.3 2.3 33.0 .3383... 603. 33 $3.33 33.3 3.333. :23. .323 33.3. .0033 53.. I353 .333. 3333. .5233 .323 _ 333. 333. 32.3 8.1. DEE. 32¢ 9.3.0 of 9.3 8.3:. macaw E 3.2.3.8850 EacoEE< ”Sm mam/...... 18] 3.3.3 33.0 ..3 .3.03..3 3.3 33.3 33.3 .33 .33 33.3 33.3 .33 33.3 :3...» 33.3 33.3.... 33.3 33.0 .33 .30 :3 33.3 33.3 33.3 .30 33.3 .30 33.3 3.3.3 333 .33.... 333 33.0 .30 333 3.03 33.3 33.3 33.3 .33 3..... 33.3 .033 33.3 .....=.3...oo333.. 33.0 333 3.3.3 .33 33.3 .33 3.3.3 3.2.9.6338. 33.3 33.0 .33 3.3 33.3 .33 33.3 33.3 3.3 33.3 .33 33.3 3.33 3.3.3 5.3.33.8...3. 3. .3 333 3:33.... 3...... 3.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.03 33.3 .33 3.3 33.3 333 33.3 .....333 3...... :3 .03 33.3 3.33 33.3 33 .233... 35..., .3 33.33.... 3.3.... .33 33.3 333 33.3 .33 33.3 33.3 ..3 3.3.3 3.3 3.3 33.3 33.3 3.3.3 3.9.3 3...... 33.3 3... 3.2.... 3.3:, 33.3 33.3 3.3.3 33.3 3.. .0. 33... 33.. 33.3 333 33.3 ...3 3... 33.. .333... .03.... 33.0 .30 33.3 3.3 33.3 3.3 33.3 333 33.3 3.3 333 5.5.3., 3.3 33.0 :03 .30 3. .3 3.03 .33 33.3 33.3 333 3.3 ...3 333 .033 ......3... 33.0 .30 3. .3 3.3.... 33.3 33.3 33.3 3. .3 33.3 3.3 33.3 ......_o.aeo 3.3 33.0 .33 ...3 33.3 ... ..33 33.3 33.3 3.3 33.3 3.03 33.3 5.82.8.5 33.0 33.3 3.3 .33 33.3 .33 3.3 3.3 .33 ......3. .30 3. .3 s. .33., 3.3 3.3.2.... 3.3 33.0 333 .30 3 . .3 3.3.3 33.3 3 . .3 3.3 33.3 ... .3 33.3 3.03 33.3 .33.... 33.3 .33.. 3.2.3.3533... 33.0 .33 3.3 3..... 3.3 .33 33.3 .3 33.3 3...... 3.3.3 ......3....a.. .33 2:33.53 .30 .3... 3.33.33.03.23 33.3 33.333383 3.3 33.3 3.33 .33 3.3 33.3 3.3 .30 .33 .33 33.3 33.3 33.3 5.3338,. .303. .833. 333 .3363 33.3. 33.23. .323 83.... .3033 .8333 35.3 3.3.3. 33.3. 33.233 3323 32.3 a.... . 333. 333. DEE. 82¢ 9.3.0 o... .33... 8.31. wEEw ... 22.3.8850 88:2 .5 “3.:—mag 182 33.3. 33. 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.3.. 33.33. 3.3. 33 33.3. 3.33 3.3.3.... 3.3. 3.3.5.5 ... 33.3 33.3.3 3.33 3.3.. 3.33 3.3.. 3.3. 3.33 33.3.. 333.3. 3.3. 33.3. 3.33 sneer... 3.3 33.35.3330 33.33 33.33 .3... 3...3 33... 3.33 33 33.3 33.3. ..33 33:38.33... 333 33.... 3:38.33... 33.3. 33.33 3.3 33.33 3... 33 333.3 333.3. 333 3.3. 3.33 3.....32335 3.3. 333.33.33.33.o 333. 3.3.. 33.33 3.33 33.33. 3...3 ...3. 3.3 3.33 33.3. 3.33 333.3.8333... 3333 3.386.338 33.3. 33.33 33.33 3333 33.3.. 3...3 3. 33 .... 333 333.3 33.3. 3.33 5.56.8.5 33.33 .333 33.3 3.33 3.3. I... 33.3. 3. 3.2.... 3.3 3:23... 33.33 33.33 .33 33.3. 33... 3.33 333.3. 33.3. .33 33.... 3.33 2......2 .33 32...... .....3 .23.: 33.3. 333...... 3.33 3.33 33.33 33.3.. 33.3.. 33.3.. 33.3. 33.3. 33 33.3. ..33 333...... 33... 3.3.3... 3.33 3.33 3.33 33.3.. 33.33 33.33 .333 33.3. 3.33 33.33 3.33. 33.3 33.3. 3.33 23...... 33.3. 3.33.. 3.23.2383... 33.3. .33.. 3.o.......eoa..a. 333.3 33:33.33. 3.33 3.3.3 33... 3.33 33.3. .333 333.3 3.33 33:383.... 33.3. 2.3.9.33. 33.3 3. 2:383... 33.3.3 33.33 .3... 33.33 3.3. 3.3 33.3. 333.3. 333.3 .33. 3.3. 3.3.5.3.... 3.3 .2 28...... 33.33 .33.. 3.235285. 33.3. 33.33 333.323.... 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.3.3 33.33 3.33. 33.3. 3.3. 3.33 3.3. 3.3. 3. 333.83%. 33.33 33.3 3.3.89.2. 33.33 ......3 .333 3.33 33.33 33.33 33. 33.3. 3...3 33.33 33.33 3...3 33.33 3.33 3.33.8.5”. .603. 033 3 3 3...3 33331 3323. madam... .603 33 3 3 333 13.31.33. 3.233 .3 3 fig 333. 333. ~33 .33. 2.3.0 03.. .338 3.3.. watmm ..o 33.2.8.3.850 .0 .. 3. 0.0.3.0 ”Sm mug... 183 388:5. £3052: .3.—283... u o .3. .n .n ._ ”8.55—0.5— .:o_..E=§oE £253.59 u = .2 .m 3.53502 33.333 3.33. 33.33 ..3. 3133 33.3. 33.3 3.33 33. 33.33 3.33 33.5.. 33.33 3.83.... 3..... 33.3. 3.33. 33.33 33.33. 3. .33 33.3. 3.3 3.33 33. 3.33. 33.33 33.33 3.33 3.33 ... .3... ...... 33.33 333.3 3.3. 333.3 33.3. 33.33 33.3.. 3.33 33... 3...3 3.33 33.33 333.3 3.33 33.33 3.3 333.3 33.3. 333.3 333.3. 33.33 33.3 3.33 33... 3.3. 3.33 33.33 333.3 33.3 333.3 3.33 33.33 33.33 3.33 33.33 33.33 3.33 33... 33.33 3.33 33 333... 3.3. 33.3. 33.33 3.33 3.33 33.33 33.33 33. .3 33.3. 3.33 33 33.33 33.33 3.3. 333... 3.33 33.3 332.533.8333 33.33 33.3 3... . 33.3 33.33 33.3. 3. 3.33 33.3 333.3 333.3 3.3. 33.3.3.3. .838. 3.3 3...3...339332 33.3. 33.3 33... 33.3 3.33 33.3. 33.3. 3.33 333.3. 33.3 333.3 333.3 3.3. ...: .53.. .32. 3.3 33.3. 3... 3 ...3 3.33 3.... 3...... .838 3.3 33.3. 3...3 33.33 3.33 333.3. 333.3 .253... 52...... 33.33 33.3. 3.3. 3333...... .838 3.3. 3.33 33.33 33. .3 3.33. 3.33 33... 33.3. 3.33 33.33 33.33 33.3. 33......333 62.8.. 33.3. 3.3. 3.3.2.... .838 33.3. 33.3 33.33 3.33 33. .3. 33.3 33.3. 3.3. 33.33 33.33 33.3. 3.3. 3.3. 3.33.3... 32.8.. 33.3. 33 ..3: 3.33. 3...... 33.33 33.33 33.3. 33. .3 33.3. 3.33. 3.33 33.3. 33.33.1333... 33.3 33.3 33.3. 3:333... 3...... 33.33 33.33 33.3. 33.3. 33.3 33.3. 3.3.. 3.33 333.3 33.3 333... 3.33 3.23.135... 33.3. 3.33 333.3. 3.33 33.33 333.3 3... 3.... 3...... 33.3. 33.33 33.: 3.33 33.33 3.3.3 .233 3...... 3.3. 33.33 33.33 33.33 33 33.3 33.3. 3.33 3.33 33.33 3.3. 3.3 3.3.33 3...... 33.33 3.3.3.1333... 33.33 3.3.31.3...5 3.33 3.3.3.33... 3.3. 3.3.3 33.3 3.33 33.33 33.33 33.3. ..33 33.33 ..33 33.33 3.3. 3.33 3.3.9.1. 3...... 33.3 3.33 332.33.... 333.3. 33.33 33.3 3. .33 33.. . 3.33 333.3 3. .3. .33......... 33.3 33.3 3.33 3:23.... 3.3. 3.33 33.3 333.3. 3... 3.33 33.33 333.3 33.33 3.3.3 3.2.3.... 33.383 .3 . 3. 3.3333... 184 TABLE 313: Secchi Depths of Spring Lake Sites, Lake Average and the Grand River (meters) Date Stall $121193 Sngh Prospect Petty Fruitport La_l_ge MeailGrand River 05/06/97 1.37 1.17 1.13 1.53 1.33 1.27 1.30 0.73 05/16/97 1.47 1.47 1.77 1.27 1.37 1.47 0.97 05/28/97 1.43 1.23 1.17 1.37 1.37 1.43 1.33 0.63 06/04/97 1.13 1.07 1.07 1.13 1.40 1.17 1.16 0.67 06/16/97 1.47 1.36 1.39 1.59 1.30 1.37 1.41 0.37 06/23/97 1.78 1.35 2.02 1.80 1.65 1.52 1.69 0.31 07/15/97 0.50 0.77 0.88 0.57 0.52 0.50 0.62 0.30 07/23/97 0.67 0.62 0.50 0.69 0.59 0.62 0.61 0.42 08/08/97 0.53 0.71 0.69 0.52 0.64 0.62 0.53 08/24/97 0.92 0.97 0.87 0.87 0.68 0.85 0.86 0.38 09/27/97 0.93 0.88 0.98 1.02 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.48 09/28/97 0.88 1.75 0.88 1.13 0.88 1.03 1.09 0.53 10/26/97 1.32 1.48 1.72 1.53 2.02 1.32 1.56 0.97 12/14/97 3.07 3.22 3.14 1.77 03/07/98 1.82 1.47 1.53 1.67 1.47 1.72 1.61 0.83 05/12/98 1.07 1.12 1.28 1.16 0.50 05/20/98 1.32 0.82 2.23 2.03 1.07 1.02 1.41 0.52 06/15/98 1.43 1.43 1.07 1.58 1.23 1.33 1.35 0.43 06/22/98 1.47 1.17 1.28 1.63 0.93 1.48 1.33 0.47 07/24/98 1.03 0.92 0.90 1.07 1.08 0.90 0.98 0.48 08/06/98 0.97 0.97 0.83 0.97 0.80 0.91 0.50 08/20/98 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.12 1.18 1.14 09/12/98 0.82 1.18 1.42 1.07 0.88 0.97 1.06 0.42 09/19/98 1.05 1.12 0.92 1.08 0.97 1.02 1.03 0.48 10/16/98 1.52 1.53 1.68 1.53 1.48 1.72 1.58 0.47 185 as v.” Nd N.w 9w 5.» v.» v.” o v.» m.» n.» v.” ma coatsm v.2 N.NN hNN méN v+N Bi V WM: ”3 a.~N odN v.2 ma: o v.2 bNN wNN oéN véN 5a— .. M3: EON _.mN N._N mim— _.Z n v.2 _.mN aNN OVN ON _.ON _.v aw— EON b+N m._N 5.2 n: ~.: *4 v.2 _.MN QNN céN oéN de :4 a. mdN m.mN VAN I 7: N.: m Wm— _.mN mN 9.3 néN ”HAN ~44 52 _N 5.2 w._N f: 0.: m.: N men— m.mN N.mN 0.: N NN :4 Nd. ¢._N a.mN w._N v.3 a.: 9: ~ 5v 8:359:9— béhv #va Ndav mdov méov aéev Ema. «..me We: v.94? iv? Wm— “. ”mom 6 @634 9ch wNaw 9.3? 3v m..me m5: Nag. mime Nd: “was. «:4 03:“ m. 054 @me 93¢ v.39. Omav «£wa #44:. :43. ~62 ~44? 9an he; fimwm _.Nov w $634 @me wNav 0:3 99:4 N. _ Q. 063. vécv one _.NNv Nde 0.: v mtmwm vNov m fiche N6”: mNav mNav ofiwv OwNv 9.49. @634 N654 5o; ch New; h.Nwm ~63 N fichv 5me Ease N694 03:4 o: 52.4.. «..ch :::. 5.5; oan 0.. Z. Nam 5.2:. _ App—cal; 335.550 0502—, 346 mNJV mmé $44 mm.m woN ..N_ $6 ch 3: aad wwfi mas o Nod 34.x wN.m NEw ad ad NnN— 26 SN and 2.9 mag. de m 990 Naw Sam 2.6 cog» mm.m EMS m3. 3N wc.w 5.0 cod NN.» 32: v. Nod N_.a an 3W6 was 5:. 3.2 ms 0:” 3.: “3.0 cmd N.w 54.2 m cod and 0.0 «NS 2km 3.6 mN.m_ No.5 oofi 8.2 .ms 0.x 5N.» @6— N Nwd mmd— aod wed Nd and an: 3.x 35 nN.m_ 3..» and mmfi m5: _ was—k: mQaZao ”EN—3o onNBo "330:5 nah—Bo woRoRo haRNBo FQMNBC wok—Po 33:3 hoBNRc 5523 56393 AEEEQC :33: 5mg 82845 0x3 wctQm E 3995 28m mo In 93 $26350 058mm 42282“th .cowwxo 82035 ”Em mam/2. 186 94v. n.NN «..N a.«. a... c... N... ad. «6. a... Ye. n. N6. ad. .... o. ..n. n.NN NN n.cN ...cN n.«. o... N... «N ..N. w.«. «6N ms. On. 9v. ad. .... a N.n. YNN ..NN VN oéN Nd. «N. v «N ..N. ...«. «..N ..oN o. 0.... ad. m... « N.n. n.NN N.NN N.¢N ...VN ed. m... .4 9N N.N. ...... m..N o..N v...— wé. ad. ...... h N“. n.NN N.NN N.vN «...N OCN «.n. v 9N N.N. ...... m..N v.NN v.9 o... «...: n... c N.m. n.NN «.NN 3N «.3 oéN edN ... a.” «N N.N. «.«. «..N «..N «.0. e... .. m... n Nd. QNN mNN n.vN méN N «.3 «N. QM. cN N.N. «.«. «..N véN de ed. .. o... m... .4 Nd. QNN m.NN SN «.3 ..mN 93 «. ad 9N N.N. «.«. n..N néN n.cN 9v. .. N.N. v... M Na. ...NN vNN néN SN «.3 .....N n.«. v 9N ..N. «.«. «..N e6N «SN 9... .. «N. h... N Na. «.NN v.NN WVN néN «.nN «..N ..o. ..v 9N ..N. ...«. m..N ...VN edN 9v. .. «N. N. . 6. 2222.80. 3... .a nun con «2 53. n3. o3 N«n «Haw ...aev o9. ..vov ....ov a. Nun 2% «..n .62. can «7. «.mmv .3. .3 van oNn v...U N9... «.3.. ..vov ....ov a N3 own Zn .3. con .9. «...NV «9. com Nnn .9. in New .463 «.33 ..ch « N3. « . n c . n NNw. car. .3.. cs .v «Na .3. .3. :7. new. new N4}... 5.3.. .5. .. New N. n .... n h . n gr. .3. ....MNv NNm. 23. .3 can 2... ..N«.. ..9. ...vov o. . 3. c NVn N.n In N . n h . n cow. #9. ..ch .Nn 9?. .nm «.69.. 5.2... D... New «.ch Nd... v. an ..n 3n «.n in com N. . m «.«Nv .Nm N.«n can «.3.. «Saw n.0«v nNn 03¢ 53.. «wow v an «on 2n N . m m . n can a . r. 9N3 .Nv. «.«r. Can 33.. N63. 5.2... ..mm... 8ch 5.3.. ...ocv ... .3. En 20 2.». ..w oer. v.33. véNv .Nr. own .76 «.«ov ..hav 5.3.4 vNov «.mnv 5.13. ..«h? N .Vn a; N.n ...n ...n can 6.3... «...... ..Nw. 3?. :nm 0.3.... 0.2... cw”... «Nov ..cwv «.mcv Nd»? . . A5053 £8325 658% an.« «N. be... ...... 3.. _«.c v... r. . ... 3.0 cm... a an... 9.... 3.... c. ...... «.. 9.... :4 V...» v an... inn. 3.... «c... no... «e... o a... N2. n... a Ewe N«.n «QM be... .0... «N.n 2.». o... 3.... no... NN... ..«N m... .3.. ..Nd .n.« « end now a«.« N..... .. cc¢ «Ne... Zn... 2.... b NN... . ma... NEN ««.N «Nd an.« b 23 vd ...v vo.« co... 3.... «.... 9;. c... . 23 mm... 3... 3.... Si. v6 9... c 36 56 «..v «... «m.« ac... «h... a... $4.... ««... cod v... ca... «n... ...w .nd N...« w. end NQn «N6 «.... «n.« Nu... b.« N... mud. ««... 3d 3... co... .Nd. .m.« n... ....« m... .4 and NN.@ N... ...... S.« .o.« N«.« a... $6. ««... «ad .96 .5... o«.c. co... .cd Nb.« ...: n «m6 and v«.v we... 3... cc.« o «.2 on... ..«... ca... 3... a... .... No... 36 an... S... . N Nnd ....c 3... Nvfi Na... .«d «v... «QN. no... 2.... v0.0 .... Na... «N... 3... rd 2..« a... . «$6.5. «$3.8 «3.3.. «353 «98...... «Q. Q5 «0% ...ec «EN :3 «9.89.3 33:: 592...: 3.86.8 59.3%.. 3.2.8 36.6.. hgfino 596:3 SE93 59693.53592 . ...wE. sumac 3305.5 3.3 «5.5m c. "Em «5.38m 8.5 «Sam 2.. E In. .28 3.383.350 9...”.on .2282.th .comxxo 32035 Hm .m wag... 187 a ..m «.« «.« « «.« «.« 24% «.« 3 «.« «=« j« «.« «.« r... 8...»: ..2 «.2 « ..2 «.2 «.2 ««.« ««.« «.«. ..«_ «.« .. «... «.«. «.2 «.«« «.«. «.... «.2 ...: o «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 ««.« «.2 «.«. «.« e «2 _ «.«. «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.. . n «.2 «.2 «.2 ««.« 3.« «.2 «.«. «.« v «2 _ «.«. «.2 «.2 «.2 ..2 «.2 «_ «.2 v «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«. E .. «.. . «.«. .« :.« «.2 «.2 «.2 «.«. : m «.2 «.2 ...«« :.« «.2 .2 «.«. «.« .... «.: «.«. «._« «.« «.2 ...2 «.2 «.«. E. « «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.2 «.« ..2 2 «... «.: «.«. ..«« ..2 «.2 ...2 «.2 «.«. ...: _ .0. 2382.89... «2 82 « «2 8c 2 n «2 22 «..«v ....«v «8.. « . n «.2 «.29. ...«3 «2.. «.2 «. _ 2. «.3... e «2 «2 ... n ..2 «2 «.«: «.««.. «8.. o . r. «.3. «.23 «.2... «.««v «2 «2.. «.3... n «2 «.«2. «2 «2 «2 «2.. .«v «.2... n . « «.2 2.8.. «.«2. «.«2. .2 «.«3 «2.. «2.. v «2 ..««.. «.« «2 .2 on: «2.. 33.. .. _ r. «3. 8.. «.2... «.««.. «2 ..«3. «2. ...«Q .. «2 «.«S «2 «2 « . r. 3..... «.« _ v «. ...v p. . ... «.2 «.2... 9.8.. ...«5. c2 «.2... «2.. .2... « «2 «.«2 «2 «2 «2 « _ « «.«: ...... v «2.. « . «. ...... 8.. «.2... .....«v ««.2. «.2... «2.. «.2... _ 252$ ......Eééu 8.8... «_ .« ««.« « ««.« «.... ««.« ««.« ««.« «.«... ««.« «...: :.z :.« «.« :.«. ««.« ««.« ««.« ««.« .. ««.« «... ««.« ::: 2.... 3.. «.« «.... _ «...: «.« «.« ««.«. ««.« ««.« ««.« ««.« « hm... av... on... N...... Nb... Na... «N... . . ..né. «N... :.« v«.n «.... ...... «56 ....o no... .. ««.« :.« «o... 8.2 ««.« ««.« «.2 v _ .. . 8.: _«.« .«.« ««.« ««.« ««.« ««.2 ««.« .. . ._ . m 8.. «.« ««.« .«2 « _ .« «...2 n _ .2 «.«... _ 8.2 v . .« ««.« 3.... :.« ««.« ««.2 ««.« 8.: « :.« ««.« :.« 38 ««.2 ««.« ««.«. .3.. «I _ 2.2 . _.« ««.« ««.« ««.« ««.« ««.2 «.« 8.: . «22.2 ««.«:«c ««.«:8 «22.8 «98.8 ««.ES ««.« :8 «2:8 «98.8 ««.«...8 «22: ««.««..«« «288 «2 ...«o «22.8 «2.2.. «22.8 ««.«...8 «32253.2. .32. 53.x». 25.235 8.2. «22$ ... 302.5 ....E« c. .2. .22 2.3.6.6200 2.60am .2282.th .cuwzxo 32025 ”o. m. mama... v... «.« c... v.« w... .... 8...... «PBS. 2m mini 188 ...... ...2 awn ”.2 ...... ...: ...n ...a ...N. 5.. a: ....N ...... ...... n... N... .. ...: 2n 3" ....N 2... ...... ...n ...N 3. ...... SN as ....N ...... .... . m... e ...: ...: .5 ....N .....n 8 .... ...N ...N. S: a: .....N ......” ...: ...: n... ...... . Q... ~ finn odu QVN new ed“ «a «.« v.2 ad. «.5 h...“ ”on ”.3 m._ _ h.— _ 3: v v.2 «Nu QNN a..." 9v" xdu a.“ Na v.5 ad— u._u b..." .u x...— v... «.2 ad— m c6 _ . Qua QNN néu c..." 5.3 «A QN nd- QE NAN Eva :N «.2 Q: ..S 2 n v.2 ZN Qua n4." hen wdn QM n n.N_ «.2 r2: wéu :N WE n... _.~_ _.2 _ 6. 23.895. an n can ”.2... n _ n mun n3 5... name QSV :.3. ad? @ch _ _ 8n 2.. h . n e n 2% .... E S. 2.. .3.... 2.... 3..... 2.... ...? ... a.“ 8. 8. an a... ... n N: a... R. ...: 2.... 3.... 2.... on. a 3.... m _ m mom man men n _ n m5. 9% men «NS. «.3.. «3. ..3... «69 w ....n 8. a. a. .2 8. N: E .... an ...E. 2.... .32. 2.... 2.... .. 8. 23.. ...: 8. .... 8n 8. .... 2.. 39. E. «.3.. 8.. .3... .3.. e ”a ...8. 3n 8. 8. 2.... 8n 2. e... 2.... ..E. .3... 3.... 9.2.. 8.. 2.... . mnn n64... vcn can new. 0.3». hen ac... own :33 n3. ..env ..xcv ndnv =3 «.3.. .. man «.3.. gm wow now *9... Sn men 3m ...me ad; adv... ..nov w..— nv was «3. m an 3.. ...... 8. .3.. ...... 8n 8. ....n 3.... 2:. 2.... «...... ”...... «.3. 39. N bun n63 mom can av «.09. be... can 3% ...er ed: «.mnv mace «no. a? 9v? _ $6.3 32.02.80 058.... c 8... ...... 3..... 2.. . 9.... S S... 8... c 2.... a... . . ....o ...... a... a... ...... 2.... 2,... . NS 3.. 8... S... .5... S... 8... 2 mod 3... 1m Nod an.” an... av; _ $6 9.6. an." «ad 36 a... xv... o ...... a... 2.... ...... . .... «...: 2... . .3 z... 3.. ...... 2.. 8.. ...... a 2 a... ... S... 2... .2 8.... ...: .3 NS. ...... .....u ...... 2.. ...... h 26 m o _ .r. 3.6 :.m mad 5.: «.2 26 36 who am... and 3.6 n.» w :.n ma...” ad was 3.... .NH 3.: v9: 36 had 2.6 :.a 9:. and 3.» 36 n 3.. NS .2 ....» an... a... n... .... . .....e 3 ...... 8.... 2. 2...: .3. 2 .. ...... as ...... 3.. ...... 2... an... 3.. . a... .....c as ... a: 2.... a... 2 m 86 nu.” mad SH «ed 23 3.3 an. _ 9.6 3.0 we... 3.3 2. 3...: and 2.6 N 86 n.» 3...». h 56 ad 3..: 3..: «To 3.0 . «c6 8.: was. 9.2 an.” and. _ ”20:2 «95:8 ”EN—Bo «956.8 3.33 an :3 «23:6 33:2 3E9: 53.68 tango he... :3 33:8 thQno 33:3 5&an 3393 $55an ems“ . 59.5 3.8.5 83A macaw E .50.. Same... 8 In E... 53:26.80 oEooqm 6.32%th .zowxxo 3203.5 ”Cm mqm.. 5 - .g #1 a #3 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 g 7 - at .n deptlls g 3 0‘ § 8 0 LL. 0 Spirogyra 3 4 l 3 Hydrodictyon 0 Rhizocloniurn 4 7 7 l l 1 6 Vaucheria 0 Spirodela polyrhiza 4 7 7 1 l l 6 Lernna minor 4 7 1 3 Lernna trisulca 0 Najas flexilis l l l 3 Heteranthera dubia 7 4 72 42 l 72 2 7 Potamogeton Richardsonii 0 Potamogeton filiformis 1 7 2 Potamogeton pectinatus 0 Potamogeton crispus 3 1 7 3 Ceratophyllum demersum 72 7 7 7 72 32 72 72 8 Myriophyllum spicatum 0 Myriophyllum spp. 3 12 12 32 42 S Utricularia vulgaris 0 Elodea canadensis l 1 5 4 12 42 6 Peltandra virginica 0 Pontederia cordata 1 l Nuphar advena 0 Nymphea odorata l 7 l l l 4 6 Vallisneria americana l l 2 Lythrum salicaria 1 l l 3 Scirpus validus l 1 Total Number of species 10 9 10 ll 9 2 9 5 l6 204 TABLE C4: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence and Frequency Counts in Petty Bayou z- withubramuuelsontt l-ato-lmdepth Z-atl-Zmdepth 3-at2-3mdeflh 4-at#l 5:132 5-at#2 6-at#l  7"th Petty Bayou Transects 10 11 12 Spirogyra Hydrodictyon Rhizoclonium Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza Lanna minor Lcn'ma trisulca Najas flexilis Heteranthcra dubia Potamogeton Richardsonii Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus Centaphyllum demermm Myriophyllum spicatum Myriophyllum spp. Utriculan'a vulgaris Elodea canadensis Peltandra virginica Pontedcria cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata Vallisncria americana Lythrum salicaria Scirpus validus Polygonum spp. Sagittaria laxifolia Sparganium 12 42 12 42 42 l2 72 42 72 42 72 12 42 12 12 72 12 32 72 42 12 12 72 42 12 72 12 42 42 42 42 Total number of species ll 11 10 ll 205 TABLE C4: (cont’d). ;: $133?“ Petty Bayou g 2 - at l-Zm depth Transects o 3 - at 2-3Iu depth 54 U 4 -= at #1 J: #2 g: 3 5...“;2‘” l3 14 15 16 17 g 3 3:33:22... E’é LL. E- Spirogyra l 6 Hydrodictyon O Rhizoclonium 1 4 4 1 15 Vaucheria l 1 2 Spirodela polyrhiza 1 7 Lemna minor 1 5 Lemna trisulca 2 Najas flexilis 4 4 4 12 l l Heteranthera dubia 4 4 Potamogeton Richardsonii l l 4 6 Potamogeton filiformis 42 4 2 2 8 Potamogeton pectinatus 42 1 4 7 Potamogeton crispus 1 5 Ceratophyllum demersum 42 42 42 22 42 I7 Myriophyllum spicatum 42 9 Myriophyllum spp. 42 42 6 Uuicularia vulgaris 0 Elodea camdensis 42 4 4 22 42 15 Peltandra virginica 1 3 Pontcderia cordata 1 Nuphar advena O Nymphea odorata l 5 Vallisneria americana 42 4 Lythrum salicaria l 2 Scirpus validus 1 Polygonum spp. l Sagittaria latifolia l Sparganium l 1 Total number ofspecies 10 6 11 6 11 25 206 TABLE C5: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence & Frequency Counts in Smith Bayou 2- withubnmuuelsonlt l-ato-lmdepth Z-atl-Zmdcptll 3-at2-3mdepth Smith Bayou Transects £3223; r 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 10 6 8 at #1 & #3 7 =- at all depths Spirogyra l 1 1 4 Hydrodictyon l Rhizoclonium l 1 1 l 1 l l 1 Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza l l 4 l 4 l 4 l Lernna minor 1 l 4 l 4 l 4 l Lemna trisulca l 4 l 4 1 4 1 Najas flexilis 42 l 2 l l Heteranthera dubia l 12 4 l 1 l Potamogeton Richardsonii 4 Potamogeton filiformis 4 3 l Potamogeton pectinatus 1 l 1 2 l 1 Potamogeton crispus 2 l 1 1 Ceratophyllum demersum 72 72 72 42 42 42 1 42 42 42 Myriophyllum spicatum 1 62 42 42 l 1 Myriophyllum spp. 1 1 Utricularia vulgaris l Elodea canadensis 42 72 72 42 42 42 1 4 l 12 Peltandra virginica 1 l l 1 l l Pontederia cordata l 12 l Nuphar advena l l l l Nymphea odorata l 4 1 4 1 4 l Vallisneria americana 4 Wolffia l l 4 l 4 l 4 l Typha 5w 1 1 Total number ofspecies 11 7 l4 l7 17 15 13 10 12 5 207 TABLE CS: (cont’d). ;; 31:53?“ Smith g z - at m... depth Bayou o fixing” Transects g3; s - at #2 a #3 1 r 12 g g 3:22.122... 55 L!- E-‘ Spirogm 4 Hydrodictyon l 2 Rhizoclonium 8 Vaucheria O Spirodela polyrhiza 2 9 Lemna minor 8 Lemma trisulca 7 Najas flexilis 5 Heteranthera dubia 2 7 Potamogeton Richardsonii l Potamogeton filiforrnis 3 Potamogeton pectinatus 1 7 Potamogeton crispus 4 Ceratophyllum demersurn 52 42 12 Myriophyllum spicatum 6 Myriophyllum spp. 42 3 Utricularia vulgaris l Elodw canadensis 22 12 12 Peltandm virginica 6 Pontederia cordata 3 Nuphar advena 4 Nymphea odorata 7 Vallisneria americana l 2 Wolffia 8 Typha spp. 2 Total number of species 4 6 24 208 TABLE C6: Aquatic Plant & Algae Presence & Frequency Counts in Main Spring Lake z- withzebnmussdsonlt l-atO-lmdepdl Z-atl-Zmdepth 3-at2—3uulepds Main Transects 4-at#l s-ewzams s-hr#r 7-atalldepths Spirogyra Hydrodictyon 1 Rhizoclonium 1 l Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza l Lemna minor 1 Lemna trisulca Najas flexilis 42 Heteranthera dubia l 1 l 4 12 22 42 4 Potamogeton 4 Potamogeton filiformis 12 4 Potamogeton pectinatus 1 l l 4 4 1 Potamogeton crispus 1 l l 4 l 12 Ceratophyllum demersum 42 42 42 42 72 52 42 4 Myriophyllum spicatum l l 4 2 22 22 Myriophyllum spp. 1 42 12 42 4 Utricularia vulgaris Elodea canadensis 4 4 4 42 32 72 1 Peltandra virginica l 1 Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata Vallisneria americana l 4 l 42 1 l Lythrum salicaria 1 1 Scirpus validus Polygonum spp. Sagittaria latifolia Spargam‘um Wolffia l 4 Typha Heist—tel; .— y—n Totalnumberofspecies 3 2 2 3 l3 8 13 10 3 6 6 8 209 TABLE C6: (cont’d). z- withubramuselsouit l-I-ato-lmdepth Z-atl-Zmdepth 3-atZ—3mdepth 4-at#l 5-at#2 6-at#l 7-atalldepth Main Transects l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Spirogyra Hydrodictyon Rhizoclonitun Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza Lemna minor Lemna trisulca Najas flexilis Heteranthera dubia Potamogeton Potamogeton filiforrnis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus Ceratophyllum demersum Myriophyllum spicatum Myriophyllum spp. Utricularia vulgaris Elodea canadensis Peltandra virginica Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata Vallisneria americana Lythrum salicaria Scirpus validus Polygonum spp. Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium Wolffia Typha 42 72 32 12 22 12 12 12 72 12 12 22 12 42 12 12 72 42 42 12 12 12 72 22 42 22 42 52 22 12 12 12 12 42 72 42 22 42 72 Total number of species 210 TABLE C6: (cont’d). z- withubramusseboult l-atO-lmdcpth Z-at l-Zmdepth 3-at2-3mdepth 4-at#1  5-at#2 6-at#l  7-atdfldcpdu Spirogyra 2 l 1 Hydrodictyon Rhizoclonium l 22 l 4 l Vaucheria 1 1 l 1 l 1 Spirodela polyrhiza 1 l Lemna minor 1 Lemna trisulca l Najas flexilis 42 22 42 12 Heteranthera dubia 42 42 42 1 12 Potamogeton Potamogeton filiforrnis 42 22 42 Potamogeton pectinatus 12 42 12 12 12 12 12 Potamogeton crispus 1 12 12 12 12 CeratOphyllum demersum 72 42 42 72 42 72 52 52 42 42 12 Myriophyllum spicatum 52 42 22 42 42 22 42 1 Myriophyllum spp. 22 Utricularia vulgaris Elodea canadensis 22 42 42 22 12 22 42 42 12 Peltandra virginica Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata l 1 1 l 1 1 Vallisneria americana l 1 - 4 4 12 42 Lythrum salicaria Scirpus validus l Polygonum spp. l Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium Wolffia Typha Total number of species 9 6 11 7 7 5 4 10 8 9 3 6 Main Transects 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 211 TABLE C6: (cont’d). 2- withzebrammelsouit l-atO—lmdepth Z-nl-Zmdepth 3-at2-3mdepth 4-at#1  S-at#2 6-at#l 7-atalldcpths Main Transects 37 38 39 41 42 43 45 47 48 Spirogyra Hydrodictyon Rhizoclonium Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza Lemna minor Lemna trisulca Najas flexilis Heteranthera dubia Potamogeton Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus Ceratophyllum demersum Myri0phyllum spicatum Myriophyllum spp. Utricularia mlgaris Elodea canadensis Peltandra virginica Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata Vallisneria americana Lythmm salicaria Scirpus validus Polygonum spp. Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium Wolffia Typha Potamogeton amphifolius 12 42 42 22 72 42 22 12 12 12 42 12 12 22 12 12 22 42 32 32 22 22 12 42 42 12 12 42 42 u—np—sp—nhds—s 52 12 12 12 72 42 22 Total number of species 15 212 TABLE C6: (cont’d). z- withubramusselsoult l-atO-lmdepth 2-at1-2mdepth 3-at2-3mdepth 4-at#l 5--t#2 G-at#l 7-atalldepths Main Transects 49 50 51 52 S3 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Spirogyra Hydrodictyon Rhizoclonium Vaucheria Spirodela polyrhiza Lemna minor Lemna trisulca Najas flexilis Heteranthera dubia Potamogeton Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus Ceratophyllum demersum Myriophyllum spicatum Myriophyllum spp. Utricularia vulgaris Elodea canadensis Peltandra virginica Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena Nymphea odorata Vallisneria americana Lythrum salicaria Scirpus validus Polygonum spp. Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium Wolfl'ra Typha 42 12 12 42 42 42 52 42 72 52 12 12 12 52 12 22 22 12 12 12 12 12 4 12 12 22 12 12 72 22 12 22 42 42 42 22 72 Total number of species 213 TABLE C6: icont’d). 2:33;”;‘e'3MW‘ Main Transects g 2 - at 1.21:: depth 0 3 - at 2-3m depth 54 U 4 =- at #1 s; #2 :- 3 5 - u #2 a #3 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7o 71 g 93 3:321:23... W Ln 1— Spirogyra 7 Hydrodictyon 5 Rhizoclonium l 4 1 21 Vaucheria l l 29 Spirodela polyrhiza 7 Lemna minor 5 Lemna trisulca Najas flexilis 12 14 Heteranthera dubia 1 1 1 39 Potamogeton 9 Potamogeton filiformis 12 Potamogeton pectinatus 12 12 2 41 Potamogeton crispus l8 Ceratophyllum demersum 2 42 72 72 72 22 12 12 60 Myriophyllum spicatum 1 22 2 1 22 4O Myriophyllum spp. 1 11 Utricularia vulgaris 0 Elodea canadensis 12 12 42 42 22 22 37 Peltandra \irginica 3 Pontederia cordata Nuphar advena 0 Nymphea odorata 2 9 Vallisneria americana 1 27 thrum salicaria 3 Scirpus validus l Polygonum spp. l Sagittaria latifolia 0 Sparganium 0 Wolfl'ra 3 Typha 2 Potamogeton amplifolius 1 Total number of species 5 5 0 3 0 5 7 5 2 1 l 27 214 TABLE C7: Aquatic Plant and Algae Frequency Percentages in Spring Lake Transect E a g" 35: -§ :2 Frequency '5"; ‘73 a. as; 2 .3 Counts and g is Percentage H g" c V. c % C 96 c °/. c % c Spirogyra 5 71 3 38 6 35 4 33 7 10 25 21 Hydrodictyon 0 0 0 0 O 0 2 l7 5 7 7 6 Rhizoclonium l 14 6 75 15 88 8 67 21 3O 5 l 44 Vaucheria 3 43 O 0 2 12 O O 29 41 34 30 Spirodela polyrhiza l 14 6 75 7 41 9 75 7 10 30 26 Lemna minor 1 l4 3 38 5 29 8 67 5 7 22 19 Lemna trisulca 0 0 O 0 2 12 7 58 2 3 11 10 Najas flexilis l 14 3 38 ll 65 5 42 14 20 34 30 Heteranthera dubia 5 71 7 88 4 24 7 58 39 55 62 54 Potamogeton Richardsonii 0 0 0 O 6 35 1 8 9 13 16 14 Potamogeton filiformis 1 14 2 25 8 47 3 25 12 17 26 23 Potamogeton pectinatus 5 71 0 0 7 41 7 58 41 58 60 52 Potamogeton crispus 0 0 3 38 5 29 4 33 18 25 30 26 Ceratophyllum 7 100 8 100 17 100 12 100 60 85 104 90 Mmophyllum spicatum 4 57 0 0 9 53 6 50 40 56 59 51 Myriophyllum spp. O 0 5 62 6 35 3 25 ll 15 25 22 Utricularia vulgaris 0 0 O O O 0 1 8 0 0 1 .9 Elodea canadensis 3 43 6 75 15 88 12 100 37 52 73 63 Peltandra virginica 0 O 0 0 3 18 6 50 3 4 12 10 Pontederia cordata O 0 l 12 1 6 3 25 1 1 6 5 Nuphar advena O 0 0 O O O 4 33 0 0 4 3 Nymphea odorata 5 71 6 75 5 29 7 58 9 13 32 28 Vallisneria americana O 0 2 25 4 24 2 17 27 38 35 30 Lythrum salicaria 0 0 3 38 2 12 O 0 3 4 8 7 Scirpus validus 0 0 1 12 1 6 0 0 1 1 3 3 Polygonum spp. 0 0 0 O 1 6 0 0 1 1 2 2 Sagittaria latifolia 0 0 O 0 l 6 O 0 O 0 1 .9 Sparganium O 0 0 O 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 .9 Wolffia O 0 O 0 0 O 8 67 3 4 1 1 10 Typha O 0 0 O O 0 2 l7 2 3 4 3 Potamogeton amplifolius 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O l 1 1 .9 Total number of species l3 16 25 24 27 31 215 APPENDIX D WATERSHED USES AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESIDENTS METHODS AND MATERIALS 216 4:3”. .c. 2N ... war .36 boom 3% NoN 93 SN m... @2585 .58. pm . mm «an NNm mu. own. 03. Sam .32 ”we 93 3. n ..m m 9.83 .88 3. mm. o w o o c on an e o a c 99:8 3. SN o o o o o a. 3 mm N. mm o 6:263 mmmw Na? . wN. NmN o No. an... N. .m .28 ... 3. SN o 588 .mm a... .m o o o co. ..N w... o o S o 3..—2.20 .8. 33. mm 3. m Nb NnN man. be... o 3 «NM o 26.... 5.5 3a. 22. o Nm hm. mom. 5 3e. ONN. . em or. c .5235 2% now. On. o o o Nm 2. Sn 3 .8 .8 Na 35.65 ca... 5.3. «N .o b m. 3.. N . e we... .3.. mm m EN. Nm. 32:353. 3.. .2. .. c N o o w mm .m .N one :3 333 £823 lomm=$ .2885 .263 maxim 35:38. 35553 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 3556... new—2.5 8.3 9.3 .58. .58. :282 55.0mm. .5582 2:935. .5580 :m>...:m tong—c... .338... $3950... mEEm «3an 8:66.63 8.3 3:5 5 698.2 a: 23 82-82 ”8 5:5 2%. .c. m . N F wow awe 8% flow me am M... N m... .8385 .80..”— MN. mm 3m ..Nm 2.. on: 8... Nam wva. as mg 33 can .263 .90 Ne ea. c a o o o 3 ... o o a o :05... 3. ..N o c o o a N Na N» m mm o .3263 2.3 $3.. on. ..NN N on. woo. ..an Neon mo 8N NVNN o .88... ma. 3:. mm c o c .N we. ..N c c me o «.8295 a. $3 8 8 o a SN 2.: E: o S a: o 22m 58 EN 8.5 o 3 .5 Nam. 2.. $8 NN..N . co .Nm 9 :::...Eu 3.. ma. . 3. a o c on mm mm... 3 3 SN Na .9265 PB 3.. v N S. o o w. . awn mum. can Sm .NN. Nm. 32:353. 8v 9. . . . c N c o 0 NM .m .mN one o... 333 2656... 3.5 .2885 .208 8:95 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 3:838. 692.5 8.3 8.3 .88. .38. :352 55.0%. :::—.00.). 2:38 .5580 53:8 53:5. 53.8.8 $3396... w:..:.m macaw 85.263 8.3 macaw 5 6382 a: 23 $2 :a .539 217 wN N o .- o o o ... m. o o o o :otam . m o o o o o o. m. m a o o :::..03 o a; w- 3.- 4 e 2- RN 8.. N a- an- o sea 5 an N- o o c Q 8 E o o 2 o 62265 n 2: _ _- t. m 8 w- .2 2:- o 2- a. o 26$ :25 em- mSN- o 21 E- a..- m..- awn- Now .- o N. ”2- o 32:80 M: m: cm a- o o 4. z. E o a .3 o Emacs 2 E. n- _N N. 2 8 3 an n 2 mm o 3:533. . m o o a o o N o o o o o .833 2.... :8... .833 35:38. 03:5 :0 .8. .983 3:95 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. 35:38. om:...> 8.3 9.3 ”um—3:028 .88. :otoZ 55.03 ::mtooE «:53». 33.85 53...:m 53.2... :2...E...w:=5.€8_ m:t..m w:..am 35.2.3 8.3 3.3 5 82-82 9 mg. as. a: 9.6.. 5 8986 6 8.2 HB 393 218 APPENDIX D WATERSHED USES AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESIDENTS METHODS AND MATERIALS Watershed Land Uses Geographical Information System mapping was completed by R. B. Annis Water Resources Institute / Grand Valley State University. All acreage and other components were obtained from their data base. The most recent data base for Ottawa County was from 1992 aerial flights and 1997 flights for Muskegon County. The 1978 land use was obtained from the 1978 aerial flights. Census data was from 1990 (U. S. Department of Commerce 1990). Lake Shoreline Type While completing the aquatic plant survey, shoreline types of natural, rip rap or solid seawalls were counted and recorded for residential parcels. When residential boundaries were indistinguishable, such as for undeveloped areas, about 50 meters of shoreline was considered a parcel. Approximately 226 shoreline parcels remain natural, 179 parcels with up rap shores, and 361 parcels with solid seawalls around the lake. Resident Survey With the approval of MSU’s University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, the watershed residents’ survey was developed to characterize the human community by their lake/watershed knowledge, concerns, management priorities, and their 219 suggestions addressing watershed issues. The surveys (see the following pages) were printed by Johnston Boiler Company and mailed to 600 random taxpayer households within the watershed. Addresses were obtained from tax lists within the municipalities of City of Ferrysburg, Spring Lake Village, Spring Lake Township, Fruitport Township, Fruitport Village, Sullivan Township, Ravenna Township, and Crockery Township. The addresses were checked by house number and street for confirmation of placement within the watershed and duplicates were eliminated. The entire compiled list of approximately 5666 addresses were numbered and 600 addresses were randomly picked by using a random number list generated by SAS statistical program with the starter number of 11330. The surveys were mailed in June 1998 along with an introduction letter (see following page) explaining the study and the resident’s anonymity. The residents’ consent to participate in the study was implied by their completion of the survey. Since a modified Total Design Method (Dillman 1978) was utilized, postcards were mailed a few weeks later to remind residents to complete the survey and to thank them for their time. Overall results are described in Chapter 4, whereas detailed counts are given in Table D4 by cross analyzing the answers of those that live on the water and those that do not. Survey statistics were analyzed by using SYSTAT 8. Of the 600 surveys sent, 169 surveys were returned for a response rate of 28%. In the results, each no response is listed for each part of the question. To obtain total no response for each question, add up the responses and subtract fi'om 169 (Table D4). In questions concerning rankings, only the first highest rankings are listed. 220 Resident Survey Cover Letter June 15, 1998 Dear Spring Lake Watershed Property Owner, This survey is part of a project called the Spring Lake Watershed Aquatic Assessment. Studying the water quality of the lake and its streams, the assessment study will provide management suggestions to the local governments and the newly-formed lake board. This survey will be used to detemtine your beliefs about your lake and watershed which will be incorporated into the study’s results and suggestions. Your opinions and ideas are important! Your household was randomly chosen from all who own property in the Spring Lake Watershed, so this survey should not be given to another household. The adult (18 years or older) who has had the most recent birthday should be the person who answers the survey. Completing and returning the survey is your consent to participate in this confidential survey. All survey mailing lists will be destroyed after the completion of the survey. Upon the study’s completion in the spring of 1999, the survey results will be written in the Spring Lake Watershed Aquatic Assessment Report. The study will be given to all local governmental units, Ottawa Conservation District, Muskegon Conservation District, Spring Lake Board, local libraries, and other supporting groups. In addition a public information meeting will be held during the spring of 1999. The survey results will be available to you free of charge. If you would like a copy of the survey results, print your name and address on the enclosed postcard. W the survey. Please call with any questions ( ). I am most happy to answer them. The best times to call are Tuesdays or Thursdays between 7:00 am. - 10:00 pm. Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Sincerely, Theresa Lauber Michigan State University Graduate Student 221 a 23.880 5:3 ::ze08 craomam :33... ::::b .. m:Dm :.oz 2.: . 3oz: .rzo: _ 0 Emma: mo<3mm m :.mem:: :::: v 5.30:: 55.2 :72 :25: 0559. ammH>¢Dm GHPHAm—ZOU Hm... 723.55. Hm. . BEEQ 8.8.2380 8M8..2§. . 3.53.23 v.8... 8M...o.§. . 88.8.2. 8.88% 88.: .....EV .Q .~... hm: D . 8.8.888 . 5.88280 83.188... 38.5 . 39.235. .838... . 5880 :8M:..w=.\<\o 8.8.828... 5:88:80 :88... .82.... .88.: 8.8.8... 8.3.. .5313 2.. \e 3 828%“ «a. :::. - 2:... BEE—mm: m: :o ESE < 55:95.3 ::5 ”oz—:8 2.8.5.330 motam .3.—zany. 222 '90000:m 0300.0 :050 0:0: :.02 2.0 . 302: 0.200 0 2000:: 00.30: 002<00 0:::.<:0:20:. 0.0202000: 002052. 0200:: :05: 5.30:0 0<00< 020 :25: 00.5500. 00:00:02: 00020 :033 N :0000 :0._.<3 _ 90.0.2 $00.: 00:.. 000:000 0532: 0 0.0 .00.. :0.» 00 3.0.0:..300000 00:3 .0 00.08:: E mqghmmuulxg 00:03:00 :0.» .0 VWOFOOO‘ M $0000.00 09.000 :0008 0:3 002 2.0 . 302: 0.200 0 2000:: 00<30m 002.80 08:50:20: 0230:: :05: 530:0 0<00< 02... 02.00: 00.350... 00:00:02: m 0002: :0:.<3 N :0000 :0:.<3 0 90.0.2 .50; 00< 000:8: .8002: 00 2.20.. 00> 00 00:3 0.0% 07m .000 05 5 9240mm :0: 0:04 macaw ..0 3:030 .803 05 .00.. :0.» .. VWONOO b A: 00:80.: 00 :33 0:3 :02 2.0 . 302: ...200 0 a 50:8: 2 :00 820.5: .0 808:: 2 :20 0005:0000. . A: 803:: 9 :0 0005:0032: _ .020 HACK—U. 0.00.» 0:00 :2. .0020 0:02 .8025... 8.8:. on. .0 3:00.: .203 0:. 0.0. :0» 2:03 30... NMV .0 08082:. .... 0.8%. 88% .0. R00... .80.. 0.8. 0... .2080 ...»...3 08.8.... .0030. 0... .0... 0.00.5 0.....82 .... 0.... w=.30.\00..8..=..... ..0 2.80....» .880 .08... 8:. 0.8.. $03.: .88.... .x Mummy—U Emu—OZ no E—x—«Auo yum—53S? . G 800:: 2 :30 302: .0200 0 v G 00:30.: 2 :30 002% 0:: 002220: ... G 808:: 2 :00 008:0): N ...-IA: 800:: 2 :0 00200000 _ .020 00058 as. 08. 2 - m .00: 05 E 00—0— 05 ..0 3:000 .803 05 .05 .00.. :0» 0O $0000.; 00000.0 :050 m 80,000.50... 0. 020.200 N 0202203: N 02.00: 0 90...? 0.4.0:. 0.2 000500 .003: .203 0005:0002: .0 3:83 08.09:. 0.0 .00.. 20> 00 200000 .0 :8: 0:0. 00:30 223 mph—EEO _ _ 2050mm dOm 2 0255 N l czamimmfi N 3332 $53 I m< 53m .3595 02:22,: N $72.; 8.553 355. c H 33 @5453 m l $68 5?... >72: 08 v | 5.3/So $23 N I EEC. >z$ 29.5.32 N l men; Miamaofi _ 33 V25. mafia—av N855“; 8.3 macaw 2: .8 33% Eatoqg $08 of 8m .08 so» ow 52>? .o. EOBHEO= n .m >303— !Om £25m nan—>9?— th. Z— @Z—EhH—ZOm ”PHD—>9 36> mmqu: Oz—v—Zé ZDO> Z— saw—FPO: HGDAUZ— #02 O: .>.—._¢O_~E 5.3—BO:— QDO> Ch. 26 Om Gz< — 2.53 >HEO—mm Ema—3:: 55> qummzaz E :::: :5». mafia... EQEEN 3 S hm»: :3. BS .38: .3 3..: a 9:92: 28.5.33 mEiNSQ ER .23 N E 22380an .azmhfimz 38V $3 35%. m5 3 $3358 A925. a E hflbEmE 39: 9.233 M.:§o-c\ «S \c as: .wzotamumg EmEmMSEE hmfiamfii m5 \0 Matti 2% ~35.» hr: wmttctmhza Eerie .EN: mZO—HmHUUDm FZHZHU 2:03 303 .m 5.23 .5 $3 a E 33.: 2: S .auNzfihzeu Bi 3.6 ENS .985 3» MN $5.383 V fimafiauk EEK 38.5 2% \e 2ch S ENESE... 33 Maria. 2R ¢H>E GZEU m0 Ema—<30 yum—95$ 224 00:00 000200 00232005 0260000 0022.003 00 07000500 02 075000000 02.02: 000003 0250000000 00300 >20 00 022002200 50200 0023 00300020 00 02020 0020. 3200000 02000300 N025 20050020 0025220 0025003 .03 03 020 20 0002.200 020:2: 0m0 000000.200 02022: 20220000 2202200520 02005000 0— m N _ flag a? v—zé ”.5509: $230203 0: 0:0 003 of 00 000808ng 35.0% 00308:: E 0280.00 608 05 on 2003 000 00% 00 00050003 :33 .3 MMEHO mhm<3 OZHUDDNM v mHZm>m >HHZD§OU DZ< mvis 7: OZHHZN OEHDOmd _ 0. 00. 0 020 0200.0 N 83 Eco 058030 00580:: 5 03000.00 60.: on 2003 03:00 00% 00 mcozmwwwsm 03>? V3 MMIHO v 07:; mOQEm 0754795 m ZO~HZm OEQ>OME N ZOEmeO.~E _ A». 00. 0 2000 020 Hmfimdmv Nag 050058 5 02000.00 00:. 00 2003 26:00 00» 00 «cosmowwzm 0023 00000 N 200500200 022 00000 02030002 0 20002 020020 02523 n m20 .200 00 0m0 02 00:0 .200 00 000202 020223 v 20020000 2202200520 02005000 N 20020000 5005 070000000 N 02225 00200 02000000 _ G 0... _ 200.0 020 020000 N 0003 05022: E 26800 0008 00 2003 26:00 00» 00 mcocmowwsm 0023 .: 225 900000 0020.00 000.00 0 0.2202 \ 00000 2000 002000000 0020 02.200 220 0002 02200 200.00 2000 000200 20000000 02 00000000 2020 2000 000200 000000 0220 2000 000200 0025. 0:000 020.20 000008000 2000000020 200% 00200000 _ 0040.303 000.» 0220 0020000 N83 20 9 022080 80008000 0008 05 00000 >08 0>0=00 00> 00 0003 NMVWDFWQV— DmeUm—QZD m 0000< 0 00> N mm00 0Q 000000003 000 .00 20000 00003 000 .00 .000. 000 3 008.000 00 000 00000 0.020800 28 000 00000 22 08080080 m830=8 05 00>» 0000008 00 000mm 002 00 Qua—0mg m mmd0< _ .ma N mmd0 00 .ON .0— 900000 020.00 00000 <02 200202020000 >2200 00.22 00>00020 000.0200 00000 000002 000 >000002 v—NMVW $002 .20... 02 HADES 0000000003 000.0 0800.0 05 00.0 002000 0000003 03:00 002 00 0000000 .00 0080 0003 900000 0020.00 000.00 20020 00500000 2:200 0023 0000 00.250 00.20000~ 20023 000. 20 0.2202 0.220 >002 2000200000 2022.: 20000 >220 0202 o w v m N _ 900.2 .20... 02 0000000 Nozza 2 00.5 =0 88 803 0:000 a 000 20 8 0.50 0532.00 2000 .003 200000 0020000 00000 0020 0200 0023 0020 5000000 02520 .2020 00 220 020000 2 008000 020000 \ 000000 m v m N N 520 0.30.5“! 000003 00 .00 0008 0020000 00.3 0825 00.: 0>0=00 002 00 000000 0003 8000 .5 .0— .2 0003 30.2%. 00\ 00.0 0.5 000200 00% 0B 85: .025 M530. \0 20300 05 3000 02000000 0500 0.20 MEictosx 2R Gmflmmflh<>> KDO> ...—O mU~hmEHHU52: 30; 28:3: 33E a o m < Eammmvmmmeo a o m < GEBZUE a o m < 02:25 a u m < 02535 H: a u m < @7553 m2 9 o m < 0255 a o m < 0255 533 a o m < 07:22; a o m < 025025 a o m < 0295 o o m < 02¢: a o m < ozfi 2 335 33> 22> 52: 202 2 - o m - _ oz "cry—29% .mm fiufigfick 83% «5.3% mi E mamkmxs 20.:ng SSA Beam 5% «as 3% $6.325 u:.§£3\ 2R ZOEZHKUHy— @ « 2127.2: «ma—:.« 9.: .8.» .22: 5 mg: 2:832. @8228 com 0323 mm; m 02 _ $02253 £5 .3 38 a 8:— :o» 2:03 .2258 3380:8835: 8m «8:an 20:88: 59» a 0.559% 8 33388 on. :8 EB 32:58an 2 via—£5 Ban 2 Jaméxéeni £003.03 < 95m H02 3: :50va H.ZOQ _ v ..5 memm: OH ZMm>m on H :5 .mm; m on >Am4mEZEmQ .OZ _ azo ”38:8 585333 23 3% mo 89:8 2: 9 2.53:8 33:8th so» 35 Eng :9» on .NN AN 227 mm mm 72%: HMO—2 mm 3-2 92m.» 26 wig m; M _ 725 mmmq Ezo 39:8 28:32; 834 wctqm of E 9;: :9» 023 mg— 303 HNMVM a" 22933 ca 09 m; N 8». zofimmao 2. 3% oz _ 3:305 35333 8.3 matam a co o>= so» 0Q m0 m Do> mm 302x .rzoa _ m mm; N oz _ fizo H4050 £959 2: :9 605.28 3 vegan—35>? 8:5 9:an 2: ..o :32 s 3023 $5 wcmzoooh 2 Sta 35383 8.3 macaw 2: 5 $3 Amvxtoaoa .o 8528. So» $5 305 so» 20 .mm .mm SN .3 .EEBEESQ 3.33158 Ea .4835» .59. SeEwEwk fimfiafici 2: E «Reva \o 3:ch .SSQ magma SSEEQ Sea Eggs :8 9: BS 8. 39A Seas $55 2:8 ie§ S 23 3:9: 9: 2:02 Eamnfi mma g0 m0 E 24 Oh. mmmUU< mOm >420 QMmD 32> 2 :9: 202 93> 2 - e 2E> m - _ 32> oz "9.225" mug m9. gab—.3 ESEOEE‘ muse ”.5qu mmfié $885 w: 8 0x3 wctam so 8238a w530=8 2: E omuwco 20> cc code Bo: an?» 329: a 5 .mm Gm zoimmbo 0H .55 mm < mug: 723,—. 552 .mm.» Mam.» < mUSE. HDOm< .mm; yam; < mUZO HDOm< .mmcr OZ Ezo 58:8 ~85an 8 :33 So» unfit»: 89:8 309 4m> o: 8055 v-‘NMV F‘NMVW 5:85 5:8 .mm; 525 .85 pgommza 12285.: .mm; 938533 .mm; .02 98:2 3:: 5< 58:8 $222? a 56 8: 0: fiNMVW mzommma w 23:. 852 mzomxma w - h mzommmm o - m mzommmm v - m @2085: m - _ Ezo 58:8 E238; 50> E o>= 2:02. >58 26: .33 5:9: a co ~NMVV3 6m .0.“ .mm >5 m5 eh m 5mm a. 825 8,53 < 09 53558 N 5mm a. 872% DEA—mm < 0:. >AA m: 9:85 3588 :::.5 9,58: 82m; 52.28 852m mg :53 m5 mo .52: 520 825mm; fizo 58:8 58528. a5 5 2,: so: 8 5:3 v—vavn #282,532 v 2:230:28 m :55: N 330: 5:32": 5025 _ fizo 58:8 E 3: so: 8 332 mo 25 :23 .mm .mm ._m 229 a.“ g HHOAH>ZH Gan—SFQM GHmOAUZH i a mac‘s—>2”.— GMQ—Zfirm QEmOAUZH HEP Z— >H>¢Dm CHEM—15200 HEP ZM—DPHM— Hm E _ .>m—>~_Dm ”3:. SOy—h >AHH<¢mumOU < ¢O >m>mDm m==. ho why—2mm:— Hlfi Z— thmHM—HFZ— H¢< DO> @— .aaa— .cn >ADH >m HQOQH>ZH GmmzH>¢Dm m—lh 43:2 Hmafia—m .2032 >-H> 20> v—Z<=.—. :QHMm—Zuh HM< 30> 80.8 a 72:: 852 Soda - Soda 93.3» - Soda 8mg - 80.8» Soda» 22:: $5 azo 58:8 :25 8&3 2:85 20:88: 32:8 32 oEEioaau So» m: 3:3 F‘NMV’W mmem—Q WmhéOHUOQ .mOmAAOU mmM—Oma mkmhmé Mama—:00 mmmmvma mEOAmEUxxm .mOm—AAOU mam—1:00 920m u_ «:55 v—vamo 550 :0 50 m2m> S 50 m2m> 8 - on 50 825 mm - 3 50 82m.» 2 - em 50 m2m> mm - 8 50 825 mm - M: £2: 58:8 so? 20:8 so: mm :23 F—NMVWO 522 N 522:: _ azo 58:8 $2.0m 5% fl 3:3 :v .ov 230 TABLE D4: Resident Answer Frequencies for the Spring Lake Watershed Survey g as No, 1 don’t live in the Yes, I live in the § c a watershed watershed g .9 m O. :3: ‘5 32 3 o 94 s: 5 o c... .9 I 0 Z 0 § ers cf; .5 '8 Eu 0 E .E '3 €- 0 E g 0’ c €173 XE €53 E“? 3.3 E § S .9. 8. *3 9 = 3'65 8. § 8 l: E. '7’ Z a; E 3 D- 0 Ca 8 E 3 D- O n‘ g 0 l Unacceptable 8 6 5 l 37 41 6 104 l Acceptable 3 2 O 1 l4 6 3 29 1 Superior 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 l I don’t know 1 7 2 l 11 5 27 2 Water Color 83 4 5 0 30 35 6 86 2 Water Smell 114 3 2 0 22 18 3 54 2 l Algae & plants 72 5 5 1 31 42 5 97 2 Litter 139 2 3 1 9 1 l 2 3O 2 Sewage 140 3 1 0 13 8 2 29 2 I don’t know 167 0 0 0 1 O 2 2 Other 16 1 l 0 4 2 11 3 Fishing 89 6 4 O 28 29 6 80 3 Swimming 62 5 5 1 38 43 7 107 3 Boating 127 2 2 O 15 17 2 42 3 Aesthetics 96 3 5 O 26 33 3 73 3 Other 166 0 0 O 2 1 0 3 4 Declined 5 3 0 39 34 7 93 4 Improved 2 1 1 1 3 0 10 4 Same 1 3 l l 12 5 31 4 1 don’t know 2 6 2 1 10 2 26 5 Water color 95 4 3 0 31 27 6 73 5 Water smell 122 4 2 0 21 15 2 46 5 l Algae & plats 89 2 3 1 30 33 6 80 5 Litter 140 2 2 1 10 11 O 29 5 Temperature 162 O 0 0 5 1 l 7 5 Sewage 137 3 1 O 16 8 2 32 5 I don’t know 167 2 0 0 0 0 5 Other 162 0 0 O 3 2 6 Unacceptable 0 4 1 o 18 8 3 34 ’ 6 Acceptable 2 0 O 2 7 7 4 22 231 TABLE D4: (cont’d). \O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\ONOOOOOO\I\I\)\I\)\)\I\)\IO\O\ i-lI—II-lh-IO—It—lt-ID—ll—Ii—II-‘I—lt—II-lt—I F‘F‘H—Ooooooooooo Superior 1 don‘t know Water color Water smell l Algae & plants Litter Sediments Temperature Sewage I don't know Other Unacceptable Acceptable Superior I don’t know Water color Water smell 1 Algae & plants Litter Sediments Temperature Sewage I don't know Other Taxes Pollution Water quality Too many users Wetland loss Excessive plants Invading species Trespassing Fishing Soil erosion Other Training Education Envir. Education Limit boats 147 152 142 158 147 165 162 168 I67 99 103 123 128 119 160 74 169 164 120 34 122 99 71 83 I65 145 130 160 40 39 48 51 OGO‘MQbWOOECCOOht—wr—Nl—O p—l u—n O Obi-hu—GHO—ONOu—v—nu—th—OO Ot—NOOOOOOOHONHF—OOWt—wthBWNOH-FOOOOHOHOOO‘C HOOOHOOOOOOOOOHOOOOO—‘I—OOOONU—OOOOOOOOCv—O —N U)” i—ONONWUIN axe—Hu— --\O mo 1» HI—HOMNOxNUl DJ fill 26 24 12 14 17 31 v—Iu—I WO‘ \OI—OO-hNOOOHNN-‘b t—NOOO—NUJUIM\JbCD—OCOOONNNI—NQO .— O NOhCOOF’OOOCOv-i 104 22 17 27 1 1 22 107 14 34 70 46 41 50 95 UIOUIOUIQOQ H‘LWN oo Ulla 232 TABLE D4: (cont’d). ll 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 l4 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 l6 l6 l6 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 Limit noise Address speed Other Education Envir. Education Ban jumping Other Education Limit land changes Lake events Reduce waste Other Emir. education Limit fertilizer Limit land changes Lower taxes Tax for water quality Connect to sewer Preserve habitats Protect wetlands Reduce nlnofi' Other Streams Springs Precipitation Grand River Other Algae Zooplankton Aquatic plants Good water Oxygen Other Nursery Flood control Improves water Sedimentation Other 39 33 155 42 51 52 143 41 42 49 33 161 91 58 69 140 153 67 103 73 158 r—l—JBON-fi 161 37 69 66 77 156 OONOWOWOWWOwNQON—I NN—IhUlOO-‘OUJ O‘UIU| h—I U) N-AOOOOl—r—Jb OOONI—‘ON—t—NOWOUJONO O-bMMflOJbUINw—tOOO-RNOONOI— OOH—OOOU—v—O—OOI—OOD— oH—NNONw—u—r—OOONOOOOOO 14 22 12 32 30 44 29 4O 32 33 31 u—o O Or-W-D-NOt—Ov—Nn—Nu— ~0\OMO4§O\OOUJO-— 12 12 ll 12 11 20 39 75 14 38 15 21 29 82 19 32 17 38 17 59 54 35 52 94 92 143 91 I32 100 103 92 13 233 TABLE D4: (cont’d). 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 I)magnx: Agree Undecided Ihsagna: Agree Undecided Discharge Sepuctanks Fannrunofl' ZLaunlnunofl? Air pollution IDHunrunofl' Acid rain Grand River Duck dropping Chher 190 Yes Yes. I do I don’t know 190 Yes Access only Boaung Ramfing Skuhng (kuuxnng Sudnunuu; Water skiing Fhflung Ice fishing Ice skating Birding Picnic Other No, water No, health bkxthne 190,0dnnfinmmons 152 82 148 87 132 159 du—h-I-hw 27 123 60 58 42 53 38 59 58 58 45 134 [ONO- _ H NNQOONu—oowowwul—u—w—eo l—ll—l—IkltbalOUl CO I—NONNJB-DUI-hw-hWUIMJBNJBNWNOOMOOOCoo—hol—u—t—Ikll—NJBI— ~0-oooooo~o~oowo—~c OCHOONNNNol—HNHNHNOUJ 46 12 60 ll 12 13 {Al—IND)“ ea 00 .— Ulv—v—N—Ot—OOUI—OC I-I‘ OI-l CNN 4) once wmq—AOOwOOOwaNOv-g \Ou—n O 11 11 11 p—l O fl Nh—e—l—noqcu—QO 15 119 26 153 26 33 12 31 101 553 57d 98a 97a 913 60a 81a 47a 88a 103a 82a 66a 20a 19 21 18 234 TABLE D4: (cont’d). 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 Yes Access only Boating Rafting Sailing Canoeing Swimming Water skiing Fishing Ice fishing Ice skating Birding Picnic Other No Yes I don’t know No Yes. lake Yes. stream No, live elsewhere Yes. in watershed Less than year 1 - 5 years 6-15 years 16-25 years More than 25 years Single Duplex Condominium Apartment Weekends Part of summer Summer Year round Other Partial septic Complete septic City sewer 3 7 l 2 38 28 8 122 2 3 0 1 2 106 1 2 0 l6 3 123 5 4 0 l9 8 4 121 5 5 0 19 7 4 122 5 5 0 18 8 3 115 3 3 0 6 2 2 120 4 4 0 17 6 4 112 2 1 0 5 7 l 122 5 4 0 l6 8 2 123 5 5 0 17 10 4 120 4 4 0 13 6 2 114 2 4 0 9 7 2 152 3 2 0 5 l 0 5 11 2 1 26 3 3 4 4 5 2 37 46 ll 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 WWWV é/xé A / / 2 0 0 0 2 l 0 1 1 0 1 l3 9 4 3 0 l 0 18 14 4 0 0 l 0 9 9 2 2 1 0 l 22 16 4 12 2 2 2 62 42 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 l 3 0 9 2 1 0 60 39 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 1 31 12 13 8 0 2 1 29 33 l 87 18a 29d 41a 41a 403 17a 36a 17d 36a 42a 30a 25a 1 la 127 29 4O 21 46 136 \IWNCc‘Br—o 125 63 74 23S TABLE D4: (cont’d). 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 3s 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 4o 40 40 4o 40 Other No Yes, < 2 month Yes, twice a month Yes, twice a week Yes, once a day 1-2 persons 34 persons 5-6 persons 7-8 persons > 8 persons No Yes. watercraft Yes. per. watercraft Yes. canoe Yes. other No car Car wash On grass On pavement On gravel No Yes. once a year Yes, twice a year Yes, > 2 a year Female Male 18-25 years 26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-66 years 67 years and older Some high school High school Some college Bachelor Master Doctorate COOkOONChOOwO 128 143 149 162 t—UIO Ct—t—xan—Unt—N-AOOOWNU-b—Oth IQOOOONOt—OOI—C Sou—OI—OOOt-t—OOOO U-‘CUIN-RNLANUIONOUI CONJiv—Or—wwocOWJbo—O—Ot—Ot—OOOV-‘I—i—OOOF‘HHHOCOC ...-...o—oo._o~ooowe—woooowoooo—w—oooown—ooo—o 10 24 ll 31 13 35 12 34 ll 12 12 16 10 38 15 14 12 15 14 wo—woheao—uo ~OONNH O O u—&UJI—O\Ji_ow o Awe—woaoo ONUI 41 58 36 78 50 13 236 TABLE D4: (cont’d). 41 41 41 41 41 Less than $20000 52000049999 550000679999 $80000-S 150000 > S 150,000 I—INOO‘H wu—wa NNr—t—O ONO—'0 13 l9 l6 CNOi-O 18 39 41 25 13 237 BIBLIOGRAPHY 238 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguiar, D. and S. Azevedo. 1998. Effect of different nutrient concentrations on growth and hepatotoxin production by Microcystis aeruginosa (Cyanobacteria). Alexander, J. 1999. February alewife die off may signal trouble. The Muskegon Chronicle, Tri-Cities Edition. Muskegon, MI. Feb. 23, 1999. American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of _ Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC. American Public Health Association. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC. Auer, M., N. Johnson, M. Penn, and S. Effler. 1993. Measurement and verification of rates of sediment phosphorus release for a hypereutrophic urban lake. Hydrobiologia. 253 2301-309. Barko, J ., D. Gunnison, and S. Carpenter. 1991. Sediment interactions with submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquatic Botany 41: 41-65. Bayne, D., W. Sessock, C. Webber, and J. McGuire. 1990. Cultural eutrophication of West Point Lake - a lO-year study. Hydrobiologia 199:143-156. Berner, E. and R. Berner. 1996. Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles. Prentice Hall. NJ. Brookes, J ., G. Ganf, and M. Burch. 1998. Buoyancy regulation of Microcystis aerug'inosa. Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol. 26:1670-1673. Burris, Sarah. 1997. Telephone conversation with the technical office about Dr. Domogalla. Applied Biochemist Inc., Wisconsin. August 18, 1997. Carlson, R. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22(2):361-369. Christensen, D. B. Herwig, D. Schindler, and S. Carpenter. 1996. Impacts of lakeshore residential development on coarse woody debris in north temperate lakes. Ecological Applications 6(4): 1 143-1 149. Christensen, N. and et a1. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6(3):665-691 . 239 Comer, P., D. Albert, H. Wells, B. Hart, J. Raab, D. Price, D. Kashian, R. Corner and D. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s Presettlement Vegetation, as Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. Cooke, G., E. Welch, S. Peterson, and P. Newroth. 1993. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI. Crockery History Group. 1996. The Crockery Collection: Volume II. Rogers Printing. Ravenna, Michigan. Derecki, J. and F. Quinn. 1990. Comparison of measured and simulated flows during the 15 December 1987 Detroit River Flow Reversal. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 16(3):426-435. Dieter, C. 1990. The importance of emergent vegetation in reducing sediment resuspension in wetlands. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 5(4):467-473. Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys. Wiley, New York. Dillon, P. 1975. The phosphorus budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario: The importance of flushing rate to the degree of eutrophy of lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 20(1):28-39. Dodds, W., E. Strauss, and R. Lehmann. 1993. Nutrient dilution and removal bioassays to estimate phytoplankton response to nutrient control. Arch. Hydrobiol. 128 (4): 467-481. Elser, J ., E. Marzolf, and C. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in fi'eshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 47: 1468-1477. Engel, S. 1990. Ecological impacts of harvesting macrophytes in Halverson Lake, Wisconsin. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28: 41-45. Evans, R. 1994. Empirical evidence of the importance of sediment resuspension in lakes. Hydrobiologia. 28425-12. Fallon, R. and T. Brock. 1981. Overwintering of Microcystis in Lake Mendota. Freshwater Biology 1 1:217-226. Fox, A. and K. Murphy. 1990. The efficacy and ecological impacts of herbicide and cutting regimes on the submerged plant communities of four British rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 27:541-548. 240 France, R. 1997. Land-water linkages: influences of riparian deforestation on lake thermocline depth and possible consequences for cold stenotherms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1299-1305. Galicka, W. 1992. Total nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in the lowland Sulejow Reservoir for the hydrological years 1985-1988. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 90. 2: 159-169. Gloor, M., A. Wuest, and M. Munnich. 1994. Benthic boundary mixing and resuspension induced by internal seiches. Hydrobiologia. 284259-68. ' Gordon, N., T. McMahon, and B. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Grand Haven Tribune. Grand Haven, Michigan. - July 24, 1952. Ducks get day in court as hearing opens. - July 8, 1954a. Duck farm property to be sold at auction. - July 27, 1954b. S. L. weed control meeting called. - August 4, 1954c. Spring Lake residents proceed with program to control weeds. - August 17, 1954d. Weed control spraying to be done this week. - August 20, l954e. Weed spraying in Spring Lake is completed. - May 10, 1955f. First S. L. treatment needed before June 1. - June 1, l955g. 5 Days needed for firll effect of algaecide. - June 6, 1956h. Spring Lake improvement group meets. - July 25, 1955i. Second spraying for algae starts. - June 28, 1956j. Weed treatment is underway on Spring Lake. Hallingse, M. and E. Philips. 1996. Effects of Cutrine-Plus and Cide—Kick II on the grth of algae and cyanobacteria. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34:39-40. Hamilton, 5., 0. de Souza, and M. Coutinho. 1998. Dynamics of floodplain inundation in the alluvial fan of the Taquari River (Pantanal, Brazil). Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol. 26:916-922. Hason, M. and M. Butler. 1994. Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake. Hydrobiologia 279/280: 457-466. Hicks, R., C. Owen, and P. Aas. 1994. Deposition, resuspension, and decomposition of particulate organic matter in the sediments of Lake Itasca, Minnesota, USA. Hydrobiologia. 284:79-91. Hulka, M. 1996. Muskegon County Drain Commission Annual Report. Muskegon County, MI. Kalbe, L. 1984. Animal experiments on the oral toxicity of blue-green algae water blooms. Lirnnologica 15(2):559-562. 241 Keilty, T. 1996. Glen Lake: Clean Lakes Program Phase 1 Diagnostic/Feasibility. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Inland Lakes Division. Kelts, K. and K. Hsu. 1978. Freshwater carbonate sedimentation in A. Lerrnan. Lakes- Chemistry, Geology, Physics. Springer-Verlag. New York. Kitchel, M. 1969. Spring Lake Community Centennial. Spring Lake, Michigan. Koches, J ., P. Fisher, and K. Thompson. 1995. Groundwater Data Base Manual, Village of Spring Lake, Michigan. #MR-95-12. Water Resource Institute - Grand Valley State University. Kohler, J. 1994. Origin and succession of phytoplankton in a river-lake system (Spree, Germany). Hydrobiologia 289:73-83. Krohn, David. 1997. Telephone conversation about local wastewater connections. North Ottawa Wastewater Treatment Plant. April 11, 1997. Lathrop, R., S. Carpenter, C. Stow, P. Soranno, and J. Panuska. 1998. Phosphorus loading reduction needed to control blue-green blooms in Lake Mendota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 55:1169-1178. Lerman, A, D. Imboden, and J. Gat. 1995. Physics and Chemistry of Lakes. Springer- Verlag. Berlin, Germany. Lesack, L. and J. Melack. 1995. Flooding hydrology and mixture dynamics of lakewater derived from multiple sources in an Amazon floodplain lake. Water Resources Research 31(2): 329-345. Lewis, W. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Committee on Characterization of Wetlands. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D. C. Lillie, L. 1980 (reprint from 1931). Historic Grand Haven and Ottawa County. Tri-Cities Historical Society. Grand Haven, MI. Lougheed, V. and P. Chow-Fraser. 1998. Factors that regulate the zooplankton community structure of a turbid, hypereutrophic Great Lakes wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:150-161. Luken, J. and J. Thieret. 1997. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. Springer- Verlag. New York. Macatawa Area Coordinating Council. 1998. The Macatawa Watershed Project: Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for the Macatawa Watershed (draft 2). August 28, 1998. 242 Maceina, M. and W. Reeves. 1996. Relations between submersed macrophyte abundance and largemouth bass tournament success on two Tennessee river irnpoundments. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34: 33-38. Manny, B., R. Wetzel, and W. Johnson. 1975. Annual Contributions of C, N, and P by migrant Canada Geese to a hardwater lake. Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol. 19:949-951. Marshall, C. and R. Peters. 1989. General patterns in the seasonal development of chlorophyll a for temperate lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 34(5):856-867. Mazumder, A. 1994. Phosphorus-chlorophyll relationships under contrasting zooplankton community structure: potential mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 :401-406. Meeuwig, J. and R. Peters. 1996. Circumventing phosphorus in lake management: a comparison of chlorophyll a predictions from land use and phosphorus models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1795-1806. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 1996. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Johnston Boiler Company. Issued March 14, 1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Phosphorus Loading Assessment for Lake Macatawa 1995 through 1997. Surface Water Quality Division. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1967. STORET DATA on Spring Lake. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Spring Lake field sheet data for September 2, 1981. Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Extension. .1997. Home*A* Syst, Home Assessment Guide. Extension Bulletin WQ-S 1. Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program. Midwestem Climate Center. 1999. 1950- 1998 Climatic data from Muskegon Airport, Michigan. University of Illinois. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Bathometric Map of Spring Lake. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Lake Michigan Stage Levels at Ludington, MI. Lansing, MI. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N OAA). Lake Michigan Stage Levels. [Online] Available. http://www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/cgi- 243 bin/websql/fip/query_new.p1, May 18, 1999. Nichols, S. 1991. The interaction between biology and the management of aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic Botany 41:225-252. Oosting, H. 1956. Study of Plant Communities. W. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, California. Pace, M. 1998. A case study of zebra mussels on the Hudson River. Presentation at Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. October 30, 1998. Paerl, H., J. Tucker, and P. Bland. 1983. Carotenoid enhancement and its role in maintaining blue-green algal (Microcystis aeruginosa) surface blooms. Limnological and Oceanography 28(5):847-857. Pierson, D. and G. Weyhenmeyer. 1994. High resolution measurements of sediment resuspension above an accumulation bottom in a stratified lake. Hydrobiologia. 284: 43-57. Pollock, K., C. Jones, T. Brown. 1994. Angler Survey Methods and Their Applications in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society. Maryland. Portnoy, J. 1990. Gull Lake Contributions of Phosphorus and Nitrogen to a Cape Cod Kettle Pond. Hydrobiologia 202261-69. Prescott, G. 1964. The Freshwater Algae. W. M. C. Brown Company. Dubuque, Iowa. Przybytek, K. 1999. Telephone conversation about approximate number of residential homes around the lake. March 23, 1999. R. B. Annis Water Resources Institute. 1986-1995. Raw data from D. J. Angus educational boat tours. Grand Valley State University. Randall, R. C. Minns, V. Cairns, and J. Moore. 1996. The relationship between an index of fish production and submerged macrophytes and other habitat features at three littoral areas in the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 53(Suppl.): 35-44. Reckhow, K. and S. Chapra. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake Management, Volume 1: Data Analysis and Empirical Modeling. Butterworth Publishers. Woburn, MA Reddy, K., M. Fisher, and D. Ivanoff. 1996. Wetlands and Aquatic Processes: Resuspension and diffiisive flux of nitrogen and phosphorus in a hypereutrophic lake. Journal of Environmental Quality. 25: 363-371. 244 Rediske, R. 1999. Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Spring Lake Sediments (unpublished data). R. B. Water Resources Institute. Grand Valley State University. Reese, G. D. Albert, S. Crispin, L. \Vilsmann, J. Bess, M. Penskar, S. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Ottawa County, MI. Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, Michigan. Reynolds, C. 1984. The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press. England. Richter, P. 1997. 1995 water quality analysis of the Spring Lake Country Club golf course. Golf Course Superintendent. September 2, 1997. Rutherford, J. 1994. River Mixing. John Wiley and Sons. England. Schoenberg, S. and R. Carlson. 1984. Direct and indirect effects of zooplankton grazing on phytoplankton in a hypereutrophic lake. Oikos 42:291-302. Scott. 1921. Inland Lakes of Michigan. Michigan Geological and Biological Society. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company. Shapiro, J. and D. Wright. 1984. Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round Lake, Minnesota, the first two years. Freshwater Biology 14:371-383. Soranno, P., S. Hubler, S. Carpenter, and R. Lathrop. 1996. Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use. Ecological Applications 6(3):865-878. St. Amand, A. 1999. Phytoplankton listing for samples from Spring Lake and Grand River. PhycoTech, Inc. St. Joseph, Michigan. Staufi‘er, R. 1991. Environmental factors influencing chlorophyll v. nutrient relationships in lakes. Freshwater Biology 25:279-295. Tague, D. 1977. The Hydrologic and Total Phosphorus Budgets of Gull Lake, MI. Master’s degree thesis. Michigan State University. Thompson, K. 1999. Telephone conversation about length of roads in the 500 feet perimeter of the shoreline. March 31, 1999. Thorpe, P. 1994. The identification of heavy metals, their movement and their impact on life in the lower Grand River, Michigan. #MR- 94- 2 Water Resource Institute - Grand Valley State University. 245 Turner Designs. 1993. A procedure for measuring extracted chlorophyll a free from the errors associated with chlorophyll b and pheopigments. Sunnyvale, CA. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1970. Grand River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Planning Study. U. S. Army Engineer District of Detroit. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Ports on Lake Michigan. Port series #48. U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997-1998 Grand River stage levels at Grand Haven. Grand Haven Area Office. US. Department of Agriculture. 1968. Muskegon County Soils. Soil Conservation District. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Ottawa County Soils. Soil Conservation District. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. TIGER/Line and 1990 Census Public Law 94-171(PL94-171) Data. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U SEPA). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Storm water Best Management Practices. Office of Water. EPA-843-B- 96-001. Washington, DC. U. S. Geological Survey. 1999. Grand River Stage Levels. Lansing Field Office. May 1999. Van DenBrink, F., G. Van DerVelde, A. Buijse, and A. Klink. 1996. Biodiversity in the lower Rhine and Meuse River-floodplains: its significance for ecological river management. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 30(2-3):129-149. Welker, M. and J. Walz. 1998. Can mussels control the plankton in rivers? - a planktological approach applying a Lagrangian sampling strategy. Limnological and Oceanography 43(5):?53-762. Wetzel, R. 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing. Chicago. Wetzel, R. and G. Likens. 1991. Limnological Analyses. Springer-Verlay. New York. Whigham, D., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1998. Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: a landscape perspective. Environmental Management 12(5): 663- 671. Winter, T. 1981. Uncertainties in estimating the water balance of lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 17(1):82-115. 246