Adobe Acrobat File:environmental.pdf
This document is a text-only version of the original Adobe Acrobat file. Graphics and formatting may be lost in the conversion from pdf to html.
View the Adobe Acrobat version of this file.
Extension of street grid to the Require parking lots to have gen- Foundry sand was commonly used as
lakeward side of Lakeshore/ Shoreline erous perimeter and interior landscap- fill throughout the City, and is gener-
Drives (all areas where feasible or prac- ing. ally considered hazardous if disturbed.
tical). The latter material is mostly harmless
Apply maximum height and/or (benign), but is notoriously unstable
Require larger commercial build- bulk restrictions in sensitive view- and often requires additional filling to
ings to be situated at right angles to the sheds. (*Note: Variance should be al- prevent settling.
shoreline (except where a different lowed if it can be shown that develop-
treatment is warranted). ment minimally or favorably impacts Other potential hazards include under-
an existing view-shed. Variance may ground storage tanks especially in the
Limit building "footprint" size also be allowed if the developer miti- vicinity of the petroleum tank farm
through floor area ratio (FAR) or other gates the view impact by narrowing the where the remaining presence of petro-
bulk control devices (commercial and building footprint (bulk), orienting the leum based contaminants continues to
industrial). building at an angle to the shoreline, or pose a hazard to Muskegon Lake.
by dedicating and developing public
Promote/ require a reduction in the access easement.) Finally hazardous runoff into Rudi-
visual mass of larger buildings through mann Creek and other tributaries con-
such design devices as recessions and tinue to present hazards to local wild-
protrusions in the building wall, gables, I. Environmental Issues life. While nearly the entire lakeshore
L-shapes, change of roof height/ pitch has been classified as a "facility" by the
etc. (all areas). Department of Environmental Quality
As discussed above, the historical de- (DEQ), there are no known CERCLA
Prohibit "pole-barn" type con- velopment of the Muskegon Lake (Superfund) sites on the southern shore
struction. (unarticulated building walls, shoreline involved extensive cutting, of Muskegon Lake.
metal surfaces etc.) filling and dredging to accommodate
waterfront dependent industry and As discussed in the City of Muskegon
Encourage buildings that have commerce. It is widely known that Master Plan, and in the Muskegon Lake
maximum transparency (numerous much of the fill material used to create Remedial Action Plan (RAP),
windows and other openings). Limit the numerous land spits and jetties were
use of tinted or reflective glass). waste materials originating from these
industries themselves; most notably
foundry sands and lumber mill debris.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 27
The maps above show the findings of recent site assessment activities along Muskegon Lake. The dashed red line indicates the ap-
proximate location of the shoreline in 1837. The shaded areas represent fill materials; typically: foundary sands, lumber mill waste,
and building demolition debris. The map on this page shows the western site assessment area from Heritage Landing west to the
Grand Trunk Dock in Lakeside. *Source: Dell Engineering.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 28
The eastern site assessment area from Mart Dock to CMS Energy. * Source: Superior Environmental Corp.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 29
he lake continues to be a DEQ "Area of to protect "innocent" brownfield inves-
Concern". This is due to continued high Recommendations tors.
levels of contaminants found in Mus-
kegon Lake and its many tributaries. Work with Sappi Paper, and Con- Identify additional lakefront prop-
sumers Energy (Cobb Plant) to mitigate erties for future MDEQ and EPA Site
Most of these contaminants are residual the effects of olfactory emissions. Assessment/ Remediation grants.
affects from previous industrial prac-
tices (i.e. leeches from hazardous fill Organize a consortium consisting
and releases from historically contami- of: DNR, DEQ, Soil Conservation Dis-
nated sediments) as well as current in- trict, Muskegon Lake Public Advisory
dustrial and municipal discharges. Council (PAC), Grand Valley State
Other toxins enter the watershed Water Resources Institute, the Lake
through "non-point source" runoff Michigan Partnership (U of M), and
originating from urban storm water and private landowners to identify, elimi-
agricultural activities (i.e. animal nate/ mitigate non point sources of con-
waste, pesticides, fertilizers etc.). tamination
According to the 1994 RAP update, Work with the above groups to
there has been no detectable deteriora- develop a program, or series of guide-
tion or improvement in the water qual- Work to relocate existing heavy lines to avoid/ mitigate future habitat
ity since the time the original RAP was industry inland, or to a central port lo- loss associated with new waterfront
drafted in 1987. According to the cation. development.
document cited, toxicity levels at 14 of
the 15 sites sampled as part of the RAP Aggressively promote the incen- Produce and implement institu-
update exceeded federal EPA stan- tives offered by the City of Muskegon's tional environmental response guide-
dards. Problem areas include: Ryerson Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, lines to address known fill materials.
Creek, the 11th Street outfall, Ruddiman and Clean Michigan Initiative to en-
Creek and points near Sappi Paper. courage environmental cleanup and re-
Complete Area-Wide Site As-
development along the lakeshore.
( sessment, including an approved Base-
* Many of the recommendations be- line Environmental Analysis (BEA) for
low expound upon those previously Increase public awareness of re- the entire lakeshore.
contained in the City's Master Plan and cent changes in liability laws designed
the Muskegon Lake RAP.)
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 30