EPA-905/9-74-018
                 OS. BIV1RONMBITAL PROTKTWN
                        REGION V BffOROMBfT NVtSION
                                         JANUARY 1975

-------
Copies of this document are available
   to the public through the
National  Technical  Information  Service
     Springfield, Virginia 22151

-------
        WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATION:  MAUMEE RIVER
                       AND TOLEDO AREA
                             by
             J. Horowitz - Enviro-Control, Inc.
J. R. Adams - Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
             L. A. Bazel - Enviro-Control, Inc.

                      In fulfillment of
                 EPA Contract No. 68-01-1567*
                           for the
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          REGION V
           Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program
               Report Number:   EPA-905/9-74-018
               EPA Project Officer:   Howard Zar

                         January 1975
              * Additional  Support Provided by
     The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council  of Governments
                 under U.S. EPA Section 208
                     Grant  No.  P00515101

-------
This report has been developed under auspices of the Great
Lakes Initiative Contract Program.  The purpose of the
Program is to obtain additional data regarding the present
nature and trends in water quality, aquatic life, and waste
loadings in areas of the Great Lakes with the worst water
pollution problems.  The data thus obtained is being used
to assist in the development of waste discharge permits
under provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and in meeting commitments under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S.
and Canada for accelerated effort to abate and control
water pollution in the Great Lakes.

This report has been reviewed by the Enforcement Division,
Region V, Environmental Protection Agency and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental  Protection
Agency,  nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                ABSTRACT

The combination of long retention times in the Maumee estuary,  large
rural sources of landwash, sludge beds below river mile 6,  poor
sewerage, a large cooling-water discharge from the Acme powerplant,  and
the erratic performance of Toledo's sewage treatment plant  has  degraded
the lower Maumee River; several nearby streams are heavily  polluted.
These waters are loaded with solids, they are enriched with nutrients
and organics, and they violate Ohio's oxygen and bacterial  standards.
Even if Toledo were to be wiped off the map, these conditions would  not
entirely disappear, nor would many of them be much changed.
          La plupart de ceux qui souffrent connaissent le
          remede 5 leur mal.  Et le monde, autour d'eux,
          lui aussi connatt ce remade.  Et ceoendant de
          toute cette connaissance rien ne nait pour leur
          soulagement.
               (Henry de Montherlant, Les Ce'libataires.)

-------
PREFACE

     This study of water quality and pollution problems in the Toledo
area was principally funded by Region V of the U.  S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, under contract 68-01-1567; the  Toledo Metropolitan
Area Council of Governments supported the field work  in September 1974
with funds from a U. S. EPA section 208 grant.

     We are greatly indebted to many public agencies  and private
individuals whose generosity and helpfulness went  far beyond the custo-
mary civilities and professional courtesies.  It is a pleasure to be
able to thank them by name.  Howard L. Cook1, our  valued friend, went
over our data to help us achieve some understanding of the Maumee
estuary's perplexing hydraulic behavior and poised complexities.  John E.
KinneyZ was an inexhaustible reservoir of practical suggestions for our
sampling program, an insightful critic of our draft report, and a
dynamo of ideas for data analysis.  William C. Beckett^ opened his
personal library of historical materials on the Toledo area to us,  and
unfailingly answered our questions on commercial activities, place
names, and miscellaneous Tolediana with accuracy,  good humor, and
staggering erudition.  Peter C. Fraleigh^ gave without reservation of
his technical insights, kindly lent us equipment for  our springtime
sampling survey, helped recruit a field team, prepared a valuable
critique of our draft report, and did all this with such enthusiasm,
cordiality, and welcoming high spirits as one rarely  encounters.

     The Columbus District Office of the U. S. Geological Survey
deserves a very special word of thanks for their helping us in every
 Consulting hydrologist and hydraulic engineer, Washington, D.C.
 Formerly with the USDA and the Corps of Engineers.
2
 Sanitary Engineering Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
•3
 Manager of Statistics, Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority.
 Department of Biology, University of Toledo.
                                  vii

-------
way they could, on extremely short notice,  in both May and September
1974.   They ensured that the Waterville gage was in perfect working
order during both surveys, and that its records were promptly delivered
to us.  They sent out field teams to take measurements (lake effects,
river velocity, discharge) on both occasions, even though this meant
working over at least one weekend.  We are  especially grateful to Peter
Anttila, Eddie Wilson, Mike Smith, George Gravlee, James  Blakey,  and
Arthur Westfall.

     We were fortunate far beyond reasonable expectation  in our field
crews.  For industry, willingness, resourcefulness, and cheerfulness in
adversity, there  can be few men to equal  William A. Tank, Sr., William
A. Tank, Jr., and Martin L. Tank; nor can the Tank family have many
rivals in knowing the waters in and around  Toledo.  James G. Bennett
of Toledo Caisson came to our rescue in more than one way, we shall
never forget his  making emergency repairs on a Kemmerer sampler late
one Friday night.  Russ Gorsha and his outstanding staff  at Bowser-
Morner's Toledo office were all one could hope for in a sediment-
sampling crew.  Kenneth Frank, Dennis Strahm, and Ellen Russell,
biology students  at the University of Toledo, were willing hands.

     Leon Pfouts, Thomas Kovacic, Robert Davis, and Richard Uscilowski
of the Toledo Pollution Control Agency were always hospitable and
helpful, even when we had unpleasant observations about TPCA's own
program of stream surveys.  Robert Imo, Chief Chemist at  the Toledo
STP until late September 1974, eased our work in dozens of small  ways,
and always made us welcome; we are also grateful to Mrs.  Helen Imo,
Chief Chemist at  the Maumee STP, for opening her files and her labora-
tory to us.  George Garrett of the Ohio EPA (Columbus office) kindly
supplied details  about the State surveys of the Maumee which were
published in 1953 and 1966; Robert Reitz, Cliff Merritt,  James
Orlemann, and John Harris of OEPA's Bowling Green office  were candid
and helpful informants.
                                  viii

-------
     "Gratitude" does not encompass our debt to Fred W. Doering,
Analytical Chemist at the Jones & Henry Laboratories, Toledo.  Together
with his colleagues (Gayle Barnes, Linda Sneddon, and Norman Huff), he
did more than ensure that our water and sediment samples were promptly,
carefully analyzed: Any doubts we had about any of the results were
resolved, not by rationalization, but by reanalyzing the samples,
sometimes five or six times in as many ways, to guarantee that the
values we report here are true, free from quirks and idiosyncracies.
If samples had to be received at midnight, they were, and the analyses
were begun immediately, with good cheer.  No time was too late, no
schedule was too tight: No words can express our thanks.

     We gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the Maumee River
Yacht Club and of the U. S. Coast Guard's Toledo Station: Both kindly
allowed us free dockage when none could be bought.  Ken Powell of the
Corps of Engineers Toledo Field Office went out of his way to answer
our questions about the stage-height recorder at the mouth of the
Maumee, and to send us its records promptly.

     Above all, we wish to thank the many people of the Toledo area
who suffered our persistent inquiries, helped us find our way around,
and treated us with uncommon courtesy.  We pray that this report may
be of some small service to them.

     We are much indebted to several of our colleagues at Enviro
Control: to J. D. Morton, P. M. Sprey, N. A. Eisenberg, and A. F.
Hadermann for their astute observations and technical suggestions;
to C. W. Summers for easing every administrative burden; and especially
to Judy Breidenbaugh, Annelle Crandall, Cathy Steele, and Elizabeth
Linger for their skillful secretarial help.

                                                   J. H.
                                                   Rockville, Maryland
                                                   December 1974
                                  ix

-------

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

         ABSTRACT                                                  i

         PREFACE                                                  ii

         FIGURES                                                  vi

         TABLES                                                  vii

Section

   1.     CONCLUSIONS                                               1

   2.     BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA                   15

   3.     WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS) IN THE TOLEDO AREA         22

   4.     SURVEILLANCE                                             28

   5.     TOLEDO'S SEWERS AND THE NEW STP                          41

   6.     AREA SOURCES AND THE UPRIVER HERITAGE                    51

   7.     RIVER SAMPLING                                           63

   8.     SEDIMENT SAMPLING                                       119

   9.     ANALYTICAL METHODS                                      125

  10.     RECOMMENDATIONS                                         129

APPENDIX 1.  Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, and
              Conductivity in the Maumee River Estuary,
              21-25 September 1974                               133

APPENDIX 2.  Miscellaneous Observations on the Maumee
              River and Nearby Streams                           162

-------
                                 FIGURES
Number                                                            Page
 1-1    Flow and Sediment Loads  at  Waterville
         (USGS #04193500):  October  1966 -  March  1967                 6
 1-2    Lower Maumee River Site  Map                                13
 1-3    Toledo Site Location Map                                   14
 6-1    Flow and Sediment Loads  at  Waterville
         (USGS #04193500):  October  1969 -  March  1970                53
 7-1    Waterville Hydrograph, 27 April -  23 May 1974               64
 7-2    Waterville Hydrograph, September 1974                       65
 7-3    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  8 May  1974                66
 7-4    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  9 May  1974                67
 7-5    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  10 May 1974               68
 7-6    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  11 May 1974               69
 7-7    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  12 May 1974               70
 7-8    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  18 September  1974         71
 7-9    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  19 September  1974         72
7-10    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  20 September  1974         73
7-11    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  21 September  1974         74
7-12    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  22 September  1974         75
7-13    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  23 September  1974         76
7-14    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  24 September  1974         77
7-15    Stage Heights at Mouth of Maumee,  25 September  1974         78
7-16    Stage Heights of Lake Erie  at  Buffalo, N.Y.,
         24 September 1974                                         79
7-17    Stage Heights of Lake Erie  at  Buffalo, N.Y.,
         25 September 1974                                         80
7-18    Maumee River Transects                                      83
7-19    14°-BOD and 20°-BOD Rate Curves: Maumee  River,
         10-12 May 1974                                           111
7-20    20°-BOD Rate Curves, Maumee River,
         20-25 September 1974                                     115
                                xm

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                             Page
 1-1    The Upstream Heritage and Area-Source Effects:
         The Maumee River at Perrysburg Bridge on
         10-11 May 1974 and on 20 September 1974                     7
 1-2    Pollutant Concentrations at Mid-Mouth (Mid-Depth)
         in the Maumee River, 12 May 1974 and
         25 September 1974                                          11
 5-1    Toledo STP Data: 5-12 May 1974                              48
 5-2    Toledo STP Data: 18-25 September 1974                       49
 6-1    Daily Discharge and Fluxes at Waterville:
         USGS Data, 1965-1970                                       55
 7-1    Perrysburg Bridge, 10 May 1974                              90
 7-2    Perrysburg Bridge, 11 May 1974                              91
 7-3    Cherry Street Bridge, 11 May 1974                           92
 7-4    Cherry Street Bridge, 12 May 1974                           93
 7-5    Mouth, 11 May 1974                                          94
 7-6    Mouth, 12 May 1974                                          95
 7-7    Key to Sampling Stations in the Maumee River
         Survey, September 1974                                    101
 7-8    Maumee River Survey, September 1974:  Laboratory
         Results                                                   102
 8-1    Identification of Maumee River Basin  Sediment
         Samples: 19 May 1974                                      121
 8-2    Analysis of Maumee Basin Sediments:  19 May 1974             122
A2-1    USGS Flow Measurements, 20-23 September 1974               162
A2-2    Swan Creek at Scott Road, Route 20A,  Byrne Road,
         and Monroe Street, 27 September - 10 October 1974          164
A2-3    Tenmile Creek/Ottawa River at Silica  Drive,
         Monroe Street, Stickney Avenue, and  Summit  Street,
         27 September - 15 October 1974                            165
A2-4    Mouth of Coast Guard Slip, 25 September 1974               169
                                xv

-------
      1.    CONCLUSIONS

           The  Maumee River  estuary,  for much of  its  fifteen mile  length,
      and  its tributaries  in Toledo are polluted.  Sludge  banks, oil
      slicks, and  sewage stenches  foul the  area.   The city's sewer system
      (especially  the regulators)  is  in sad disrepair: Too often sewage
      flows  out when the river  is  low, and when the river  is high  it  flows
      into  the  sewers and  floods the  sewage treatment plant (STP).  Although
      the city  has modernized and  expanded  its STP, both the new facilities
      and their operation  leave something to be desired: Even though  the
      plant  often  achieves an excellent effluent,  there are many days when
      the effluent is deplorable (e.g. during our  September 1974 survey
      there  were days when it was  paradoxically much  worse than raw sewage).
      In any case, a great deal of waste never gets to the plant,  particu-
      larly  in  wet weather,  because it is lost in  transit through  the over-
      loaded, leaky sewers.   Moreover, the city exercises little control
      over what goes into  (and  leaks  out of) the sewers: The sewer permit
          Despite the gross pollution, few of the numerical water-quality
     standards  (WQS) are violated.  The two principal violations are dis-
     solved oxygen  (which is too low) and fecal col i form bacteria (which
     are too numerous).  Toledo Edison's Acme powerplant raises the water
     temperature more than 3° C far beyond the permitted mixing zone; yet
     the fish,  including some mammoth pickerel, don't seem to mind in the
     least: The warm outfall is one of their favored habitats.  Despite the
     organic and nutrient enrichment, the main stem of the Maumee does not
     even approach  a violation of the ammonia standard; however, the waters
     of the Coast Guard slip (near the mouth of the river) and places in
     Swan Creek (in the dry September of 1974)  did violate the ammonia
     standard,  interpreted as total  ammoniacal  nitrogen (see p.  25).
.    i     The non-numerical standards embodied in the "four freedoms" fare
 \  /
  \fJfar less well.  The, sludge banks throughout Toledo (especially below
                                         •—=•—	-*—K	*-	—

-------
^
( x\
        / river  mile  6)  make  the waterbubblelike a glass of root beer and_
    ~~N' ^crackle  like a bowl  of Rice Krispies; anyone who cares to walk along
    >;   Promenade Park may  see the sludge bubbles, tally their tiny telltale
          oil  slicks, and (especially in summer)  inhale the unmistakable fragrance
          of decomposing excreta.   The mouth of Swan Creek is frequently septic
    N     and smells  it.  Floating  filth and debris, whose provenance is unmis-
 'x  '     takably  cloaca!,  are common near the outfalls of the downtown sewers.
  V)
 jp       Bad as conditions are, they would surely be worse if the Corps of
!          Engineers did  not frequently dredge the Maumee's deep navigation  channel;
          in addition to removing the heavy sediment load which settles in  the
      \   generally calm waters of  the estuary, the dredgers perform the valuable
          service  of  mucking  out the slops from the diarrheal sewers.

              The lower Maumee River is an estuary.  Lake effects (flow rever-
          sal, sudden — often dramatic -- changes in stage and volume, vertical
          and horizontal stratification, stagnation, and extreme flow instability)
          are felt up to the  riffles  (which extend from approximately river mile
          15 to  RM 30) just above the Perrysburg  Bridge.  The hydraulics of this
          estuary  (and their  consequences for wastewater planning and pollution
          control  in  Toledo)  have never been given more than stingy lip service
          in any State or Federal report on pollution in these waters; they are
          often  completely overlooked.

              We  cannot overemphasize that the droughtflow of the Maumee River has
          nothing  whatever to do with the quantity or exchange rate of water  in the
          estuary. The  Maumee estuary is controlled by the level of western  Lake
          Erie and by the winds.  When the winds  blow steadily out of the south-
          west,  the lake falls at Toledo and the  water stored in the estuary
          spills out; when the winds  blow out of  the northeast, the lake rises at
          Toledo and  the resulting  estuarine backflow may drown the lower end of
          the riffle  above the Perrysburg Bridge.  In effect, the estuary is  a huge,
          flat lagoon which receives  the waters of the free-flowing Maumee, the
          outflows from  the sewers  and treatment  plants of the Toledo area, and

-------
the great volumes of Lake Erie water that enter it when backflow is
induced by rising lake levels.  Obviously this great "slosh basin" can-
not be treated as a free-flowing stream in the making of wasteload
allocations.  In fact, the flow which enters the upper end of the
estuary (as measured at RM 21 by USGS1  Waterville gage) is seldom an
important hydraulic factor.  Until the estuarine hydraulics are well
understood, work on mathematical models and the usual wasteload-
allocation techniques must be stopped.

     Failure to give hydraulics their due is matched by persistent
weaknesses in water-quality data.  None of the routine monitoring
programs around Toledo (there are several) produces valid data on
water quality.  None of the fixed-point sampling stations (be they
continuous, daily, weekly, or monthly)  can provide adequate data on
waters which are subject to vertical and horizontal stratification.
Too many samples are taken near the shore and near the water surface,
where boundary-layer effects distort the sample.  Except when the
estuary is thoroughly mixed, no single point can give a fair picture
of water quality throughout an estuarine cross-section.  The sampling
apparatus is commonly inadequate: All samples must be taken with a
flow-through device, aligned with the current, and equipped with a
messenger for sampling at all depths up to 30 feet.  Sample storage
and preservation are often suspect; moreover, storage times are much
too long in some of the laboratories.  Few of the analytical labora-
tories pay sufficient attention to quality control, and none of them
routinely checks the accuracy of its procedures against analytical
reference samples which are readily available from the U. S. EPA.
Because techniques of sampling and analysis are not standardized,
there is no comparability among the data of the several monitoring
programs; furthermore, some of the laboratories use analytical methods
and shortcuts (such as Hach reagent pillows) which are not approved
by the U. S. EPA.  Nearly all these deficiencies can be remedied for
trivial sums; greater coordination and  cooperation might even bring

-------
about significant savings.

     Far too much money is spent on technically deficient sampling and
water-quality analysis.  The bubbling sUidgeJaeds, leaky sewers, amd__
gagging miasmas can be_fgj|ljggj2£_gi§lly_§n.^ cnea&^-4eJegted_by tjie _
unaided eye and nose than by the suspect, methods of scientism run
amuck.  The two principal violations of WQS, low DO and high fecal
coliform densities, occur just where anyone with normal vision and
olfaction would think: near the sludge beds and dribbling sewers in
downtown Toledo, and near the STP.  The river is abnormally warm near
the huge cooling-water discharge from Toledo Edison's Acme plant.
There are no important subtleties.  The pollution problems have long
been evident.  The cures are the obvious ones: Upgrade the sewers to
eliminate the sludge beds and improve STP performance.  Unless the
Acme plant is given a variance for its cooling-water discharge, it
will violate the current temperature standards.  Until these persis-
tent problems have been cured, there is no reason to spend another
dollar on routine water-quality monitoring.

     The sediments in the lower Maumee and its tributaries are not
innocent clays and sands.  They are oxygen-demanding, rich in
nutrients, and loaded with oils and grease.  Throughout the long inter-
,va!s_when_the_ estuaryis ei ther stagnant _pr in reverse flow, the Maumee
sloshes back and forth over this bed of soft goo.  The DO drops, sus-
pended solids settle, and the Maumee's longitudinal profile shows a
simultaneous DO sag and BOD sag.  Although improved waste collection
and treatment will alleviate this problem, they may not entirely cure
it, because most of the solids and more of the dissolved matter is
already seen at the Perrysburg Bridge -- well above Toledo, at the
head of the estuary, but below about 6,300 square miles of flat, soft
lands which are largely given over to the rich agriculture that has
transformed this region from dense forest and impassable swamp into
heavily fertilized, heavily sprayed fields.  Much more attention should

-------
 be given to these upriver areas,  with  special  emphasis  on soil  conser-
 vation and on more efficient use  of agricultural  chemicals.   If Toledo
      to _be_wiped_pff_jthe map (which i_s .one final  solution \ to _lhe_zero::_
         ? JLCpJ)J emj »._ the J owe r Maumee would still  be. .
juitrients^ ..and loaded with __BOD^  Bacterial  densities  would almost
 certainly fall,  thermal  discharges  would cease,  and the DO would
 probably be much higher  --  although one wonders  how long the DO would
 remain high if the Corps of Engineers  were  to  cease dredging the
 harbor channel .

      Area sources and the upstream  heritage of pollution merit the most
 careful  consideration.   Landwash is one of  the most important area
 sources  in the Maumee basin.   During rainy  spells,  when the river is
 discharging more than usual,  soil particles (sediment)  and agricultural
 chemicals are washed from the land  into the river,  which transports
 them to  the estuary and  Lake  Erie.   Sediment analyses by the USGS pro-
 vide striking evidence of landwash  effects. Figure 1-1  shows daily
 discharge (in cfs) and the  daily sediment load (in  tons per day)  at
 Waterville between October  1966  and March 1967 -- an  interval  of  ex-
 tremely  low and extremely high flow.   The daily  discharge during  these
 six months varied from about  100 cfs to 80,000 cfs.  At very low  flows,
 sediment loads were often less than five tons  a  day;  but at flood
 peaks, there was about one  ton of sediment  for each cfs of discharge.
 In the most extreme case, when the  discharge was 68,800  cfs, the
 sediment load was over 150,000 tons a  day.   Nothing in  Toledo con-
 tributes loads remotely  approaching this magnitude.

      The Maumee River at Perrysburg Bridge  also  provided striking
 evidence of landwash during our  two surveys.   In our  May survey —
 following a wet winter and  spring -- the river's discharge was
 5500-6000 cfs;  in our September  survey, the Waterville  discharge  had
 remained at about 400 cfs for several  months.   Table  1-1  shows
 dramatic differences in  the flowing loads of every  kind of pollution.

-------
                                                           Sediment Load  (tons/day)
                       LT)
                       O
                                     CM
                                      O
                                                                                                   O

                                                                                                    X
      O
      CD
      LT>
      CO
      o
      =tt=

      oo
         CTl
       O)
i—     s- 2:
 I      O)
i—     -4->  I
       (O
 O)     IS i*O
 S—       *»O
 ^     •+->  O
       c
       O)
       E
      00
      -o
                        o

                        x
o

X
                                                                                00
                                                                                o
                                                             Flow  (cfs)

-------
Table 1-1.   The Upstream Heritage and Area-Source Effects:  The Maumee River at Perrysburg
                    Bridge on 10-11  May 1974 and on 20 September 1974.
Date

Waterville Discharge



Suspended Solids

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Organic Carbon

Total Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

COD

20°-BOD5

20°-BOD30
 * Flux is flowing load in pounds per day.
10 May
5520
mg/1
43 1
474 14
13.2
3.1
0.19
35.1 1
5.7
21.4
'74
cfs
Flux*
,300,000
,000,000
390,000
92,000
5,700
,000,000
170,000
640,000
11 May
6050
mg/1
59 1
445 15
16
2.96
0.2
47 1
7.2
18.2
'74
cfs
Flux*
,900,000
,000,000
520,000
96,000
6,500
,500,000
230,000
590,000
20
Sept. '74
433 cfs
mg/1
38
532
24
0.96
0.3
41
6
13
Flux*
89,000
1,200,000
56,000
2,200
700
96,000
14,000
30,000

-------
 These differences have nothing to do with Toledo, but much to do with
 landwash;  they also underscore the size of the upstream heritage,
 especially in wet weather.

     One must bear in mind that the lands around the lower Maumee were
 malarial swamps until the last half of the nineteenth century.  Al though
                       now.*. jit was, according to reliable accmjnts_of
jthe early settlers, hell then.  It is all too easy to see now that by
draining the swamps, denuding the soils for farming, and permitting
discharges into the slowly sloshing estuary of the Maumee, water quality
in Toledo was sure to suffer.  By radically altering land uses and by
moving all discharges from the estuary to Lake Erie (just as Toledo has
moved its water-supply intake from the river to the lake), the estuary
would undoubtedly become much cleaner.  Although the costs would be
staggering, other cities have rerouted their discharges (e.g., Seattle,
Chicago, Portland, Modesto), and Toledo might look into this possi-
bility.  Whether the costs would be justified by the results is another
matter entirely.

     With decent improvements in Toledo's sewers and STP effluent, the
lower Maumee should be able to meet all the standards that have been
established; the sole exception is the thermal effluent from Toledo
Edison's Acme plant, whose effects extend beyond the current defini-
tion of a mixing zone.  Because solids from upstream drainage areas
settle in the Maumee estuary, it is possible that even with these
improvements in Toledo there will be occasional DO violations,
especially when winds and lake levels combine to pen up and stagnate
the lower river, and to rock the Maumee gently back and forth over an
organically enriched bed of soft, finely divided clay.

     Because our surveys were conducted in 1974, when the level of
Lake Erie and the estuary was very high, it is certain that we never
saw anything like "worst conditions" in the lower river.  The low
                                  8

-------
water datum (LWD) for Lake Erie is 568.6 ft above sea level; the lowest
monthly stage seen since 1860 is 567.5 ft.  During our May survey the
stage was 571.43 - 573.93 ft; in September it was 570.61  - 572.83 ft
(see figures 7-3 to 7-15).   Since the estuary's  area is about 120 million
square ft, each foot of stage adds 120 million cubic ft of water to the
lower river.  The maximum volume in May was 650 million cubic ft above
LWD; even the minimum volume in September (245 million cubic ft above
LWD) is not trivial: 245 million cubic ft is equal to three weeks of
discharge from the Toledo STP.  It would have taken a week of Waterville
flow at 400 cfs to have accumulated 245 million cubic ft, which is not
the volume of the estuary but only the lowest excess over LWD we saw:
It would have taken several  weeks of flow at 400 cfs to fill the entire
estuary.  Poorest water quality in Toledo is likely when  very low lake
levels combine with light northeast winds to fill the estuary with river
water and to stagnate it at  a stable stage of 568 ft.  Nothing resem-
bling this hydraulic condition occurred in 1973 or 1974.   It bears
repeating that Waterville droughtflow has nothing to do with worst
conditions in the estuary.   Low flow may help: Insofar as lake water is
much cleaner than river water, the estuary is cleanest when drought
coincides with very high lake stage, especially in winter.

     Although we did not see the estuary at its  hydrological worst,
the STP effluent during the  September survey was shocking,  owing to
spills of accumulated solids.  During the interval 18-25  September,
effluent loads (in pounds per day) were as follows:

     20° -BOD5     18,000 -  107,000; 62,000 (median)
     SS            18,000 -  424,000; 143,000 (median)
     Total P        1,174 -  15,588; 3.500 (median)
     NH4 (N)        5,598 -  9,250; 7,356 (median)

-------
In May the plant was much better behaved,  but the  sewers  were  badly
leaking, owing to the high water table and the rains,  which  were  some-
times torrential.  All  these differences  notwithstanding,  concentra-
tions of pollutants in the lower river were surprisingly  similar  in
both surveys.  Samples from the river's mouth (both  taken near the end
of an exaggerated estuarine flush,  when the river  was  rapidly  spilling
into a lake which had precipitously fallen under the influence of
steady southwest winds) show that,  in some respects, the  river was
cleaner in September than in May (see table 1-2).   Despite the smaller
estuarine volume.  Despite the poor STP performance.  Despite  the
dramatic differences in the riverflow at  Waterville  (6,000 cfs in May
versus 400 cfs in September).  Leaky sewers and the  upstream heritage
are at least as important as STP performance in accounting for these
nearly invariant concentrations.

     There was, however, one very significant difference  in  water
quality.  Dissolved oxygen was always above 5 mg/1 in  the May  survey,
but was frequently below 4 mg/1 in September.  Long  stagnation times
in the estuary and much warmer water (20°  C in September  versus 14°  C
in May) are to be blamed at least as much  as the shoddy STP  performance.
The DO standard of 5 mg/1 was never violated upriver of the  DiSalle
Bridge (RM 6.9), but was frequently violated from  the  Anthony  Wayne
Bridge (RM 5.4) to the mouth.  The violations were most severe near
the Craig Bridge (RM 3.6), which is just  below the Acme powerplant's
cooling-water discharge (approximately 316 mgd --  nearly  490 cfs) and
within three miles of nearly all the sewer outfalls  and the STP itself.
The vacillating, unstable currents in the estuary  obscure the  full
effect of the warm outfall on the river's  temperature  and DO;  but the
long detention of the water in the estuary no doubt exacerbates the
deoxygenating effect of Acme's discharge.

     In summary, if something is done to  improve Toledo's sewerage,
our best judgment is that the Maumee estuary should  be classed as an

                                 10

-------
Table 1-2.   Pollutant Concentrations at Mid-Mouth  (Mid-Depth)  in
            the Maumee River,  12 May 1974 and 25 September 1974.

ss
IDS
Total C
Inorg. C
Org. C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
NH4 (N)
N03 (N)
N02 (N)
Total P
Dissol. P
COD
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD]0
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
12 May 1974
42 mg/1
417
46.4
33.3
13.1
2.25
0.52
0.27
1.42
0.040
0.20
0.13
40.5
5.9
8.9
15.0
15.3
25 Sept. 1974
46 mg/1
318
38
17
21
2.15
1.08
0.50
0.40
0.170
0.22
0.16
27
4
4
6
7
                            11

-------
effluent-limited segment.  Best practicable technology, as it is now
defined, should be sufficient to ensure that the estuary will meet all
water-quality standards.1  If the sewers continue to leak, thereby
feeding the sludge beds in the river, the estuary's DO will probably
continue to violate standards, and bacterial concentrations will cer-
tainly remain too high.  The STP will require structural modification
to meet the definition of BAT for the early 1980's.  The STP effluent
today is often inadequate, owing to both operational and design
problems; the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council  of Governments will soon
issue a separate report on them.  Elegantly designed facilities will
do nothing to improve the estuary if they are not well maintained and
well run.  Improved nutrient removal by the STP may lower concentra-
tions of nitrogen and phosphorus in the estuary, but nutrient loads
will be high no matter what Toledo does: When the Waterville flow is
over a few hundred cfs and the STP is operating well, most of the
nutrients in the estuary originate in the agricultural drainage area
well above Toledo.

     Figures 1-2 and 1-3 are site location maps for the lower Maumee
and Toledo.
 Discharge permits have been summarized in a recent report: OEPA
 (May 1974).  State of Ohio, Maumee River Basin Waste Load Allocation
 Report for the 303(e) Continuing Planning Process for Water Quality
 Management.  Draft.  Part 2.  Undated, unpaginated.
                                12

-------
                Figure 1-2.   Lower Maumee River Site Map
1.   Fort Meigs                      10.
2.   Perrysburg Bridge
3.   Ewing Island                    11.
4.   Lucas County STP at Maumee      12.
5.   Fort Miami                      13.
6.   1-80/90 Bridge                  14.
7.   Walbridge Park                  15.
8.   Rossford Marina Pier            16.
9.   DiSalle (1-75) Bridge           17.
Toledo Pollution Control
  Agency (TPCA)
Cherry Street Bridge
Sports Arena
1-280 Bridge (Craig Bridge)
Harrison Marina Pier
Toledo Terminal Bridge
Toledo STP
C&O Coal Dock
                                   13

-------
                 Figure  1-3.  Toledo Site Location Map
1.   White Buoy (Mouth West)
2.   Buoy 50 (Mouth Midwest)
3.   Buoy 49 (Mouth Mideast)
4.   Coal Docks (Mouth East)
5.   Coast Guard Station
6.   Port of Toledo, Presque  Isle
      Facilities
7.   Bay View Park
8.   Toledo STP
9.   1-280 Bridge (Craig Bridge)
10. Cherry Street Bridge
11. Promenade Park
12.  Jefferson Street Regulator
13.  Monroe Street Regulator
14.  Hamilton-Newton Regulator
15.  DiSalle (1-75) Bridge
16.  Toledo Pollution Control Agency
      (TPCA)
17.  Toledo Edison Co.  (Acme Station)
18.  Interlake, Inc.
19.  Gulf Oil Co.
20.  Standard Oil  Co.
21.  Toledo Water Works
22.  Sun Oil Co.
                                 14

-------
2.    BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

     The Maumee River drains over 6,500 square miles in northwestern
Ohio, northeastern Indiana, and southern Michigan.   Its main stem begins
at Ft. Wayne, where the St. Joseph and St.  Marys Rivers unite,  and flows
generally northeast to Toledo, about 135 miles distant.  It empties into
Maumee Bay, a shallow bowl at the tip of Lake Erie.   This entire area
was once covered by ancient Lake Erie, which formerly drained into the
Mississippi basin: The outlet was near Ft.  Wayne; the Wabash River
carried the lake's discharge to the southwest.  Although later
glaciation changed these drainage patterns  time and  again, the present
topography bears witness everywhere to the  drowned  and glaciated past.
The land is flat and poorly relieved; the river has  little gradient
(1.3 ft/mile), hence its sluggish flow.  There are  a few outcroppings of
hard Niagaran dolomite (e.g., in the 15-mile riffle  from Grand Rapids to
the Perrysburg Bridge), but the basin's predominant  feature is  its
extremely fine clay soil, derived from the  rock flour which was created
by the grinding action of the glaciers, by  weathering under climatic
extremes, by lush swamps, and by severe erosion and  sedimentation over
geologic time; many of these fine clay particles are of nearly colloidal
size.  The poor relief, gentle gradient, and powdery soils account for
many of the Maumee's traits: its muddiness, low velocity, and sediment-
clogged bed.  Although the Maumee is not a  large river (its mean dis-
charge to Lake Erie is only about 5,000 cfs), it is  the largest tribu-
tary to the Great Lakes.

     The estuary of the river begins just above the  Perrysburg Bridge,
where the riffles end (RM 14.5, approximately).  The shallow water
courses swiftly over the crystalline rocks  of the riffles, which are
usually scoured clean of sediment deposits.  As soon as the water
enters the estuary, its velocity abruptly drops unless the estuary
                                  15

-------
is flushing hard -- a few times a month, in general.  The river bottom
reflects this abrupt change in velocity: It changes from hard rock to
soft, plastic clay.  As the currents diminish, suspended solids begin
to settle, and the DO begins to fall.  This initial drop in DO has
almost nothing to do with BOD from the Toledo area: It is rather a
purely physical phenomenon deriving from the altered flow regime.

     Within the estuary currents are extremely unstable, there is
frequent reverse flow due to fluctuations in Lake Erie's stage, and
the water is relatively stagnant for long intervals.  The estuary
is broad and deep: nearly a mile across at its widest (near Grassy
Island, approximately RM 8), and nearly 30 feet deep in the dredged
navigation channel.  Early maps and charts show that the estuary
was frequently 25 feet deep even before the Corps of Engineers began
to improve the harbor.  The soft estuarine bed is unstable: Bars of
clay, sand, and gravel are in continual motion.  When the estuary
is flushing hard, or when floodcrests rush down the river, the soft
bottom is roiled up by turbulent flow and scoured into Maumee Bay.
It is profitable to consider the estuary a reservoir, a sloshing
dilution basin (where river water is progressively mixed with
backflow from the lake), and a large settling basin (where solids
from upriver are sedimented, added to by Toledo, and occasionally
scoured).

     The Maumee basin today is an intensively developed area.  The
flat terrain has been exploited by fanners (the major crops are
corn, soybeans, soft winter wheat, tomatoes, and truck-garden
specialty crops).  The principal centers of population and industry
are Ft. Wayne, Lima, and, above all, Toledo, which is one of the
largest and busiest ports in the Nation.  The industrial and commer-
cial base is diverse: agriculture and food processing, oil refining
and petrochemicals, metals, auto parts, heavy machinery, glass
                               16

-------
manufacture, tool-making, and transportation.

     Toledo, at the western end of Lake Erie,  has become the busiest
port on the lake and 6ne logical turn-around point for St.  Lawrence
Seaway traffic: It annually handles more than 25 million tons of
soft coal and iron ore, and another 2-3 million tons of grain and
other bulk cargoes.  Toledo is also one of the Nation's largest
rail centers: Most of the iron and coal is transferred at the port
facilities between lakers and freight cars, for overland shipment to
the steel plants which are clustered around the southern rim of the
Great Lakes and the edge of the Appalachian coalfields.  Metropolitan
Toledo has a population of about 500,000; some of the major indus-
trial firms there are Owens-Illinois, Owens-Corning Fiberglas,
Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass, SOHIO, Sun Oil, Gulf Oil, Pure Oil, Dana
Corp., American Motors-Jeep, Champion Spark Plug, DeVilbiss Co.,
and the Toledo Scale Corp.

     Although Lake Erie was the first of the Great Lakes to be
formed, it was the last to be discovered by Europeans, and the Maumee
basin was one of the last areas around Lake Erie to be settled.  The
settlement of this basin and its conversion, within the space of a
century, from impenetrable swamp and dense forest to rich farmlands
and industrialized cities are among the most startling transforma-
tions ever wrought on this continent.  The early history and gradual
development of this region have been recorded in several excellent
accounts^.
 BROWN, Samuel R. (1815).  Views of the Campaigns of the Northwestern
     Army, etc. Wm. G. Murphy, Philadelphia.
 DOWNES, Randolph C. (1949).  Canal Days: Lucas County Historical
     Series, vol. 2.  The Historical Society of Northwestern Ohio,
     Toledo.
 DOWNES, Randolph C. (1951).  Lake Port: Lucas County Historical
     Series, vol. 3.  The Historical Society of Northwestern Ohio,
     Toledo.                                             ,    ..    ,»
                                                         (continued)
                                 17

-------
    Good topographical maps and navigation charts of Maumee Bay and

the lower Maumee River were published by the U. S. Bureau of Topo-

graphical Engineers (now in the Corps of Engineers) as early as 1844.

New surveys, charts, and maps have been published with increasing

frequency since then.   These historical materials describe the cutting

down of the forests, the backbreaking labor of installing tile

drainage in the first marshy farmlands, the rapid destruction of fish

and waterfowl, the navigation improvements, the landfills, and the

accelerating population and industrialization.  Although inadequate

sewers and waste treatment account for at least some of the Maumee's

problems today, the major changes in the water are apparently even

more closely related to the radical  changes in land use.  These

changes include the drop in water table, increased turbidity and

sediment load, and more rapid, more extreme variations in stage.  The
(continued)

DOWNES, Randolph C. (1954).  Industrial  Beginnings:  Lucas County Histor-
    ical Series, vol.  4.  The Historical  Society of Northwestern
    Ohio, Toledo.
EVANS, Estwick (1832).  Pedestrious tour of 4,000 miles during the
    winter and spring  of 1818.   J_n: U.S.  CONGRESS, American State
    Papers, Class X, Miscellaneous, vol.  2.  Gales & Seaton, Washington.
HATCHER, Harlan (1945).  Lake Erie.  Bobbs-Merrill,  Indianapolis and
    New York.
KAATZ, Martin R. (Winter 1952-1953).  The settlement of the Black Swamp
    of Northwestern Ohio:  Early days.   Northwest Ohio Quarterly
    25_(1): 23-36.
KAATZ, Martin R. (Summer 1953).  The settlement of the Black Swamp of
    Northwestern Ohio: Pioneer days.  Northwest Ohio Quarterly
    25(3):134-156.
KAATZ, Martin R. (Autumn 1953).  The settlement of the Black Swamp of
    Northwestern Ohio: Later days.   Northwest Ohio Quarterly
    25(4):201-217.
MAYFIELD, Harold (Spring 1962).  The changing Toledo region -- a
    naturalist's point of view.  Northwest Ohio Quarterly 34^(2):83-104.
OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (1838).   Second Annual Report.  S.Medary,  Columbus.
SLOCUM, Charles E.  (1905).  History of the Maumee River Basin from the
    Earliest Accounts  to Its Organization into Counties.   Privately
    printed by the  author, Defiance, Ohio.
VAN TASSEL, Charles S., editor (1929).   Story of the Maumee Valley:
    Toledo and the  Sandusky Region, vol.  1.  S. J. Clarke,  Chicago.

                                18

-------
once-teeming fishlife is greatly reduced, the waterfowl  almost van-

ished, and the vegetation altered almost beyond recognition.


     Samuel Brown, who was not a land speculator but an  officer

attached to General (later President) Harrison, described the Maumee

and the Black Swamp before this radical  transformation began.  The

Black Swamp occupied about a quarter of the basin, generally  to the

south and east of the river itself, and included large stretches of the

river valley.


          "The quantity of fish at the rapids [scil.  Grand
          Rapids] is almost incredible....   So numerous  are
          they at this place, that a spear may be thrown into
          the water at random, and will  rarely miss  killing
          one!  I saw several hundred taken in this  manner in
          a few hours.  The soldiers of the fort [Fort Meigs,
          just above Perrysburg Bridge]  used to kill  them in
          great quantities, with clubs and stones.  Some days
          there were not less than 1,000 taken with  the  hook
          within a short distance of the fort, and of an
          excellent quality	  The river, Swan Creek [in
          the heart of downtown Toledo today], and the shoals
          of the bay, swarm with ducks,  geese, etc.   He
          [scil.  the hunter] need not wait one minute for a
          shot.... The woods are filled  with deer, elk,  and
          wild turkies."  "[In the Black Swamp we] found the
          grass higher than our heads and as thick as a  mat,
          confined together by a species of pea vine, which
          compelled us to tread it under our feet to  make the
          least progress; this operation was too slow and
          fatiguing to be long continued...and in the course
          of a few rods we had disturbed several rattle
          snakes	"  "The grass was about seven feet high
          and so thick that it would easily sustain  one's
          hat -- in some places a cat could have walked  on
          its surface; in many places it was effectually
          matted by vines that required  one's whole  strength
          to break it down.  To break the road four  rods was
          as much as the best of us could perform at  one
          turn."  Op. cit., pp. 138-144  passim.
                                  19

-------
    Kaatz1 thorough review contains a telling description of the heroic

labors that went into claiming this land for civilization:


          "The magnitude of the pioneer's labor rightly
          fills us with awe.  For the pioneer who selected
          land within the borders of the Black Swamp, the
          effort required to live and get along was even
          greater.  His land was either wholly or partially
          covered by water except for a short part of the
          year.  The soil was heavy, sticky clay.  The
          insects were so bad that the settler often had
          to wrap himself in heavy clothing despite the
          heat.  Oxen had to be used instead of horses,
          for the mud, brush, and insects were too much
          for the latter.  Finally the crop was planted
          only to have the excessive moisture cause the
          wheat and oats to overgrow, fall down and blast,
          and sometimes not before harvest time."  Kaatz
          (Summer 1953).  Op_. cit.. p. 151.


     Slocum was both a physician and a polymath.  Since water pollution

was once almost exclusively assigned to State Health Departments,

Slocum's description of common diseases in the Maumee basin during

the last half of the nineteenth century may put the development of

this region into a perspective quite different from a naturalist's:
          "Swamp mi asms were rife from the first records
          of this Maumee region and during the period of
          clearing away the forest, the opening of the
          ground to the direct rays of the sun, during
          the earlier turnings of the soil in its culti-
          vation, and in public works.  Ague — inter-
          mittent fever  -- in its different forms, and
          the severer remittent fevers, were quite
          general and severe until the year 1875 in most
          parts of the Basin; and in the less developed
          parts these diseases continued for several
          years later.  The writer, in the practice of
          his profession, has treated virulent types of
          these affections in many families where there
          was not a member in good health to nurse
          those dangerously sick.  These diseases were
                                20

-------
most prevalent in severe and dry summers; and
the following winters inflammatory diseases
were numerous and virulent on account of the
weakened condition of the people from the
malaria.  The death rate, although no higher
than in other places throughout the country,
was greater those years than it has been
since.  In fact, since the passing of the
swamps and their mi asms the healthful ness
of this Basin ranks very favorably with that
of any region in America."  Op. cit., p. 3.
                      21

-------
3.   WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS) IN THE TOLEDO AREA

     Ohio's WQS for the Toledo area have been in flux since they were
established.  The first set of standards was adopted on 10 January
1967, and covered the Maumee River, Maumee Bay, and their tributaries.
All these waters were to be free from (1) discharges that "will  settle
to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge banks";
(2) "floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating materials...  [from]
discharges in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious";
(3) "discharges producing color, odor, or other conditions in such
degree as to create a nuisance"; and (4) "discharges in concentrations
or combinations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant, or
aquatic life."  In addition to these "four freedoms", all waters must
be suitable for all designated uses, except for the main stem of the
Maumee in Toledo, which was only required to meet standards for
industrial water supply and for "aquatic life B" (warm-water fishery).

     The most recent standards, adopted 27 July 1973, classify all
waters of the State for "warm water fisheries, for primary contact
recreation, for processing by conventional treatment into public,
industrial, and agricultural water supplies".  The standards do not
apply when the streamflow falls below "the annual minimum 7 day average
flow that has a recurrence period of once in ten years", nor do they
apply to low-flow streams, which are defined as having an "upstream
drainage area... less than five square miles" and "less than 50% of
the flow would be present if there were no point source wastewater
discharges for 15% of any two consecutive year period during the ten
years preceding July 1, 1974".  The new standards preserve the "four
freedoms", but substitute a specific bioassay procedure for the
sweeping (and rather vague) toxicity freedom of the old standards.

     There are several significant differences between the old and the
new standards.  Under the 1967 standards, coliform bacteria above the
                                22

-------
Toledo area must not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly average
value (either MPN or MF count); the 80th percent!le must not exceed
1,000 per 100 ml, nor may the 95th percentile exceed 2,400 per 100 ml.
DO must be over 3 mg/1 at all times, and at least 5 mg/1 "during at
least 16 hours of any 24-hour period".  The pH must never fall outside
the range 6.5-9.0 (amended within the year to 6.5-8.5).  Dissolved
solids must never exceed 1,000 mg/1, nor may the monthly average ever
exceed 750.  Within the Toledo area, the bacterial standard was
waived (because the water was not protected for either public water
supply or recreational uses); the DO standard was dropped to 2, with
no value ever to be less than 1 (this standard too was amended within
the year: By October the average DO had to be at least 3, and the
daily minimum at least 2).  Water temperature must never exceed 95°F
(35°C).

     The new standards are quite different -- in some cases they are
much more demanding, in others they are much more permissive.  The DO
standard is higher: a daily average of 5, and never less than 4.  The
pH standard is laxer: 6.0-9.0.  The coliform standard is different:
"fecal coliform content (either MPN or MF count) shall not exceed 200
per 100 ml as a 30 day geometric mean based on not less than five
samples during any 30 day period nor exceed 400 per 100 ml in more
than ten percent of all samples during a 30 day period."  The dis-
solved-solids standard is lower: Samples may now exceed "one, but not
both, of the following: (1) 1500 mg/1, (2) 150 mg/1 attributable to
human activities."  The temperature standard is much stricter: "stream
water temperature shall not exceed by more than five degrees faren-
heit (2.8 degrees centrigrade) the water temperature which would occur
if there were no temperature change of such waters attributable to
human activities."  It is further prescribed that no water in the
Maumee basin may ever exceed 90°F (32.2° C).  Although no standard is
set for phosphate, total nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, or Kjeldahl

                                 23

-------
nitrogen, the maximum allowable concentration of ammonia is 1.5 mg/1.
No mixing zone may exceed 12 acres.

     The estuary and its tributaries have never consistently met even the
lowest DO and bacterial standards; they have always met the pH and
dissolved-solids standards.  The new mixing-zone standard is violated by
Toledo Edison's Acme powerplant.  The Maumee River did not violate the
ammonia standard in either our May or September 1974 surveys, but
several nearby waters did (see Appendix 2).  The worst ammonia violation
was in the upper reaches of Swan Creek: far above Toledo, but below more
than five square miles of drainage area; moreover, the flow was above
the 7-Q-10 droughtflow: This was not a "low-flow segment".  The "four
freedoms", however, are widely, frequently, and severely violated.

     The language of these standards merits very careful attention,
since Ohio's WQS are similar in their imprecise, prolix form of
expression to the WQS in many other States.  The DO standard specifies
an absolute minimum as well  as a daily average.  Nowhere is one told
where these measurements are to be taken.   Although the  muddy Maumee
estuary is so turbid that there is no clear sign of diurnal  DO varia-
tion due to photosynthesis,  there is plenty of DO variation.  DO is
always high at the Perrysburg Bridge, at the foot of the long riffle;
DO is always low  over  the sludge beds below RM 6, particularly near
the Acme plant's warm outfall.  Everyone knows that a DO probe will
read zero near the bottom of a sludgy river, where the bottom is in
any case ill-defined.   The eutrophic waters in the riffle no doubt do
exhibit diurnal  DO variation -- there are plenty of filamentous algae
about -- but physical  reaeration is so violent the DO will  rarely  fall
below 5.   It is  no trick to  find places in the Maumee that will always
have DO less than 4, nor is  it hard to find places that will  always
have DO above 10.  Depending on how one selects sampling points, one
may make the Maumee look as  clean or as dirty as one pleases -- at

                                24

-------
the minimum or on the average.

     The new ammonia standard should be changed: It says "ammonia",
but means "NH3 & NH,^".  Within the usual ranges of pH and temperature,
nearly all ammoniacal nitrogen is ionized NH/j, but Nfy is not the
principal toxic culprit: Un-ionized NH3 is.  Although the standard
refers to STORET Number 00610 -- which is not one, but several methods
for "Nitrogen, Ammonia" -- all these methods detect NH3 and NH^, not
just NH3-  For technical reasons which have nothing to do with ioni-
zation states in natural watercourses, all the 00610 methods convert
NH4 to NH3 by pH adjustment, distillation, or both.  The confusion also
appears in OEPA's wasteload-allocation report for the Maumee basin,'
which uses "NH3", not "NH3 & NH4" or "ammoniacal N".  OEPA's standard
limits "ammonia" to "1.5 mg/1", which (taken literally) is very per-
                                                          p
missive: The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission^- recommends
that ammonia (but not total ammoniacal nitrogen) be limited to 0.025
mg/1, and there is strong support in the U.S. for this limit.  We sug-
gest that the standard be changed to conform with EIFAC's recommen-
dation, and that the laboratory methods for ammonia detection be
revised to stop the confusion of ammonium with ammonia.

     In actual  fact, most of the State's data on the Maumee are derived
from monthly grab samples, but most of the samples are collected and
analyzed by the Toledo Pollution Control Agency (TPCA), not by the
Ohio Environmental  Protection Agency.   The Federal  program of data
collection resides largely with the USGS,  which maintains automatic
 OEPA (May 1974).  State of Ohio, Maumee River Basin Waste Load Allo-
 cation Report for the 303(e) Continuing Planning Process for Water
 Quality Management.   Draft, section 5.   Undated and unpaginated.
2
 EIFAC (1970).  Water quality criteria for European freshwater fish:
 Report on ammonia and inland fisheries.  Food and Agriculture
 Organization of the  United Nations.  Rome,  Italy.

                                25

-------
monitors for DO, pH, and conductivity at Waterville and at Toledo's
Coast Guard Station, near the river's mouth.   USGS does take monthly
or biweekly grab samples at Waterville; but water-quality conditions
at Waterville -- even if one believes the USGS data -- haven't the
remotest connection with conditions in the estuary.  If the OEPA has
no intention of vicariously measuring the river more than a few times
a month, the language of the WQS bears little relation to the sur-
veillance activities that are supposedly undertaken to support them.
The discrepancy between language and reality is misleading.  For
example, if only one or two monthly samples are analyzed for bacteria
at each sampling point, it is senseless to talk of monthly averages
and 90th percentiles "based on not less than  five samples during any
30 day period".  Moreover, it is impossible to compute an average
from an open-ended distribution (e.g. bacterial assays, which commonly
give results such as "too numerous to count", or "less than 10 cells
per ml", or "greater than 700,000").

     The pH standard shows how inconsistent the standards are among
themselves: Although other standards are burdened with supererogatory
statistical talk of averages and percentiles, the pH standard merely
specifies a maximum and a minimum.  Yet surveillance for pH violations
is identical to surveillance for any of the other standards: The same
grab samples are used.   Even if the "continuous" pH data collected by
USGS were above suspicion, they would be of little help to prompt
enforcement: They are published only after months of delay, too late
for timely corrective action.

     In the Toledo area, at least, one may argue that entirely too
much attention has been given to the quantitative standards, meager as
even that has been.  The rather general language of the "four freedoms"
is adequate to deal with the gross pollution.  Raw sewage (traceable
to faulty regulators and overflows) is widely evident at least several
times a week throughout the year,  regardless  of precipitation.
                               26

-------
Decomposing sludge banks, well marked by gas bubbles and oil slicks,
can always be seen around Promenade Park (RM 5), where Swan Creek and
several large sewers regularly discharge raw, smelly, unsightly
wastes.  Oily sludge beds, composed of flocculants from the city's own
waterworks and of refinery wastes, clog the lower reaches of Otter
Creek.  The mouth of Swan 'Creek (in the heart of downtown Toledo) is
almost continuously septic during the summer, and is occasionally
septic even in March and April; the stench can be overpowering in hot
weather.

      In short, the basic standards embodied in the "four freedoms" are
sufficiently violated for any ordinary citizen to know that something
is radically wrong with the water, and everyone knows that faulty
waste collection and treatment are largely to blame.  No measurements
are required.

      It is curious that one set of standards is applied to waters as
diverse as the estuary (which never contains less than billions of
gallons of water), to Otter Creek (whose flow is largely derived from
wastewater discharges), to suburban Swan Creek and Tenmile Creek
(whose dry-weather flow is scarcely more than a trickle),  and to
miscellaneous tributaries (such as Grassy Creek) whose flow is smaller
still.  The standards are rigidly uniform;  the waters they apply to
are non-uniform in every conceivable way:  in quantity, in  quality,
in hydrology, and in actual  uses.   Surely,  more should be  expected of
the estuary than of upper Tenmile Creek; and it is only reasonable
to expect less of Otter Creek than of the lower Maumee.   Perhaps
there is something to be said for paying more attention to the waters
themselves in setting WQS.   There is certainly something to be said
for examining the waters before using wasteload-allocation procedures
that are hydraulically inappropriate and nearly data-freeJ
]OEPA (May 1974)  Op.  cit.
                                  27

-------
4.   SURVEILLANCE

     The OEPA sets, implements, and enforces WQS, but it rarely con-
ducts pollution surveys anywhere near Toledo.  With two exceptions
(see below), the State has never published its Maumee surveys, and
such scanty data as it has otherwise collected are all derived from
grab samples taken by OEPA's Northwest District Office in Bowling
Green.  The burden of surveillance is de facto carried by TPCA, whose
data have only been used to fill a file cabinet, to our best knowledge:
No one confessed to having seen them.

     The State's two formal investigations into the water quality of
                                 1         2
the Maumee were published in 1953  and 1966  -- two surveys in over
twenty years.  Both reports concluded that the Maumee in Toledo is
polluted.  Anyone who had the courage to take a deep breath while
standing on the little bridge at the mouth of Swan Creek during a dry
week in August could have spared the State the trouble and expense of
a survey.  The U. S. FWPCA's 1966 repprt3 arrived at the same unexcep-
tionable conclusion.  All three reports were on the entire Maumee
basin, with no particular emphasis on Toledo; the broad coverage of
these surveys may explain in part why the hydraulics of the estuary
and the special pollution problems in Toledo (leaky sewers, large
cooling-water discharges, etc.) got much less attention than we think
they deserve.  All  the reports concluded that the basin's STPs must
be upgraded to at least full secondary treatment: Not less than 85%
      Dep't. of Health (1953).  Report of Water Pollution Study of
 Maumee River Basin, 1950-51.  The Dep't., Columbus.
o
 Ohio Dep't. of Health (1966).  Report on Recommended Water Quality
 Criteria for the Maumee River Basin.  The Dep't., Columbus.
3U. S. FWPCA (1966).  Report on Water Pollution in the Maumee River
 Basin.  Available from the U. S. EPA's Cleveland office.
                                28

-------
BOD removal at Toledo.  U. S. EPA's 1966 report also recommended
"maximization of phosphate removal" and major improvements in all the
basin's sewers.

     Several agencies routinely monitor the Maumee from Waterville
(RM 21 ) down to Maumee Bay.  The most comprehensive set of measure-
ments is taken at Waterville by the USGS: daily discharge; continuous
DO, pH, temperature, and conductivity; and grab samples — varying
from daily to monthly, but usually biweekly -- for various chemical,
physical, and bacteriological analyses which change from year to year.
The river is well mixed at Waterville (rapids and riffles extend from
RM 30 to about RM 14.5), so there is no question of the samples'  being
distorted by stratification.  The continuous measurements are, how-
ever, open to question.  A field technician looks at the probes every
two weeks, he wipes off the slime, and runs one Winkler titration to
ascertain how far the DO readings may have drifted.  He then uses
this one titration to develop a "correction factor" for the past two
weeks'  readings.  Though this is better than nothing, it can hardly
be said that the probe is properly calibrated.  Moreover, the ion-
selective membrane and the electrode are rarely replaced: Maintenance
is perfunctory, at best.  We counsel extreme caution in using any
data from USGS' continuous monitors in the Maumee, with a special
warning about the DO readings.  USGS data on daily discharge, stage,
velocity, and sediments are indispensable, and of excellent quality.
The grab samples leave something to be desired:  They are not preserved
(which  invalidates all nitrogen measurements, at the very least), and
they are sometimes stored for weeks before being analyzed (which
invalidates nearly everything else).  Even if these data were above
suspicion, however, they would still be valueless for understanding
conditions in the estuary, where the water is in large measure back-
flow from Lake Erie, altered by wastes from Toledo; moreover, it is
difficult to understand how the Maumee's DO in the midst of a long
riffle  could have any significant bearing on DO in the comparatively
                              29

-------
stagnant estuary.   These objections apply with  equal  force  to  pH,
conductivity, and  nearly all  the chemical  analyses.   Samples from
Waterville could,,  however,  serve a useful  function:  They could be
used to assess the size of the upriver heritage of pollution and the
relative importance of point and area sources  above Waterville.

     The new Lucas County STP in suburban Maumee (near RM 17)  began
taking weekly grab samples above and below the  STP outfall  in  1973.
Samples are collected within arm's reach of the riverbank,  but since
the river is still in riffle it is probably well mixed (it  would be
prudent to confirm this at very low flow with well-calibrated  con-
ductivity, DO, pH, and temperature meters).  No allowance is made  for
time of travel between the upriver and downriver sites,  and all  samples
are taken near midday.  Analysis is begun immediately, and  no  short-
cut methods are used.

     The TPCA has  by far the largest store of WQ data on the  lower
Maumee and its tributaries.  Monthly grab samples have been collected
at several dozen stations since 1966-67.  Most  (but not all) of the
customary WQ analyses are conducted: bacteria,  ammonia,  nitrate,
nitrite, chlorides, total phosphorus, pH, conductivity,  DO, tempera-
ture, 20°-BOD5, Jackson turbidity, dissolved solids,  and suspended
solids.  Among the most important of the missing analyses are  COD,
TOC, total carbon, dissolved phosphorus, Kjeldahl nitrogen, long-term
BOD, oils and greases.  All samples are collected during normal  working
hours, near shore, and just below the water surface.   Sampling an
estuary is much more complicated than sampling  a riffle: Methods that
are perfectly acceptable at Waterville or Maumee cannot be  used in
Toledo because the water and its behavior are entirely different.
The river may be stratified both horizontally and vertically:  Samples
taken near the shore and near the surface cannot begin to give an
adequate picture of any estuarine cross-section; furthermore,  no one
cross-section can  give an adequate picture of the entire estuary

                               30

-------
because there are major longitudinal differences between RM 14 and the
mouth.  Because estuarine currents are extremely unstable and subject
to frequent reversals -- often several times a day — monthly grab
samples are impossible to interpret; daily grab samples would be no
better.  The flow reversal may be violent.  For example, after a
powerful estuarine flush the lake may rush upriver, shoving billions
of gallons of lake water into the estuary in less than an hour.  Water
samples taken during mighty reversals tell nothing about the river
(strictly speaking) or Toledo's effects on it.  The estuarine hydraulics
confound alj_ grab samples; monthly grab samples in any of the estuarine
waters around Toledo are essentially useless.  If the water looks
exceptionally clean, it is probably a recent addition from the lake;
if it looks exceptionally polluted, the cause could be anything from a
nearby spill or a leaky sewer to a long interval of estuarine stagna-
tion -- quite a range of choices.  TPCA's laboratory begins analysis
soon after the samples are taken, but (as in most of the other labora-
tories) quality control is skimpy and some shortcut methods are used
(e.g. Hach reagent pillows are used in nitrogen analyses),

     Toledo's STP at Bay View Park (RM 0.7) analyzes monthly grab
samples above and below the outfalls.  The customary analyses are done
in the usual way.  No attempt is made to account for the unstable water
mass, even though flow reversals destroy the distinction between
"upriver" and "downriver"; indeed, samples at RM 0 ("downriver" from
the STP) are quite likely to be much cleaner than samples taken at RM 1
("upriver" of the STP outfall).  The STP's discharge is usually about
100 mgd, and rarely more than 200 mgd; but this is as nothing compared to
the enormous volumes of water that surge into the estuary whenever
western Lake Erie rises.

     USGS has a continuous monitor for DO, pH, temperature, and con-
ductivity a few feet from the west bank of the river's mouth.  The
intake is a few feet away from the Coast Guard slip, whose waters we

                               31

-------
found (in September 1974) to be seriously degraded,  and quite unrepre-
sentative of conditions elsewhere at the Maumee's mouth.   Horizontal
and vertical stratification, which are more likely at the mouth than
at any other point in the estuary, distort all  data  from this monitor.
Furthermore, the river is less than 10 feet deep at  the intake, where-
as the mouth is more than 25 feet deep nearly everywhere else.   In
short, the monitor is ill-placed.  Calibration  and maintenance are,
as at Waterville, unsatisfactory.  In any event, the device is often
out of service: It was completely out of commission  from December 1973
to May 1974, and was down again during parts of August and September.
Grab samples have been taken at this station from time to time, but
they cannot give an undistorted picture of conditions at the mouth:
The station is too near the polluted waters of  the Coast Guard slip,
it is at the point where the river is most probably  stratified, and  it
is in exceptionally shallow water; furthermore, sample preservation  and
storage are deficient.

     The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the U. S.
Lake Survey, maintains a stage-height gage next to the USGS continuous
monitor.  The records are nearly complete.  Two stilling wells are
maintained; the second well is a backup.  The wells  are mucked out
weekly, and for good reason: There is plenty of muck and trash in the
Maumee to obstruct the wells'  intakes, thereby  interfering with the
free flow of water which is essential for valid stage measurements.
Between cleanings, the stage measurements may not be entirely reliable.
Stage records are of the utmost importance in verifying flow reversals
and estuarine flushes (see chapter 7).  To document  the estuarine
dynamics, it will be necessary to install several more gages at inter-
vals of three to five miles between the mouth and RM 14.   Stage readings
every fifteen minutes throughout the estuary's  length must provide the
fundamental data for depicting the powerful surges that travel  up and
down the river as the flow reverses.  Thorough  understanding of these
positive and negative waves is a prerequisite for developing discharge

                               32

-------
rating curves for the lower Maumee River; several years of data will
be required.

     These various water-data programs lead independent lives, and most
of the agencies are only dimly aware of the others' existence.  No one
tries to coordinate sampling schedules, to standardize analytical pro-
tocols, to split samples for analysis, to improve quality control in
the laboratories, to pool resources, to share the cost of decent
surveying equipment (boats, Kemmerer-type samplers, current meters)
   even to inform OEPA of WQS violations.

     That monthly grab sampling and continuous monitors leave a great
deal of nastiness undetected and unaccounted for can be confirmed by
simply walking along the banks of the rivers and creeks in Toledo.  No
equipment is required: One needs no more than normal vision and a not-
too-delicate nose.  Many of the "four freedoms" are violated almost
all the time, but not necessarily at the points where grab samples are
routinely collected, or in ways the usual water analyses reveal.   For
example, the lower reaches of Swan Creek were continuously septic
during the last ten days of August 1973.  We traced the problem,  using
the powerful stench and the unambiguous latex evidence, to several of
the malfunctioning overflow regulators on the combined sewers that dis-
charge to Swan Creek; we did not bother to trace the raw wastes above
the Hamilton-Newton regulators, though there was still some latex
evidence several  yards upstream -- perhaps pushed upstream by reverse
flow in the estuary, perhaps the heritage of other leaky sewers up-
stream.  The 60-inch sewer outfalls at Jefferson Avenue and at Monroe
Street (near Swan Creek's mouth) were also discharging raw waste,
including a thick film of reddish oil.   The regulators were plainly
malfunctioning because there had been no rain at all for more than a
week.   This surprising observation led us to check five more of
Toledo's several  dozen regulators, and all  were malfunctioning, as
anyone could plainly see.   Only one of the misbehaving regulators

                               33

-------
was known to TPCA.  Failure to smell  the raw sewage at the mouth of
Swan Creek, or to see the oil  slick at Jefferson Avenue,  is particularly
curious, since TPCA's offices  are directly across the river, scarcely
300 yards away.

     Among the most interesting WQS violations can be found in lower
Otter Creek, which discharges  into Maumee Bay about 0.75  mile ENE of
the mouth of the Maumee River.  This  quite minor tributary to the bay
flows through an area dominated by giant oil refineries,  tank farms,
chemical plants, railyards, and dock  facilities.  On the  several
occasions we walked along the  creek in August 1973 we were impressed
with the general cleanliness of the area and with the complete absence
of oil slicks.  However, a large stretch of the creek is  choked with
fine solids, which we traced to Toledo's water-filtration plant;
flocculants and settleable solids are discharged from the waterworks
to both Otter Creek and Duck Creek, and the gray turbidity contrasts
vividly with the water just upstream.  The discharge of solids by the
waterworks is chronic, as the  choked  streambed shows; on  the several
occasions we inspected the waterworks' outfalls in 1973-74, they were
always very turbid.  We find it odd that the most visible pollution
of little Otter Creek, surrounded by  heavy industry, should be the
city's own waterworks.

     Discharges into either Otter Creek or Duck Creek (and to the
lower reaches of Swan Creek) are difficult to understand, since the
river and the bay are so near.  Why not discharge to a much larger body
of much greater assimilative capacity?  This question occurred to us
again in our winter (1973-74)  inspection tours of Otter Creek.  The
effluent from SOHIO's secondary treatment plant (near the creek's mouth)
covered the creek with a cloud of acrid steam; fog-warning signs were
posted along Otter Creek Road.  The objectionable odor is certainly
well above the odor standard:  "The threshold-odor number  attributable
to human activities shall not  exceed  24 at 40 degrees centrigrade".

                                34

-------
A pebble casually thrown  into the water below SOHIO's outfall reveals
another violation: An oil slick rises to the surface immediately, this
same result may be obtained all the way to the mouth of the creek and
into Maumee Bay.  (We learned during our brief sediment survey -- see
chapter 8 -- that the concentration of oils and greases at the mouth of
the creek is nearly 13,000 mg/kg, on a dry-weight basis; there are
several places in the river and near the mouths of small tributaries
where the concentration of oils and greases exceeds 5,000 or even
10,000 mg/kg.)

     In weighing this evidence, however, it is well to bear in mind
that Otter Creek is as much an artifact as it is a work of Nature.
During droughts the creek would be nearly dry were it not for the
industrial discharges.  It is not affected by these discharges:  It j[s_
these discharges.  Is it an open sewer?  Yes and no.   Although the
discharges (over 40 mgd) make up most of the dry-weather flow, and
although the creek's mouth was moved from the river to the bay long
ago, Otter Creek is a natural watercourse.   Furthermore, it flows
through Navarre Park and Ravine Park.   If the industrial discharges
are rerouted away from the creek,  the aquatic life will  be spared
chemical wastes, but it will  also be deprived of water during quite
minor droughts; dry streambeds are "toxic"  to fish, algae, and even
sludgeworms.   We offer without formal  proof the assertion that very
high degrees  of treatment —  far beyond BAT --  would  be  required  to
meet WQS for fishlife in Otter Creek;  moving the discharges to the
river or the  bay would no doubt be cheaper  and  easier.   But once  the
discharges are moved,  the creek will  often  be dry:  no water,  no fish.
Neither alternative is attractive, and neither  promotes  aquatic life.

     Perhaps  it is worth considering  some  use for  Otter  Creek other
than "for warm water fisheries,  for primary contact recreation, for
processing by conventional treatment  into  public,  industrial,  and

                                35

-------
 agricultural water supplies".1  Under the current standards for low-flow
 streams,  Sun Oil's discharge would be permitted to continue with no more
 than  BAT,  because the  upstream drainage area is less than five square
 miles; but SOHIO's discharge would not be permitted to continue unless
 WQS could  be met: The  upstream drainage area is too large.  To satisfy
 the policies (though fish may never know the difference), SOHIO must
 move  its  discharge to  the river or the bay; Sun Oil and the waterworks
 must  continue their discharges to maintain the streamflow.  Perhaps
 policies  that require  such perverse logic should be reconsidered.
 Among other oddities,  SOHIO discharges to the creek's estuarine reach,
 where there is always  plenty of water; in dry weather, however, Otter
 Creek is dry above the industrial  discharges and lagoons.  There is,
 however, a simple solution to this quandary: Change the definition of
 a low-flow stream's drainage area  from five square miles to ten or
 twenty-five square miles -- the number is arbitrary, and almost any
 reasonably small number could be defended.

     After observing how frequently the city's regulators malfunctioned
 during a summer drought, we were keen on seeing what happened in cold
weather and in rain.   A brief inspection during early December 1973 pro-
 vided a perfect set of conditions.  The weather had been dry and
 bitterly cold for nearly a week.   Although  Swan Creek no longer stank
 of sulfide, we had no trouble finding the telltale latex evidence,
and traced it once again to malfunctioning  regulators.   A day later
 the weather turned to mixed snow and rain.   We quickly went to the
mouth of Swan Creek and the large  sewer outfalls into the river at
Jefferson Avenue and  its neighboring streets.   Within a few feet of
the Jefferson outfall  we found an  assortment of floating debris and
a heavy scum of thick,  black,  oily sludge which hugged the west bank
of the river along Promenade Park  before it gradually spread out into
'OEPA (27 July 1973).   Water Quality Standards.   EP-1-01  (A)

                                  36

-------
the navigation channel, where it was joined by similar overflows from
the sewers at Madison Avenue, Adams Street, and Jackson Street.

     After every heavy rain Swan Creek flushes a heavy black plume into
the Maumee River.  The plume is quite visible from Promenade Park; those
with a taste for comfort and luxury can see it (along with the plumes
from the sewers) from the elegant restaurants atop the Holiday Inn and
the Fiberglas Tower.  These flushed sediments introduce "substances
attributable to human activities which result in sludge deposits,
floating materials, color, turbidity, or other conditions in such
degree as to create a nuisance."1  Although a natural phenomenon
(heavy rain) flushes the filth, "human activities" create it.  There
is something to be said for a sediment-quality standard.

     Toledoans have few misconceptions about the city's poor sewers,
nor does the OEPA.  The many fishermen who gather at Promenade Park
suffer the fewest misconceptions of all, especially those who fish at
the Jefferson Avenue outfall; the only mystery is, knowing what they
know, how they can eat what they catch: Many don't.  The only serious
analysis we have seen of Toledo's sewer problem is a report, not by
OEPA or TPCA, but by a private consultant to a citizen-action group.2
Although the Earthview report is not perfect (it ignores, for example,
the readily observable fact that the regulators often bypass raw
sewage even during long dry spells), it is a detailed, thoughtful
piece of work and deserves a careful reading.
]OEPA (27 July 1973).  Water Quality Standards, EP-1-02 (I).
2EARTHVIEW, INC. (February 1973).  Combined Sewer Pollution — City of
 Toledo: Report of Investigation.  Prepared for Voices for Environment,
 Inc., Toledo.  Available from George R. Kunkle, President, Earthview,
 Inc., 316 Colton Bldg., Madison and Erie, Toledo, Ohio  43624.
                                 37

-------
     Much is not known about the Maumee, but some things  have been
learned through decades of surveillance.  It is remarkable,  then,  that
OEPA's wasteload allocation is so riddled with unknowns (UK  in their
simple form)J  Among the UKs are:  average flow at Waterville and  SS
concentration at average flow; temperature, DO, BOD,  SS,  fecal  coli-
form, ammonia, and Kjeldahl N at Waterville low flow.   USGS1  annual  sum-
maries and the 1966 pollution reports by the Ohio Health  Department  and
FWPCA have answers to these UKs.  One can't guess why OEPA marked  the
average Waterville flow UK.  Many entries that aren't UK  are wrong.
E.g., the total water input'below Waterville is not 3.0 cfs:  STP dis-
charges from Toledo and its suburbs must be included,  since  the area's
water supply comes from Lake Erie;  Toledo's STP alone always  discharges
over 100 cfs.  When OEPA lists WQ values for both low and  average flow,
they are always identical; even the pH is invariant.   Many of these
values are attributed to USGS data, but one doubts that USGS could have
drawn such conclusions from its years of work at Waterville  and at the
Coast Guard Station.  See table 6-1 (pp. 55-57) for a fuller listing
of USGS1 Waterville data.

     The most curious feature of this wasteload report is its hydraulic
inappropriateness: The lower Maumee is treated as though  it  were a
free-flowing stream, whereas it is in fact a large estuary — indeed,
the largest estuary in Ohio or in Lake Erie.  The low flow at RM 0.4
cannot be 71.7 cfs (the .7 is quite a touch); because of  reverse flow,
the true value is undoubtedly a very large negative number (on the
order of minus 100,000 cfs), though no one will know precisely until
the estuarine hydraulics have been carefully studied for  several years.
Insofar as current policies and practices do not distinguish estuaries
 OEPA (May 1974).  State of Ohio, Maumee River Basin Waste Load
 Allocation Report for the 303(e) Continuing Planning Process for
 Water Quality Management.  Draft. Section 5. Undated, unpaginated.
                                 38

-------
from streams, they must be changed.  Every stream emptying into Lake
Erie, not just the Maumee, is estuarine near its mouth.

     The overlooked 1966 reports by the Ohio Health Department and the
U. S. FWPCA contain -- in addition to fundamental information on hydrol-
ogy and waste dischargers, and much wisdom on the importance of area
sources well above the estuary -- valuable measurements of water quality
during the hard drought of the early and middle 1960's.  Their observa-
tions at Waterville are especially important, since the USGS monitor is
not trustworthy.  FWPCA reported that during October 1964 - June 1965

     "diurnal DO studies showed considerable vertical and
     diurnal variations.  Values as high as 10 mg/1 were
     often found at the surface while the bottom waters
     contained only 0.5 mg/1.  Diurnal  variations gave
     early morning concentrations of 8.0 mg/1 at the surface
     and 25 mg/1 in the afternoon.  The low DO values at the
     bottom confirmed the absences of any intolerant animals
     on the stream bottom." (p. 7-11)

On 21 July 1964, they observed a minimum DO of less than 5 mg/1
just before dawn, and a maximum of nearly 16 mg/1 at midday.

     The Health Department's report includes graphs (figures 15a and
15b) of diurnal variations in pH and DO at Waterville for 27 - 30
September 1965.  During this interval,  DO ranged from 5.0 mg/1  (at
midnight on 30 September) to 13.5 (in early afternoon, 29 September);
diurnal  variation was always more than  5 mg/1.   The pH also showed
large diurnal variation, usually 1.5 units, and ranged during this
interval from 6.5 (at dawn, 27 September)  to 9.2 (during the early
afternoon, 30 September).  Both the DO  and pH variations were attri-
buted to intense photosynthetic activity by algae.
                                39

-------
     Assuming that the continuous monitors which  provided  these
measurements were correctly calibrated,  one must  conclude  that both
the pH and the DO at Waterville -- where the river is  in riffle  --
violate even the most permissive WQS ever established  for  the  Maumee.
During our 1974 surveys of the turbid estuary,  we never observed so
much as 1.0 mg/1 diurnal variation in DO; but 1974 was a much  wetter
year than either 1964 or 1965, and lake  levels  were much higher.
However, we often found DO less than 4 mg/1; no doubt, the estuary's
DO in 1964-65 must have been much lower.  If, owing to algal metabolism,
the Maumee cannot meet DO and pH standards at Waterville (where  the
river is reaerated by relatively swift flow over  a long, rocky riffle),
what hope is there for the quiet estuary's meeting standards?  Will
the standards be violated in times of drought and low  lake levels even
if Toledo overcomes all its waste-management problems? Would  they  be
violated at such times even if there were no Toledo?  Are  the  standards
unrealistically high?  These are uncomfortable questions,  and  we can
offer no answers.  But they are worth thinking  about.   Improved  sur-
veillance in the years to come may resolve all  doubts.
                               40

-------
5.   TOLEDO'S SEWERS AND THE NEW STP

     The quantities of sewage and oil we saw bypassed from Toledo's
sewers at all seasons, in wet weather and in dry, prompted us to look
into Toledo's sewer controls.  After all, a great deal of "point
source" waste never gets to the new secondary treatment plant, and
might as well not be collected.

     In addition to sizable leaks and bypasses, the sewers are subject
to infiltration and inflow.  The magnitude of infiltration and of in-
flow from combined sewers can be judged from the STP's data on the
volume and conductivity of the raw wastes which do get to the plant.
In May 1974, over four inches of rain fell on Toledo; over 1.5 inches
fell during the week of 6 May.  Inflow volumes during this week ranged
from 98.65 mgd to 149.90 mgd, and the peak volume coincided with the
day an inch of rain fell (8 May).  The influent conductivity fell  from
870 micromhos on 7 May to 550 micromhos on 8 May; that month, influent
conductivities ranged from 550 to 890 micromhos.  September 1974 was
much drier: The total  rainfall for the month was 1.4 inches, and the
previous two months had been very dry.  During 18-25 September, inflow
volumes at the STP were 63.72 - 77.92 mgd; less than 0.2 inch of rain
fell during that interval.   Influent conductivities, however, ranged
from 590 to 860 micromhos,  and zoomed to 910 on 30 September.

     The difference in influent volume (September versus May) is nearly
80 mgd at the extreme, and  is generally about 25 - 30 mgd.  The large
fluctuations in influent conductivities suggest that there is more vari-
ation than can be attributed to rainfall alone: The peak conductivity
of 910 on 30 September is unrelated to any climatic event, and is  over
50% higher than the influent conductivity of 590 on 19 September.   In
addition to infiltration and inflow, there is strong evidence of indus-
trial wastes being dumped into the sewers, perhaps in larger quantities
than the city knows about.   After investigating the sewer permit pro-
gram, we are persuaded that there is very little knowledge of, or  con-

                                 41

-------
trol over, industrial  taps into the sewer lines.   Paradoxically,
governmental policy at all levels now encourages  even more industrial
hookups, and requires  more municipal control  over them, than ever before,

     Interlake's steel and coke plant provides a  useful example.
Inter!ake has abolished one of its outfalls,  and  sends these wastes to
the STP, through the city's sewers, instead of building treatment works
for itself.  (Despite  a good deal of paper to the contrary, all  our
informants in the program told us that the STP will  accept any in-
dustrial discharge so  long as it is not so acid as to corrode the
pipes.)  Well and good; but in view of the fact that the regulator
which governs the interceptor and sewer #783 (Interlake's sewer  taps)
malfunctioned during several of our inspections,  one must conclude that
some of Interlake's waste!oad was discharged to the  Maumee without any
treatment at all, save admixture with other wastes in the sewer  lines.
Is this the kind of treatment Interlake pays the  city for?

     In an attempt to  learn more about industrial hookups we asked TPCA
for a list.  They confessed they had none, but sent  us to the STP's
Chief Chemist, whose office would have the official  list, we were
assured.  We were not  assured when the STP told us it had nothing of
the kind, and that TPCA kept such lists.  Upon breaking the sad  news to
the STP, we were sent  off to Toledo's Sanitary Engineer, who must cer-
tainly have the list,  we were told.  He didn't, and  was taken aback to
learn that neither TPCA nor the STP has it.  The  situation seemed
hopeless to him, but he sent us to Toledo's Division of Construction
and Engineering, where we would have to check the city's sewers  maps
and sewer permits, one by one.

     Each sewer connection requires a permit, but there is no index by
permittee.  To locate  the permit, one must know precisely where the
industry is, be able to find it in a very much out-of-date atlas of
sewer maps  (e.g., Interlake is still called Toledo Furnace on the

                                  42

-------
maps -- a name it has not had for decades), and take down the number of
each nearby sewer line the plant might have tapped into.   One then con-
sults a card file for each sewer number, and searches through a
chronological and often illegibly handwritten list of antiquated names
to learn whether the city knows of any hookup credited to the suspect
industry.  If the city does know, a unique permit number  is assigned to
each hookup.  One must now consult the permit file, which, judging by
the dust deposits, serves a purely archival function.  It is easy to
understand why the files are not used more: They were designed for
storage rather than retrieval; moreover, many of the permits were
granted and filed away long before people worried much about pollution
of the lower Maumee and Lake Erie.

     The permit is a standard form which shows on a small map where the
connecting pipe will run.  There is no chemical analysis, nor even
mention of whether the hookup is for sanitary wastes, process water,
"housekeeping" water, or any combination thereof.  The fact that the
permit system is not used can be judged by more than its  inherent
encumbrances, its thick surficial deposits of bureaucratic dust, or the
exiguous information in it: Its contents are sometimes hopelessly in-
consistent or just plain wrong.  For example, in the small sample (less
than 100 industries) we examined, Doehler-Jarvis1 permit  (County sewer
#155-17) plainly showed a tap into the sanitary sewer, but the permit
itself was boldly marked "STORM" in large letters; this discrepancy,
which no one could explain, suggests that Doehler-Jarvis  is sending its
stormwater runoff via the city's sanitary sewers to the STP for treat-
ment.  From what is known about Toledo's faulty regulators and the
hydraulic limitations of both its sewerage and its STP, chances are
that the stormwater will never be treated.  There are other oddities.
One ten-block section of downtown Toledo shows no sewer lines at all:
Can one believe that a large tract of the commercial district depends
on privies for sanitation?  One assumes that the sewer atlas is
deficient.
                                 43

-------
     The emphasis by State, Federal, and local  agencies on treatment
plants is partly to blame for the serious neglect of sewerage and
waste collection.  The consequences of this policy,  as we observed them
in Toledo, are poorly documented sewers, no real  control  of what goes
into (or leaks out of) the sewers, grossly malfunctioning regulators,
and fascination with theoretical STP effluents  at low river flows,
rather than with the wasteloads which actually  enter the estuary at all
times of the year.  Scant wonder that the Maumee  River in Toledo
usually violates WQS.

     The importance of sewerage has not been entirely lost on OEPA and
its predecessor agencies; unfortunately, they have emphasized new
construction and sophisticated technology rather  than efficient main-
tenance and operation.  OEPA's 1972 permit to the Toledo STP ordered,
inter alia, that the city submit plans for a pumping station, a force
main, an interceptor, and lateral sewers in certain suburban areas;
that the city place "under construction by December 1, 1972, the pro-
posed telemeter-sensing system in the regulators  of the combined sewer
system" (as of mid-1974, the city had awarded a $10,000 study contract
to investigate the preliminary feasibility of the telemetering system,
which is not the same thing as having begun construction more than a
year earlier); and that OEPA be immediately informed of any raw or
partially treated municipal wastes discharged "due to sewer breaks,
equipment malfunctions, or failures, construction schedules, and/or
plant shutdowns."  These "orders" can be hardly more than little black
words on white paper.  If Toledo kept OEPA abreast (immediate reports,
by "telephone or telegram") of all incompletely treated discharges from
the sewers and the STP, OEPA's phone would be busy most of the time.
The fancy "telemeter-sensing system" is still paper, not hardware; a
good sewer inspector or two would probably be a wiser investment,
especially if he came equipped with normal vision and a decent nose for
raw sewage.
                                    44

-------
     Excluding thermal discharges, the largest wasteloads by far from
any point source on the Maumee River come from Toledo's own STP, which
is located in Bay View Park, on the river's west bank, about half a
mile from the river's mouth.  Growing alarm over pollution of Lake Erie
roused the city to build a modern secondary plant with phosphate-
removal facilities -- not without pressure and financial aid from the
State and the Federal Government.  The final demonstration-testing was
conducted in 1974, though the secondary plant has been in operation for
some time.

     The new STP is a touchy issue, in part because Toledo has spent
$20 million of Federal, State, and local money during the past decade
to expand and modernize it.  The plant's designer is quick to point out
that the new facilities usually achieve nearly 90% BOD removal; it may
further be added that there are many days when the plant produces a
20/20 effluent, or even better.  Nonetheless, there are difficulties,
and the plant's performance is sometimes shocking.  Tables 5-1 and 5-2
summarize the STP's performance during our May and September 1974
surveys; all  the analyses were performed by the STP itself.   The
September data (table 5-2) suggest how badly the STP can perform,
nor is this an isolated instance.  Some put most of the blame
on poor operation and maintenance of the new facilities.  STP personnel,
while readily admitting that operation and maintenance leave much to be
desired, plead that many of their difficulties stem from the plant's
faulty design.

     We take no stand on this issue, and defer to the Toledo
Metropolitan  Area Council  of Governments, whose report on waste manage-
ment in northwestern Ohio and southeastern Michigan will weigh these
rival  claims.  We can report that something is seriously wrong, what-
ever the cause.   We also invite attention to the fact that under
current policies, pollution-control  requirements are designed around
the 7-Q-10 of the river (i.e. the droughtiest week that is likely to

                                 45

-------
occur in a decade) -- even in estuarine segments.  Fair enough, but
perhaps STPs should be judged by their worst performance too (e.g. the
poorest week's performance each decade).  If the Maumee's waste-
assimilative capacity is to be judged by its actual 7-Q-10 of less
than 80 cfs, perhaps Toledo's waste-discharge capacity should be
judged by the STP's actual performance in September 1974 -- several
months after it was officially inspected (and approved) for an NPDES
permit, and several months after final demonstration and acceptance
testing.  Why shouldn't STPs be judged by the same statistical
criteria as rivers?

     The STP's deplorable performance in late September is due to
spills of solids.  The gravity of the spill  may be judged from the
fact that the STP receives the wastes from about 500,000 people; each
person contributes about 0.2 Ibs of suspended solids daily in raw
wastes, and about 0.17 Ibs of BOD, on the average.  The STP's effluent
SS on 18 September is equivalent to the raw wastes of over two million
people -- four times Toledo's actual population.  The STP's effluent
BOD on 18 September was considerably higher than the influent BOD load.
In reading tables 5-1 and 5-2, it should be borne in mind that if the
STP worked properly, the effluent BOD should not exceed 8,000 Ibs/day,
and the effluent SS should not exceed 10,000 (based on 90% removal,
standard P.E., and a contributing population of 500,000).  During our
two surveys, the STP approached the target BOD efficiency only on 8 May,
when the effluent BOD was 8,260 Ibs; in neither survey did it even
approximate adequate SS removal.  In judging phosphorus removal, recall
that each person contributes about 5 grams of total phosphorus in his
daily raw wastes; at 85% removal efficiency, the STP should not dis-
charge more than 825 Ibs/day.  Only on 7 and 10 May did the STP get
anything approaching these removal efficiencies.  Plainly, something is
wrong.
                              46

-------
     Close examination of tables 5-1 and 5-2 brings to light several
curiosities.  For example, effluent SS concentrations on 24 September
were nearly ten times higher than SS concentrations on the 23rd; yet
ammonia concentrations were much lower on the 24th than on the 23rd.
It is not at all clear how the plant could have been passing vastly
more solids while at the same time passing so much less ammonia; nor
is it clear why phosphorus loads on the 24th were so much lower than
on either the 23rd or the 25th, in view of the SS loads on those days.
The discrepancy between SS removal and P removal is also evident on
6-7 May.  Such behavior cannot be readily explained, and leads one to
suspect the analytical data.   Plainly, something is wrong.

     The STP's personnel readily volunteer examples of design features
which vex their work, they say.  Here is one illustration that is easily
grasped.  The new plant retains the design of the radial skimmers which
remove oil and froth from the surface of the primary settling tanks;
there are several banks of them.  These skimmers, which operate much
like the second hand on a watch, are installed in square — not
circular -- tanks, which makes for muck in the corners.  Rather than
changing the shape of the tanks in the new plant, or (better still)
installing a skimmer which would sweep over the supernatant liquids like
an edge-to-edge windshield wiper, with a scum box at each end of the
traverse, a fascinating contrivance was preserved.  Each skimmer arm is
equipped with telescoping joints which expand the arm for the square
corners and contract it for the tangents.  This system works none too
well, and the weight of the telescoping joints puts too much stress on
the arms, which are apt to slip, sag, or stop.  For whatever reason,
there were important items of equipment out of service during many of
our visits to the STP.  Plainly, something is wrong.

     Equally plainly, something has been wrong for some time, though
the causes are various.  In April 1973 (as reported in the Toledo Blade
of 4 April 1973 and the Toledo Times of 5 April 1973, both stories on

                                    47

-------
                                                                      TABLE 5-1
                                                           TOLEDO STP DATA: 5-12 MAY 1974
                                                           Source:  Unpublished STP Records
Date
5 May
6 May
7 May
8 May
9 May
10 May
11 May
12 May
Effluent Q
mgd cfs
88.16 136.38
100.72 155.81
98.65 152.61
149.90 231.90
109.16 168.87
109.92 170.05
117.42 181.65
110.67 171.21
20°-BOD5
mg/1 #/d
--
18 15,138
18 14,827
10 12,517
19 17,318
9 8,260
..
—
SS
mg/1 #/d
--
24 20,184
80 65,898
24 30,040
27 24,610
21 19,274
--
—
Total P
mg/1 #/d
-_ _-
1.63 1,371
1.04 857
1.28 1,602
2.42 2,206
0.94 863
--
—
Ammoniacal N
mg/1 #/d
_._ — —
—
..
14.1 17,648
..
._
--
—
Nitrite N
mg/1 #/d
__. »_
._
_.
0.106 133
..
-.
—
—
Nitrate N
mg/1 #/d
__ -.—
--
._
0.09 113
._
__
--
—
00

-------
              TABLE 5-2
TOLEDO STP DATA: 18-25 SEPTEMBER 1974
Source:  Unpublished STP Daily Records
Date
18 Sept. '74
19 Sept. '74
20 Sept. '74
21 Sept. '74
22 Sept. '74
23 Sept. '74
24 Sept. '74
25 Sept. '74
Effluent Q
mgd cfs
74.47 115.21
77.46 119.83
77.28 119.55
69.18 107.02
63.72 98.57
77.92 120.54
73.98 '114.45
73.66 113.95
20°-BOD5
rng/1 #/d
172 106,954
98 63,386
41 26,457
..
-.
28 18,218
99 61,156
109 67,042
SS
mg/1 #/d
682 424,084
356 230,258
100 64,529
—
—
28 18,218
232 143,314
232 142,694
Total P
mg/1 #/d
8 4,975
24.1 15,588
13 8,389
—
—
3.4 2,212
1.90 1,174
4.20 2,583
Ammoniacal N
mg/1 #/d
14.3 9,250
--
11.4 7,356
--
..
11.6 7,547
8.9 5,498
10.0 6,151
Nitrite N
mg/1 #/d
0.198 123
..
..
..
.-
_.
_.
0.24 148
Nitrate N
mg/1 #/d
0.162 101
._
_.
..
..
__
_.
2.74 1,685

-------
page one), the problems of the new STP literally erupted.   The coupling
on a pipe, 15 feet below ground,  exploded,  and tore a  fist-sized  hole
in a pipe which connects two sections of the plant.   Sewage sludge and
carbon monoxide spewed out of the pipe,  and began filling  a 30-foot
maintenance chamber below ground  level.   The STP was closed down  for
several days; during this time all sewage was discharged to the river
without treatment of any kind. The load was approximately four million
gallons an hour.  To reduce hydraulic pressures on the STP, regulators
were opened all over town, thereby disgorging raw sewage all  along the
Maumee, the Ottawa River, and Swan Creek.  Not six months  earlier, the
STP dumped 186 million gallons of raw sewage into the Maumee during the
floods of November 1972.  In routine inspections, the U. S. EPA noted
nine major construction defects in November 1972, and again in February
1973; EPA reported that design deficiencies could conceivably cause a
shutdown of the main pumping station, which would put the entire plant
out of service.  The only way the city fathers had to deal with these
emergencies was to beg the citizens to curb their water use.

     The explosion in April 1973  was dramatic enough to have made the
headlines.  The plant's designer  admits that this explosion was serious,
but argues that it was only a normal accident such as might befall any
major engineering project: After all, the culprit was a pipe that had
been improperly anchored during construction.  The more serious mal-
functioning during late September 1974 escaped wide attention.  The
competition among deficiencies in design, construction, and operation
in accounting  for the STP's extremely variable performance deserves a
most careful,  impartial judge.  We can only report that something is
plainly wrong, and that the issue is extremely touchy.
                                  50

-------
6.   AREA SOURCES AND THE UPRIVER HERITAGE

     Toledo is unquestionably a major polluter of the estuary, the bay
and their tributaries; but what can be said about the cities, indus-
tries, and rich farmlands further up in the drainage basin?  Some
important clues can be found in the sediments which have accumulated
in the estuary and the bay.  Other signs can be found in the fluxes
(flowing loads) of solids and nutrients at Waterville (RM 21), which is
above Toledo, but below nearly all other point and area sources.

     The earliest charts of the region, prepared by the U.S. Bureau of
Topographical EngineersJ show that the bay was very shallow (usually
10-11 feet, and never more than 15 feet) and that the tortuous channel
of the estuary, though sometimes deeper than 20 feet, was blocked by
large bars of clay, mud, and sand.  The erosive forces of Lake Erie on
the soft lands which border it have progressively enlarged Maumee Bay;
at the same time, the slow subsidence of northwestern Ohio (about nine
inches in the last hundred years) has further drowned and enlarged the
river's lacustrine estuary.  In order to maintain the busy navigation
channel through the bay and the estuary, the Corps of Engineers
annually dredges about 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment from Toledo
harbor.  The Corps has reported^ that the bay accumulated two feet of
sediment during the last century.  According to the Corps'  estimates,
the Silurian-age dolomites of Erie's western basin are overlaid by at
least 100 feet of glacial till  — predominantly stiff to extremely
stiff silty and plastic clays;  above these heavy clays is a 10-foot
 The earliest of these was prepared by Capt.  (later Gen.)  George G.
 Meade in 1844: Maumee Bay -- Survey of the Northern and North Western
 Lakes. U.S. War Dept., Bureau of Topographical  Engineers.
2
 In an unpublished 1973 report to John A.  McWilliam, General  Manager
 of the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, from Col.  Myron D. Snoke,
 Detroit District Engineer.
                                  51

-------
deposit of geologically recent materials.   Close to the river's mouth
these recent deposits are soft and spongy, with a high content of
organic matter.  This organically loaded clay may be observed every-
where from Ewing Island (approximately RM 13) to Cedar Point (at the
bay's eastern extreme).

     The Maumee is laden with salts and silt.  When it is in spate, it
commonly carries one ton a day of sediment for each cfs of discharge:
At 35,000 cfs, its daily sediment load is about 35,000 tons (see
figure 6-1).  Most years, one to two million tons of sediment flow past
Waterville; this amounts to over 150 tons annually eroded from each
square mile of the basin, and is not untypical of Eastern rivers.
Because these sediments are organically enriched, one should suspect
that they are something more than innocent clays.

     These suspicions are further strengthened upon considering phos-
phorus fluxes at Waterville.  In general,  when the Waterville discharge
is high, the phosphorus flux is high, and when the discharge is low,
the flux is low.  At discharges greater than 20,000 cfs, the river
commonly carries over  25  tons of phosphorus a day past Waterville.
The close relation between discharge and flux is persuasive evidence
of landwash effects and area sources: There is no reason to believe
that cities and industries discharge more nutrients in wet weather than
in dry, but there is every reason to believe that more soil and ferti-
lizer are eluted from farmlands in rainy weather than in drought.  This
pattern is not peculiar to the Maumee: It has been observed in many
other rivers, and has been particularly well documented by Baker and
Kramer' in the nearby Sandusky River basin.   The peak phosphorus fluxes
  B BAKER & JW KRAMER (1973).   Phosphorus sources  and transport in an
 agricultural  river basin of Lake Erie.   Proc.  16th Conf.  Great Lakes
 Res.  1973:858-71.
                                 52

-------
                            Sediment Load  (tons/day)
                  o

                  'x
                                oo
                                o
                            CM
                            O
                                          O


                                           X
 o
 o
10

01

3
cn
o
r—
X
                                ro
                                o
                           C\J
                            o
                                                            o

                                                            X
o
 o
                                    Flow (cfs)
                                      53

-------
of over 25 tons a day cannot be explained by any of the point sources
upriver.  The total population upriver of Waterville is approximately
800,000.  Assuming no phosphorus removal at all by the upriver STPs,
and assuming five grams of phosphorus per capita per day in the raw
wastes, we can account for less than five tons a day of phosphorus
flux.

     These same arguments apply with equal force to other fluxes.  Sus-
pended solids, for example, may exceed 100,000 tons a day at flood
peaks (see Figure 1-1).  Again assuming 800,000 population above Water-
vine, and assuming 0.2 pound of suspended solids per capita per day
in the untreated wastes, we can account for no more than 80 tons of the
flux.  Point sources fall very far short of explaining the river's
behavior; in wet weather, the point sources (even assuming the worst
about them) explain almost nothing at all.

     Nearly every WQ component at Waterville shows a classic landwash
(area source) relation with riverflow: Fluxes increase as a function of
the Waterville daily discharge, which is precisely what one expects of
area sources, and the opposite of what one expects of point sources,
which should be nearly independent of flow.  After all, people don't
produce orders of magnitude more waste because the weather is wet; but
the lower Maumee (like most rivers) carries a hundredfold or a
thousandfold more P, N, TDS, and SS in flood than it does in drought.
Table 6-1 presents five full years of USGS data.

     Toledo's wastes (even assuming the worst about them) are dwarfed
by flood fluxes at Waterville.  If the city's wastes were discharged
without treatment of any kind, they would (on average) add about three
tons of phosphorus and fifty tons of suspended solids to the river each
day.   Three tons is far short of 25 tons, and fifty tons is very far
short of 100,000 tons.  The traditional  emphasis on violations of

                                  54

-------
              TABLE 6-1.   DAILY DISCHARGE  AND  FLUXES AT WATERVILLE:  USGS  DATA, 1965-1970
                 Mean       Total  P (as  P04)
               Discharge    cone.      flux
    Date         (cfs)     (m'g/1)   (tons/day)
2  Oct 1965        410
24 Oct          14,800
8  Nov             860
30 Uov           1,880
1  Dec           1,940
29 Dec          13,500
2  Jan 1966     19,800
30 Jan             550
7  Feb             600
15 Feb           9,800
15 Mar           9,400
27 Mar           4,800
11 Apr           1,280
26 Apr           4,280
12 Hay          12,000
14 May          25,100
2  Jun           1,370
28 Jun             490
12 Jul           2,450
20 Jul           3,650
5  Aug             234
30 Aug             466
28 Sep             300
30 Sep             664
2  Oct             183
21 Oct             262
5  Nov             272
12 Nov          23,300
2  Dec           5,310
11 Dec          79,000
18 Jan 1967        840
31 Jan           7,960
16 Feb          15,900
20 Feb          10,700
9  Mar           6,700
14 Mar          28,400
1  Apr          22,400
28 Apr           4,180
5  May           2,280
11 May          22,700
4  Jun           1,310
12 Jun           1,270
Nitrate
cone.
(mg/1)
























2.6
2.0
1.8
24
26
20
20
28
15
19
23
27
23
20
15
22
9.5
5.9
(as NO,)
flux
(tons/day)
























1.3
1.4
1.3
1,510
373
4,266
45
602
644
549
416
2,070
1,391
226
92
1,348
34
20
TDS C
cone.
(mg/D
424
324
394
496
494
262
266
550
628
284
390
450
378
474
404
314
368
496
444
274
208
430
386
520
398
594
556
310
449
211
566
430
418
291
516
280
274
392
432
264
406
464
1 180°C
flux
(tons/day)
469
12,947
915
2,518
2,588
9,550
14,220
817
1,017
7,515
9,898
5,832
1,306
5,478
13,090
21,280
1,361
656
2,937
2,700
131
541
313
932
197
420
408
19,502
6,437
45,006
1.284
9,242
17,945
8,407
9,334
21,470
16,571
4,424
2,659
16,181
3,723
1,591
cone
(mg/1
17
170
17
22
20
110
155
7
8
117
-
27
20
42
88
380
17
20
-
123
24
32
15
18
22
10
9
317
44
424
4
41
62
170
16
194
321
97
47
332
18
34
SS
flux
) (tons/day)
18
6,800
39
112
105
4,010
8,290
10
13
3,100
3,800
350
69
485
3,340
25,800
63
26
410
1,210
15
40
12
32
11
7
9
19,900
631
90.400
9
881
2,660
4,910
289
'• 1,900
19,400
1,090
289
20,300
64
117
                                                    55

-------
Table 6-1   (cont'd)
Date
12 Jul 1967
22 Jul
2 Aug
30 Aug
20 Sep
28 Sep
1 Oct
25 Oct
2 Nov
15 flov
1 Dec
22 Dec
26 Jan 1968
31 Jan
1 Feb
27 Feb
15 Mar
29 Mar
6 Apr
25 Apr
15 Hay
28 Hay
1 Jun
24 Jun
1 Jul
22 Jul
1 Aug
21 Aug
7 Sep
30 Sep
7 Oct
21 Oct
4 Nov
25 Nov
16 Dec
30 Dec
6 Jan 1969
10 Jan
3 Feb
24 Feb
10 Mar
24 Mar
14 Apr
Mean
Discharge
(cfs)
528
479
2,530
288
196
272
310
1,100
1,120
1,260
1,170
40,200
3,500
52,000
51,600
1,200
1,160
18,900
25,700
2,470
2,600
43,500
21,600
1,400
9,270
2,070
1,750
3,600
23U
752
500
340
340
2,200
1,300
38,500
11,000
3,000
46,900
1,710
1,610
1,980
4,150
Total
cone.
(mg/1)





0.67


















0.62
0.90
1.1
1.7
0.72
1.5
1.3
0.85
1.2
1.4
1.0
0.72
0.56
0.62
0.59
0.82
1.2
0.87
0.56
P (as P04)
flux
(tons/day)





0.49


















15.5
5.0
5.2
16.5
0.5
3.0
1.8
0.8
1.1
8.3
3.5
74.8
16.6
5.0
74.7
3.8
5.2
4.7
6.3
Nitrate
cone.
(mg/1)
3.5
2.2
23
5.6
3.5
2.8
2.9
10
16
28
14
12
9.4
11
5.4
20
9.2
28
14
6.6
8.3
31
38
3.4
41
13
5.7
4.6
2.2
1.4
5.1
1.2
5.1
28
22
9.0
19
8.2
19
16
16
0.6
22
(as N03)
flux
(tons/day)
5.0
2.8
157
4.4
1.9
2.1
2.4
30
48
95
44
1,302
89
1.544
752
65
29
1,429
971
44
58
3,641
2,216
13
1,026
73
27
45
1.4
2.8
6.9
1.1
4.7
166
77
936
56
66
2,406
74
70
3.2
247
IDS (
cone.
(mg/1)
536
382
380
484
392
552
432
564
526
410
504
206
570
174
190
442
482
284
266
414
338
224
304
374
330
430
362
232
250
410
438
398
444
466
440
246
320
346
190
420
500
470
402
a 180°C
flux
(tons/day)
764
494
2,596
376
207
405
362
1,675
1,591
1,395
1,592
22,359
5,386
24,430
26,471
1,432
1,510
14,493
18,458
2,761
2,724
26,309
17,729
1,414
8,260
2,403
1,710
2,255
155
832
591
365
408
2,768
1,544
25,572
9,504
2,803
24,060
1,939
2,173
2,513
4,504
cone.
(mg/1)
38
31
71
35
24
23
6
26
23
32
29
1,030
47
407
278
14
16
157
605
47
28
839
208
16
143
39
46
670
22
10
10
7
10
28
32
550
138
42
198
8
14
42
56
SS
flux
(tons/day)
54
40
485
27
13
17
5
77
70
109
92
120,000
444
57,100
38,700
45
50
8,010
42,000
313
197
98,500
12,100
60
3,580
218
217
1,350
18
20
14
6
9
166
112
57,200
4,100
340
25,100
37
61
225
605
        56

-------
Table 6-1  (cont'd)

Date
21 Apr 1969
12 May
26 Hay
12 Jun
23 Jun
7 Jul
23 Jul
18 Aug
19 Aug
1 Sep
22 Sep
20 Oct
17 Nov
24 Nov
1 Dec
15 Dec
5 Jan 1970
23 Jan
1 Feb
2 Feb
12 Mar
23 Kar
15 Apr
27 Apr
11 fey
18 May
10 Jun
24 Jun
20 Jul
27 Jul
4 Aug
25 Aug
7 Sep
30 Sep
Mean
Discharge
(cfs)
34,400
12,500
5,470
3,180
3,050
6,100
3,760
468
418
242
1,560
1,520
493
16,600
3,720
2,850
750
500
22,000
25,000
6,760
7,360
13,100
18,400
2,050
18,200
2,490
1,170
6,560
1,840
2,420
269
208
811
Total
cone.
(mg/1)
0.70
0.72
0.47
0.91
0.66
0.67
0.86
0.67
0.76
0.69
0.96
1.0
2.4
0.67
0.65
1.5
1.5
2.2
1.4
1.6
0.58
0.86
0.72
0.56
0.64
0.59
0.89
0.77
0.93
0.77
0.93
0.84
1.1
1.6
P (as P04)
flux
(tons/day)
65.0
24.3
6.9
7.8
5.4
11.0
8.7
0.85
0.86
0.45
4.0
4.1
3.2
30.0
6.5
11.5
3.0
3.0
83.2
108.0
10.6
17.1
25.5
27.8
3.5
29.0
6.0
2.4
16.5
3.8
6.1
0.61
0.62
3.5
Nitrate (as N03)
cone.
(rag/1)
32
23
25
16
39
26
22
1.7
5.8
1.5
5.7
25
12
35
29
26
18
19
21
23
25
22
26
25
20
29
38
46
25
26
22
4.6
4.4
6.2
flux
(tons/day)
2,972
776
369
137
321
428
223
2.1
6.5
1.0
24
103
16
1,569'
291
200
36
26
1,247
1,553
456
437
920
1,242
in
1,425
255
145
443
129
144
3.3
2.5
13.6
TDS (
cone.
(mg/1)
304
406
368
398
308
282
400
314
334
310
460
370
500
328
414
542
522
608
312
246
352
448
364
294
416
282
418
446
408
298
398
314
334
438
a 180°C
flux
(tons/day)
28,236
13,703
5,435
3,417
2,536
4,645
4,061
397
377
202
1,938
1,518
666
14.701
4,158
4,171
1,057
821
18,533
16,605
6,425
8,903
12,875
14,606
2,303
13,857
2,810
1,409
7,226
1,480
2,600
228
188
959
SS
cone.
(mg/1)
350
94
69
38
92
305
61
38
39
39
45
63
13
145
47
13
6
4
220
330
53
61
238
212
58
410
64
98
134
143
103
22
28
36

flux
(tons/day)
32,500
3,170
1.020
326
758
5.020
619
48
44
25
190
259
17
6.500
472
100
12
5
13,100
22,300
967
1.210
8,420
10,500
321
20,100
430
310
2,370
710
673
16
16
79
           57

-------
concentration standards at drought flows gives a narrow, partial,
rather distorted view of what the Maumee River looks like,  and of what
it does to Lake Erie.  We urge that this traditional view be broadened
to include consideration of fluxes at high flows, especially at flood
peaks.

     Since the dominant land use in the Maumee basin is intensive
agriculture, it is of some interest to document how man has chemically
altered the soilsJ  The USDA county agents we spoke to agree with
the U.S. FWPCA's 1966 estimate2 that over 90% of the land is in agri-
cultural use.  For the sake of conservative simplicity, let us assume
that only 5,000 square miles are fertilized in an average year; this
comes to 3.2 million acres.

     According to the county agents we interviewed (whose statements
were independently confirmed by the principal suppliers of agricultural
chemicals in the basin: the Andersons and the Landmark-Farm Bureau
Cooperative), the following quantities of fertilizers and pesticides
are applied to each acre of cultivated land:

     Nitrogen (as N):  100-200 Ibs for corn and soybeans
                       200-300 Ibs for tomatoes and specialty crops
     Phosphorus (as P):  100-150 Ibs for corn and soybeans
                         150-200 Ibs for tomatoes and specialty crops
 The USDA, in cooperation with the Ohio Agricultural  Experiment Station
 and the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, has published soil  surveys
 for every county in the State.   This continuing series has been pre-
 pared over the last several  decades; copies may be obtained  by writing
 to the USDA agent in each county, and they are often the only source,
 because some of the surveys  have been out of print for many  years.
 For example, the survey of Lucas County soils was published  in 1934,
 and was last reissued in 1943.
2U.S. FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION (August  1966).
 Report on Water Pollution in the Maumee River Basin.  Available from
 the U.S. EPA's Cleveland office. See page 4-8.

                                 58

-------
     Potassium (as K):   100-150 Ibs for corn and soybeans
                        150-200 Ibs for tomatoes and specialty crops
     Herbicides (Amiben, Atrazine, Lorox, etc.):  1-2 Ibs
     Insecticides (Furidan, Sevin, Lanate, etc.):  1-2 Ibs
     Fungicides (Maneb and related zinc compounds):  1-2 Ibs

     The chemical identity of the fertilizer varies somewhat, de-
pending on market economics, but the most common form is a mixed blend
of superphosphate, urea, ammonium and potassium salts.'»2»3  Appli-
cation rates vary with  crop, soil structure, weather, pest severity,
etc., and there is a strong seasonal effect.  Fertilizers are plowed
in all winter long, so  long as the soil isn't too wet or frozen; peak
application rates are in September (for winter wheat), November to
December (for mild, dry, autumnal plowing of corn and soy fields), and
March to April (for harsh or wet autumns and winters).  Little ferti-
lizer is applied from May to September, but pesticides are most heavily
applied during the warm months.

     If we multiply the lowest of the application rates by the 3.2
million acres that we have assumed to be under cultivation, we arrive
at the following minimum dosages:

     Nitrogen (as N):  320 million pounds a year
     Phosphorus (as P):  320 million pounds a year
     Potassium (as K):   320 million pounds a year
      STATE UNIVERSITY, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (undated).   1972-
 1973 Agronomy Guide. Bull.  #472.
2U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE, CROP REPORTING BOARD (June 1971).   Commercial
 Fertilizers.   Statistical  Bulletin #472.
3TVA, NATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER (January 1971).   1970
 Fertilizer Summary Data. Bulletin Y-16 4M.

                                59

-------
     Herbicides:  3.2 million pounds a year
     Insecticides:  3.2 million pounds a year
     Fungicides:  3.2 million pounds a year

This conservative calculation comes to nearly 500,000 tons a year of
primary plant nutrients and pesticides -- more than a third of all
fertilizer used in Ohio.1  During the 1973-74 planting season, appli-
cation rates were said to have been higher than usual.  If only one
percent of these agricultural chemicals should be washed into the
Maumee, the river will carry 5,000 tons of primary nutrients into Lake
Erie this year.  This amounts to a daily average nutrient flux of
30,000 Ibs; because N and K compounds are much more soluble than P
compounds, the 30,000 Ibs/day should theoretically under-represent P,
and should contain correspondingly higher proportions of N and K.

     A comparison with Toledo's STP effluent may be informative.
Based on the 1971 annual average concentrations and flow rates, the STP
annually discharges 2,500 tons of nitrogen (as N) and 550 tons of
phosphorus (as P).  The crude simplifying assumptions of this argument
are only meant to put the observable behavior of the Maumee's flowing
loads into theoretical perspective.  The point sources in the basin
don't begin to account for the river's contents, insofar as we know
them from the imperfect sampling procedures and analytical methods
which have thus far been used to portray them.  Everything we have
learned about this river supports FWPCA's 1966 assertion that
     Even if all domestic and industrial wastes were removed from
     the Basin, there would still  be significant water pollution
     problems present	Trautman has described how particular
     agricultural practices have deteriorated the water quality
]U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE (June 1971). Op_. cit., table 4.
                                 60

-------
     in the Maumee Basin.  The only soil conservation practices
     instituted in the Basin seem to be drainage works.  The
     idea appears to be to get the water off the land as
     quickly as possible, regardless of other considerations..
     .. [B]esides having the greatest total amount of sediment
     load, the Maumee River also contains the finest sediment
     [scil., to be found in any of Ohio's rivers] .... The
     crops of some part of the Basin may have to be changed
     since beans and corn leave the land denuded in the winter-
     time.  Strips of hay and grasses may be needed to help
     prevent erosion.  Strip or contour farming may be needed
     in some almost flat areas to help prevent sheet erosion.
     Op. cit., pp. 6-2 and 6-3, passim.

     Lest agriculture be excessively blamed, it is prudent to recall
that the Maumee estuary was turbid, filled with bars of sand, mud,
and clay, and bordered by dank malarial swamps thousands of years be-
fore the basin was settled in the nineteenth century.  These enormous
deposits and fluxes must have come in large part from the upriver
drainage area, even when it was covered with forests and swamps.   The
soft rock-flour soils of the basin are extremely susceptible to
erosion.  Though intensive agriculture has no doubt exacerbated these
tendencies by loosening and denuding the soil, Mother Nature had
arranged matters to ensure plenty of mass wasting (through a combi-
nation of wet climate and fine soil) long before the farmers gave her
a hand.  The Maumee does not drain a basin of resistant, crystalline
rock in a semi-arid area.  To envision a Maumee that is crystal-
clear^ and free of solids is to dream, to defy the geological and
hydrological facts of life.  But better soil conservation would do no
harm.
     Because the estuary is often quiet, and just below a long riffle
that is usually free of bottom deposits, Toledo inherits (and stores
 One of the most active conservation groups in Toledo is called
 Clearwater, Inc.; but the local  baseball  team is more realistically
 named "The Mud Hens".
                               61

-------
both in its bedload and in the capacious estuarine channel)  the wastes
of the entire basin.  In addition,  it makes a hefty contribution to
these accumulated wastes through its own municipal and industrial  pol-
lution.  Because so much waste accumulates there,  it is easy to pin a
disproportionate share of the Maumee's problems on Toledo.   The facts,
however, admit of no such simplistic interpretation.  In writing
pollution-control permits for Toledo, we urge governmental  officials
to be mindful of the upriver heritage, of the large landwash effects,
and of area sources; we counsel them to consider most carefully the
complex estuarine hydraulics, which are totally unlike the  hydrologic
regime above the Perrysburg Bridge  (RM 14); we hasten to remind them
of the importance of adequate waste collection, and of the  difference
between a new treatment plant and a reliable one.   Billions  could be
spent on a pollution-control program that will scarcely affect the
Maumee's contents, or their effects on the troubled waters  of Lake
Erie.
                                  62

-------
7.   RIVER SAMPLING

     The hydraulic complexities of the estuary engender illimited com-
binations of conditions.  We have studied just two of them.  In our
May survey the Waterville hydrograph was rapidly ascending from 1,600
to 20,000 cfs; we caught the river just as the Waterville discharge was
passing through its historical average of 4,600 cfs.  The estuary was
extremely unstable during early May, but on 11 May the stage was fairly
steady (it changed less than 0.65 ft), and on 12 May there was a power-
ful estuarine flush: The stage dropped nearly 2.5 ft in fifteen hours.
We took samples for laboratory analysis during the rather quiet day of
11 May and during the strong flush of 12 May.  Conditions in September
were quite different.  The Waterville hydrograph had for many weeks
stayed well under 1,000 cfs; we studied the river as the hydrograph was
falling from 736 to 220 cfs.  The estuary was again unstable -- though
it was less jittery than in May — and there were long intervals of com-
parative calm.  On the afternoon of 24 September, however, the estuary
began a prolonged flush which lasted until noon on the 25th; during this
interval  the stage fell two feet.  We took samples for laboratory analy-
sis throughout the stagnant and flushing intervals.  Figures 7-1 and 7-2
show the Waterville hydrographs during our May and September surveys;
figures 7-3 through 7-7 are the estuarine stagegraphs from the May
survey; figures 7-8 through 7-15 are the estuarine stagegraphs from the
September survey; figures 7-16 and 7-17 are the stagegraphs at Buffalo
on 24-25 September.  Figures 7-14 through 7-17 show that as the lake
fell  at Toledo, it rose at Buffalo, and vice versa; the stagegraphs at
Toledo and Buffalo during major lake changes are approximately inverted
and concurrent, even though Toledo and Buffalo are at opposite ends of
Lake Erie.   The reciprocal  relationship (which also obtained in May)
confirms the general validity of the stagegraphs, though their fine
structure may not be too accurate.
                                63

-------
          FIGURE 7-1.
-itWATERVILLE HYDROGRAPH
    27 APRIL - 23  MAY 1974  .
                                           -til  ifi-i  :

                          j  _  - !•" I  '_!'*"  --;• — —1-4
                          r^*-^"-*—*—t~rT' ' ' i  ' ' M "'
                          I _- -f | j -.-(-4-1 <..-!•  - !


                              H-'-r-)
                    64

-------
en
                                                                                FIGURE 7-2.

                                                                           WATERVILLE HYDROGRAPH
                                                                              SEPTEMBER 1974

-------
                                                           FIGURE 7-3.
             m
             O
cr>
cn
2:
CO
r*
                                                STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE

                                                           8 MAY 1974
                      •H

                      .2.
                      .4
                   574.0
                   575-0


                      •9
                      •Z

                   572-0

                                                       NOON

-------
           FIGURE 7-4.

STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH  OF MAUMEE
           9 MAY 1974

-------
00
                       •Z
                    515.0
                 A,

                    57V.
   •2

573-0
                 Ln
                    572-
                                 FIGURE 7-5.

                      STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH  OF  MAUMEE
                                 10 MAY 1974
                                                        —A	
                                                        NOOK/
                                                      6PM

-------
en
                     •I

                  575-0
                     -1
                  573-0
                                                       FIGURE 7-6.

                                            STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF  MAUMEE
                                                       11 MAY 1974

-------
                               FIGURE 7-7.
      •2.

   SIS- 0
2  57V» O

H-    .9
5     •!

3 573-0
CO
                     STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH  OF MAUMEE
                               12 MAY 1974
                    GAM
NOON

-------
      •L
   ST/-0
      •g
ffl
«
   S73-O
I
3
Co
      •1
   571-0
      -8
                               FIGURE 7-8.

                    STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE
                              18 SEPT 1974
                       A

-------
—i
no
                                           FIGURE 7-9.


                                 STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE

                                          19 SEPT 1974

-------
co
                     •1
                  S7V-0
                  573-0
o

r
3
CO
                  572'O
                     •s
                     • fc
                     •z
                  S7/-0
                     -8
                                              FIGURE 7-10.

                                    STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE
                                              20 SEPT 1974
                                   6AM
                                     HOON

-------
                                   FIGURE 7-11.
      •2L
   S7Y-0
m
2  573-0
5-
O
3.
CO
      • 1

   572-0
      .2.

   571-0

      •g
                          STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF  MAUMEE
                                   21 SEPT 1974
                     6AM
NOON
PM

-------
en

                       •M


                       *

                    573-0


                       "
                  3 572-0
                  to
                     57V.O
                                                     FIGURE  7-12.


                                           STAGE HEIGHTS AT  MOUTH OF MAUMEE

                                                     22 SEPT 1974
6AM
                                                       NOON
6PM

-------
CTl
                    -I
                  STf-0
                    •9
rn
/T 573-0
t    -i
      •6
      •V
      • I
               a
               3
               r
                  572-0
               CO
                     • V
                     • 2
                  571-0
                     •ff
                                                FIGURE 7-13.
                                      STAGE  HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE
                                                23 SEPT 1974
                                   6AM
                                                                       " A

-------
I
o'
3
v*
   •I
573-0
   •8
   •t
   •H
   •1
      •4.
                                 FIGURE 7-14
                       STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH  OF MAUMEE
                                 24 SEPT 1974

                                      NOON

-------
                                              FIGURE 7-15.
00
                                     STAGE HEIGHTS AT MOUTH OF MAUMEE
                                              25 SEPT 1974
                                      6AM
  7T
NOOAJ

-------
                                FIGURE  7-16.
      • N
      •Z
   57V'0

IP    •»
  -
   573- 0
      •4
      'I
   571-0
                 STAGE  HEIGHTS  OF  LAKE  ERIE AT BUFFALO, N.Y.
                                24 SEPT 1974

                                      	75	
                                       NOOri


-------
oo
o
                                             FIGURE 7-17.


                              STAGE HEIGHTS  OF LAKE ERIE AT BUFFALO, N.Y.

                                             25 SEPT 1974
                                   6 Art
NOOti

-------
     The stagegraphs clearly illustrate stagnation, flushing, and
reverse flow.  As the stage rises, lake water is pushed into the
estuary; as it falls, the river spills into the bay and the lake.  The
estuary is delicately poised:  Each one-foot change in stage adjusts the
estuarine volume by about 120  million cubic ft, and the adjustment is  by
no means simple.  At each tiny quiver in stage, the proportions of lake-
water and riverwater in the estuary are altered; the cumulative effect
of many tiny stage changes may be as great as the effect of one extreme
flush or backflow.  Stage fluctuations set up powerful  waves which
traverse the estuary.  These waves account for the characteristic
sloshing of the lower river, and are the principal agent of estuarine
mixing.  To our knowledge, these waves have never been  studied in the
Maumee, even though the estuary's behavior can never be understood until
they have been rigorously described and analyzed for several years.  In
consequence of our ignorance,  we can say very little about flowing loads
or material balances in the waters around Toledo.  Furthermore, a great
deal of material settles in the quiet estuarine waters  and becomes part
of the lodged sediment and the bedload; yet nothing is  known about sedi-
mentation or bedload dynamics  in the lower Maumee, aside from records  by
the Corps of Engineers on the  volume of dredge spoil they remove to main-
tain the navigation channel.

     Until the estuarine, sedimentation, and bedload dynamics are at
last known, no one can produce a defensible mass budget or wasteload
allocation for the Toledo area.  The fundamental data for load allo-
cation cannot even be gathered until the estuary is at  its hydrological
worst, which is most likely when the stage is quite stable at a very low
elevation (e.g., 568 ft), the  estuary is filled with stagnant riverwater,
and light winds prevent stage  changes, flushing, or backflow.  Lake
levels have, however, been very high for the last several  years, and
there was plenty of lakewater  in the estuary during both our surveys;
                                81

-------
moreover, the stagegraphs could hardly be called flat and low on even
the quietest of our days on the river.  Consequently, we can do no more
than lamely hope that our analyses may be useful to future students of
the estuary when its dynamics are finally understood, and when the
hydraulic and meteorologic conditions for extreme water-quality degra-
dation at last beset Toledo.  In how many estuaries, one wonders, have
loads been allocated on the basis of dubious data on water quality,
from samples taken when hydrological conditions were far from their
worst, and in ignorance of hydraulics and sediment dynamics?  One doubts
that the Maumee and Toledo are unique.

     In our limited experience, complex hydraulics and sediment dynamics
are almost invariably slighted, despite the attendant intellectual
perils.  The principal  features of the estuarine regime are strati-
fication, backflow, and irregular times of passage; these three features
must be incorporated into the sampling scheme.   Horizontal and vertical
stratification may be assessed with conductivity, DO, temperature, and
pH probes.  When the estuary is well mixed (i.e., unstratified), the
probes will  not show much difference from the top to the bottom of the
water column, nor from bank to bank; when it is well stratified, one or
more of the probes will register large differences with width or depth,
and researchers must take care to analyze each  stratum or cell sepa-
rately.  Appendix 1 gives a complete set of stratification data from our
September survey.  Figure 7-18 depicts cross-sections of the river at
our principal transects.

     Flow reversal and irregular times of passage can be followed with
dye tracers, floats, or drogues.  Dyes are in many ways more convenient
than floats or drogues for studying passage times.  However, dyes are
susceptible to sorption, sedimentation, and scour (especially in waters
as muddy and erratic as those of the Maumee estuary); hence, they have
                                82

-------
                      FIGURE 7-18.

      MAUMEE  RIVER  TRANSECTS
  40
  20
    30
    10
 50  2OO  400  600
O 100  3OO  50O
    FEET
    VERTICAL
   EXAGGERATION
     10 X
EAST
BANK
WEST
BANK
                                    PERRYSBURG BRIDGE (RM 14 I)
                                         HIWY I-8O/90 (RM II 4)
                                             r 01 SALLE
                                            ?.' BRIDGE
                                              (RM 69)
                                    ANTHONY WAYNE BRIDGE
                                        (RM 5 4)
                            '. ' CHERRY STREET
                               BRIDGE (RM 4 6)
                                PENN CENTRAL
                                RR BRIDGE NR ELM ST.
                                 (RM 4 2)
                                       CRAIG BRIDGE
                                         (RM 3 6)
                                     NORFOLK 8 WESTERN
                                     RR BRIDGE (RM 2 I)
                                   .<••"•"• TOLEDO TERMINAL
                                       RR BRIDGE (RM I 3)
                                   RIVER MOUTH, COAST GUARD
                                   SLIP TO COAL DOCKS
                                      (RM O)
                          83

-------
serious limitations as mass tracers, and are of very little help in
documenting flow reversals because the dye will be folded back into it-
self whenever the lake rises: The virtues of dyes  in studying diffusion
are offset by their limitations in tracing eccentric transport.   Drogues
(or "floats", as they are often called in the older literature)  vary in
complexity from fresh oranges to sophisticated devices  crammed with
micro-miniaturized marvels of space-age technology.  In principle,  how-
ever, all drogues are alike: They are no more than current markers  which
float low enough in the water to escape being strongly  influenced by the
wind.  Although they can be a terrible nuisance in shallow water, if
they are carefully shepherded and freed from snags they can be used to
follow both flow reversals and travel times.

     We would be happy to report that a bag of oranges  fulfilled every
requirement, but we cannot: The estuarine currents were too often
sluggish while the winds were strong, so our oranges usually spent
little time in the water before being blown ashore.  The chief outcome
of these trials was fruit litter, for which we apologize, along handsome
riverfront property near Ewing Island and Rossford.  After experimenting
with a variety of heavier improvised drogues (using lumber, bricks,
ropes, bicycle flags, and stones), we hit upon a thoroughly satisfactory
solution, whose simplicity and economy warm the heart.   Our recipe  calls
for several dozen plastic milk jugs (one-gallon size, available from
most dairies); various lengths of strong rope or clothesline; small
pebbles, sand, or gravel; water (river water is handiest); several
spraycans of day-glow paint (in assorted colors);  and small flashlights
(optional, but much recommended for night work).  For each drogue,  take
one milk jug, put an inch or two of sand, gravel,  or pebbles in it, fill
it with water, then cap it.  Now tie one end of a  clothesline to its
handle.  Cut the line to any desired length (but keep it under 25'  for
the Maumee), and tie the other end to the handle of an  empty milk jug.
                               84

-------
Be certain to seal the empty jug, then lightly spray it with a color
corresponding to the length of line that joins it to its waterlogged
partner (e.g., red for a 5' line, green for 10', yellow for 20').  For
ease in tracking positions at night, a small  flashlight may be placed in
the otherwise empty top jug.  Total preparation time is less than five
minutes; cost of materials is a few cents.  The colorful top jug clearly
marks the position of its submerged travelling companion.  To avoid any
possible confusion between a fully solid-state drogue (such as might be
used in a weighty systems analysis study) and this trifling improvi-
sation, we shall simply call our jugs "jugs".1  One item of ancillary
equipment is much recommended: a buoy hook (which may be improvised from
a broomstick and a strong metal hook) for rounding up errant jugs that
have strayed from the herd and gotten snagged in shallow water.

     In addition to probes and jugs, we used  a Columbia AquaProbe
(September only) and a measuring line (a mushroom anchor on a heavy steel
chain) for sounding depths, a Davis rangefinder, Kemmerer and Van Dorn
samplers, acid-washed Nalgene bottles for sample storage (thoroughly
rinsed with the river water to be analyzed just before being filled)
ice chests, and the customary glassware and reagents for Winkler ti-
trations (to verify that the DO probe was in  calibration).   The 1971
edition of the U.S. Lake Survey's navigation  charts was indispensable.^

     The frequent flow reversals deserve some comment.   They have little
relation to the Waterville discharge or to the local wind:  We frequently
saw the jugs travelling upriver against a gusty southwest wind in both
 Our thanks to William A.  Tank,  Jr.,  who calls things  as  he  sees  them,
 for suggesting this compact nomenclature.
2U.S. LAKE SURVEY (1971).   Chart No.  370, West End of  Lake Erie,
 Recreational  Craft Series.  The Survey, Detroit.
                                85

-------
 May  and  September.   For example, the strongest reversal we saw was just
 after  dawn on  12 May.  The wind was gusting out of the south and west,
 and  rain  (varying from a fine drizzle to torrential downpour) was
 falling.  The  Waterville gage had read 6060 cfs on 11 May, and rose to
 8840 on  12 May.  Yet the backflow at Cherry Street (RM 4.6) was so strong
 we could  barely hold on to a 15-lb mushroom anchor suspended from a heavy
 chain.   Figure 7-7 shows why the backflow was so strong: The stage rose
 nearly a  foot  between 04:00 and 08:00.  Jugs, on 2' to  12' lines,
 released  at 07:47 at Cherry Street, had been shoved back to Promenade
 Park by 08:30, when the current changed again; by 09:25 they had returned
 to Cherry Street Bridge.

     We saw no fixed relationship between stratification and flow
 reversals, and (during our two surveys) stratification was rare and
 slight except at the Craig Bridge (RM 3.6, where the river is thermally
 stratified by the Acme plant's cooling-water discharge) and at the mouth.
 Indeed, during 3-12 May we never saw more than a slight sign of strati-
 fication.  Whether this behavior is typical we cannot say.  On 10 May,
 the flow at Cherry Street Bridge (as measured by USGS) fell from 1 fps
 at 12:30 to zero at 13:20; at 14:45 the flow was zero at the Craig
 Bridge, with a barely perceptible suggestion of backflow just above the
 bottom.  Even during these intervals of stagnation and backflow, however,
 there was no evidence of stratification.  (See figure 7-7, which shows
 that the estuary was nearly stagnant during the early afternoon.)  On
 22 September, between 16:15 and 16:30, the stage was rising (see figure
 7-12) at about 0.1  ft per hour; the flow reversal was confirmed by USGS
 spot measurements at the mouth (minus 0.4 fps) and by the jugs' moving
 upriver against the wind from the Anthony Wayne Bridge  (RM 5.4) at
 approximately 0.6 fps.   Although the backflow had begun over an hour
 before, the mouth was unstratified with respect to conductivity, nearly
 unstratified with respect to temperature, and only slightly stratified
with respect to DO (less than 1.2 mg/1 difference between the top and

                                 86

-------
the bottom of the water column at mid-mouth; see Appendix 1).  On 23
September at 15:11, when the stage was holding steady  (see figure 7-13),
the mouth was strongly stratified in every respect; and on 24 September
at 11:30-11:45, the mouth was again strongly stratified in every respect,
though the stage was slowly rising (see figure 7-14).  Such phenomena
cannot be explained by any mathematical model we know of, and, though
our ignorance is vast, we suggest that the estuary be much more thor-
oughly studied before being subjected to computerized flights of
deductive fancy.

     For easier reporting, we have adopted the following convention.
Although the Maumee meanders, and is S-shaped between DiSalle Bridge
(RM 6.9) and Cherry Street Bridge (RM 4.6), we shall hereinafter call
everything on the Toledo STP-Swan Creek-Fort Miami side of the river
"west"; everything on the Oregon-Acme powerplant-Perrysburg side is
"east".  Except at the mouth, all samples were taken at bridges, from
the upriver side, regardless of flow direction, unless specifically
noted otherwise.  Perrysburg samples were taken from the bridge, though
stratification analysis was also done from a boat there.  All  other
samples were taken from a boat.   Bridge piers, consecutively numbered
from "east" to "west", are the reference points whenever possible;  in
other cases sampling points are identified by navigation buoys or by
distance from shore.  See Appendix 1  for details.

     In May we used three transects  for a total of ten sampling stations,
as follows:
     Perrysburg Bridge (Ft Meigs  Memorial  Bridge, RM 14.1)
          1.  East - between piers #2 and #3
          2.  Mid - between piers  #4  and #5
          3.  West - between piers #6 and #7
     Cherry Street Bridge (RM 4.6)
          4.  East - pier #2
                                87

-------
          5.  Mid - between  piers  #5  and  #6, which  support  the  liftspan
          6.  West - pier #7
     Mouth (RM 0, a straight line from the coal  docks  to the Coast
        Guard Slip, passing between  buoys #49  and  #50)
          7.  East - six feet from tip  of coal-dock jetty (first  jetty
                  east of Duck  Creek mouth)
          8.  Mideast - black buoy #49, at eastern  edge  of  navigation
                  channel
          9.  Midwest - red  buoy #50, at  western  edge of navigation
                  channel
         10.  West - white buoy  (unnumbered), 150 feet  east of  Coast
                  Guard slip.

     In September we used eight transects for  a  total  of eleven  sampling
stations, as  follows:
     1. Perrysburg Bridge - between  piers #3 and #4
     2. Highway 1-80/90 Bridge  (RM 11.4) - pier  #4
        DiSalle Bridge (Highway 1-75 Bridge, RM  6.9)
          3.  Middle - pier #5
          4.  East - pier #2
     5. Anthony Wayne Bridge (RM  5.4)  -  midway between red bridge lights
        marking the navigation  channel
     6. Cherry Street Bridge (RM  4.6)  -  between  piers  #5 and  #6, which
        support the liftspan
        Craig Bridge (Highway 1-280  Bridge,  RM 3.6)
          7.  Mid - pier #3
          8.  West - pier #5
     9. Toledo Terminal Railroad  Bridge  (RM  1.3) - pier #3
        Mouth (RM 0, at buoys #49 and  #50)
         10.  Mid - halfway between buoys #49  and #50
         11.  West - white buoy (unnumbered),  150 feet  east of Coast
                  Guard slip.

                                88

-------
     Each transect was checked with probes for signs of stratification
before samples were collected for laboratory analysis.  In May at
least three samples were taken at each transect, although the probes
showed no stratification (the absence of significant stratification was
confirmed by IDS analyses and by most other analyses everywhere except
at the mouth on 12 May, when violent waves made it impossible to read
the meters).  In September only one sample was taken at each transect
unless there were clear signs of stratification; the estuary was
stratified in the vicinity of the jugs on three occasions:

     •  Strong vertical stratification with respect to conductivity,
        and relatively mild horizontal stratification with respect to
        DO, at DiSalle Bridge on 23 September, 08:45.  The vertical
        stratification was probably due to an old aquifer's being
        torn open by sand-dredgers, which were active in the vicinity;
        the abnormally low conductivity could not be found anywhere
        else in the river that morning.

     t  Horizontal stratification with respect to DO, and mild vertical
        stratification with respect to conductivity, at Craig Bridge on
        25 September, 02:40.

     •  Horizontal stratification in every respect, and vertical strati-
        fication with respect to conductivity, at the mouth on 25
        September, 09:25.

     Tables 7-1  through 7-6 summarize the results of our May survey.
The estuarine flush on 12 May is evident in the TDS values, which rose
10% at Cherry Street and the mouth between 11 and 12 May:  Saltier
water from upriver invaded the lower estuary and decreased the pro-
portion of cleaner lakewater there.  Despite the gushing sewer overflows
                                  89

-------
TABLE 7-1.   PERRYSBURG BRIDGE,  10 MAY  1974, 20:40-21:00


Parameter
SS
IDS
Total C
Organic C
Inorganic C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
Ammoniacal N
NOs N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P
COD
14°-BOD-|
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD2o
14°-BOD30
20°-BOD-]
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
Concentration (mq/1 )
East @ 3' Mid @ 3' West @ 31

43 44
488 474
46.5 48.1
12.5 13.2
34.0 34.9
3.10
0.68 0.68
0.27
2.10 2.22
0.046
0.19 0 . 20
0.14 0.15
35.1 39.2
0.9
3.1
5.0
7.4
9.0
0.8
5.7
11.1
21.4
21.4
                                  90

-------
TABLE 7-2.  PERRYSBURG BRIDGE,  11  MAY 1974,  18:15-19:00


Parameter
SS
IDS
Total C
Organic C
Inorganic C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
Ammoniacal N
N03 N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P
COD
14°-BOD32 hrs
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD20
14°-BOD30
20°-BOD32 hrs
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
Concentration (mq/1 )
East @ 3' Mid @ 3' West @ 3'

59 59
437 445
52.9 52.0
16.9 16.0
36.0 36.0
2.96
0.43 0.80
0.27
1.86 2.52
0.028
0.20 0.20
0.14 0.12
47.0 43.1
0.3
3.8
5.8
8.8
13.2
1.7
7.2
11.0
16.8
18.2
                                 91

-------
TABLE 7-3.   CHERRY STREET BRIDGE,  11  MAY  1974,  12:30-13:10


Parameter
SS
TDS
Total C
Organic C
Inorganic C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
Ammoniacal N
N03 N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P
COD
14°-BOD-|
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD20
14°-BOD30
20°-BOD1
20°-BOD6
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD2Q
20°-BOD30
Concentration (tnq/1)
East @ 10' Mid 0 13' West @ 13'

46 44
378 373
43.6
12.0 13.0
31.6
2.00
0.52 0.40
0.31
1.06 1.14
0.032
0.18 0.16
0.11 0.11
35.3 39.2
1.1
4.0
5.6
8.0
10.7
1.9
6.6
9.0
14.6
15.1
                                 92

-------
TABLE 7-4.   CHERRY STREET BRIDGE,  12  MAY  1974,  07:30-08:10
Parameter
SS
TDS
Total C
Organic C
Inorganic C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
Ammoniacal N
N03 N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P
COD
14°-BOD1
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD20
14°-BOD30
20°-BOD-|
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
Concentration (mg/1 )
East @ 10' Mid @ 13' West @ 3'
41 42
416 416
47.7 47.7
13.9 14.9
33.8 32.8
2.23
0.42 0.53
0.22
1.45 1.58
0.030
0.15 0.17
0.11 0.11
29.4 33.3
0.2
3.3
4.7
7.4
9.8
1.4
6.2
8.0
13.5
13.5
                                 93

-------
TABLE 7-5.  MOUTH, 11  MAY 1974,  20:15-20:45
Concentration (mg/1)
East @ 10'
Parameter
SS
TDS 381
Total C 37.0
Organic C 10.9
Inorganic C 26.1
Total N
Kjeldahl N 0.99
Ammoniacal N
N03 N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P 0.16
COD
14°-BOD32 nrs
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD20
14°-BOD30
20°-BOD32 hrs
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD2Q
20°-BOD30
Mideast @ 13'

54
380
36.9
10.8
26.1
3.48
1.26
0.84
1.34
0.039
0.24
0.16
48.6
0.1
3.0
4.2
6.9
13.9
1.0
4.9
6.3
16.6
20.4
Midwest @ 16.5' West @ 6.5'

49 45
377
33.4
9.4
24.0
2.91
0.98
0.59
1.30 1.26
0.036
0.19 0.21
0.11
35.2 45.1
0.4
2.9
4.5
7.4
14.3
1.2
5.4
6.4
15.1
16.4
                                   94

-------
TABLE 7-6.   MOUTH,  12 MAY 1974,  15:45-16:00
Concentration [mq/1)

Parameter
SS
TDS
Total C
Organic C
Inorganic C
Total N
Kjeldahl N
Ammoniacal N
N03 N
N02 N
Total P
Dissolved P
COD
14°-BOD1
14°-BOD5
14°-BOD10
14°-BOD20
H°-BOD30
20°-BOD1
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD1Q
20°-BOD20
20°-BODon
East @ 10' Mideast @ 13'

45
403 415
44.5 46.6
14.2 11.7
30.3 34.9
2.39
0.78 0.58
0.31
1.46
0.038
0.20
0.14 0.10
48.6
1.5
3.9
5.7
8.1
13.4
2.0
6.1
9.9
15.9
15.9
Midwest @ 16.5' West @ 6.5'

42 46
417
46.4
13.1
33.3
2.25
0.52
0.27
1.42 1.34
0.040
0.20 0.23
0.13
40.5 44.6
1.3
3.8
5.3
7.8
12.3
1.9
5.9
8.9
15.0
15.3
                                  95

-------
and the size of Toledo's treated wasteloads,  there  was  remarkably  little
difference in water quality from Perrysburg Bridge  to the  mouth.   Some
of the flux at Perrysburg was no doubt sedimented;  but  the principal
explanation of the estuary's rather stable concentration  profile  is
backflow volume.  Vastly more water is stored in the lower estuary than
at Perrysburg Bridge (see figure 7-18), and much of this  enormous  incre-
mental volume is lakewater, which is always cleaner than  riverwater.

     Gradually diminishing IDS concentrations between Perrysburg  and
the mouth show that riverwater was progressively diluted  with lakewater
in the estuary: IDS was highest at Perrysburg and lowest  at the mouth.
During the flush of 12 May, however, the IDS concentration did not
change between Cherry Street and the mouth.  Jugs that  passed Cherry
Street on 12 May at 09:25 passed the mouth at 15:30 without having been
snagged anywhere en route: Their trajectory,  after  the  powerful flow
reversal in the early morning (see figure 7-7), was very  well behaved
and showed no signs of the stagegraph's bumpy descent.   (This disparity
between jug movement and descending stagegraph was  again  seen in
September, and leads us to question the accuracy of this  structural
feature; it is noteworthy, we think, that the Toledo stagegraph often
rises smoothly and falls irregularly.)  During the  flush  there was
evidently little mixing of riverwater with lakewater near the jugs.

     Because the water mass moved so regularly between Cherry Street
and the mouth on 12 May, special importance attaches to changes in
water quality during that interval (see tables 7-4  and 7-6).  SS  con-
centrations at the mouth were slightly higher than  at Cherry Street,
but it is impossible to apportion this small  difference between two
likely causes:  (1) roiling and scouring of the soft riverbed by the
strong flushing currents, and (2) fresh inputs of municipal and in-
dustrial wastes.  The mouth was dirtier than Cherry Street by every
measure of oxygen demand except organic carbon and 20°-BOD5; this

                                  96

-------
finding supports the widespread contention that organic carbon and
20°-BOD5 are, by themselves, inadequate indicators of both water quality
and oxygen demand: One must always know much more about the water and
its oxygen-depletion kinetics than these two measurements could pos-
sibly reveal.  Cherry Street had higher nitrate concentrations, but
all other nitrogen forms were more concentrated at the mouth;  total
phosphorus (but not dissolved phosphorus) was also higher at the mouth.
Although the concentrations did not change much, the fluxes almost cer-
tainly increased, because the mouth has a larger cross-sectional area
than Cherry Street, and the current velocities were, if anything, some-
what higher at the mouth.  Since COD concentrations at the mouth were
much higher, the difference in flux must have been very great; further-
more, it would be difficult to attribute this difference to scour, since
SS concentrations had scarcely changed, or to lakewater, since the IDS
was constant, and lakewater is cleaner than riverwater in any  event.
The large increase in oxygen demand must be attributed to wastes from
lower Toledo.

     Although the movement of the water mass was extremely complex
during most of our May survey, we will hazard a comparison of  the
water at the mouth on 12 May with the water at Perrysburg Bridge on
10 and 11 May; the jugs' behavior most of this time was highly ir-
regular.  However, some of the Perrysburg water (after dilution and
alteration in passage through the lower estuary) had probably  reached
the mouth by 15:30, 12 May.  In most respects the mouth was nearly
identical to or cleaner than Perrysburg.

     Comparisons must be approached cautiously not only because of
hydraulic complexities, but also because several important physical  and
chemical phenomena (sedimentation, sorption, scour, chemical  and bio-
logical transformation) may have modified water and its contents: There
                                 97

-------
 is  undoubtedly more going on in the lower estuary than simple oxygen
 depletion and the addition of liquid waste.  SS at Perrysburg was much
 higher, and this must be expected: The long riffle, ascending hydro-
 graph, and swift currents all promoted scour, corrasion, and suspension
 at  Perrysburg Bridge; none of these forces obtained (or obtained with
 anything like equal force) at the mouth.  Although COD at Mouth/Mideast
 was higher than at Perrysburg, at Mouth/Midwest it was lower; note that
 COD was variable at both the Perrysburg and mouth transects, and much
 more variable at the mouth (especially on 11 May, as shown in table 7-5,
 even though IDS, DO, and temperature were horizontally and vertically
 stable).

     Because the concentrations were not drastically different, fluxes
 at the mouth must have been enormously greater: Current velocity during
 the flush was about 1  fps.  Though we did not measure the current
 velocity at Perrysburg on 12 May, we did measure it several  times on the
 10th; it was well below 2 fps at every depth and at every point on the
 transect, and was often less than 1  fps.  Since the concentrations and
 velocities are comparable, but the mouth's cross-sectional area is many
 times the area at Perrysburg, the flux at the mouth during the flush
 must have been many times larger than it was at Perrysburg.

     However, the estuary is not always flushing; nor does it often
 flush as dramatically as it did on 12 May.  During long intervals no
 riverwater leaves the estuary;  indeed, large volumes of lakewater flow
 into the estuary, where they are stored and mixed with riverborne
wastes.   As figures 7-3 through 7-7  show, millions of cubic  ft of lake-
water entered the estuary in early May, sometimes very quickly; e.g.,
on 8 May the stage was elevated by more than 2 ft in eight hours, then
fell nearly 3 ft in the next twelve  hours.  During just five days
 (8-12 May)  the stage dropped nearly  4 ft, and not monotonically:  There
                                  98

-------
were large and frequent reversals during its descent.

     The estuary's mass balance is easy to conceptualize but nearly
impossible to quantify precisely.  In the long run (which may be very
long), the estuary's net contribution to Lake Erie is composed of flows
and fluxes from: (1) the river at Waterville; (2) Grassy Creek, Delaware
Creek, Swan Creek, and miscellaneous small freshets; (3) the sewers and
treatment plants which discharge into the river below Waterville; and
(4) groundwater and diffuse surface runoff from the drainage area below
Waterville.  The estuary's net outflow is the sum of these four com-
ponents; its net mass output is not so simple because of sedimentation,
bedload transport, and dredging.  At riverflows of several thousand cfs,
the largest of these components by far is the contribution from Water-
ville, but it would be a primitive approximation (at best) to use the
Waterville discharge for calculating fluxes at the mouth.  Nonetheless,
if the estuary's flush volume is accurately prorated over time, most of
the net outflow must be the Waterville discharge: After all, that is
where most of the water comes from.  When the estuary's hydraulics have
been fully studied, it should be possible to develop methods for calcu-
lating fluxes and net discharges at the mouth; and when the dynamics of
sedimentation and bedload transport are understood in the lower Maumee,
it should be possible to account for the remainder of the river's mass
output.  Until then, however, one can neither estimate fluxes, nor
develop a mass budget, nor have at hand the fundamental  tools needed to
construct a wasteload allocation for Toledo when the estuary is low and
stagnant.

     One must consequently beware of falsely attributing the high
fluxes seen at the mouth on 12 May to Toledo alone.   A great deal of
riverwater had been stored in the estuary during early May (no one can
say precisely how much), together with the waterborne wastes from the
                                 99

-------
drainage area of the entire Maumee basin.  Some of the material that
left the estuary on 12 May certainly came from greater Toledo; equally
certainly, much of the material came from more distant reaches of the
drainage basin.  The exact proportions are unknown, and will remain
unknowable until the estuary has been diligently researched for several
years.

     Similar results were obtained in September, when the input of
riverwater from Waterville was only a small fraction of what it had
been in May, and when the Toledo STP was grossly malfunctioning.
Although the jugs moved erratically until the final hours of the
September survey and were frequently snagged (which required that they
be repeatedly reset), we were able to shepherd them far more carefully
than in May because there were no violent storms or small-craft
warnings.  We are reasonably confident that the jugs' movement in
September traced the complex movements of the water mass.

     After having erratically meandered for several days (from 21
September until  the evening of the 24th), the jugs at last began to
move regularly with the flushing currents on the 24th and 25th.  Changes
in water quality during the flush are therefore extremely significant,
because our samples followed the alteration of the water's contents as
the estuary was  flushed into the lake.

     Tables 7-7  and 7-8 summarize the results of the September survey.
The jugs were just below the Anthony Wayne Bridge when the flush began;
samples #6 through #12 were taken behind the jugs as they travelled
downriver.   Their trajectory was smooth and well-behaved; it showed
only one possible sign of the stagegraph's bumpy descent.  Although the
stagegraph began to fall  at 16:00 on the 24th, the jugs were travelling
upriver at 17:35; this deep reverse flow (the jugs on 20' lines led the
                                100

-------
                             TABLE 7-7.

        KEY TO SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE MAUMEE RIVER SURVEY,
                           SEPTEMBER 1974
Sample
Number       IRM       Sample Collection Point

No. 1       14.1      Perrysburg Bridge, between  Piers  #3  and  #4,
                       @ 2'  depth

No. 2       11.4      Interstate 80/90 Bridge,  Pier #4,  @  5' depth

No. 3        6.9      DiSalle Bridge,  Pier #5,  @  6'  depth

No. 4        6.9      DiSalle Bridge,  Pier #2,  @  2'  depth

No. 5        6.9      DiSalle Bridge,  Pier #2,  @  IT  depth

No. 6        5.4      Anthony Wayne Bridge, Middle,  @ 10'  depth

No. 7        4.6      Cherry Street, Middle,  @  10'  depth

No. 8        3.6      Craig  Bridge, Middle (Pier  #3), @ 8' depth

No. 9        3.6      Craig  Bridge, West (Pier  #5),  @ 10' depth

No. 10       1.3      Toledo Terminal  Railroad  Bridge, Pier #3, @ 10'
                       depth

No. 11        0       Mouth, Middle, @ 15'  depth

No. 12        0       Mouth, West,  @ 6'  depth
                                101

-------
             TABLE 7-8.

MAUMEE RIVER SURVEY, SEPTEMBER 1974:
         LABORATORY RESULTS
Test Parameter
Date (1974)
Time
SS (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
Total C (mg/1 C)
Inorganic C (mg/1 C)
Organic C (mg/1 C)
COD (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1 N)
Kjeldahl N (mg/1 N)
Ammoniacal N (mg/1 N)
N03 N (mg/1 N)
N02 N (mg/1 N)
Total P (mg/1 P)
Dissolved P (mg/1 P)
Fecal Col i form Bacteria
(Organisms/100 ml)
20°-BODi (mg/1)
20°-BOD2 (mg/1)
20°-BOD3 (mg/1)
20°-BOD4 (mg/1)
20°-BOD5 (mg/1)
20°-BOD10 (mg/1)
20°-BOD20 (mg/1)
20°-BOD30 (mg/1)
No. 1
9/20
19:00
38
532
48
24
24
41
0.957
0.69
0.17
0.08
0.017
0.30
0.06
78
1
3
4
5
6
9
11
13
No. 2
9/21
14:45
76
512
47
23
24
35
0.752
0.58
0.11
0.05
0.012
0.32
0.19
158
2
2
3
5
5
8
9
13
No. 3
9/22
13:25
64
455
47
26
21
31
1.132
0.65
0.06
0.40
0.022
0.25
0.17
140

-------
TABLE 7-8 (cont'd)
Test Parameter
Date (1974)
Time
SS (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
Total C (mg/1 C)
Inorganic C (mg/1 C)
Organic C (mg/1 C)
COD (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1 N)
Kjeldahl N (mg/1 N)
Ammoniacal N (mg/1 N)
NOa N (mg/1 N)
N02 N (mg/1 N)
Total P (mg/1 P)
Dissolved P (mg/1 P)
Fecal Col i form Bacteria
(Organisms/100 ml)
20°-BODi (mg/1)
20°-BOD2 (mg/1)
20°-BOD3 (mg/1)
20°-BOD4 (mg/1)
20°-BOD5 (mg/1)
20°-BOD10 (mg/1)
20°-BOD20 (mg/1)
20°-BOD30 (mg/1)
No. 7.
9/24
22:25
36
469
40
19
21
16
1.504
0.58
0.26
0.63
0.034
0.20
0.15
780
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
5
No. 8
9/25
02:40
58
395
43
20
23
27
1.527
0.55
0.22
0.68
0.077
0.22
0.17
990
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
No. 9
9/25
03:15
42
420
44
20
24
16
1.680
0.42
0.42
0.79
0.050
0.20
0.20
490
<1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
No. 10
9/25
08:10
56
336
39
19
20
24
1.810
0.64
0.48
0.53
0.160
0.21
0.13
1050
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
No. 11
9/25
09:25
46
318
38
17
21
27
2.150
1.08
0.50
0.40
0.170
0.22
0.16
80
1
2
2
3
4
4
6
7
No. 12
9/25
09:45
80
345
40
18
22
27
2.430
1.09
0.71
0.47
0.160
0.30
0.13
1840
1
2
4
5
6
6
8
9
       103

-------
pack during the flow reversal) was brought about by the rising stage-
graph in the early afternoon (see figure 7-14).  It took several hours
for the flow-reversal wave to travel upriver; stage fluctuations at the
mouth cause (and therefore precede) the waves which traverse the estu-
ary.  From 18:30 until the jugs passed the mouth, they were snagged only
once: at the west end of Craig Bridge (RM 3.6) at 02:40 on the 25th.
This single snag may have been due to the strong west and southwest
winds, but it may also have been caused by the small flow reversal at
the mouth between 01:00 and 02:00 on the 25th.  As the sample-collection
times in table 7-8 show, the jugs accelerated as they travelled between
Toledo Terminal Railroad Bridge and the mouth.  The stagegraph (figure
7-15) does not explain the acceleration.

     Because of stratification, two samples were taken at Craig Bridge
(samples #8 and #9) and two were taken at the mouth (samples #11 and
#12).  The water was not thermally stratified on the 25th at Craig
Bridge:  It was vertically stratified with respect to conductivity and
horizontally stratified with respect to DO (see Appendix 1).  Together
with the evidence provided by the stagegraph and by the jugs' snagging,
the stratification at Craig Bridge on the 25th may be attributed to a
true flow reversal.  The vertical and horizontal stratification at the
mouth on the 25th cannot be explained by the jugs or by the stagegraph.
The acceleration of the flushing currents may account for the hori-
zontal  stratification; but we have no plausible explanation for the
vertical stratification.

     It is significant that the river was vertically stratified with
respect to temperature at Craig Bridge at noon on the 24th, when the
estuary was suddenly and strongly in reverse flow, but unstratified
with respect to temperature during the flush (when the flow reversal
could not have amounted to much; see figures 7-14 and 7-15).  The
                               104

-------
thermal stratification on the 24th must be attributed to the cooling-
water discharge from the Acme powerplant; on the 25th, however, when the
estuary had been steadily flushing for several hours, no large thermal
effect could be seen.  During the flush, the water at Craig Bridge was
no more than 1° C warmer than at Cherry Street; but during the steep
reversal at midday on the 24th, the water at Craig Bridge was as much as
4.4° C warmer than the water at Cherry Street.  The temperature at the
Acme intake at 12:30 on the 24th was 20° C; from the intake to the tip
of the jetty which separates Acme's outfall ditch from the Maumee, the
water temperature rose steadily to 26.5° C.  Even this highest temper-
ature is well below the maximum permitted by Ohio's  WQS (viz. 32.2° C);
but the temperature increment is greater and more extensive than the
2.8°, 12-acre mixing zone which the standards allow.  If the estuary's
DO were safely above 5 mg/1, the slight warming of the river by Acme's
huge outfall would be less important than it is.  However, the warm out-
fall seems to be responsible for the DO's dropping below the already
substandard concentration which we regularly observed at Cherry Street.
When the estuary is very low and stagnant, the temperature effect
attributable to the Acme plant will undoubtedly be much larger, and the
estuary's DO will be even more seriously degraded.

       The Acme plant's effect on the river is not entirely limited to
the warm outfall.  The plant's sludge pits feed a gushing black dis-
charge and a corrosive yellow leachate into the river.   The pH of the
leachate was 2.6, which explains why a trench had been cut through the
bottom of the 3/8th-inch, cast-iron outfall pipe.

       The principal  changes in the water mass during the September
survey are as follows:

       1.   Conductivity and TDS decreased almost monotonically between
Perrysburg and the mouth; both sets of measurements showed a slight
                                  105

-------
increase at the beginning of the flush, then a steep decrease as  the
estuary spilled into the lake.   IDS and conductivity were in excellent
agreement.  These measurements  show (once again)  that riverwater  was pro-
gressively mixed with lakewater in the estuary.

       2.  SS was highly erratic:  It was sensitive to both the changing
character of the riverbed and to scouring by the  flushing currents.   The
concentration more than doubled between Perrysburg Bridge and the 1-80/90
Bridge; this must be attributed to the descending Waterville hydrograph
and to the riverbed's changing  from crystalline rock in the riffles  above
Perrysburg to soft clay in the  estuary.  SS concentrations fell  steeply
during the generally calm days  before the flush began; but when the  flush
started, the concentrations jumped (compare samples #7 and #8 in  table
7-8) as the flushing currents began to scour the  sediments.  Between
Craig Bridge/Middle and Mouth/Middle (samples #8  and #11) the concen-
trations dropped irregularly; but SS concentrations at Mouth/West
(sample #12), which is affected by the STP, were  the highest we observed,
and reflect the STP's poor operation.  The declining SS concentrations
between Craig/Middle and Mouth/Middle probably reflect the ever-
increasing proportion of lakewater, but this explanation is not entirely
satisfactory since the flushing currents were still very strong.

       3.  Concentrations of fecal coliforms increased enormously in
Toledo.  They were very sensitive to stratification (compare samples
#8 and #9, and samples #11 and  #12) and may have  been sensitive to
stagnation (compare sample #3,  taken on the 22nd, with samples #4 and
#5, taken on the 23rd, all at Disalle Bridge; the jugs scarcely moved
during that interval — they meandered aimlessly  with the sloshing
estuarine currents).  The flagitious bacterial concentration at Mouth/
West (sample #12) suggests that, in addition to its other difficulties
in September, the STP was not achieving adequate  disinfection.  Although
                                  106

-------
bacterial concentrations were highest near the STP, they were too high
throughout downtown Toledo.  The steep increase between DiSalle and
Anthony Wayne may be attributed to malfunctions in any of the several
combined-sewer regulators in the vicinity; the regulators must have been
malfunctioning because the weather had been very dry for several months,
and no more than 0.2 inch of rain had fallen in a week.  The sewer out-
falls we examined in September were not gushing, as they did in May; but
they were always dribbling, despite the drought.

       4.  All forms of BOD were very well behaved and admirably
consistent: They followed a sag curve that closely agrees with the DO
sag curve.  Highest DO and highest BOD were seen at Perrysburg; lowest
DO and lowest BOD were at Cherry Street and Craig Bridge; both DO and
BOD were up again at Toledo Terminal Bridge and the mouth.  Note that
all BODs were incubated at 20° C because the water temperature was
approximately that throughout our survey (see Appendix 1).  Contrary
to usual expectation, there was no correlation between BOD and bacterial
concentrations (owing to the leaky sewers, no doubt); but BOD and SS
were in rather good agreement: Both were lowest around Cherry Street,
highest near the extremities of the estuary, and transitional at inter-
mediate points.   SS was much more sensitive than BOD to current
velocities and to stratification.

       5.  COD behaved much like BOD, though not so smoothly.  Once
again concentrations were highest at Perrysburg, lowest at Cherry
Street, and high again at the mouth.  COD was very sensitive to strati-
fication at DiSalle and Craig, but anomalously insensitive to strati-
fication at the  mouth -- quite different from its behavior in May.

       6.  Total  carbon, inorganic carbon, and organic carbon changed
very little.   Inorganic carbon was the most variable of the three forms.
                                  107

-------
All forms were less concentrated in the lower estuary and at the mouth
than they had been at either Perrysburg or 1-80/90.

       7.  Total phosphorus behaved much like COD and SS, but less
erratically: It was high at Perrysburg and 1-80/90,  lowest at Cherry
Street, and high again at Mouth/West (owing to the malfunctioning STP).
Dissolved phosphorus was extremely low at Perrysburg, but little changed
from 1-80/90 to the mouth.  Since total phosphorus was much the same at
1-80/90 as it had been at Perrysburg, we wonder whether particulate
phosphorus might have been transformed into dissolved phosphorus in the
estuary; desorption or autolysis could be called to  account.

       8.  Total nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, and  nitrite nitrogen
behaved much like the bacterial  concentrations: They were low upriver
of DiSalle, and increased greatly in the lower estuary.  Ammoniacals
more than tripled between Anthony Wayne and Mouth/Middle, and more than
quadrupled between Anthony Wayne and Mouth/West.  Kjeldahl nitrogen was
high at Perrysburg, lower (but variable) between 1-80/90 and Craig, and
highest at the mouth (where it was unaffected by stratification).
Nitrate was lowest at Perrysburg and 1-80/90, highest at Craig, and high
everywhere from DiSalle to the mouth; the nitrate profile is unlike any
of the others.  It is noteworthy that nitrate was not highest at Perrys-
burg (which is closest to the agricultural lands and to the oxygenating
riffle); it was highest at Craig (which is set amid  Toledo's thermal and
deoxygenating wastes).

       The unusual behavior of nitrates in September bears comparison
with the very different pattern in May, when they were (as might have
been expected) highest at Perrysburg and lowest at Cherry Street.  The
estuary was more stagnant in September, there was far less landwash
(owing to the drought), and there was much less fertilizer left on the
                                  108

-------
fields at harvest-time than there had been in the Spring.  There is no
doubting that vastly more nitrate entered the estuary in May than in
September, nor that vastly more nitrate was flushed out (concentrations,
volumes, and velocities were all larger in May than in September).  The
high nitrate concentrations in the lower estuary in September cannot be
readily explained: They certainly cannot be traced to the upper estuary
or to rural landwash.  Perhaps conditions in the estuary and in the
sewers promoted more nitrate formation (through a combination of longer
detention times, autoxidation, and microbial metabolism) in September
than in May.  The microbiology of the sewers seems a particularly
promising line of investigation.

       It must be borne in mind, however, that the estuary was colder,
more oxygenated, and more unstable (hence more thoroughly and frequently
flushed) in May than in September; estuarine stagnation times in
September may have been long enough for some nitrates to have been
formed from the plentiful organic wastes in the river.  There are no
fertilizer factories or nitric-acid plants in Toledo.  The only pos-
sible sources of nitrates (aside from sewage) are the large agricultural
supply houses at the head of the navigation channel.   Large quantities
of fertilizer are handled at these houses, but they would have had to
have spilled colossal  quantities of the stuff to be called to account
for the high nitrate levels we saw in the lower estuary.  To our
knowledge, nothing of the kind occurred, and we were on the river, near
the head of the navigation channel, for several  days and nights in
September.  The high nitrate concentrations for September notwith-
standing, nitrate N accounted for much less than half the total N during
the September flush, whereas in May nitrate N accounted for over half
the total N.   This difference, we believe, must be attributed to rural
landwash and to the erratic STP.
                                  109

-------
       The amount of phosphorus which entered the estuary was far higher
in May than in September (see table 1-1).  The concentration of total
P during both flushes was nearly the same, but the flush volume was
larger in May than in September (compare figure 7-4 with figures 7-14
and 7-15); hence the Maumee contributed more phosphorus to Lake Erie in
May than in September -- despite the fact that the Toledo STP was
operating reasonably well in May but was having a terrible time of it
in September.  These observations suggest once again how important it is
to consider landwash when accounting for the phosphorus which enters
Lake Erie.  Notice also that the May flush contributed more solids
(especially dissolved solids) to the lake than the September flush.
And more carbon.  And more nitrogen.  And more COD.

       And more BOD, especially long-term BOD.  The concentration of
20°-BOD3Q in the May flush was nearly double the September concentration.
Figures 7-19 and 7-20 give the BOD rate curves for the May and September
surveys.  Because the May water temperature was about 14° C, BOD was run
at two temperatures: the actual water temperature (14°), and the
standard 20°.  In September the actual water temperature was about 20°,
so we had one less analysis to do.  All samples were incubated in the
dark (since there was no sign of a diurnal ^etosynthetic effect), and
all were identically seeded with sludge frorfnthe Toledo STP (which
ensures strict comparability among the samples).  The rate curves for
May and September are dramatically different.  The May BOD was stronger,
higher, and longer-acting than the September BOD.  The 14°-BOD at Cherry
Street and the mouth in May was much higher than the 20°-BOD at those
stations in September.  One would be hard pressed to find more per-
suasive evidence of the upriver heritage, its magnitude, its significance
in relation to Toledo, and its contribution to the degradation of Lake
Eri e.
                                  110

-------
                                     FIGURE  7-19.

                         14°-BOD AND 20°-BOD RATE  CURVES:
                            MAUMEE  RIVER, 10-12 MAY  1974
 25

 20

|15

 10
 10 MAY 1974, 20:50 BOD @ 14°C
        5    10    15    20   25   30
                  DAYS
   PERRYSBURG BR. MID @ 3' (RM 14.1)
25

20

15

10
      10 MAY 1974, 20:50 BOD (5  20°C
                                                       5     10    15    20   25    30
                                                                DAYS
                                                  PERRYSBURG BR. MID  @ 3' (RM 14.1)
 25

 20

i15

 10
11 MAY 1974, 18:30 BOD @ 14' C
        5    10   15   20    25  30
                DAYS
   PERRYSBURG BR. MID @ 3' (RM 14.1)
25

20

15

10

 5
     11 MAY 1974, 18:30 BOD @ 20°C
                                                      5    10    15    20   25   30
                                                                DAYS
                                                 PERRYSBURG BR. MID @ 3' (RM 14.1)
                                          111

-------
                             FIGURE 7-19 (cont'd)
25

20

15

10
         11 MAY  1974, 12:50 BOD @ 14°C
        5    10    15    20   25   30
                 DAYS
   CHERRY ST. BR. MID @ 13' (RM 4.6)
25

20

15

10
11 MAY 1974, 12:50 BOD @ 20 C
                                                            5    10    15   20    25   30
                                                                      DAYS
                                                       CHERRY ST. BR. MID @ 13' (RM 4.6)
**•

25

20

1C
15

10
         12 MAY 1974, 07:55 BOD @ 14°C
        5    10   15    20   25   30
                 DAYS
   CHERRY ST. BR. MID @ 13' (RM 4.6)
25

20

ic
15

10

 5
12 MAY 1974, 07:55 BOD @ 20°C
                                                            5    10    15    20    25    30
                                                                      DAYS
                                                        CHERRY  ST. BR. MID  @ 13' (RM 4.6)
                                         112

-------
                                  FIGURE 7-19  (cont'd)
bfl
E
25

20

15

10
         11 MAY 1974, 20:25 BOD fa 14°C
            5    10    15    20   25   30
                     DAYS
       BUOY #50 @ 16.5' (RM 0)
     25

     20


fa   15
_E_
g   10
oo

      5
     11 MAY 1974, 20:25 BOD @ 20°C
                                                        5    10   15    20
                                                                DAYS
                                                  BUOY  #50 (a 16.5'  (RM 0)
                             25   30
     25

     20

     15

     10

      5
    12 MAY 1974, 15:50 BOD @ 14°C
            5    10    15   20    25   30
                     DAYS
       BUOY #50 @ 16.5' (RM 0)
25

20

15

10
         12 MAY 1974, 15:50 BOD @ 20°C
                                                       5    10   15    20
                                                                DAYS
                                                  BUOY #50 ia  16.5' (RM 0]
                             25   30
                                            113

-------
                                 FIGURE  7-19 (cont'd)
    25

    20

    15

    10
11 MAY 1974, 20:40 BOD @ 14°C
            5    10    15    20   25   30
                     DAYS
      BUOY  #49 @ 13' (RM 0)
25

20

15

10
11 MAY 1974, 20:40 BOD @ 20 C
                                                  5    10   15    20   25
                                                            DAYS
                                             BUOY #49 @ 13' (RM 0)
                                 30
    25

    20

^  15
_E_
1  10

     5
12 MAY 1974, 15:55 BOD @ 14°C
            5    10    15   20
                     DAYS
       BUOY  #49 @ 13' (RM 0]
                        25    30
25

20

15

10
 12 MAY 1974,  15:55 BOD § 20°C
        5    10    15    20
                 DAYS
   BUOY  #49 @ 13' (RM 0]
                        25   30
                                              114

-------
                                            FIGURE  7-20.
  10
8
       20 SEPT. 1974,19:00
           5
             10
                    15
                   DAYS
PERRYSBURG BR. (RM 14.1)
                                       20°-BOD RATE CURVES:
                               MAUMEE RIVER, 20-25 SEPTEMBER 1974
                                                   21  SEPT. 1974, 14:45
20
                                              j
25    30
       5
                                                 10
                                          15
                                         DAYS
                      HWY.  80/90 BR. (RM 11.4) @ 5'
                                                                                        I
                                          20    25
             30
  10
       22 SEPT. 1974, 13:25
            5
             10
                    15
                    DAYS
DISALLE BR. MID @ 6' (KM 6.9)
20     25
      30
                                               10
                                                   23 SEPT. 1974, 09:05
0
                                          5
                                   10
                                   15
                                  DAYS
               DISALLE BR. EAST @ 2' (RM 6.9)
20     25
30
   10
  23 SEPT. 1974, 09:10
     0
10
                    15
                   DAYS
DISALLE BR. EAST ia  11' (RM 6.9)
20
                                               10
                                                        24 SEPT. 1974,  14:15
25    30
                                                              10
                                          15
                                         DAYS
                                          20
                                                                                              -•

                                                                                              _l
                                         30
                                                      ANTHONY WAYNE BR.  MID @ 10' (RM 5.4)
                                              115

-------
                                         FIGURE  7-20  (cont'd)
   10
r 24 SEPT. 1974, 22:25
            5
             10
                     15
                    DAYS
CHERRY ST. BR. MID @ 10' (RM 4.6)
                            20      25
                                                10
                                                  r 25 SEPT. 1974, 02:40
              30
                             5
              10
                     15
                   DAYS
CRAIG BR. MID @ 8' (RM 3.6)
                            20
                                                                                                 j
       25     30
   10 r 25 SEPT. 1974, 03:15
8  i-
      0
       5
              10
                    15
                   DAYS
CRAIG BR. WEST @ 10' (RM 3.6)
20
       25
                                               10r25 SEPT. 1974,  08:10
       5
              10
                     15
                    DAYS
TTR BR.  MID @ 10' (RM 1.3)
20
                                                                                           I
25     30
   10
    5
r 25 SEPT. 1974,  09:25
      0      5

      MOUTH MID @ 15'
              10      15
                   DAYS
                                                10
                                                5
20     25     30
                                                  r 25 SEPT. 1974, 09:45
                                                                     I
0      5

MOUTH WEST @ 6'
              10      15
                   DAYS
                                                                             20
                                                                                    25
                                                                30
                                                 116

-------
       This pair of surveys suggests that both rural landwash and
deficient waste-management in Toledo are responsible for poor water
quality in the estuary.  Our analysis suggests that landwash is quanti-
tatively far more important, and is therefore the more meaningful
measure of the Maumee's effects on Lake Erie: Toledo's effects, though
large, are more localized.  One can readily imagine a compounding of
these two elements that would set off an appalling deterioration of the
estuary.  Suppose that the runoff from a severe regional storm were
trapped in the estuary when lake levels were low and stable; and sup-
pose that the STP should have a mishap comparable to the one in Septem-
ber 1974; and suppose that Toledo's sewers behaved as they usually do
in a storm; and — since we are pandering to a taste for horror —
suppose that all this happened in a hot summer.  Under these conditions,
we believe, the estuary would be at risk of utter degradation, and the
water would become ever more foul in proportion to the stagnation time.

       None of these suppositions is fanciful: Each of them has occurred.
All of them probably occurred in the early 1960's, perhaps all at once.
So far as is known, no one died of water pollution then, and it is
doubtful that anyone would die of it should these conditions recur.
The pioneers whose awesome labors drained the swamps of northwestern
Ohio are to be thanked for the prevention of sickness and death under
such climatic circumstances.   Pollution control is not exclusively con-
cerned with public health: It is concerned with a better environment and
with the control of factors which are responsible for its deterioration.
We therefore urge that these factors be evaluated more judiciously,  with
a greater appreciation for what can (and cannot)  be controlled.   Land-
wash, estuarine stagnation, lake stages -- these  are matters that have
scarcely been considered in current plans for improving the Maumee
estuary.  The citizens of greater Toledo deserve  that much, at least,
and will be ill-served if they are not.   For their part, Toledoans would
                                  117

-------
be well-advised to acquire the simple decencies of an adequate sewer
system and reliable waste treatment.
                                 118

-------
8.   SEDIMENT SAMPLING

     Before we had delved sufficiently into the history of the lower
Maumee River, we proposed taking deep cores of the sediments, then
examining them, stratum by stratum, to document chemical differences
among them.  Unfortunately, the lower river has been continuously dis-
turbed for at least 100 years: disturbed by extensive sand and gravel
dredging, the creation and maintenance of a deep navigational channel,
excavations for landfills, bank straightening, and rerouting of trib-
utaries  (e.g., Duck Creek was "moved" when the Port of Toledo con-
structed its Presque Isle facilities).  Accurate records have not been
kept.  One can only say for sure that it would have been foolhardy to
draw any historical inferences from cores taken in such a disturbed
area.

     We nevertheless felt that some attention should be given to at
least the surficial sediments.  Accordingly, we undertook a brief
sediment-sampling program on 19 May 1974.  Ten samples were collected
with a Petersen dredge (which has the advantage of retaining almost all
the entrapped solids); the dredge took a sample of one square foot.
The model we used was equipped with heavy weights (for extra pene-
tration); care was taken to lower the dredge gently, to avoid dis-
turbing the very fine materials.   Large inclusions (stones, twigs, and
miscellaneous debris) were removed immediately.  The dredge's contents
were dumped into a bucket which was freshly washed with river water for
each sample.   Material sufficient to fill a one-quart Mason jar was
taken from the bucket.  The Mason jars were also freshly washed with
river water just before being filled.   A few ml of saturated bichloride
of mercury were stirred into each Mason jar, to prevent biological
activity.  The Mason jars were stored in a closed ice-chest as a further
precaution.   All  samples were collected between 09:00 and 14:00 on 19
May, and were delivered to the analytical laboratory at 15:30, where
they were immediately transferred to cold storage.   Analytical  methods
are referenced in section 9.
                                    119

-------
     Table  8-1  identifies the samples.   Intense storm activity had
 swollen  the river during the middle of May: Flows were greater than
 10,000 cfs  from 13 May until 21 May.  The absolute peak of the May
 hydrograph  (20,100 cfs) occurred on the  day of our sediment-sampling
 program,  19 May.  The weather was cool and rainy during the early
 morning,  but turned fair and warm by mid-afternoon.  There was a strong
 backflow  from the bay until mid-morning, when the currents suddenly re-
 versed and  precipitously accelerated.  The water was very rough: Small
 craft warnings  were up most of the day.  The river was more turbid than
 we had ever seen it: There was undoubtedly a great deal of scouring and
 corrasion.

     Extremely  rough water made it impossible to take samples at
 Disalle Bridge  (Highway 75), and the area around Perrysburg Bridge was
 scoured as  clean as a hospital sink.  Flows over Providence Dam were
 much too  violent to permit taking samples anywhere but at the bank, and
 we are not  satisfied with the sample we  finally collected (which re-
 quired a  great  deal of digging and scooping by hand).  We must point
 out that  sample #3 (at the coal docks) was intentionally taken very
 close to  shore  so that the washout of coal fines could be fully repre-
 sented; the water all  around these docks is laden with chips, fragments,
 and fine  powders of coal.

     Chemical analysis of these ten samples reveals grossly polluted
 conditions: These are certainly not innocent clays.  Table 8-2 sum-
 marizes our findings.   The mouth of Otter Creek (sample #1) has sedi-
 ments worthy of a sewer;  they show the effects of the refinery dis-
 charges (SOHIO and Sun Oil)  and of sludge from Toledo's waterworks.  In
 plain point of fact, Otter Creek is used for nothing but waste dumping,
 so that one should not be too surprised by these results.   These sedi-
ments head the list for COD and total  phosphorus,  and are close com-
 petitors  for top honors in total  nitrogen, oils, and grease.

                                    120

-------
Table 8-1.  Identification of Maumee Basin Sediment Samples:  19 May 1974
Sample              Water
Number    Time    Depth (ft)     Location

   1     09:10       2.5        Mouth of Otter Creek,  midstream

   2     09:20       4.5        Mouth of Duck Creek, midstream

   3     09:35      27.         Coal  Dock,  100 feet from end of first
                                jetty east  of Duck  Creek,  5  ft.  from
                                shore

   4     09:40      37.         Maumee Mouth, middle of the  navigation
                                channel, halfway between Buoy #49  and
                                Buoy  #50

   5     09:50      26.         Maumee Mouth, west  of  navigation
                                channel, at unnumbered White Buoy,  150
                                ft. east of Coast Guard slip

   6     10:55      18.         Cherry St.  Bridge,  East; just upriver
                                of the second arch  from the  east bank

   7     11:00      35.         Cherry St.  Bridge,  Middle; just  upriver
                                from  the lift-span  over the  navigation
                                channel

   8     11:05      30.         Cherry St.  Bridge,  West; just upriver
                                of the second arch  from the  west bank

   9     11:10      12.         Swan  Creek,  Mouth;  10  ft.  upstream  from
                                black iron  bridge at foot  of Monroe St.

  10     14:00       0.5        Providence  Dam @ Grand  Rapids, 2 ft.
                                from  west bank,  100 ft.  upriver  from
                                the dam
                                     121

-------
                                                  Table 8-2.   Analysis of
                                            Maumee Basin Sediments:  19 May 1974

TIME
DEPTH (feet)
TEST PARAMETERS
DRY SOLIDS (%)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(mg/kg dry solids)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
(mg P/kg dry solids)
_ PHOSPHORUS, ACID HYDROLYZABLE
r\3 (mg P/kg dry solids)
ro
KJELDAriL NITROGEN
(mg N/kg dry solids)
AMMONIA NITROGEN
(mg N/kg dry solids)
NITRATE NITROGEN
(mg N/kg dry solids)
NITRITE NITROGEN
(mg N/kg dry solids)
OILS & GREASE
NO. 1
09:10
2.5
40.1
157,000
219
7.01
477
234
4.52
1.53
12,950
NO. 2
09:20
4.5
76.2
30,900
2.04
1.24
44.3
7.70
1.18
0.34
764
HO. 3
09:35
27
40.2
98,900
1.99
1.16
540
195
9.51
0.59
6,845
NO. 4
09:40
GT 30
36.3
23,000
1.25
1.25
374
154
3.63
0.71
13,310
NO. 5
09:50
26
35.0
71,600
1.84
1.07
446
166
2.82
0.72
1,233
NO. 6
10:55
18
39.7
94,300
1.73
1.73
246
88.5
3.00
0.81
1 ,389
NO. 7
11:00
GT 30
47.7
57,300
0.83
0.83
243
139
1.91
0.30
1,305
NO. 8
11:03
30
44.9
90,700
2.72
1.85
407
165
0.83
0.17
2,578
NO. 9
11:10
12
46.0
125,000
2.77
2.77
459
280
2.62
0.49
7,311
NO. 10
14:00
0.5
59.2
61,900
2.06
2.06
200
7.54
2.39
0.26
793
(mg/kg dry solids)

CYANIDE,  TOTAL                                      0.24
(mg CN~/kg dry solids)

-------
Sediments at the mouth of Duck Creek (sample #2) put the Otter Creek
sediments in perspective.  These two creeks flow only a few yards
apart, and both flow through the heavily industrialized area near the
east bank of the river.  However, Duck Creek receives no refinery
wastes, and generally receives a much smaller share of the waterworks'
sludge; furthermore, the present mouth of Duck Creek is less than 20
years old: The lower reaches of the creek were moved when the Port of
Toledo built its Facility #2.  Hydrology and geology cannot account for
the spectacular differences between the Otter Creek and Duck Creek
sediments; industrial and municipal wastes can.

     Samples 3r 4, and 5 were taken across the mouth of the river, and
all three are in dredged areas, but sample #3 was taken very close to
the edge of the coal docks.  As might have been expected, sample #3 has
much higher COD and total nitrogen than its sister samples, and somewhat
more phosphorus; it also has a walloping 0.24 mg/kg of cyanide ion,
which is consistent with the observation of coal fines in the water and
in the sediments.   Cyanide is commonly found in coal that has been ex-
posed to heat during its formation, in later mine fires, or in coking.
(The area around Interlake's riverfront may also show high concen-
trations of cyanide in the sediments because of the plant's busy coke
ovens.)  Sample #4, taken in the middle of the navigation channel  at
the river's mouth, has lower COD, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen
than its sister samples, but it has much higher concentrations of oils
and grease.  The very high oil  value does not come from a chance clump
in the sample:  The analysis was repeated several times, and the culprit
is a light oil  which is thoroughly mixed through the sample.   Although
sample #5 is closer to the STP than either of its sister samples,  it is
cleaner than sample #3, and contains much less oil  than sample #4.
Compared to the relatively discharge-free area at the mouth of Duck
Creek (sample #2), however, it is high  in COD, and very high  in all
forms of nitrogen, especially the reduced forms.
                                    123

-------
     Samples 6, 7, and 8 form a transect of the river at Cherry Street
Bridge.  The east sample (#6) is outside the limits of dredging for the
navigation channel; #7 (middle) is squarely in the middle of the channel,
and 18 is at the channel's western extreme (and therefore much closer
to the leaky sewers on Toledo's downtown west side).   COD and phosphorus
are considerably lower in midchannel  than in the east and west sedi-
ments, but the west sediments (#8) are appreciably higher in phosphorus,
nitrogen, and oils than its neighbors to the east.

     The mouth of Swan Creek (#9) is  in most ways as  badly polluted as
the mouth of Otter Creek (#1).   It takes first prize  for nitrogen, owing
largely to the very high ammonia concentration.  In every respect, Swan
Creek's sediments are more severely polluted than those of Cherry Street
West (#8), its nearest neighbor (they are less than 3,000 feet apart).
An excellent account of erosion and sedimentation problems in Swan Creek
has been prepared by Earthview, Inc.

     The unsatisfactory sample  taken  at Providence Dam (approximately
RM 35) is not entirely without  interest.  Especially  notable are its
high COD (higher than either of the two sampling points in Toledo's
navigation channel:  samples #4  and #7) and its rather high phosphorus.
It does not compare favorably with the mouth of Duck  Creek (Sample #2):
It is considerably higher in COD and  Kjeldahl  nitrogen, and quite simi-
lar in all  other respects except in its percentage of dry solids and
its content of acid-hydrolyzable (i.e., loosely bound) phosphorus.
]EARTHyiEW, INC.  (April  1973).   Flooding and Erosion Related to
 Urbanization:  Swan Creek Watershed,  Lucas  County,  Ohio.   Available
 from George R.  Kunkle,  President,  Earthview,  Inc., 316  Colton
 Building, Madison & Erie, Toledo,  Ohio 43624.
                                    124

-------
 9.    ANALYTICAL  METHODS

      All  the water and sediment  samples were analyzed at Jones & Henry
 Laboratories,  Inc.,  of Toledo.   The methods are referenced below; all
 are  approved by  the  U. S.  EPA.   No water or sediment sample was more
 than a  few  hours out of  the  river or creek when analysis was begun.
 As a precaution  against  unforseen delays, all samples for nitrogen
 analysis  were  immediately  fixed  with mercury.  All samples that could
 not  be  delivered to  the  laboratory within two hours were stored in
 ice.   In  no case was any sample  more than eight hours old upon arrival
 at the  laboratory.

      In the May  survey,  samples  for ammonia and Kjeldahl nitrogen
 analysis  were  treated with alkaline sodium thiosulfate to decompose the
 mercury-ammonium complex.  In the September survey, they were treated
 with  alkaline  potassium  iodide to decompose the complex.

 Water Analysis

      Suspended Solids - Suspended solids were determined by the glass-
 fiber filtration/gravimetric method (104°C)  outlined in Standard
 Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,  13th Edition,
 Method No.  224-C.

     Total  Dissolved Solids - Total  dissolved solids  were determined
 by .45 micron membrane filtration  (104°C)  outlined  in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,  13th Edition,
Method No. 224-E.

     Total Organic Carbon (TOC)  - Total  organic  carbon  values  were
determined by the combustion/infrared method outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,  13th Edition,
Method No. 138-A.

                                   125

-------
     Chemical Oxygen Demand - Chemical  oxygen demand values were
determined by the dichromate reflux method outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition,
Method No. 220.

     Kjeldahl Nitrogen - Kjeldahl  nitrogen values were determined
by the digestion/distillation/titration method outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition,
Method No. 135.

     Ammonia Nitrogen - Ammonia nitrogen values in May were determined
by the distillation/titration method outlined in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Mater and Wastewater, 13th Edition, Method No. 132-A.
In September they were determined with  an Orion Model 95-10 ammonia
electrode.

     Nitrate Nitrogen - Nitrate nitrogen values were determined by the
brucine sulfate method outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,  Method No. 213-C.

     Nitrite Nitrogen - Nitrite nitrogen values were determined by the
diazotization method outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Hater and Wastewater, 13th Edition,  Method No. 134.

     Total Phosphorus - Total phosphorus values were determined by
persulfate digestion and the single reagent method outlined in Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1971, page 235.

     Total Dissolved Phosphorus - Total dissolved phosphorus values
were determined by filtration, persulfate digestion, and the single
reagent method outlined in Methods for  Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, 1971, page 235.
                                   126

-------
     Biochemical Oxygen Demand-Curve (Ambient-14°C) - BOD values were
determined by the multiple dilution technique outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition,
Method No. 219.  Dissolved oxygen measurements were made by the mem-
brane electrode technique.  All samples were incubated in darkness.

     Biochemical Oxygen Demand-Curve (20°C) - BOD values were deter-
mined by the multiple dilution technique outlined in Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Mastewater, 13th Edition, Method No.
219.  Dissolved oxygen measurements were made by the membrane electrode
technique.  All samples were incubated in darkness.

     Fecal Coliform Bacteria - Fecal coliform bacteria were determined
by membrane filtration/24-hour incubation, as outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
Method No. 408B.

Sedjment Analysis

     Sample Pretreatment -  Large stones were removed and each sample
was homogenized in a blender before weighing out individual  samples
for testing.

     Dry Solids - Dry solids were determined at 104°C after 24 hours, as
outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 13th Edition, Method No. 220.

     Chemical  Oxygen Demand - Chemical  oxygen demand values  were
determined by the dichromate reflux method outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
Method No. 220.
                                    127

-------
     Phosphorus, Total  - Total  phosphorus values  were determined  by
persulfate digestion and the single reagent method outlined  in  Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. 1971,  page 235.

     Phosphorus, Acid Hydrolyzable - Acid hydrolyzable phosphorus was
determined by sulfuric acid hydrolysis and the single reagent method
outlined in Methods for Chemical  Analysis of Water and Wastes.  1971,
page 235.

     Kjeldahl Nitrogen - Kjeldahl nitrogen values were determined by
the digestion/distillation/titration method outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
Method No. 135.

     Ammonia Nitrogen - Ammonia nitrogen values were determined by
the distillation/titration method outlined in Standard Methods  for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition, Method No. 132-A.

     Nitrate Nitrogen - Nitrate nitrogen values were determined by the
brucine sulfate method outlined in Standard Methods for the  Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition, Method No. 213-C.

     Nitrite Nitrogen - Nitrite nitrogen values were determined by the
diazotization method outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition, Method No. 134.

     Oils and Grease - Oils and grease values were determined by
freon/soxlet extraction of the dry solids outlined in FWQA,  Methods
of Chemical Analysis, 1969.

     Cyanide, Total - Total cyanide value was determined by  distilla-
tion/col orimetry as outlined in Standard Methods  for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, Method No. 207-A,C.
                                    128

-------
 10.   RECOMMENDATIONS

      1.  Wasteloads in the Maumee River estuary cannot be rationally
 allocated until its hydraulics and sediment dynamics are thoroughly
 understood.  We recommend that a two-year research program be instituted
 as soon as possible to answer these needs.  For the present, one cannot
 even  specify the hydrological conditions to be used in designing the
 allocation.  The droughtflow of the Maumee River at Waterville, which is
 currently being used as the design condition, is irrelevant to the
 causes of poorest water quality in this, the most populous, most indus-
 trialized part of the largest tributary to the Great Lakes, the largest
 estuary in Lake Erie, the largest river in northern Ohio.

      2.  The estuary is not a riffle and should not be sampled as though
 it were.  Sampling schemes must pay due attention to three major features
 of estuarine behavior: stratification, flow reversals, and irregular
 times of passage.  Virtually all the data which have been amassed by the
 routine monitoring programs in the Toledo area should be discounted for
 this  reason alone.  All these programs must revise their sampling tech-
 niques; they should also pay more attention to sample preservation,
 sample storage, and quality control  in the analytical  laboratory.  The
 continuous monitors for pH, DO, temperature, and conductivity should be
 more  frequently calibrated and better maintained.

      3.  Insofar as current policies and practices for developing waste-
 load  allocations fail  to distinguish estuaries from ^ree-flowing streams,
 they  must be changed.   The 7-day, 10-year low flow of the Maumee at
 Waterville has nothing to do with water quality in the estuary;  in fact,
 the estuary is cleanest when it contains least riverwater.   Poorest
water quality in the estuary is likely to occur when the estuary is low,
warm, stagnant, and filled with riverwater; it will  not occur when the
                                   129

-------
estuary receives large volumes of backflow of cleaner water from Lake
Erie.  The research program suggested in Recommendation #1 must develop
the exact specifications of the estuarine condition to be used in waste-
load allocation.

     4.  Water-quality standards for the lower Maumee and its tributaries
must be clarified and made much more precise.  The "ammonia" standard
should be reworded and redefined to stop the confusion between ammonium
and ammonia.  The several monitoring programs in greater Toledo should be
coordinated; they might profitably join forces to determine exactly when
and where the water-quality standards are violated.

     5.  The principal violations of the numerical water-quality standards
are low DO, high fecal coliform bacteria, and warm water near Toledo
Edison's Acme pov.'erplant.  The non-numerical  standards are violated by
the dribbling (often gushing) sewers, which are responsible for much of
the floating filth and for the bubbling sludge beds in the river.   Because
the poor sewers are partly or wholly responsible for many of the worst
violations of water-quality standards, sewer repair should be undertaken
without delay.  Improvements in Toledo's three dozen sewer regulators
would pay handsome dividends in higher water quality.   Until the sewers
are upgraded, the lower Maumee will  often violate the DO and bacterial
standards, even if Toledo's sewage-treatment plant is re-engineered to
discharge distilled water: The waste must get to the plant through the
sewers if it is to be treated.  The water around the Acme powerplant is
not warm enough to cause any harm by itself;  but Acme's warm outfall
further depresses the estuary's DO by raising the water temperature a
few degrees.   We recommend that this large, warm discharge be carefully
controlled when the river's DO is low; we also recommend that the  DO
standard of 5 mg/1  in the vicinity of the Acme outfall be reconsidered.
                                 130

-------
      6.  The performance of Toledo's sewage-treatment plant is erratic;
though its discharge is often good, there are times when it is deplorable.
Its operation and maintenance should be improved immediately; if these
improvements are not sufficient, the plant must be structurally modified.

      7.  Much more attention must be paid to area sources (especially
landwash) in the drainage area above Waterville.  All the point sources
in the basin are dwarfed by the river's flowing loads when it is in spate.
The point sources do not begin to account for the river's contents, or
for the great majority of the material which the river transports into
Lake Erie.  The lower Maumee would be muddy, loaded with salts, solids,
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus even if all the cities and industries in
the basin were to be wiped off the map.  Better soil conservation and
more efficient use of agricultural chemicals would help; but it is well
to remember that the river was muddy, bordered by malarial swamps, and
obstructed by bars of sand, clay, and gravel long before the basin was
settled in the nineteenth century.  The size of the wasteload from area
sources and rural landwash must be borne in mind when developing waste-
load allocations for the Toledo area: The estuary may store the accumu-
lated wastes of the entire basin for long intervals.

      8.  The level of Lake Erie has been high for the last several
years, and the high water has affected the Maumee estuary.  It is impos-
sible to collect the fundamental data for wasteload allocations in the
estuary until the lake level falls again.  There is, however, much that
can be done meanwhile: Attend to the sewers, the operation of the waste-
treatment plants, the monitoring programs, and the scanty knowledge of
the estuary's hydraulics and sediment dynamics.

      9.  Only one set of water-quality standards has been promulgated
for all  the waters in the Toledo area, even though these waters are
                                 131

-------
diverse in every way:  in quality,  quantity,  hydrology,  and  in  actual
uses.  Surely more should be expected of the capacious  Maumee  estuary
than of little Otter Creek, whose  flow is largely  derived from the  ef-
fluents of petroleum refineries; and surely  the upper reaches  of Swan
Creek (which are little more than  stagnant mosquito pools in dry summers)
could never attain the quality that can be expected of the  estuary, which
usually contains large volumes of  clean water from Lake Erie.   The  current
standards should be revised to reflect the diversity of the various water-
courses in the area, and of their  varying potential  for improvement.

      10.  The situation we have described in the  waters around Toledo
is not unique: Toledo's problems are paralleled in many other  cities
which discharge into hydraulically complex waters.  Greater attention to
these complexities elsewhere will  lighten the tasks to be done in the
lower Maumee by establishing valuable precedents and by improving methods,
policies, and procedures for standard-setting and  wasteload allocation.
Although Toledo's problems are largely local, their implications are
national.  What is learned about the Maumee  estuary will be valuable  in
the Sandusky, Portage, and even the Cuyahoga estuaries; what  is learned
about the St. Louis River and Duluth, or about the Fox River  and Green
Bay, will be useful to policy-makers and pollution-control  specialists
in Toledo, Columbus, Chicago, and  Washington.
                                132

-------
                            APPENDIX  1
         Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature,  and Conductivity
       in the Maumee River Estuary, 21-25 September 1974

     DO, temperature, and conductivity values are tabled, in that
order, at each of ten transects.   These  values demonstrate stratifica-
tion (both horizontal and vertical), and provide evidence of DO and
temperature violations.

     The DO/temperature meter (YSI model 54) was fully calibrated in
the laboratory several times during the  survey, and was recalibrated
against Winkler titrations in the field  several times  each day; it held
calibration extremely well, and never required more than 0.2 mg/1 ad-
justment.  The conductivity meter (YSI model 51) was fully calibrated
in the laboratory several times during the survey.   Our pH meter would
not hold calibration; we have discarded  all pH data from the field
survey.  Otherwise, all the field data -- we believe -- are entirely
reliable.

     The data are tabled in vertical groups of two or  three readings.
The first (top) reading is always DO, in mg/1; the second is tempera-
ture, in degrees Celsius; the third is specific conductance, in micro-
mhos, adjusted to 25°C.  Spatial  relationships are generally preserved
in the tables.  Water depths are  given next to each group of readings.
Variations in stage (due to lake  effects) and an unstable bottom (due
to moving bars of mud and sand) account  for differences in water depth
from day to day — or even from minute to minute.  Diurnal variation
is confounded somewhat by lake effects,  but DO variation was always
less than one mg/1 at any given sampling point.  Note  that DO is always
greater than 5 mg/1 above the Anthony Wayne Bridge (RM 5.4), and is
frequently below 5 from Wayne Bridge to  the mouth of the river.

     Figure 7-18 depicts the transects we used.

                               133

-------
Perrysburg Bridge.   Six piers  in  water,  consecutively  numbered  from
east to west.   RM 14.1.  21  September  1974,  00:27.   DO,  temperature,
and conductivity.
                                  Pier  #
             #5                    #3                    #1
depth (ft)   5'                     7'                   4.5'

           11.2 mg/1               11.4                  11.2
  2        19.2°C   @2'            19.2    @2'            19.0    02'
           740 micromho            740                  730

           11.2                   11.6                  11.8
  4        19.2    @4'             19.4    @4'            19.0    134'
           740                    740                  730
                               134

-------
Highway 80/90 Bridge.   Six piers in water,  consecutively  numbered  from
east to west.  RM 11.4.   21  September 1974,  01:30.   DO, temperature,
and conductivity.
Pier #

ept

2

4



6

8

#6
h(ft) 8'
7.8 mg/1
19.3°C 02'
670 micromho

7.8
19.5 05'
650

7.9
19.6 08'
630
#5
10'
7.6
19.3 02'
660

7.7
19.4 05'
610

7.8
19.5 08'
630
#4
10'
7.6
19.2 @2 '
620

7.8
19.4 05'
630

7.8
19.5 08'
650
#3
10'
7.6
19.2 92'
680

7.7
19.3 05'
600

7.7
19.5 @8'
660
#2
10'
7.7
19.1 02'
670

7.7
19.3 05'
630

7.9
19.3 08'
640
#1
9.5'
7.6
19,0 02'
680

7.7
19.2 05'
650

7.9
19.2 08'
650
                                 135

-------
Highway 80/90 Bridge.   21  September 1974,  14:15.   DO,  temperature,  and
conductivity.  Rain squall  began at 14:20, lasted half an hour.
                                    Pier #
                             #4                   #1
depth(ft)                    9'                   9'
                        7.2 mg/1                 7.6
  2                     19.6°C @2'               19.7  G>2'
                        680 micromho            700
                        7.2                     7.5
                        19.0 @7'                 19.3 @7'
                        680                     690
  8
                                   136

-------
DiSalle Bridge.   Nine piers in water, consecutively numbered  from east
to west.  RM 6.9.  21 September 1974, 04:15.   DO,  temperature,  and
conductivity.
                             Pier #
                  #7                 #4              #1
depth(ft)        12'                15'              13'
             5.7 mg/1                              5.7
  2          19.3°C G»3"                           19.3 @3'
             580 micromho                         540
                                  5.9
  4                               19.3 04'
                                  580
             5.9                                  5.8
  6          19.4 @6'                              19.5 @6'
             580                                  520
                                  6.1
  8                               19.5 @8'
             6.0                                  5.9
             19.5 @9'                              19.6  @9'
 10          590                                  520

                                  6.2
 12                               19.5  @12'
                                  550
 14
                                 137

-------
DiSalle Bridge.   22 September 1974,  13:10.   DO,  temperature, and
conductivity.
                             Pier #
                  #7
depth(ft)        10'
             6.4 mg/1
  2          18.3°C 02'
             610 micromho
  8
             6.5
             18.4
             620
#5
13'
6.6
18.4 @3'
620
#2
13'
7.0
18.2 03
620
                                  6.7             7.0
 10                               18.4  @10'       18.3 010'
                                  600             620
 12
                                  138

-------
DiSalle Bridge.  23 September 1974,  08:45.   DO,  temperature,  and
conductivity.
                              Pier #
                  #7                 #4               #2
depth(ft)        10'                17'              14'
             6.0 mg/1              6.4            6.9
  2          17.8°C @2'            17.5 @2'        17.5 @2'
             650 micromho         630            650
 10
             6.3
             17'807'
                                 6.7             7.0
                                 17.6 @8'        17.5 @8'
                                 620             590
                                                 7.0
 12                                               17.5 012'
                                                 520

 14                               7.0
                                 17.7 @15'
 16                               59°
        Conductivities  at  Pier #4 were remeasured at 09:20, as follows
                          @ 2'   630 micromho
                          @ 8'   580 micromho
                          @ 15'  570 micromho
                                  139

-------
DiSalle Bridge.   23 September  1974,  10:15.  DO, temperature, and
conductivity.
                               Pier #
                                     #4               #2
depth(ft)                           18'              12'
                                  6.7 mg/1         6.9
  2                               17.4°C @2'       17.1
                                  630 micromho     650
                                  6.8
  8                               17.5 @8'
                                  620
 10                                                7.0
 12
 14                               6.9
 16
                                   17.5 015'
                                   620
                                                   17.4
                                                   600
                                  140

-------
DiSalle Bridge.   23 September 1974,  12:40.   DO,  temperature, and
conductivity.
                              Pier #
                  #7                 #4              #2
depth(ft)        14'                18'              14'
             5.5 mg/1              5.6            5.6
  2          18.7°C  02'            18.8 @2'        18.9 @2'
             640 micromho          650            650
             5.5
             18.6 07
             630
 10                                              6.3
 16
5.4
18.6 08'
580
5.8
18.2 08
600
 12
 14                               6.5
                                  17.9 015'
                                  600
                                                 18.0
                                                 580
                                  141

-------
DiSalle Bridge.   24  September  1974, 15:10.  DO, temperature, and
conductivity.
                              Pier #
                  #7                #4              #2
depth(ft)        12'               18'             13'
             6.0 mg/1             6.0             5.7
  2          18.2°C @2'           18.0 @2'        18.0 @2'
             670 micromho        670             670
             6.0
             18.0 @7'
             640
 10
 12
 14
                                  6.0
                                  17.8 @15'
 16                               660
6.0
18.0 08'
670



5.8
17.5 @8'
670
6.0
17.5 @1T
660
                                  142

-------
Anthony Wayne Bridge.   No piers in water.  Flagged white buoy approx.
50' from west bank.  Red lights on bridge span mark limits of naviga-
tion channel, which comes close to the east bank.  RM 5.4.
20 September 1974, 22:00.  DO and temperature.
depth(ft)
  8
 10
 12
 14
 16
 18
White Buoy
  17.5'
4.7 mg/1
20.3°C 02'

5.0
21.4 @4'
5.1
21.4 06'
5.0
21.5 08'
4.3
21.3 010'
                3.7
                20.7  015'    muck
West Red Light     East Red Light
     25'                30'
                                       5.5      5.4       5.9
                                       21.5 @5'  19.3 05'   21  05'
5.0      4.7       4.8
21.5(310'  21.5010'   21  @10'
                       4.6      4.8       5.0
                       20.8015'  20.8015'   20.5 015'
 20
 25
                       4.8      4.9       5.0
                       20.2020'  20.3020'   20.2 020'
                                          5.0
                                          20.0  025'
                                  143

-------
Anthony Wayne Bridge.   21 September 1974,  05:00.   DO,  temperature,  and
conductivity.
depth(ft)

  2
  8
 10
 12
 14
 16
  18
  20
  22
  24
               15' West of Channel      Midchannel     50'  East  of  Channel
      13'

4.7 mg/1
21.2°C @3'
4.7
21.0 no1
32'
                        4.9
                        21.0 08'
                        550
                        5.2
                        20.8 016'
                        560
                        5.3
                        20.5 024'
                        570
26'
                                                     4.7  mg/1
                                                     21.5°C  05'
                                                     500  micromho
                                      5.0
                                      21.3 012'
                                      520
                                      5.2
                                      20.8 020'
                                      530
                                144

-------
Anthony Wayne Bridge.  22 September 1974, 14:00.  DO and temperature.

                 White Buoy         Mldchannel       35' from East Bank
depth(ft)            18'               32'                 28'

                 5.2 mg/1           5.5              5.5
  5              19.6°C 05'          19.4 @5'         19.3 @5'
 10
                 5.4
 15              19.5 (315'
 20
                                    5.6              5.5
 25                                 19.3 @25'         19.2 @25'
                                145

-------
Anthony Wayne Bridge.   24 September 1974, 14:00.
conductivity.
                 White Buoy         Midchannel
depth(ft)            18'               3V
                 5.1 mg/1           5.2
  2              18.4°C @2'         18.6 02'
                 650 micromho       630
  4
                                 DO,  temperature,  and
                                    15'  from  East  Bank
                                          24-
                                    5.5
                                    18.7  @2'
                                    650
  6

  8

 10

 12
5.1
18.4 @10'
580
5.2
18.5 @10'
630
5.7
18.6
630
  14

  16

  18

  20

  22

  24

  26
5.0
18.5 @15'
600
                   5.6
                   18.3 @25'
                   640
                                    5.7
                                    18.6 020'
                                    620
                                146

-------
Cherry Street Bridge.  Seven piers in water, numbered consecutively
from east to west.  Lift span between piers 5 and 6.   RM 4.6.
20 September 1974, 21:25.  DO and temperature.
depth(ft)
  10
Pier #
#7 #6
25' 31'



4.6 4.9
22 05' 23 05'

#1
12'
5.1 mg/1
23°C 02'
5.0
22.5 04'
/I C
             4.5                  4.7
  15          21 015'              20.5 015'
             4.6                  4.6
  20          20.5 020'            20.3 020'
                               147
                                                  21.5 06'


4.4
21 010'


4.4
21.5 08'
4.9 4.3
21 010' 21 010'
4.2
21 012'

-------
Cherry Street Bridge.  DO, temperature, and conductivity.
21 September 1974, 05:45.

                             Pier $
                  #7                 #6              #2
depth(ft)        25'               27.5'            18'
             4.5 mg/1             4.6             4.4
             21.5°C @5'           20 @5'          21
             540 micromho         550
  8

                                                  4.4
 10                                               20 010'
             4.3                  5.0
 12          21 @12'              20.5 (3121
             550                  550

 14                                               4.6
                                                  20 (3151
 16
 18

             4.7                  4.9
 20          20 @20'              20 020'
             570                  530

                                     148

-------
Cherry Street Bridge.   DO,  temperature,  and  conductivity.
23 September 1974, 11:15.
                            Pier #
                  #6                 #4              #2
depth(ft)        28'                24'              14'
             4.3 mg/1             4.4            4.0
  2          19.5°C 02'           19.5 02'        19.5 02'
             610 micromho        610            610
  6

  8
             4.2                  4.2             4.1
 10          20 @10'               19.5  010'       19.5 010'
             610                  610             600

 12

 14

 16

 18

             4.5                  4.1
 20          20 020'               19.5  020'
             610                  610
                                   149

-------
Cherry Street Bridge.   DO,  temperature,  and  conductivity.
24 September 1974, 13:30.
                              Pier  #
                  #7                 #5              #2
depth(ft)        24'               25'             17'
             4.9  mg/1             4.7             4.9
  2          18.6°C  @2'           18.9 @2'        19.0 @2'
             630  micromho         630             630



4.9
18.8 010'
630



4.5
18.9 @10'
620
4.7
19.0 08'
620



 10
 12
 14                                              4.7
 16
 18

             5.0                  4.5
 20          18.8  @20'            18.9 020'
             620                  580
                                       150
                                                 19.0 @15'
                                                 620

-------
Cherry Street Bridge.  DO, temperature,  and  conductivity.
24 September 1974, 22:12.

                              Pier #
                  #7                 #5               #2
depth(ft)        23'                28'              19'
             4.6 mg/1             4.6             4.8
  2          18.8°C @2'            18.7 @2'         19.0 @2'
             650 micromho          630             630
 16
 18



4.7
18.9 @10'
610



4.9
18.9 010'
600
4.7
19.1
610



 10
 12
 14                                              4.7
             4.4                  5.1
             18.8 020'             18.8  @20'
             620                  610

                                    151
                                                  19.0 015'
                                                  610

-------
Craig Bridge.  Five piers in water,  but pier nearest east bank  in  less
than three feet of water.  Piers consecutively numbered  from  east  to
west.  Lift span between piers 4 and 5.  RM 3.6.   24 September  1974,
12:10.  DO, temperature, and conductivity.

                               Pier  #
                  #5
depth(ft)        27'

  1          4.4 mg/1
             22°C 02'
  „          680 micromho
 16
 19
 21
 24          3.7
#3
18'
4.2
22 02'
670

4.0
#2
9.5'
4.1
23 02'
700
3.9
21.2 07
                                  20.7 08'
             4.7                  610
 10          21.4 010'
             650
 13                               3.6
                                  19.9 014'
                                  620
             19.7 025'
             630
                                  152

-------
Craig Bridge.   25 September 1974,  02:40.   DO, temperature, and
conductivity.

                             Pier  #
                  #5                 #3              #2
depth(ft)        25'                2T             10'
             4.6  mg/1              3.5             3.3
  2          19.1°C  @2'            19.4 @2'        19.5 62'
             630  micromho          610             600
                                  3.7
                                  19.8 @8'        57°
                                  600
             4.2
 10          19.3 010'
             600

 12

                                  3.7
 14                               19.5 @14'
                                  580

 16


 18

             4.2
 20          19.4 020'
             590
 22
                                 153
                                                 3.1
                                                 19.4 @7'

-------
Toledo Terminal RR Bridge.   Six piers in water,  consecutively  numbered
from east to west.  RM 1.3.   25 September 1974,  08:10.   DO,
temperature, and conductivity.
                              Pier #
                  #5                 #3              #1
depth(ft)         61                25'             17'
             5.0 mg/1              4.9             5.0
  2          20.0°C §2'            19.9 82'         19.9 @2'
             570 micromho         550             550
  4          5.0
             20.2 @4'
             550
                                  5.0             5.0
 10                               20.2 @10'        19.9 @10'
                                  510             510
 12
 14                                               5.2
 16
 18
                                  5.1
 20                               20.0 @20'
                                  510
 22
                              154
                                                  19.5 @15'
                                                  500

-------
Mouth of Coast Guard Slip, mid-channel.   RM 0.   25 September 1974,
08:45.  DO, temperature, and conductivity.
                         4.4 mg/1
                         19.3°C 02'
                         620 micromho

                         4.4
                         19.3 @10'
                         580

                         4.4
                         19.1 @15'
                         No conductivity
                         reading taken
                             155

-------
Mouth.  The transect is a straight line extending from the Coast Guard
slip  (on the west bank), through the navigation channel between buoys
#49 and #50, to the tip of the coal docks (just east of the mouth of
Duck  Creek).  The three sampling points on this transect are:
(1) white buoy (unnumbered), 150' east of the Coast Guard slip;
(2) midway between buoys #49 and #50; and (3) six feet from the
tip of the coal docks.  These three stations are called "west",
"mid", and "east", respectively.  RM 0.  22 September 1974, 16:15.
DO, temperature, and conductivity.

                        West                  Mid
depth(ft)                10'                  32'
                    5.4 mg/1
  3                 19.5°C G>3'               5.2
                    420 micromho            20 @5'
  6                 4.9                     41°
                    19.7 @7'
  9                 410

 12
                                            5.5
 15                                         19.7 @15'
                                            410
 18
 24
                                            6.3
                                            19.0 @25'
 27                                         410

USGS measured the instantaneous velocity as 0.4 fps.   At 7'  depth,
the West sample was much more turbid (to the unaided  eye) than at 3'

                                156

-------
Mouth.  23 September 1974, 15:11.  DO, temperature, and conductivity.

                                   Mid
depth(ft)                          32'
                              4.8 mg/1
                              19.9°C <92'
  3
                              490 micromho
 12
 15                           6.8
 27
                              18.0 (316'
                              400
 24                           7.7
                              17.4 025'
                              380
                                 157

-------
Mouth.  24 September 1974,  11:30.   DO,  temperature,  and  conductivity.

               West               Mid                East
depth(ft)       8'                 32'                 27'
            4.7 mg/1            5.7               5.5
  3         19.0°C  02'           18.1 02'           18.0 02'
            480 micromho        430               420
            4.6
  6         18.9 06'
            470
 12
                                5.8
 15                             18.1  015'
                                400
 18
                                                  6.7
 21
                                                  17.3 020'
                                                  360
 24
                                6.7
                                17.6 025'
 27                             360
At 6' depth, the west sample was much more turbid (to the unaided
eye) than at 2'.

                                  158

-------
Mouth.  25 September 1974, 09:25.   DO, temperature, and conductivity.

               West                Mid               East
depth(ft)       8'                 30'                27'
             5.2 mg/1            5.7               5.9
             19.5°C (92'           19.3 02'           18.0 @2'
  3          540 micromho        500               490

             4.8
  6          19.6 @6'
             580
 12
                                 5.9
 15                              19.3 @15'
                                 480
 18
                                                   6.2
 21
 24                              6.4
 27
                                 18.9 @25'
                                 450
                                                   18.0 @20'
                                                   410
                                   159

-------
Dike #13.  Quadrilateral  dredge-dump island  at SW end  of  Maumee  Bay.
All samples taken in navigation channel,  midway between buoys  #41  and
#42 (at SE tip of island, 1.5 miles from  mouth of Maumee  River).
 Dike #13.   23 September 1974,  15:27.   DO,  temperature, and Conductivity.
 depth = 34'
                                8.1 mg/1
                                18.5°C @2'
                                400 micromho

                                9.7
                                16.8 @17'
                                350
                                10 ?
                                1U'^         Clearer at 25' than in
                                16-° @25'    upper strata
                                275
                                   160

-------
Dike #13.  24 September 1974, 11:10.   DO,  temperature,  and conductivity.

depth = 36'
                               9.6 mg/1
                               15.5 °C @2'
                               250 micromho
                               10'2             All  strata  less
                               15'3 @18'         turbid than yesterday
                               255
                               10.2
                               15.2 028'
                               230
                                                              <>
Dike #13.  25 September 1974,  07:47.   DO,  temperature,  and  conductivity.

depth = 32'
                               7.9 mg/1
                               16.3°C 018'
                               320 micromho   Jhe  channel bottom 1s
                                              soft goo.   The  boat
                               9 0
                                              anchor  bites, but slides
                               15.2 @18'
                               295

                               10.0
                               15.9 028'
                               280
                                   161

-------
                               APPENDIX 2
    Miscellaneous Observations on the Maumee River and Nearby Streams

      Table A2-1 presents flow measurements (discharge and mean velocity)
kindly made by the USGS during our September survey.
                               TABLE A2-1.
               USGS FLOW MEASUREMENTS, 20-23 SEPTEMBER 1974
Location
Maumee River at
Cherry Street Bridge

Maumee River at
Perrysburg Holland
Road Bridge
Maumee River at
Waterville
Swan Creek above
Byrne Road
Swan Creek at
Highland Park
Ottawa River at Ottawa
Park Golf Course
*These measurements affected
Date
9-20-74
9-21-74
9-22-74
9-20-74
9-21-74

9-21-74

9-22-74

9-22-74

9-23-74

by seiche
Time
18:30
15:00
13:30
15:30
12:00

09:30

11:15

09:30

09:00

action
Mean
Velocity
(fps)
0.08
0.43
0.31
0.21
0.04

1.02

0.46

0.18

0.78

from Lake Erie.
Discharge
(cfs)
-1460*
7240*
5160*
692*
107*

441

3.07

3.95

3.27


      Very little rain fell  during late September and early October, nor
had there been much rain for several  months:  Toledo had a very dry
                                  162

-------
summer.  The total September rainfall at Toledo Express Airport was 1.41
inches, and much of that came in one shower on the 10th.  The USGS flow
measurements in the free-flowing portion of Swan Creek and the Ottawa
River (also called Tenmile Creek, especially in its non-estuarine
reaches) may therefore be taken as representative of their flows in late
summer and early autumn; flows were gaged just above their estuaries.

      Tables A2-2 and A2-3 summarize our analyses of Swan Creek and Ten-
mile Creek/Ottawa River.  All samples of the non-estuarine waters were
taken within the space of a few hours, since the creeks were in steady
state.  The estuarine reaches were sampled much later, to allow for
travel time; samples were collected during a pronounced estuarine flush.
Times of travel are affected by more than lake effects: Low dams (e.g.,
in Swan Creek at South Avenue) further increase detention times.

      Swan Creek at Scott Road is near the top of the drainage basin.  A
golf course is just upstream, and the small Swanton STP is just above the
golf course.  The streambed was soft, bubbling, black, anaerobic muck
which emitted a powerful odor of sulfides when disturbed.  Although the
water was stagnant (there was no perceptible flow on 27-28 September, as
gaged by floating oranges), neither DO nor temperature showed horizontal
stratification.  The water was swarming with mosquitos, flies, and
larvae, and was surfaced with floating patches of green scum.  As table
A2-2 shows, the water violated WQS for DO, "ammonia", and bacteria.
BOD, COD, total carbon, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus were the
highest we observed anywhere in our September survey.  None of this pol-
lution can be blamed on Toledo or on heavy industry.   The infamous Black
Swamp of early nineteenth-century accounts may have resembled this (see
section 2 of the main report).  A Kemmerer sampler was used.

      Swan Creek just upstream of the Route 20A Bridge in Monclova was
nearly dry and almost completely dammed by mud and debris under the
                                   163

-------
TABLE A2-2.  SWAN CREEK AT SCOTT ROAD,  ROUTE  20A,  BYRNE  ROAD,  AND  MONROE  STREET,
             27 SEPTEMBER - 10 OCTOBER  1974
Test Parameter
Date
Time
Stream depth (ft)
Sample depth (ft)
DO (mg/1)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (micromhos)
SS (mg/1 )
TDS (mg/1 )
Total C (mg/1)
Inorganic C (mg/1)
Organic C (mg/1)
COD (mg/1 )
Total N (mg/1)
Kjeldahl N (mg/1)
Ammoniacal N (mg/1)
N03 N (mg/1)
N02 N (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Dissolved P (mg/1)
Fecal Col i form Bacteria
(organisms/100 ml)
20°-BOD!
20°-BOD2
20°-BOD3
20°-BOD4
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD6
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
On 28 September, 14:05, DO was
On 28 September, 14:30, DO was
30n 28 September, 15:30, DO was
Scott Rd.1
9/27/74
15:00
2.5
1.5
0.3*
13.2
850
12
656
93
30
63
140
81.0
49.0
31.9*
0.09
0.010
12.3
10.4
8,900*
3
5
8
13
16
--
34
102
114
1.2*, temperature was
4.5*, temperature was
7.1, temperature was
Route 20A2
9/27/74
15:30
<1.
surface
5.2
14.8
850
4
555
53
27
26
47
1.582
0.99
0.16
0.42
0.012
1.18
1.12
18
<1
1
2
2
2
--
3
5
Byrne Rd.
9/27/74
16:30
<1.
surface
7.8
16.5
740
4
531
50
25
25
23
5.153
1.85
1.71*
1.30
0.293
1.52
1.45
1 ,700*
<1
<1
1
1
2
--
7
7
7 7
17.2°, conductivity was 830.
16.5°, conductivity was 860.
17.0°, conductivity was 700.
Monroe St.
10/8/74
10:00
9
5
--
—
--
50
441
54
23
31
54
17.562
16.2
0.75
0.56
0.052
0.36
0.18
690*
2
4
6
6
--
7
9
10
13
An oil
 slick extended several  yards above and  below  the  sampling  point.

*Violates water-quality  standards.
                                           164

-------
TABLE A2-3.  TENMILE CREEK/OTTAWA RIVER AT SILICA DRIVE,  MONROE STREET,  STICKNEY AVENUE,
             AND SUMMIT STREET, 27 SEPTEMBER - 15 OCTOBER 1974
Test Parameter
Date
Time
Stream depth (ft)
Sample depth (ft)
DO (mg/1 )
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (micromhos)
SS (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
Total C (mg/1)
Inorganic C (mg/1 )
Organic C (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1)
Kjeldahl N (mg/1)
Ammoniacal N (mg/1)
N03 N (mg/1)
N02 N (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Dissolved P (mg/1 )
Fecal Col i form Bacteria
(organisms/100 ml )
20°-BOD1
20°-BOD2
20°-BOD3
20°-BOD4
20°-BOD5
20°-BOD6
20°-BOD10
20°-BOD20
20°-BOD30
Silica Dr.
9/27/74
18:15
<1
surface
10
17
1,070
1
978
38
21
17
23
0.798
0.40
0.20
0.19
0.008
0.11
0.09
93
1
1
1
2
2
—
2
4
5
Monroe St.
9/27/74
18:45
<1
surface
7.9
16
800
12
554
42
19
23
31
1.538
0.54
0.19
0.75
0.058
0.82
0.70
46
1
3
3
4
5
—
7
10
10
Stickney Ave.
10/15/74
11:00
--
5
--
—
--
32
502 .
77
27
50
113
20.52
13.0
7.42*
0.09
0.010
3.15
2.55
276,000*
10
13
14
17
--
23
28
48
48
Summit St.
10/15/74
11:40
--
5
--
--
--
74
320
43
16
27
182
2.464
2.17
0.12
0.15
0.024
0.36
0.11
8
1
3
5
6
~
8
9
11
12
*Violates water-quality standards.
                                           165

-------
bridge.  The flow was a trickle, and was accompanied by a flowing sludge
bank.  The streambed was soft ooze.  The DO standard was violated on both
27 and 28 September, though the violations were far less severe than at
Scott Road, which is several  miles upstream.  The sample for laboratory
analysis was taken a few yards upstream of the bridge by carefully
filling the sample-collection bottle with beakers of creekwater; this
collection method had to be used whenever the stream was less than 2 feet
deep.  We approached the sample point from the downstream direction and
took elaborate precautions to avoid roiling the streambed.  The sample
was collected midstream where the current was least sluggish.

      Swan Creek at Byrne Road Bridge was (as at Route 20A Bridge) too
shallow to sample.  Our sampling point was 150 feet upstream of the
bridge.  The streambed was much coarser than at either Scott Road or
Route 20A and (for the first time) it was firm.  It was not anaerobic,
and neither bubbled nor smelled when disturbed.  Although the streambed
and the water were much pleasanter to behold than at Route 20A, the water
violated both the "ammonia" and bacterial standards.  The streamflow was
approximately 3 cfs, the velocity about 0.5 fps.  The velocity and the
clean streambed must account for the improved DO, because BOD was what
it had been at Route 20A (as were COD and organic carbon), and reduced
forms of nitrogen were much higher.

      Below Byrne Road Swan Creek leaves the suburbs and flows through
one of Toledo's oldest sections; seiche effects from the Maumee estuary
and Lake Erie begin a few miles below Byrne Road.  By the time Swan
Creek has reached its mouth (at Monroe Street), it is nearly 10 ft deep
and 100 ft wide; most of this volume is stored water: This is a small
estuary.  There are several sewer outfalls and regulators in lower Swan
Creek, and malfunctioning regulators (recall that there had been almost
no rain for several months) must be held accountable for the high
                                  166

-------
bacterial concentration at Monroe Street.  The water does not tell the
whole story: The sediments at the mouth of Swan Creek (see section 8 of
the main report) are extremely polluted.  The high SS values in the
Monroe Street sample may be attributed to scouring of the sediments by
the flushing currents; the very high concentration of Kjeldahl nitrogen
was no doubt largely associated with the scoured sediments.  The low TDS
values at Monroe Street must be attributed to backflow from the Maumee
estuary.  One of the lessons to be derived from our survey is this:
Although dilution may not be a solution to pollution, it certainly
improves water quality.  Were it not for estuarine dilution and sewer
outfalls, the water at Monroe Street could scarcely be much better than
it had been at Scott Road: There's nothing like water to improve water
quality.

      This lesson was reinforced by our survey of Tenmile Creek.  The
first point we had picked for sampling was Lathrop Road, upstream of
Berkey, near the top of the drainage basin.   The stream was dry, though
the streambed was still slightly moist here and there.   As for aquatic
life — we saw not so much as a sludge worm or mosquito larva.  Nothing
daunted, we traveled "downstream" (if a dry streambed may be said to
have a flow direction) to Sylvania-Metamora Road, but found nothing but
parched mud for our trouble.  Leaving the rural  portion of the basin,
we next went to Silica Drive, in suburban Sylvania, and at last we found
water, but water of very high conductivity,  owing to the discharge from
a quarry.  The water met all standards, and we found both algae and
rooted plants growing on the rocky bottom.

      Our next stop was Monroe Street, where Tenmile Creek is flowing
through Ottawa Park and Jermain Park; the upstream drainage area is
still  largely suburban and non-industrial.  The  creek was in riffle,
with quantities of slime and algae growing on the submerged rocks.   The

                                  167

-------
air was thick with mosquitoes, and one could smell the nearby Monroe
Street sewer; we took our sample downstream from Monroe Street.  Notice
that conductivity and IDS had dropped to normal, and that the water met
all WQS.  Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and suspended solids were
far higher than they had been at Silica Drive.

      Several miles below Monroe SLi c»it the creek becomes estuarine; the
Ottawa River estuary is very large in relation to the size of Tenmile
Creek.  At Stickney Avenue the estuary is quite large, and there are
large industrial parks and several sewer outfalls above it.   These wastes
have their effects on the water, whose TDS was only about 10% lower than
it was at Monroe Street; hence, there could not have been much dilution
by backflow from Maumee Bay.  The water violated the "ammonia" and bac-
terial standards.  In nearly every respect it was much dirtier than it
had been at Monroe Street: Organic carbon, COD, total nitrogen, unoxidized
nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, bacteria,  and every
form of BOD were much higher.

      At Summit Street, where the estuary becomes very broad, TDS had
fallen to about a third of what it had been in Sylvania,  and was about a
third less than it had been at Stickney Avenue.  The drop in TDS may be
directly attributed to backflow from Maumee Bay, and the  water quality
shows it.  No standards were violated.  SS and COD were higher than at
Stickney (perhaps owing to scour by the flushing currents),  but in
nearly every other respect the water was cleaner.  Dilution  does help.

      The Coast Guard Slip, which connects the lagoon of  the Bay View
Park Yacht Club with the Maumee River, consistently violated the DO
standard (see appendix 1); it also violated the "ammonia" standard.
Table A2-4 shows that the water is enriched in phosphorus and nitrogen
and high in BOD.  There are no sewers or industries to be blamed for
                             168

-------
TABLE A2-4.  MOUTH OF COAST GUARD SLIP, 25 SEPTEMBER 1974

Date                                          9/25/74
Time                                           08:45
Water depth  (ft)                              17
Sample depth  (ft)                             10
DO @ 2'  (mg/1)                                 4.4
DO @ 10'  (mg/1)                                4.4
DO @ 15'  (mg/1)                                4.4
Temperature @ 2' (°C)                          19.3
Temperature @ 10'  (°C)                        19.3
Temperature @ 15'  (°C)                        19.1
Conductivity @ 2'  (micromhos)                620
Conductivity @ 10'  (micromhos)                580
Total P                                         0.33
Dissolved P                                     0.17
Total N                                         6.522
Kjeldahl N                                      3.11
Ammoniacal N                                    2.57
N03 N                                           0.69
N02 N                                           0.152
20°-BOD1                                        1
20°-BOD2                                        2
20°-BOD3                                        4
20°-BOD4                                        7
20°-BOD5                                       10
20°-BOD10                                      15
20°-BOD20                                      16
20°-BOD30                                      17
                           169

-------
these conditions, yet something is plainly wrong.   When we took our
sample, the lake stage had been falling all night,  so water from the
mooring lagoon had had over twelve hours to drain  into the estuary.
Perhaps the difficulty may be traced in part to stratified currents of
wastes from the STP; perhaps there is faulty waste  management at the
yacht club or at the several Federal installations.  The matter bears
looking into.
                             170

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1- Report No. 2.
SHEET EPA-905/9-74-018
4. Title and Subtitle
Water Pollution Investigation: Maumee River and Toledo A<*ea
7. Author(s)
J. Horowitz, 0. R. Adams, and L. A. Bazel
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Enviro-Control , Inc.
960 Thompson Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20852
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604 EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar
S.N^ecipient's Accession No.
"5. Report Date
January 1975
6.
8. Performing Organization Re{
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Nc
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA Contract No.
68-01-1567
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final Report
14.
is. supplementary Notes Additional support from the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of
Governments, H. B. Russelman, Water Quality Project Director under a U.S. Environmen
Protection Agency Section 208 Grant (No. P00515101).
16. Abstracts
  The combination  of long retention  times in the Maumee  estuary, large rural  sources c
  landwash, sludge beds below river  mile 6, poor sewerage,  a  large cooling-water dis-
  charge from the  Acme powerplant, and  the erratic performance of Toledo's  sewage
  treatment plant  has degraded the lower Maumee River; several  nearby streams are
  heavily polluted.   These waters are loaded with solids, they are enriched with nutri
  ents and organics, and they violate Ohio's oxygen and  bacterial standards.   Even
  if Toledo were to be wiped off the map, these conditions  would not entirely disap-
  pear, nor would  many of them be much  changed.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis.  17o. Descriptors
          Water Quality, Water Pollution
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
          Toledo Area,  Maumee River, Lake  Erie,  Great Lakes, Chemical  Parameters
17c. COSATI Field/Group
is. Availability statement Limited number of copies  without
  charge from U.S.Environmental Protection  Agency, at
  cost of reproduction from National Technical
  Information Service.
19. Security Class (This
   Report)
     UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
   Page
	UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
                                 THIS FORM MAY RE REPRODUCED
                                                                             USCOMM-DC 14952'

-------