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'
------- |