VOLUME 2
                                          June 27,1969
                                          Cleveland, Ohio
PROGRESS  EVALUATION  MEETING
In the Matter off  Pollution of Lake Erie  and its
Tributaries (Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania.)
  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-------

-------
                                                                          333
        5«  The  fouling of power generating turbines.
        6.  The  resulting spread of water borne disease carrying
           bacteria.
        7.  The  resulting reduction of area of navigation channels.
        8.  The  reduction of diversability of waters for recreational
           purposes.
        9.  And  the resulting increased danger of flooding due to
           restriction of water passage channels.
        Mr. Bennett stated that dredging alone, due primarily to soil
erosion, costs  about one half billion dollars annually.  However, he
emphasized that agriculture in Ohio has done more toward control of
pollution, through soil conservation practices, than any other group.
        In closing, Mr. Bennett recommended strongly that agricultural
agencies at all levels Join with other agencies at the earliest possible
time to plan new imaginative ways to control pollution of all kinds which
have a  deleterious effect on water quality enhancement.
        Having heard the comments as hereinabove reported, the sub-committee
coordinator, Mr. Neal, immediately made an appointment and in the company
of Mr.  Robinson, visited Mr. Harrold and Dr. Edwards at Coshocton.  They
were furnished  with all of the annual reports and available data appropo
to the  subject.  Studies of nutrient run-off were completed in the years
1966-67-68.
        It must  here be pointed out that the information contained in
these reports were for small, isolated watersheds in hilly country
during  periods  of relatively low rainfall.   These factors are here
mentioned to point out (a) that caution must be exercised in extrapolating
any data of this sort out to cover the vast portion of the North American

-------
                                                                          334
Continent tributary to the Great Lakes, (b) that conditions or
characteristics of nutrient pick-up and run-off in flat terrain
might be somewhat different than in the experimental fields and
(c) the pick-up and distribution of nutrients due to run-off might
be affected by the amount, intensity, duration, or frequency of
rains during a given year.
       Dr. Burley Schmidt of the United States Department of
Agriculture, Wooster Experimental Station reports that a similar
study is presently proposed for five flat terrain watersheds in
Northwestern Ohio.  He hopes that these projects can be started this
year.  The results of this proposed study project should prove to
be particularly appropriate to the Lake Erie situation.  In addition,
Dr. Wadleigh of the U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service, Soil and
Water Conservation Research Division in Beltsville, Maryland, through
Mr. J. Lunin, Chief Soil Chemist reports the initiation of studies
this year in two larger watersheds, one in Iowa, the other in Pennsylvania.
He further suggests that it will probably be two years before any
significant data on these watersheds will be available.
       The annual reports mentioned above were reviewed by Mr. Neal
who extracted the pertinent information and made a digest of the
data which is included herein, identified as TABLE I.  The next
table (TABLE II), is a reproduction of a table previously furnished
to the Ad Hoc Committee showing Phosphate Loads Discharged to Lake
Erie (based on information obtained from F.W.P.C.A.)

-------
                                                                                                                         335
w
J
PQ






Pi
cu
^j
rd
CE

-d
s

r-H
•H
Q
CrO

•

•H
Q

^r4,
0
Pi
rd
0)
to
cu
fr^

q
o
•H
•P
rd

Pi
cu
w
q
o
0
CO

cu
r~\
W
Pi
cu
p
rd


rH
H

CO
rrj
q
rd

^t
H
rH
•H
&

UH
O

CU

•rH
p
rd
•P
q
cu
CO
Q)
Pi

cu
Pi
were
3
Q
bO

CO
•H
f.
•P

^>
_t~\

q
o
•H
-p
rd
bO
•H
p
to
0)

q
•H

Pi
cu
•d
§

to
•d
rH
cu
•H
UH

CU
rC
H


























W
rd
o
•rH
Pi
cu


UH
UH
O
q

PI

bO
q
•rH
Pi

-d
-d
cu
p
o
Q)
H
H
0
O

g
0)
IS

10
Q)
H
a,
E
rd
CO


0
CO
Pi
rd
0)
£X|

5
O
H
UH
IS
0
rH

bO
q
•H
c.
p
rd

»-*!
H
c
•H
rd
B






































J^
o
M
£
13
w
s
M
P^;
W
X
w
w
fi^
^~j
£-H
p^
pn



































r^>
'd
rj
•P
CO

Pi
rd
•H
•rH
B
•H
w
rd

Q)
CO
0

O
Pi
PH
CO
rd
fC\

q
0
•H
•P
rd
-P
CO

H
rd
-P
q
cu
B
•H
Pi
0)
PH
w
PI
cu
-p
co
O
o
B=
•
^

•
O

•
C-O

*
p")

cu
,c
-p

UH
0

-P
-d
•H
6
0
CO

J>^
cu
H
Pi

PQ

•
.t1
Q





•d
cu
•p
P*
rd
4-*
(rO

0)
^

£*•>
rO

4~ '
o
CU
•n
O
P.
PH
CU
f.
P

4->
rd
^:
-p

rH
0
UH
tt)
PH
O


CO
•H

M
O
•H
0
-P
CO
cu
Jr*,
•P
Pi
O
q

q
•H

CO
-d

rt~\
to
Pi
0)
-p
rd
?

C
•rH
rd
a
cu
•p

•p
rd
rH
UH

ft
CU
>
•H
UH

UH
O
































^-s
•
cu
cu
•p
p
•H
g
^
0
O
1
PM
CU
•P

O
P

•P
CO
cu
Pi
Q)
-P
q
•H

rH
rd
cu
Pi

UH
O

0)
rQ

*d
•H

O

CO
•H
f.
r_ )
^^


•
Pi
rd
CU


•P
X
CU










































>H
P4
|
D
CO
-
H
^^














































H

bO
B

in
H
•

fO

UH
0

Q)
3
H
rd
>

q
rd
cu
B

•p
CO
CU
,q
bO
•H
JZ

CU

•P
T3
CU
fi
O
rd
Q)
rH

o
•H
•p
rd
Pi
•P
q
Q)
CJ
q
o
o

P-I
-d
0)
•p
fn
a
cu
Pi

co
rd


Q)

r—1
rd
>

co
•H
f]
H


•
£••»
CD
cn
H

q
•rH

rrj
CU
•P
CO
cu
•p

CO
1u
,q
co
rH
CU
•P
rd
S
cu
f:
•P

M-t
o

^^
q
rd

Pi
0
UH

•P
O
q
T)
q
rd

ID
CD
cn
H

q


q
o
•H
P
rd
0
•H
H
OH
p.
rd

rH
cu
N
•H
rH
•H
•P
P.
cu
UH

*"O
rd
•^
•P
rd

-P

ro
cu
'to
Pi
cu
-p
m


cu

•p •
r-
Pi CO
O cn
ti . ^_J

T3
PI
rd
q
Pi
rd


cu

•p

Jj
O
rH

rQ

Q)
H
•rH
B

j-
^^
H

«
rH

bO
B

oo
•
H

to
rd

q
.0
•H
-P
rd
Pi
•p
q
o
q
o
o

PH

-P
CO
0)
,C
bO
•H
ffi
•
H
**^
bO
E
CN
CM
•
0

co
rd
*$,

•d
cu

(/)
Pi
cu
•p
rd


CU
E
rd
CO

cu
J^
-p

UH
0

Q)

H
rd
>
q
rd
cu
E

cu

-p
cu
, — 1
• H
^f~\
Jj

•*
-p
o
rH

cu
cu
UH
                                                                              CO

                                                                             T)
                                                                              Q)


                                                                              CO
                                                                              Pi
                                                                              CU
                                                                             -P
                                                                             I
                                                                             CD
                                                                             cn
 w
'd
 cu
,q
 w
 Pi
 cu
•p
 w>
 s
.J










































•
•*
Q
•
CO
•
7~^

^H
PQ

W
Q
rf
S

C/D
H
£5
w
s
s
o
o





















co
rd


Q)
Pi
CU
,q
H


•
CO
cu
•p
rd
Pi

UH
UH
0
q
^
Pi

-d

rd

•H
rH
rd
UH
q
•H
rd
Pi

IS
o
rH
>1

Pi
•H
rd
UH

UH
O

co
Pi
rd
cu
£*"!

cu
Pi
0)
is

r^.
ID
cn
H

T)
q
rd

ID
(D
cn
__j
rn
^q
•p
Q
PQ
S



q
o
•H
W
O
Pi
CU

-d
q
rd

UH
UH
O


Pi

•P
rd

p


UH
O

q
o
•H
•P
rd
Pi
•P
q
,

rH
rrj
E
(M
O
q

£>j
rH
P,
rO
bo a>
0)
p
rd
0
•H
-d
q
•H

UH
UH
O
q

Pi

*O
q
rd

rH
rH
rd
M-4
q

rd


UH
O

CO
•d
P,
o
o
CU


•p
CO
rd
PM


•
q
o
•H
co
o
Pi
CU
Q)
rH
•P
•P
•H
H
Pi
0)

•H
f~\

TD
q
rrj

co
-p
q

o
E
rd

Pi
O)
-p
rd
cu
6


•
cu
w
rd
Pi
CU
>


Jj
0
rH
CU
c\

rH
rH
CU
£j

cu
Pi
0)
^

r^
CD
CT)
rH

q
rd

ID
to
CD
Pi
O
UH
q

CU
Pi
O
E

q
•H

UH
UH
O
q
3
Pi

P,
cu
f]
bO
•H
r;

q


fd
cu
•p
o
0)
0,
X
cu

cu
M

£*">
rd


w
p
Pi
0

fl.
CO
0

ex

q
rd

£2
•rH
Pi
rH
cu
•H
r0

-------
    ..V. '
    \.-.x
SPi
 r-i!
S
 o
o
 COl
 ft
 &

 


•H

rCj £4
0
V O
ro -p

O
*
O
Q>
o








o
OJ
i
a
OJ
i
ir\


<^
^^^
•
r^
ri
O
CO
H
lf\
O
d
irs
O

O
IfN
0
O
o
OJ
o
OJ
1
ir\
^
•»^
•
o
f~l
O
ir\

*\
o
^.jj
>^j
CJ
rt
0

<£
^^•^
o


VO
ir\
o
o
IfN
O

O
OJ
O
o
OJ
o
OJ
ir\

•n
«
H

t*~"
VD
OJ
t%
O

^*
c
tt!


<£
**^.^
c
o
-p
•d"
«
OJ
VO
o
o
ir\
0

O
H
OJ
O
                                                                                                                                 336
                                                                vo
                                                                to
                                                                tt
                             1
                             co
                             g
                             S
                                                                                   •e
                                                                                CO «H
                                                                                fH  «)
                                                                                CI v-i
                                                                                N 
                                                                                O
                                                                                       in,
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       IT"
                                                                                       O
                                                             trs
                                                             o
O
  •
O



    so
                   JS
                   vo
                   C7\
                   r-i
                          O
                          cd

                         CJ
                         CO
                         OJ
                         r-J
VD
cr»
H
                             o
                             rt
                            co
r-i

d
      VO    VO
       ON    ^
       r-i    H
                                          0)
                                          fH
                                          y
       H
        *\
       ro



       o*
                                          to
                                           V)
•H O 0
^H r**i TH
PO C
Pq CJ Ri
O CJ
rl 1-1 VO
0 C—

r>- o
6s- f-i
H o
*'r- '
• r/>
0 cd
fii P.
vb
ON
H
w
O
o
fi co
13 O
i-H CO
O
•rt «
Vl CO
*«2
fii o
O p

o '
«^
VO V
O'\ }~
r-l £
-P
• w
O nJ
ia; (^
w
ft>

b
a

^ j**
^3"

A
Sti
O
fn
(C
CVJ

H fl."
'."1
• O
O O

                                                           10

-------
                                                                                              337


3
-tf
vO
*
O

«M
O

o>
2
3
!>

cct
•3
fl>
x:
0
cd
Of
1*
C
O
•H
+3
cd
W)
•rS
-P
CO
£
.S

£4

a,
CO

o
c;
o

bO
.5
^
•5
'Cf
o
^
?-i
g
o
o

CO
•H
X!
E-«


•
T>
Q)
x:
co
t-,
0>
-p
s
>

G)
X!
*>
•s
X!
*>

•e
o
p<
0
;-!

•d
s

Q
CO

0)
X!
-P
5
T3
O
4J

>
CO
•cf

Cy
«-i
P<
o
^
o
o
A
6-<

•
TJ
rH
O
•H
s>>
+J
g
•S
*^J
O
CO

1

d
o
•H
CO
o
f-,


                                            cd
                                           •p
                                            o
                                           -P

                                            Q>
                        UN

                        •o
                         a>
                        *>
                                            o
                                            o
                                           TJ
                                            o
                                           X!
                                            W
                                            ^<
                                            O

                                           1

                                            s

                                            §
                                            o
                                            o

                                           3
                                                  CO

                                                 43
                                                  0
                                     CM
                                      O

                                      0)

                                     15
                                      ^
                                                 3    t
                                                 •a     o
                                                  o     p,
                                                  <»     CT
                                                 «H     C
                                                        *•<
                                                       -P
                               §    I



                               £    £

                               C!    ca
                               O    CO
                                     -p

                                     o
                                                        ca
                                                       
 c
 o
•H
 O
•H
                   d>
                   A
                  Tt
                   fn
I
+3
 CtJ
+3
 CO

 §

                         g
                         o
                         cd
                               cv

                               CO
§
                                                        0
                                                        «H
                                                        o

-------
                                     333
r^i
'tf
•i-f
r-l
O
W
J
. .
CO "CO | I
H H

u \
vo
CO




JZ
fl}
E"1
!?
•6
5

*

to
o
f—1
P<
'-•

CO

CO ^
VO
,<:ON co
-* • 	 t v/-,
. 1 ' VV
^ JT' r~i
J fj
•N ! „£.! *H
it CTJ ITS
M ?.( r-l
: \ •:>
i •'— ^*»
: • ''j v'3.

•ii", "to
,' • r~i G f c»
i j H O C.
\:' ^"t f"~i
i6 1 tn O^
O p
G ?•*
3 O
>H , _

s* b
•H
fj
t<7 ^>
r"l •!-(
M 4-1
^~i f "'
v': ^
U' u p
o fo
/-i fJ
P-4 *-i
Pi
^ ••( O
o :-<

•:: w
o •(-:

i-"* 'fH
r j ' -i
TM O

"ri 3

q

O .'«
O C-t









i-







o i
w I
o:' i
rV^
P< I
•a -d- ITN o t-l -rf-
•H \D VD VO VO i VO

•H
i~i (

1 j CO
VO
PH! ON
r-i


ITS ,0 ,0 £>
r-l H ft H
S ON. O ON
03 O ITN IA
^ * * •
i-t H
«H
O 1
1
e o
JH w  ^ -H
-: «HJ CU H O O cr1 H
-HOj« • • • >> «H O
,0 H w

r^
Q>
^»
o
s
CJ
^1

en
^3
j_{
o

P-c
to

iH r-l r-i H H 65
f~*
V)
p
1
CO
O
«H
^™» O
CJ s~*>
r-\ W C O
-P 0) O CO
•i-5 H -H •
d P^ -p C\J
o a to

,
EH rt

r-! -P *"*

,C H tf) J5 O «< ,C w P-i CJ ^n fcO O rt fl E! -H O H •P rCJ tlj fn nj •P ?H C rt G^ f>j 0 C o f-i o rt O »Q H CO m O vo CO -J, • s. f-^ 12


-------
                                                                                                                                              339
w

pq
       w
       M
       Oi
       w
          ft 1
    M   E
    0)   O

    1o£
<
,J

o
t-<
       O  W  0)
       woe
       O J3  -H
       &S PL,  (0
O  (0  O
CO  P
1-1  O   tO
Q  H  P
        fO
CO  >, Q
O  tO
<  Q   C
O  \  O
J  W


W  P   CJ
H  3   CO
<  o   m
ffi  CU  OQ

CO
o
                                (0
 o
I
                                W
                                0)
                               -P
                                W
                                to
                            i-H
                           •H
                            O
                           •H


                           I
                               •H  O
                               O  H
                                                    O  CO (£>
                                                    4-  LO CD
                                                    o  co oo
                                                               o o
                                                               o o
                                                               c-~ en
                                                    en
                                                        CN
r-
0
H
A
co



_,.
r-

ft
H

CO
!>
CO
ft
r-j

0
CN
CN
ft
j-
r-t
^
0
CO



en c-

in



» 00
• en
H



r^
(^3
00
ft
CN
H
OO
CO
co
ft
tO
CO
                                                    o  o o
                                                    O  CN O
                                                    CN  en o
                                                    CN
                                                              o  o
                                                              O  00
                                                              O  3-
                                                                A

                                                              ID
                                                                         O
                                                                         O
                                                                         10
                                                                           r>

                                                                         CN
                                                                         CO
                                             CO  CN CN CN  CO CN
                                             co  ;r co i>   en
00

co
                 o  o
                 O  CN
                 o
C~  O O  O 00  O
CN  in r-t  in co  o
                                                                                       o oo  o o
                                                                                       H CO  in H
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                     CN  CN
                                                                     co  co
                                                                     UD
                                                                                CO

                                                                                (Q
                                                                                       w
                                                                                       o
                                                                                          00 CN O CO  00 LO
                                                                                          LO d"    O  CN <-\
                                                                                          LO r—I    in  H CD
                                                                                                         ft  ft

                                                                                                        H 00
                                                                                                                      o ic  o o
                                                                                                                              CN
                                                                                                                              •H
                                                                                        CD
                                                                                        CO
                                                                                        en

                                                                                        CO
                                                                                        CN
O  O 00
O  =f en
CD  co r^
  ft  ft
CO  H
ID
                                                               CD O
                                                               O O
                                                               c- d-
                                                                     CN
                                          (3
                                          W)
                                          •H

                                          •§
                                          •H
                                                     a
                                                     c
                                                 G -H
                                                 2
                                                                         00

                                                                         CO

                                                                         CN
                                                                           ft

                                                                         CO
                                                                                (3
                                                                                •H
                                                                                W
                                                                                PH
                                                                                0
                                                                                m
                                                                                •p
                                             OOOOOOt>rlOO-   C^
                                             ocoinOinocDin    H   02
                                             I>CO    C^iHCOiHCN    HCO
                                                            «   ft                 "
                                                           H en                 CN
                                                                                                                                            CN
                                                                                                 OS
                                                                                                 AS
                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                           3
                                                                                        o 
                                                                                       •H
                                                 91
                                                                                                               0)
                                                                                                                      OS
                                                                                                                      Oi
                                                 g
                            tO     CO  O
               -   tO       •  H P «H -rH
          oiost>ocoi:3ak,c
                  o «H     ,/a  to w o
          AS  t>> ,C  P-t *X3  fO  Q)
           O  AS   fO  bO  (3  P  G
           -j   •   •   -   •  is  c
                            co  0
                            < U
                                                                                                            (0   O
                                                                                                           i—1   0
                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                     AS
                                                                                                                  O  U
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    cu

                                                                                    o
•P
0
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                           •H

-------
                                                                                                                                      340
 (0
•H  CO
 fc  CU
 •P  -P
 CO  CO
 3  .tO
M
•O
I
 O  +

 M  O
 CU  O
•-H  O
•P   «
•H  O
CJ  M
 fO
 •P
 O
H
                        r- o  CN H  CN LO
                        .3- H  in CN  CO US
                            o
                            3-
                            ID
                                                         CT> CN  in
                                                         d- 01  d-
                                                         in o  ID
                                                                                O)
                                                                                m
                                                                      m o
                                                                      oo o
                                                                      d- o
                                                                        A   A
                                                                      CO O
                                                                      in CN
                                                     in
                                                     CO
                                                     a-
                                                       *
                                                     00
                                                     co
                        CN o  
                                           ft
                                         CO
                                       O CO (7>
                                       O ID O>
                                       d- co
                                                                          CM
                                                                          00
                                                                                co
                                                                                H
                                                                                        CN
                                                                          o
                                                                          O
                                                                          o
                                                                       ID O
                                                                       d- CN
                                                                                                   CM
                                                                                                   ID
                                                                                                   CN
                        m o  o
           O O  O
                  O
                  in

                  CM
                                                               o o
                                                               in m
                                                         oo
                                                         in
                                                         co
                                                                                              H

                                                                                                A
                                                                                              CD
                                                    ID
                                                                   d-  ID
                                                               cn c--  *
                                                                  ID  in
                                  U
                     •P
                    §
X. CJ  CU
 (1)      >
 0) .C -H
 P  O Pi
O «H
                               C -M
                               CC
                               !>»  OJ
                                O  CU
                                    >

                                A^ Di
                                CO
                                3 T)
                                       O

                                       CO

                                       bO
                                                    W
                                              ft
                                              •H
                                               P
                                       tO  O  H
                                       fc rH
                                       (0  10
                                        tO  3
                                       CJ  «
                                                                O
                                                                c
                                                                •rH
                                                                a
                                                         ID
                                                         O
                                                                                CN
                                                                                 w
                                                                                 to
                                                                                PQ
                                                     «h  to
                                                         !H
                                                      CO  4->
                                                     •-I  C
                                                      fO  CU
                                                     •P  CJ
                                                      O
                                                     H
                                                                                              ID
                                                                                              CM
                                                                                              O
                                           c
                                          •H
                                           W
                                           (0  C
                                                                                            C  H
                                                                                            M  tO
                                                                                            CU  P
                                    co
                                    H  W
                                    10  0)
                                                                                               o

-------
                                                                         3U
A review of Table I leads to several basic impressions.

   1.  That the bare minimum of phosphates contributed from
       run-off of the fertilized test fields tested in 1967
       was 0.05 parts per million (ppm) on a small watershed
       basis.

   2.  That the average of the small watershed test fields
       studied in 1967 measured in the magnitude of 0.0? with
       a high of 0.28 ppm.

   3.  For large watersheds tested in 1967 the range was from a
       high of 1.3 ppm to a low of 0.05 in mixed crop land, pasture,
       and feed lots.  However it is noted that in the larger
       watersheds the rates of contribution from mixed crop land
       and pastures (without feed lots) is virtually the same as
       for wooded areas (that is a concentration of 0.05 ppm.).

   4.  A review of all the data included in Table I indicates that
       feed lots do contribute heavily toward phosphate contribution.

   5.  That years of heavier rainfall would probably increase the
       concentration of phosphates in the run-off.

In addition, the sub-committee has proceeded to extrapolate data from
Table I and II although fully recognizing that any conclusions of
impressions drawn from this preliminary data which may affect an area
as large as the Great Lakes watershed may be inaccurate.
In so doing, it was necessary to make some basic ground rules:

   1.  The committee has limited itself, in the following
       examples, to the inflow to Lake Erie through the Detroit
       River (first line of Table II.)

   2.  That the total flow in the river of 91,040 pounds per day
       of phosphates is a measured, or known, quantity and that
       the contributions from municipal, industrial land run-off
       is calculated.

   3.  Not having available any information base for separation of
       municipal and industrial these two have been lumped together.

   4.  Taking the figure of 91,040 pounds per day (ppd) as known and
       calculating the following:

          a.  the run-off, by use of the factors described in
              5a, 5b, and 5c below.

          b.  determine the municipal and industrial contribution
              in ppd by use of the factor described in 5a, 5b,  and
              5c.

                               15

-------
                                                                         342
          e.  determine load from municipal and industrial contribution
              calculating 80# removal of phosphates.

          d.  total resulting percentage of reduction of phosphates from
              the Detroit River into Lake Erie.

   5.  The  contribution rates in the following example are as follows:

          a.  0.05 ppa, assuming all land area tributary to be
              forest land, as if man had never set foot oa this
              continent.

          b.  0.0? ppm, for minimum mixed land area (no animals nor
              human waste except that included in municipal and
              industrial) in an extremely dry year.

          c.  0.105 ppm, increasing item b  *>y about 50$ to
              provide for a year of normal rainfall.

COMMITTEE COMMENT;

   It is felt that from the preliminary data, these factors are extremely
conservative, but it would be an unfair and dangerous assumption to use
higher values considering the amount and extent of available data.
Rate (ppm)
a) 0.05
b) 0.07
c) 0.105
Total
ppd
91,040
91,040
91,040
Calc Land
ppd
49,140
68,796
103,194
Mun & Ind
ppd
41,900
22,244
80£ reduction
of Mun & Ind
ppd
33,520
17,795
Resulting %
reduction of
total
36.8*
19.5*
        In the next example, the sub-committee has used the same contribution

rates as described in Items 5a, 5b, and 5c, and assumed that perhaps the data

on municipal and industrial discharge was more accurately known.  It then

calculated the land run-off contribution, added these two figures together

to arrive at a total, assumed an 80^ removal from all municipal and industrial

waste discharge then calculated the resulting percent of removal from the

adjusted total entering the Lake from this single source.
                                16

-------
                                                                            343
  Rate  (ppm)     Man & Ind  Calculated     Total   80* reduction of  Resulting %
                   ppd      Land Run-off    ppd    'Man. & Ind, ppd   reduction of
                                 ppd                                    total
a) 0.05
b) 0.07
c) 0.105
66,840,
66,840
66,840
49,140
68,796
103,194
115,980
135,636
170,034
53,472
53,472
53,472
46.1#
39.4*
31.4*
          The two tables above would seem to indicate that 80* removal of

  phosphates from the Municipal and Industrial discharges tributary to this

  one source of in-put into the lake would not significantly improve the

  water quality in the lake.

          However, preliminary data would also seem to indicate that there

  would be a 0.05 ppm phosphate contribution from all land tributary to the

  lake even if it were still in its natural state.  Inasmuch as this alone

  is probably more than enough to create and support the algal bloom in

  Lake Erie it would seem that the present state of eutrophication in Lake

  Erie is totally natural and that the aging process of our environment

  is out of our hands.  The sub-committee cannot accept this hypothesis	

  we who are responsible for the heritage and environment we pass on to

  future generations must make a concerted effort to do what can be done.


III.  CONCLUSIONS;

          a.  Existing data on phosphate contribution from land run-off
              must  be updated and reinforced by extensive research.

          b.  Although not an assignment of the sub-committee,  and
              although no data as such was gathered,  or in fact sought,
              in the process of taking a glossary look at agricultural
              pollution the subject of herbicide, and pesticide pollution
              in land run-off was recognized—the toxic effect  of this form
              of pollution is alarming.
                                 17

-------
                                                                           344
         c.  A total all-out effort must be made by all segments of our
             economy to reduce the nutrients and other pollutants from
             entering any of our waters.

         d.  The effort required will be expensive, probably far beyond
             our most pessimistic estimates.


IV.  RECOMMENDATION:

         The sub-conmittee recognizes that the Ohio Department of Health,

 Division of Engineering, being knowledgeable of the many unanswered

 questions regarding phosphorus concentrations in Lake Erie, has agreed

 as a Lake Erie Conference Conferee that steps should be taken towards

 removal of at least 80/6 of the phosphorous flowing to Lake Erie.  In

 addition, all cities within the Ohio portion of the Lake Erie Basin are

 now required to provide phosphorous removal facilities in the development

 of new plants or expansions of presently operating plants.  In the near

 future phosphorus removal facilities will be required at all existing

 city plants within the Lake Erie Basin.

         The sub-committee recommends that Directors of other affected

 Departments of State and federal governments be made aware of the

 pollution by phosphates, other nutrients, herbicides and pesticides.

 That they further be aware of the need for extensive and comprehensive

 studies to (a) accurately identify and determine concentrations of all

 waste sources in relation to phosphorous, (b) monitor tributary streams

 and Lake Erie to explain cijemical and biological phenomena of algae

 blooms in the western basin, (c) devise ways, means, and programs for

 control of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other sources.
                                18

-------
                                                                                       345
CARL B.  STOKES, MAYOR
                                         CITY  OF CLEVELAND
                                          DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
                                                 RALPH  C. TYLER,
                                                      DIRECTOR
     JOHN R. WOLFS,
 COMMISSIONER - CITY ENGINEER
June 27,  1969
  PERRY F. NUHN,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
         RE:  Federal Lake Erie  Pollution Enforcement Conference


         This is to advise that  the City of Cleveland has complied to Permit No.
         468.15 as follows:


         HEIGHTS SANITARY TRUNK  SEWER

              This work is under contract for engineering services with the
         Consulting Firm of Havens & Emerson, to be performed in connection with
         preliminary planning for the Heights Sanitary Trunk Sewer, authorized by
         Purchase Order #202-9548.

              The consultant has advised us, as of March 28, 1969, that -

              Preliminary work in connection with the Heights Sanitary Trunk
         Sewer will be completed as soon as the draft, as submitted, incorporates
         the review of the City  of Cleveland as to scope and extent of contents.
         The report has selected four routes.  Each has been evaluated with the
         costs.  Some additional soil borings are still in progress.  The con-
         nection of the Heights  Sanitary Trunk Sewer at the Easterly Wastewater
         Treatment Plant has been evaluated.  The contract for construction is re-
         commended to be in three sections.  Except for the printing of the final
         document, the work has  been virtually completed.
         BROADWAY SANITARY TRUNK  SEWER

              This work is being  done by the firm of Glaus, Pyle, Schomer,  Burns,
         and DeHaven,  for engineering services performed in connection with preli-
         minary planning for the  Broadway Sanitary Trunk Sewer, authorized  by
         Purchase Order #202-9547.
              The work  on this sewer has provided the City with a study of alternates
         with a recommended  line and grade.  We have evaluated this information and
         authorized soil  borings to be made along the preferred route.   It is
         estimated that 95%  of the work has been completed to date.

-------
                                                                              346
FEDERAL LAKE ERIE POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Page 2
                                                     June  .-.7,  1939
BROADWAY SANITARY TRUNK SEWER (Continued)

     A preliminary draft has been submitted to the City (February 25,  1969)
and the City has reviewed and returned it to the Consultant along with our
comments that are to be incorporated into the final preliminary planning
document.
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN SANITARY TRUNK SEWER

     This work is under contract with the Firm of Alden E.  Stilson &
Associates for engineering services performed in connection with preli-
minary planning for the Southwest Suburban Sanitary Trunk Sewer,
authorized by Purchase Order #202-9546.

     The Consultant, as of April 14, 1969, has transmitted copies of the
data developed from studies of the subject project.  This compilation
is unedited at this time, as to the City's comments and review of the
material.  The final report and transmittal of the copies will proceed
immediately upon the City's approval.
PROJECTS COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

     1.  Big Creek Interceptor Repair
     2.  Doan Valley Interceptor & Sewer Separa-
         tion Project
     3.  Gladstone Area Project - Separation of
                                  Sewers:

         a)  East 51 Street
         b)  Holyoke Avenue
         c)  Gladstone Avenue - East 55 St. to
                                East 40 Street
         d)  East 47 Place
     4.  Erieview Area Project

         a)
     6.
     7.

     8.
     9.
                                           1968 - 1969
                                           Completed 1968

                                           Under construction
                                           Completed 1968
     East 13 Street and Walnut Avenue -
     separation of sewers.
 Walnut Avenue sanitary extension across
 East 9 Street.  Bids received January 1969.
                                                      Now in progress
 Lake Court (Off East 55 Street)
 Cedar Avenue between Fairhill Road and
East Boulevard
 Ansel Road - relocation
 Dike Park Drive - Woodland Avenue to
                   East 64 Street
Completed in 1968

Completed in 1968
Completed in 1968

Completed in 1968

-------
FEDERAL LAKE ERIE POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Page 3                                                          Juno  27,  19G9


PROJECTS PROGRAMMED FOR 1969

     1.  East 1'x Street Intercepting Sewer (Lakeside  Avenue  lo
                                            Walnut Avenue)
     2.  Ackley Road (Linton Avenue to Morgana Avenue)
     3'.  West 130 Street (Brooklawn Avenue to West Avenue)
     4.  East 43 Street (Central Avenue to Cedar Avenue)
     5.  East 49 Street - correction of overflow at Southerly
                          Interceptor.
     6.  Lee Road at Westview Avenue - repair of detect.
     7.  Outhwaite Avenue (East 55 Street  Lo East 51  Street)
     8.  Belvidere Avenue (East 65 Street  to East 68  Street)
     9.  Rodman Court - East 134 Street to Coit Road

-------
FEDERAL LAKE ERIE POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Page 4                                                         June 27, 1969
SUMMARY:

1.  The City of Cleveland has continued to annually invest several million

    dollars of local monies for new sewers and Betterments.

'A.  Pursuant to State of Ohio rules and regulations, separation of combined

    sewers is being carried out in all new developments and to the extent

    possible in Urban Renewal projects.  One sewer alone is $1.2 million.

3.  We are proceeding with the detail plans for $30,000,000 of trunk sewers

    serving the Greater Cleveland Area which is to be funded from the

    $100 million Bond Fund, pending a rate increase and all without any

    Federal funding to date.

    Applications have been repeatedly rejected.  The program cannot be

    finalized until matching State and Federal funds are available.

4.  Local governments do not have the benefit of "quick take" for right of

    way and the stated policy of the American Association of State Highway

    Officials virtually precludes the use of limited access right of way

    for needed sewer routes.

    The Bureau of Public Roads is more liberal in this regard on limited

    access roads.  If meaningful pollution measures are to be expedited,

    implementation of right of way problems must be resolved.

5.  The Property Tax rate, plus equivalent local income tax in Cleveland, is

    now at $68.46/$1000 based on 40% of valuation.  All pollution implementation

    is outside, and in addition to the property tax.

    Local rates must be doubled to support the $100 million bond issue.

-------
  c
  o  p
  o  o
  o  g
  V*
                                                                                                                       3/19
4J JJ
CO  C
CD  O
 CJ  CO
 W -rl

.31
 P.  3

 |  "

°  i
 CO -H

 g-3
                                                        a
                                                        i— t
                                                        a
                                               a
                                               S
                                              8
                                                                 •H

                                                                 O
bfl U
c 0
•H CU

4-j 5b
u p
cu ctj
CO t-(
&"
CQ CO

'£ §
Pn H
-W «
nJ C
cu O
H W
•H
&?
nj <
0 C
o tfl
QJ i— 1
c/i P4
CO
-u
1
y
CO


S <3

cfl O
CU •<-!
)-l (0
H C
i cfl
CU CX
PL. t]
1
(0 C
cu o
ft 2
•H
&"§
1 «
o c
CJ CO
(JJ r-t
CO P-l



a)
g
u c
CO O
41 'H
H en
i co
a g.
p-( t£]
i-
M
u
CO
o e
•H 00
•«-> d i^J
CO -H
C X 60
•H *r4 C

i-t i-H
X (U C
CJ U eO
> W ^

O -i-i nj
Pn O O
Treatment
cu
4J
09
CO

T3
CU
CJ

>
13
<
CO
CO
ta
Easter!
Easterly
Souther
Souther
Souther
u  U
CO  0)
3  cu

-------
                                                      350
                     W.  A.  Lyon




          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




          Are there any  further questions for Ohio?




          If not, we will go on to Pennsylvania.  Mr.




Lyon.






          STATEMENT OF WALTER A. LYON, DIRECTOR,




          DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING,




          PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH






          MR. LYON:  Mr. Chairman, I have copies of my




report, and I think there will be some extra copies



available.  I will read  the first page and just skip




over the balance.




          In accordance  with the present agreement by




the Conferees to remove  BO percent of the phosphates



discharged from any one  State, a hearing on a plan to



meet the phosphorus removal requirements adopted by the




Conferees was held on March 20, 19&9> in Erie, Pennsyl-



vania.




          A detailed plan to achieve SO percent overall




phosphorus removal from sewage and industrial wastes was




adopted by the Sanitary Water Board on June 1$, 1969.  The




plan is attached as Appendix A.  The plan also requires




improved treatment at several locations as needed to abate




or prevent localized pollution problems.

-------
                                                      351
                     W. A.  Lyon



          The City of Erie, the Erie Sewer Authority,  and




the Hammermill Paper Company, on June l£, 1969, took the



final step to consummate a three-party agreement for




joint treatment of sewage and industrial waste.  Final




planning is underway for the design of secondary treatment




including phosphorus removal to serve the present Erie




sewerage system and Hammermill Paper Company.  The new




treatment facilities will also have capacity to serve



the growing areas adjacent to Erie.  I think it is




interesting to note that the paper mill wastes from the




company have a phosphorus demand, so they will — actually




by being merged in the Erie sewage plant — help to remove




the phosphates from the sewage at Erie.




          The following tentative schedule has been



submitted, but not yet been approved:




          Plans are to be submitted by February 2&, 1970.



          Construction is to be completed by December 31»




1971.



          Operation is to begin by December 31, 1971.



          Raw sewage is being periodically bypassed by the




city of Erie at the treatment plant and at several




interceptor weirs and is being continuously discharged




at several bay-front sewers.  In addition to the corrections



described above, which will help correct this problem, a

-------
                                                         352
                     W. A.  Lyon




bay-front interceptor sewer is under design to provide




relief, pick up unsewered bay-front properties and provide



an interceptor for some surrounding municipalities.




          Plans are to be submitted by February 2$, 1970,




and construction is to be started by May 27, 1970.




          The Borough of Girard began construction of its



sewage treatment plant improvements in August 196$ and



will provide secondary treatment by August 1969.  If you




recall, that was the only treatment plant that was not




providing secondary treatment in Pennsylvania.




          The Hammermill Paper Company, as a part of the




joint treatment project, expects to complete pulping




process conversion by December 1970.  This will very sig-



nificantly affect the quality of its wastes.  It will



reduce the raw waste load by about two-thirds for B.O.D.



and by about five-sixths for color.  After connection to



the city of Erie, Hammermill will have reduced its dis-




charged BoO.D* waste load by well over 90 percent of the



present raw load.




          Other cases are minor and changes in status are




given in our report of June 16, 1969» to the Cleveland



Program Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-



tration.




          You will also recall that we agreed to do a

-------
                                                        353
                        W.  A.  Lyon



phosphorus load survey, and in Appendix B of my report are



given the pounds of phosphate  per day from every discharge




in Pennsylvania.




          Please note that Appendix B was not paged




correctly.  We skipped Page B-2.  There is not a missing




page, we just went from B-l to B-3, but that report lists




all of the phosphate discharges.  We sampled each one of



them in Pennsylvania.




          Just briefly, to go  over the abatement plan,




which is for phosphate removal, adopted by the Board,




all applicants for new permits to discharge sewage and




industrial wastes except for cooling water in the Lake




Erie Basin must provide second  v treatment and disinfec-



tion, and phosphorus removal to the extent that the



effluent will not contain more than 1.0 milligrams per




liter of phosphorus.



          We also will require adequate disposal of sludges



containing phosphorus, and then what we have, in effect,




done is to take our larger discharges and require a higher



degree of phosphorus removal of them, and a lower degree




of phosphorus removal or none  from the smaller discharges



so as to attain the overall $0 percent.  Given in the




report are the larger discharges, and the smaller ones




which are larger discharges, two milligrams per liter.  We

-------
                                                      354
                      W. A. Lyon



also discuss some other aspects of the abatement plan and,



in addition, some of the discharges to the tributaries



will be required to remove more than &5 percent, and you



will see that in Item A.



          The timetable for implementations to issue the



orders is by July 1, 1969.  This is just for the phosphorus



removal.  And to begin phosphorus removal operation by



July 1, 1971.



          Now, we feel that at least one year is needed



for the average sewage treatment plant to start function-



ing properly, so we can expect that even though the plants



will go into operation by July 1, 1971, the required



phosphorus removal and other effluent requirements will



be met by July 1, 1972, after one full year of full-scope



operation.



          We also are trying to encourage, as are the



other States, and as Detroit has demonstrated, the



problem of regional management of wastes, and we are try-



ing to encourage the municipalities in Pennsylvania to



get together on a regional basis.



          That completes my report, Mr. Chairman.  I will



be happy to answer any questions.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.  Your whole report, with-



out objection, will be included in the record as if read.




          (The above-referred to report follows.)

-------
                                                                355
              "STATUS REPORT"
      Water Pollution Control  in  t-he
Pennsylvania Portion of  the Lake  Erie Basin


                 June 1969
                              Sanitary Water Board
                 Pennsylvania Department  of Health

-------
                                                                              356
                 STATUS REPORT TO LAKE  ERIE  CONFEREES

                                  by

                     Coromonwealth of Pennsylvania
                         Department of  Health

                             June 27, 1969
     (l)  A hearing on a plan to meet the phosphorus  removal  requirements
adopted by the Conferees was held on March 20,  1969,  in Erie,  Pennsylvania.
A detailed plan to achieve 80% overall phosphorus removal  from sewage  and
industrial wastes was adopted by the Sanitary Water Board  on  June  18,  1969.
The plan is attached as Appendix A.  The plan also requires improved treatment
at several locations as needed to abate or prevent localized  pollution problems.

     (2)  The City of Erie, the Erie Sewer Authority  and the  Hammermill
Paper Company on June 18, 1969, took the final  step to consummate  a three
party agreement for joint treatment of sewage and industrial  waste.  Final
planning is underway for the design of secondary treatment including phosphorus
removal to serve the present Erie sewerage system and Hammermill Paper
Company.  The new treatment facilities will also have capacity to  serve
the growing areas adjacent to Erie.  The following tentative  schedule  has
been submitted.

     Plans are to be submitted by February 28,  1970
     Construction is to be completed by December 31,  1971
     Operation is to begin by December 31, 1971

     (3)  Raw sewage is being periodically by-passed  by the. City of Erie
at the treatment plant and at several interceptor weirs and is being continu-
ously discharged at several bay-front sewers.  In addition to the  correctior.s
described in (2), which will help correct this  problem, a  bay-front inter-
ceptor sewer is under design to provide relief, pick  up unsewered  bay-front
properties and provide an interceptor for some  surrounding municipalities.

     Plans are to be submitted by February 28,  1970
     Construction is to be started by May 27, 1970

     (4)  The Borough of Girard began construction of its  sewage treatment
plant improvements in August 1968 and will provide secondary  treatment by
August 1969.

     (5)  The Hammermill Paper Company, as a part of  the joint treatment project,
expects to complete pulping process conversion by December 1970.   This will
reduce the raw waste load by about two-thirds for BOD and  by  about five-sixths
for color.  After connection to the City of Erie, Hammermill  will  have
reduced its discharged BOD waste load by well over 907» of  the present  raw
load.

-------
     (6)  Other cases are minor and changes  in status  are given  in our
report of June 16, 1969, to the Cleveland Program Office, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration.

     (7)  The results of a 1968 phosphorus load survey are given in
Appendix B
                                -2-

-------
                                                                                       35*
                                     APPENDIX A

                      IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
                       PENNSYLVANIA PORTION OF LAKE ERIE BASIN
          (Adopted by the Pennsylvania  Sanitary Water Board on June 18, 1969)

  I.   SCOPE

       At the October 4, 1968 session of the Lake Erie  Enforcement  Conference  (called
  under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act)  the conferees
  representing the Lake Erie Basin States of Indiana, Michigan,  New York,  Ohio, and
  Pennsylvania agreed that at least 80% removal  of the  phosphorus discharged by
  municipalities and industries should be required at. a first  step  toward  control  of
  the accelerated eutrophicatiori of Lake Erie.   The actions  included  in this imple-
  mentation plan are designed to carry out Pennsylvania's responsibility with  respect
  to the conferees decision regarding phosphorus removal in  the  Lake  Erie  drainage
  basin.

 II.   GENEKAL

       The Sanitary Water Board, in accordance with its powers under  the Clean Streams
  Law, will issue appropriate orders, modify permits or take other  appropriate action
  to have all persons or municipalities under its jurisdiction abate  pollution.  The
  Board, in all cases, will require either immediate abatement or the submission of
  a detailed abatement schedule providing for abatement within as short a  period of
  time as is technically possible and will cause appropriate investigations to be
  made to assure itself of compliance with its requirements.

III.   SPECIFIC

       1.  All applicants for new permits to discharge  sewage  and industrial wastes
  except for cooling waters in the Lake Erie Basin must provide:

       (a) At least secondary treatment with adequate disi.nfaction
       (b) Phosphorus removal from the wastes to the extent  that the  effluent  will
           not contain more than 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus as P, and
       (c) Adequate disposal of sludges containing phosphorus.   (New  discharges are
           considered to be those not listed in  Appendix A of  The Department of
           Health's Report to the Sanitary Water Board  dated February 14,  1969.)

       2.  The permits of the following municipalities  and industry will be modified
  to require adequate disinfection, phosphorus removal  from  the  wastes to  the  extent
  that the effluent will not contain more than 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus  as P and adequate
  disposal of sludges containing phosphorus.

       (a)  City of Erie
       (b)  North East Borough
       (c)  Girard Borough
       (d)  Lake City Borough
       (e)  Hammermill Paper Company
                                          A-l

-------
                                        -  2  ~


      3.   The permits  of  the  following  cases will ba modified to require adequate
 disinfection,  phosphorus removal  or  control in the wastes to the extent that the
 effluent  will  not  contain more  than  2.0 mg/1  as P and the adequate disposal of
 sludges  containing phosphorus.

      (a)  Albion  Borougn
      (b)  General Electric
      (c)  South Shore  Service
      (d)  Albro Packing Company
      (e)  Gunnison  Brothers Tannery

      4.    Phosphorus  compounds  should  not. be  added to cooling waters by the users
 of  these  waters.   All industries  on  the basin will be notified of the phosphorus
 removal  requirements  for Lake Erie and requested to refrain from the use of phos-
 phorus compounds in their cooling waters

      5.   Dilution  of  raw or  treated  waste waters with waters that contain little
 or  no phosphorus shall not be accepted as a substitute for treatment.

      6.   When  municipal  sewer service  becomes available, the permits of existing
 waste dischargers  listed in  Appendix A of The Department of Health Report to the
 Sanitary  Water Board, dated  February 14, 1969, that are not now required to re-
 move  phosphorus  will be  modified  to  require phosphorus removal to the extent that
 the total phosphorus content of the  effluent  will not exceed 1.0 mg/1 as P and shall
 provide for  the  adequate disposal of sludges containing phosphorus.

      7.   The permits of  waste dischargers listed in Appendix A of the Department
 of  Health Report to the  Sanitary Water Board dated February 14,  1969, will be
 modified  to  require adequate disinfection in accordance with Article  300 of the
 Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations.

     8.    Implementation  of the phosphorus removal  requirements  should improve  the
 biochemical oxygen demand removals and the removal  of  organic suspended  solids.
 For several existing discharges this improvement  is  necessary for abatement of
 pollution in streams tributary to Lake Erie.  The  permits for the following waste
 dischargers will  be modified as follows:

     (a)  Gunnison Brothers Tannery - Require  at  least 90% overall BOD reduction.
 Limit the ultimate carbonaceous plus nitrogenous BOD  to 150  pounds per day and  the
volatile  suspended solids to 20 mg/1.

     (b)  Lake City Borough - Require at least 90% overall BOD removal.  -Limit  the
 ultimate carbonaceous  plus nitrogenous BOD to  50  pounds per  day,  and  the volatile
 suspended solids  to 20 mg/1.

     (c)  Girard  Borough - Require at least  90% overall  BOD  removal.   Limit the
 ultimate carbonaceous  plus nitrogenous BOD to  50 pounds per  day,  and  the volatile
 suspended solids  to 20 mg/1.
                                       A-2

-------
                                                                                    360'

                                        — 3 —


      (d)  North East Borough - Limit the ultimate carbonaceous  plus  nitrogenous
 BOD to 50 mg/1, and the volatile suspended solids to 20 mg/1.

      (e)  Welch Grape Juice Co. - Limit the ultimate carbonaceous  plus nitrogenous
 BOD to 50 mg/1, and the volatile suspended solids to 20 mg/1.

      9.  Timetable For Implementation:

          Issue Orders by July, 1, 1969
          Begin Phosphorus Removal Operation by July 1,  1971
          Achieve Required Phosphorus Removal and Other  Effluent Requirements by
          July 1, 1972

IV.   COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND REGIONALIZATION;

      Planning for sewerage and solid wastes disposal has been underway in this area.
 However, since the inception of this planning,  major changes in treatment needs and
 general waste disposal practices have taken place as a  result of the Lake Erie En-
 forcement conference, passage of the Mandatory Certification Act for sewage treat-
 ment plant operators, and the development of a coho salmon stocking program in the
 basin.   These changes all have better water quality as  their goals or needs.

      The Lake Erie Enforcement Conference requires 80%  removal  of  phosphorus from
 sewage  and industrial waste as a first  step toward reversal of  the biological aging
 of Lake Erie.  In the future higher degrees of phosphorus removal  will be needed
 to keep pace with population and industrial growth, and it is anticipated that more
 stringent controls, including controls  over agricultural runoff and other diffuse
 sources of phosphorus, will be needed to restore the lake.

      The. first and the major effort for phosphorus control will be directed to
 municipal (sewage) discharges since this is the major source of phosphorus.  Phos-
 phorus  removal from sewage has not been widely practiced and is a  relatively new
 technique.  Skilled operators will be needed to achieve significant phosphorus re-
 moval at the least possible cost.  The  phosphorus removal standards recommended for
 a first step can, we believe, be achieved at existing treatment works by integration
 of chemical feed into existing units, provided the treatment plants are skillfully
 operated.  Anticipated future phosphorus removal  requirements will probably need
 tertiary or third stage treatment units.

      At present it would be desirable to pool the sewage and industrial waste treat-
 ment talent in the area on a regular round-table conference basis  to exchange ideas,
 discuss problems, and provide a helping hand when a fellow operator has operation
 problems.

      Pooling of resources for chemical  purchases and sludge disposal will probably
 result  in savings of monies and should  be explored as quickly as possible.

      Comprehensive regional planning that will permit integration  of many separate
 sewerage systems into fewer and larger  systems is needed to solve  both existing  and
                                         A-3

-------
                                                                                    361

                                     - 4 -
future problems.  A comprehensive sewerage feasibility study, using the Act 537
(Pennsylvania Sewerage Facilities Act) as a base, should be undertaken in those
areas where additional information is needed to permit local municipalities and
industries to choose among the alternatives available to achieve sewer service,
waste treatment, and water quality goals.

     Several of the important water quality goals that have to be considered are:

     (a)  Nutrient (Phosphorus) Control.
     (b)  Protection of existing and potential beaches.
     (c)  Protection of trout and salmon hatchery and nursery waters.
     (d)  Protection of water supplies.

     For the most part these goals can be achieved through secondary treatment  with
phosphorus removal, and proper placement of outfalls.  If discharges go to the  trout
and salmon streams, at least a 5:1 dilution and preferably a 20:1 dilution of stream
water to secondary effluent is needed to protect the hatchery and nursery waters.
Where this dilution is not available, tertiary treatment or an outfall to the lake
is needed.  Hopefully, comprehensive regional planning will eventually eliminate
all discharges to the trout and salmon tributaries.

     The Sanitary Water Board will notify all the municipal officials  of the need
for comprehensive planning and regionalization.  The Department of Health Staff
will work with these officials to develop an effective water quality management
plan and program.
                                      A-4

-------
                                   APPENDIX B
                                 LAKE ERIE BASIN
                               PHOSPHATE SAMPLING
                                      1968
                                                                                    362
Erie County
     SEWAGE

No.  Case Name
North East Twp,      1   Pure Oil Company
                                                                                  Lbs
                        Type'- Treatment        Stream  Nanu
                         Extended aeration    ?,0 Mile Creek   3.6
                         with Pond
                     2   Larry's Economy     Extended aeration    Avert 11 Run     5.0
                         Station
                     3   Mom's Motel
                         Extended aeration
                     4   Lakeview Motel      Extended aeration
Ditch to 20
Mile Creek

Tributary to
16 Mile Creek
                                                             o  ;
                                                             £. o —
Harborcreek Twp,
 5   Behrend Center
     P. S, U»
6   Karborcreek TvTp,
    School

7   Port Eiie
    Plastics

8   South Shore
    Services

9   Klein School
                        Extended aeration
Trout Run
(A trib, to 4
 Mile Creek)
2.-4
                                             Extended aeration    7 Mile Creek    2 .- 1
                                             Extended aeration    7 Mile Creek   15.3
                                             Contact
                                             Stabilization

                                             Extended aeration
                                             with Pond
                                              Tributary to   36,72
                                              7 Mile Creek (Design)

                                              Tributary to   12. 96
                                              Lake Erie
Greene Twp
10   Wattsburg A & SB    Extended aeration    Tributary to    9,18
                                              4 Mile. Creek
                   *3 pounds of phosphate (P04) is approximately equal to
                    1 pound phosphorus (P)
                                         B-l

-------
                                                                                    363
Erie County

Sunr.nit Twp.
     SEWAGE

No ,   Cs.se Naoie
12


13


14


15
Rondala Nursing
Home

Howard Johnson
Motor Lodge

Oakdale Corp.
(Holiday Inn)
                    16   Erie Vo, Tech
                    17   Educational
                         T. V*  N,W. Pa,
                    Type. Treatment       Stream N
11   Rob is on School      Extended a trailer.
                                             Ext sndad nerat: i on
                                             Extended aeration
Tributary to
Walnut Creek

Tributary to
Walnut Creek

Tributary to
Walnut Creek
                         Travelers Rest      Extended aeration
                         Extended, aeration
                         with Pond

                         Septic Tank with
                         Sand Filter
                    18   Humble Oil Co-      Septic Tank
                                         Tributary to
                                         Walnut Cresk

                                         Tributary to
                                         Elk Creek

                                         Tributery to
                                         Walnut Creek

                                         Tributary to
                                         Walnuc Creek
Lb.s


10oO


 4.2


10.0
                                             Extended aeration    Walnut Cret-k    13.0
                 3,6


                 5,25


                 0,075


                 0,5
McKe.an Tx/p...
19   Georgetown Heights  Oxidation            Ditch to
                         Stabilization Ponds  Elk Creek
                    20   Humble Oil
                    21   Popular White
                         Thruway
                         Extended aeration    Tributary to
                                              Thomas Run

                         Extended aeration    Tributary to
                                              Elk Creek
                                                          0,25


                                                          5,75
Springfield Tv/p.    22   Talardeo Truck      Extended aeration    Ditch to         5,0
                         Stop                                     Racoon Creek

                    23   Pa. Dept« Highways  Septic Tank with     Tributary to     3.2
                                             Sand Filter          Turkey Creek
                   *3 pounds of phosphate (PO/,.) is approximately equal
                    to 1 pound phosphorus (?)
                                         B-3

-------
                                                                                  364
                         SEWAGE

Erie County No*
Fairview Twp« 24
25
26
27
28

29
30
31
32

Gas a Naire
Inter Po d
Corp.
Erie Co. Home.
Boyd Co Chivers
Kahkwa Club
Humble Oil

Fairview Twp.
Io D, C.
Lake Shore Maint
Assn
Alpine Manor
Harman Electric

Type Trsatrrent
Septic Tank with
Sand Filter
Extended aeration
Ex- ended aeration
Extended aeration
Extended aeration

Extended aeration
Extended aeration
Septic Tank with
Sand Filter
Septic Tank with

Stream Name
we, Inut Creek
Trcut. Ren
Tributary to
Brandy Run
Tributary to
Walnut Creek
Ditoh to
Brandy Run
Trout Run
Tributary to
Laka Erie.
Trout Run
Tributary tc
Lbs
PCi
0.69
20,25
3.24
1.4
0,54

2,5
1.4
Io2
0.14
                         Company

                    33   Pioneer Tavern
                         Hotel
                         Sand Filter

                         Septic Tank  with
                         Sand Filter
                    34   Whitehall Village   Extended  aeration
                    35   Greenbrier Hill
                         Extended aeratior
                         with Sand Filter
                     Walnut  Creek
                     Trout  Run        0.75
                     Tributary to     3=0
                     Trout Run

                     Tributary to     9>0
                     Walnut Creek
Millcreek Twp,
36   Presque Isle
     S, Po"
Extended aeration
with Field Tile
                    37   Unitarian Church    Extended aeration
Lake Erie        7.0
Harbor

Tributary to     0*3
Mill Creek
                    38   Ramada Inn
                         Extended aeration
                     Tributary to
                     Mill Creek
                   *3 pounds of phosphate. (PO/,.) is approximately equal
                    to 1- pound phosphorus (P)
                                         b-4

-------
                                                                                     365

Erie County
Erie
Albion


Fairview Boro
Girard

Lake Cicy

North East

Erie







North East

Girard Tvp*

Noo
39
40


41
42

43

44



45

46

47

48

49
SEWAGE
Case Name
Erie City M.S.A.
Albior. M.A.


Fairview School
Girard M.S.S.

Lake City M.SoS.

North Ease M^S.A,

City of Erie
Combined Storm &
Canal Sever
(Sassafras Street
Cherry Street
Sevjer
Mill Cr.2ek Tube
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Wel^h Grape Juice

Gunnisor. Bros.

Typs Tr.i 3 invert St:re=m Nam 2 POi."
Activar.ed Sludg= L?ke Eri-s 6130
High R;,-<5 Conn-iaut Creek 70
Trickling Filter
(with aeration)
Extended aeration Trout Run 700
Irahoff with Elk Crtek 150
Trickling Filter
High Rate Elk Creek 120
Trickling Filter
High Rats Tributary to 243oi
Trickling Filter 16 Mile Craek

Sanitary Severs
None Erie Harbor 199
>
None Erie Harbov 295

None Erie Harhrr '43

Oxida-ior. Ponds 16 Mil? Crec-k .0
with Trickling Filter
Settling Pc-.ds Elk Cr^ek 06!
                          (Tannery)
Lawrence Park TTO.-.  50   General  El=.ctri<:
Settling & Acid
Neur.ra 1: sat ion
L^ if *=
.^, IS- 7;
40
                   *3 pounds  of  phosphate (P04) is approximately equal
                    to  1 pound phosphorus (P)
                                         B-5

-------
                                                                                366
                                                                                Lbs
Erie County

Millcreek Twp,


Fairview Twp*


Erie
No.  Case Name
51
53
American
Sterilizer Co,,

Parker White
Metal Company

Hammermill Paper
Company
                    Type Treatment
Treat for Cyanides
                         Settling Pcnds
Settling &
Screening
Stream Name

Ditch to
Cascade Creek

Trout Run


Lake Erie
  13
                                     1.4
None
Crawford County

Springboro
54   Albro Packing
                    Extended Aeration
                     Tributary  to    11
                     Conneaut Creek
                   *3 pounds of phosphate (PO^)  is  approximately equal
                    to 1 pound phosphorus (P)
                                         B-6

-------
                                                       367
                       W. A. Lyon
          MR, STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions?
          Well, I have just one.  If you would look at the
first page of your report, Item 3, and this goes to the
remarks that Mrs, Angel made that you have got to get the

wastes to the plant in order to treat them.
          You talk about bypassing the sewage in Erie,  The
plans will be submitted February 2$, 1970; construction to

start May 27, 1970.  When is it going to be finished?
          MR, LYON:  I do not know.  My guess would be
that it would probably — I am only guessing here, I do
not know this for a fact — I would assume that the con-
struction would take between six months and a year.
          MR, STEIN:  I wonder if it would be possible to
get that date?
          I think the key date that the conferees are
probably interested in, in Pennsylvania, is when the work

is to be completed and in operation so we have something
to check against,
          MR, LYON:  We will provide that information.*
          MR, STEIN:  Okay,  Thank you.
          Are there any other comments or questions?
          If not, thank you very much, Mr. Lyon, for your
report.

          May we now call on the Federal Government, Mr.
Poston,

         *(See next page.)

-------
                                                                                 367a
                           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
THOMAS W. GEORGES. JR.. M.D.               p o BQX ,„
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
                                HARRISBURG 17120
                                                               August 5, 1969
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.  20242

Dear Mr. Stein:

     You will recall that you asked Mr. Lyon for the completion date for the
Erie Interceptors.  We have looked into this matter and find that there is a
proposed Bay-front Highway which is causing complications.

     The City of Erie has not made a commitment to a completion date because
it claims the design of the sewers cannot be completed until the highway is
designed.  The highway plans have now been completed and made available to the
City.  Although it does not appear that funds are available for the highway
construction we feel the City should be able to proceed with the design and
construction of the interceptors.

     Because of the reluctance of the City to proceed on this problem and
their failure to take steps to eliminate discharges of raw sewage from other
storm sewers and streams we are planning to hold a hearing very shortly.
Investigations are being completed and testimony is being prepared at this
time.

     We will keep you advised of the status of this case.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Larry 'S. Miller
                                    Acting Director
                                    Bureau of Sanitary Engineering

-------
                     M. Garnet




          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Merrill Garnet will make a




statement on Federal installations and, Merrill, I would




ask that you keep this as brief as possible, and yet




give us the meat of your report.






          STATEMENT OF MERRILL GAMET, CHIEF,




          FEDERAL ACTIVITIES COORDINATION,




          FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL




          ADMINISTRATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS






          MR. GAMET:  Mr. Chairman, Conferees, ladies




and gentlemen, my name is Merrill Garnet, with the




Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Great




Lakes Regional Office and responsible for the pollution




abatement at the Federal installations.




          I have a short status report to present here,




in addition to which there is an inventory accompanying




the report which has been handed to the Conferees which




contains more detailed information than will be given in




the summary report.




          (The above referred to reports follow in




their entirety.)

-------
                                                               June 1969
                          STATUS OF COMPLIANCE
                        OF FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
                WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
                 OF THE LAKE ERIE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
     Reports of progress made by Federal installations in the Lake Erie

Enforcement Area with regard to compliance with the requirements of Executive

Order 11288 and the Conference Summary have been made at each of the enforce-

ment conference sessions.  All major Federal installations have initiated

plans for abatement of pollution, which when completed will insure compliance

with enforcement conference recommendations.  The following are statements

regarding  nine (9) installations in the above category; the first three (3)

of which were reported last year and are still not in compliance, and with the

remaining six  (6) in various stages of completion of remedial measures:

Grosse lie Naval Air Station, Grosse lie, Michigan:

     This installation has been reported on at each session of the Enforce-

ment Conference.  Facilities under construction at Selfridge Field are nearing

completion, and the present target date for closing Grosse lie and moving the

operations to Selfridge Field is definitely fixed at August or September 1969-


U.S. Coast Guard, Detroit River Light Station:

     Sanitary wastes from five (5) persons are discharged without treatment

to Lake Erie.  A request for funds has been submitted to the Congress to in-

stall an unmanned, automated navigation light.  Present plans call for

completion in 19T1-


U.S. Coast Guard Station, Toledo, Ohio:

     Sanitary wastes from twenty-one (2l) persons are settled in a septic

tank, the effluent from which discharges to Maumee Bay.  An effort has been

made by the City of Toledo to enter into a contract with the Coast Guard to

-------
participate in the cost of an interceptor to carry their vastes to the City


of Toledo.  The Coast Guard requested funds for FY 1970 for this project,


"but were notified that the funds were riot approved.  Another request has been


submitted for FY 3-971-  The Coast Guard plans to approach the City of Toledo


regarding a long-term agreement for reasonable rent as a means of financing


the project.  As a result of the long delay, the Coast Guard has been requested


by letter of June 11, 1969, to plan for the installation of interim facilities,


such as, holding tanks, temporary pipelines or incinerator toilets, as a means


to abate pollution of Lake Erie until permanent facilities can be financed and


installed.



Selfridge Field, Michigan:

           Force
     The Air/, has completed negotiations with Harrison Township to connect to


the Harrison Township interceptor, which will carry Selfridge Field wastes


to the Detroit interceptor.  The Harrison Township interceptor is presently


under construction.  Bids have not yet been taken for the Clinton River


crossing and lift station for the Selfridge Field force main.  However, it


is anticipated that the connection between Selfridge Field and the Harrison


Township interceptor will be completed in January 1971-  Wastes from Selfridge

Field will be discharged to the Detroit system at such time as the interceptor

is completed, presently scheduled for May 1971.



U.S. Army NIKE Sites 15 and 16, Selfridge Field, Michigan:

     The Aerospace Defense Command has reported that an agreement has been


reached with the Army     to connect the waste discharges from the NIKE sites


into the Selfridge Field force main and thence to the Detroit interceptor.


No projected date for this connection is available at this time.

-------
                                                                         370
                                                                          3.
NASA, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio:

     Sanitary vastes are discharged to the City of Cleveland system.

Industrial wastes from research and testing activities are adequately

treated and monitored before discharge to the  Rocky River.  Research is

under way to eliminate phosphates from cooling tower blowdown.   Results from

an experimental cooling tower have shown that  phosphates in the blowdown

waters can "be eliminated by converting from high chrornate-phosphate tower

treatment to organic zinc.  It has been reported that all cooling tower

treatment will be converted to the zinc treatment  not later than January

1970, although some phosphates may be discharged after that date, until all

previous treatment chemicals are completely flushed from the system.


NASA, Lewis Research Center, Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, Ohio:

     This installation has installed secondary treatment facilities with

chlorination, and with chemical precipitation  and pH adjustment capability

for phosphate removal.  Automatic chemical feeders have not yet been installed

for full plant scale operation.  Laboratory analyses have indicated that total

phosphorous (as P) in the sewage treatment plant influent is 3.2 mg/1

(2.9 Ibs/day), and 2.7 mg/1 (2.U Ibs/day) in the effluent without any addi-

tional treatment for removal of phosphates.  Full plant scale tests are now

in progress to verify evaluation of jar test results for phosphorous removal.

It has been reported that the plant will have  capability to remove phosphates

to any predetermined level, based on established requirements.


Michigan Army Missile Plant, Warren, Michigan:

     This installation has both sanitary and industrial waste treatment

facilities.  Secondary treatment plus chlorination is provided for the

-------
                                                                         371
                                                                       4.
sanitary wastes.  Industrial waste treatment consists of conversion of


cyanide and chromic acids to stable forms, followed toy coagulation for


removal of suspended solids and metals.  Present treatment does not comply


with the State of Michigan requirements for discharges to the Clinton River.


Additional treatment or discharge to the City of Detroit interceptor system


is required.  An evaluation is presently being made of a consulting engineer


report.  FWPCA and the State of Michigan have recommended connection to the


regional sewer system.  No projected time schedule for remedial measures is


available at this time.




Detroit Arsenal, Warren, Michigan:


     This installation discharges its sanitary wastes to the City of VJarren


sewer system for treatment and disposal.  Industrial waste treatment consists


of conversion of cyanide and chromic acid wastes to stable forms, followed


by coagulation for removal of suspended solids and metals, and discharge


to a system of drains tributary to the Clinton River.  A recommendation has


been made to provide additional treatment facilities in order to comply with


State of Michigan requirements regarding waste discharges to the Clinton


River, or discharge all wastes to the Detroit regional interceptor system.


Recommendations have also been made by FWPCA to:     l)  provide permanent


collection and treatment facilities for acid drainage from the coal storage


area,  2)  dispose of holding tank sludge by commercial contractor,  3) dis-


charge boiler blowdown to the sanitary sewer instead of the storm sewer,


H)  provide closer laboratory control over industrial waste treatment


processes.  Item 1 is programmed for FY TO funding.   Item 2 is in compliance.


Items 3 and h will be accomplished by September 1969.  A time schedule

-------
                                                                         372



                                                                       5.






will be established regarding other remedial measures when the decision is




reached regarding provision of additional treatment facilities or connection




to the Detroit system.






     Installations in the conference area are surveyed as frequently as




possible to insure continued compliance with conference recommendations,




water quality standards and Executive Order 11288.




     The Federal government will continue to work towards 100$ compliance at




the earliest possible date with all Federal and State regulations in the Lake




Erie Enforcement Conference Area.

-------
                                                                            373
     The total phosphorus (as P) contained in untreated  waste discharges

from major Federal installations in the Lake Erie Basin  is  estimated to

be about 200 Ibs.  per day.   Treated effluents fr»ru existing treatment

facilities at these installations contain approximately  7^  Ibs.  per day.

     The remaining eleven (ll) installations, as shown in the inventory

report, are all relatively small, and have a. total contributing  population

of about 1,200 persons.   They are estimated to contribute a total of about

15 Ibs. per day of phosphorus to Lake Erie.

     The following information in tabular form shows data from the above

mentioned major installations in the basin that generate phosphates, primarily

from industrial processes, and the reduction that is achieved through their

treatment processes.

                          Phosphorous Loadings
                    from Major Federal Installations
                        Lake Erie Enf. Conf. Area
Installation
NASA, Lewis Research Center
NASA, Plum Brook Station
Michigan Army Missile Plant
Detroit Arsenal
Selfridge Air Force Base
Naval Air Station Grosse He
Cleveland Army Tank Automotive
Plant
Total P ( Ibs /day)
Untreated
8.0
2.9
l.U
.5
68.8
1U.5
100.0
Treated
8.0
2.h
.7
.2
56.0
1U.2
0.5
Present
Removal
(%}
0
17.2
50.0
60.0
18.6
2.08
99.5
                                       196.1
7U.O

-------
                                                                         374
     It will  be noted that the Cleveland Army Tank Automotive Plant achieves




almost 100$ reduction of phosphorus by  chemical  coagulation, mixed media,




filtration and finally sand filtration.




     At such time as Selfridge Field is  connected to the Detroit interceptor,




the direct phosphorus discharge to the  basin will be eliminated.  Ths




phosphorus contribution of Grosse He Naval Air Station will also be




eliminated when the station closes in September 19^9•




     When these reductions are effected, it is estimated that the remaining




total phosphorus contribution from all  Federal installations to Lake Erie




will not exceed about 25 Ibs. per day.

-------
O
K
o

pi
              en
              a
              M
              en
              <
              fp
              M
              H
              P3





















































cr\
VD
O\
rH

CU
G

I— j



























































CO
A3


e
o
K











rH
"J §
•H C
•a ;.
cu b_
B 0
01 k


G
cu
6 to
 CU
O 0
fH ,?-
g1
H
•P -f
(U OJ O OJ r-
 O PH
CU O O O
^ rH rH
PL, Ft,-^
CO
0
•H
4->
M
•H
Vt
CU

"
CD

Oj

O ,-

cu b.
60 E

_t~;
o
CO
•H
O
• • CU
-P P, >
CO O ^,
M P-, cu
t/3




G 'd
CU CU

4J -H

CU O
EH PH


60
G
•H ' '
>• 10 k
•rH S, '~
0) CU CO
a p oj
o ct! M
K S "^


' 1"
o

O P
M id
C-t o
i j

• ii 'J

C} l-

1 ' [-.

f


i
•rH O 1
rf 13 O -H

E . 'd • - H
G HJ O
1H 4J d CM

a cu p, <\
C H
>. P O

0? -H CU rH
G O -f- H
O rt -p tf
p, oi -p
43 oi CU CO
Oi O !H G
FH 4^ -H

!H p, C O
O O O 4J
H
O -p CO
'd o o3 G
0)- 6C O fn oi
CO C " CU rH
UD -H m cd p.




cu

,o
^
0
•H

ni
G
•rH

CD O
G H
O ,c!
FS O

O O
•A *R


O 0
rH rH










H

Oi
H
•H
oi

Oi

oi c\j
-p
oi 1

O
o o
fz m
1 0 0
o tr\ -zr
0 rH
H
1
oi

H
b
H
'o

£? ^
CO Oi

^ fl
o s: o
C) O 0
<1> -rH CU
CD 4^> 03
^: cu CD cu
D ^ rH O • H

-P fii Oi O fil
<;> ^ ,'. '*' 'P .'

•H •: 1 • 1 ri /d 1-1




'~~ G '""
o •
o 'd •, i o
C\! 0 f-i 4-1 O
IrA ui oi
i 1 -rt ('*• "/; r(

l-i i-' C: fJl
S C) -- ,'1 O • —
; ' :! P u]
', -i d 000
i rj r;; ; . ; r I rt
;• ' '"i ,H <;\

' (0 ' , >', ' i ' ri i r<-'


375
•d
cu '
^ c
CO O
•H 0
,0 ^>-
oi -P
-P H
CJ1 0
tu
.G
-p • p
O CU 'H
G rH >

CO rd CO
CCt CU G
.C ,G 0
0 -H
-P CO -P
;3 oi 60
£1 tu -H G
B P -H
CO -H OS
CU -p to G
•H CU -H
4-> o! W +>







H
£ i;
-p O >
G 4^ ; CU 4-1 O G
Ooi G-PHCOHO
rH H O -H O X rG -H
O p, O O EH CO O -p

^O
^


CO OD LT\
O (D H






O UA
OO CV1
VO
CU
1 1 'H
,0
•d ct)
CU H
4J TJ -H
oi (U oi
CU -p >
f, cS oi
4J CU
G !H Oi
P 4J 4J
oi
LfN -d

O O
m &
t- H O O
OJ CM u^ LT\

cti
G
•rH
O
", %

^i" & f5
oi X oi *u

G oi G
os; r o X
0 O -H O -P
D -H ^f tU VH
LO -p P, CO O
r: cu rn  ,C^ • iJ • Cl)

r-l tui 1-1 Jj hi "li

o
0
o a
. , to ~~
4J O G •
co ^ 'i:1 O O
•d p ui s-, -H o
JH r/J >, oi p *-*
ci! ;i '--! oi cr>
? c'j 0 U pa! (MO
r'l O • — Cfi O O O
-P 3

co i: G '*i o ^-- C p G i o
0' Oi C\i O S-l • H Oi O
0 , I rl rj O O -v; OI rH j.-,
Cl ,!) .1) 'd 'I) V u)
• i- r- • ,u cu •,-:->,
i ' r/; u ct cu , ( ,H 01 '„• u -i
''! • .H r-l • O O • I- rH O
1 " ' c ,1 , ~> r ' ' ' ! i ; . ' " --

-------
















































-P
OJ
H
K fL,


-P
a
CU
S to
§ 13
>• cu
O CU

p<
e
M
-P
OJ CU CU H
X -H -p rt
0) IH cd 3
,-H W S: O
-p
CU OP
to > O Pn
OJ O O O
^ rH H
p t prH * 	 ,
03
O
-H
•P
03
•H
k
CU
-p
3
IH
0)

O rH

cu hi
faO E


X
o
03
•rH
Q
•d
. . CU
•P PH >
tO O IH
W Pu, 0.









-P
c -d
0) CD
6 t
d V
OJ O
^ IH
EH P-,



































1
















1



O
O
CO












1









o
0
VD
CM




HJ
•H
0

o
"1
1 cd
r-)
>, CD
'.d CD
-P rH
•H O


m o

CM CO
in o a
OJ -^ O
> Ul r \ -H
H Li OJ ±>
p -H CD ^


• H -H PH
a 'd o


•H ' — s

ir4 (", R ^

CJ -H Cd
ai W d H'

rH -H H
Cd -p 0} CJ3

•HO H
CJ -H H O

•H ,a -p ,C

PH 



1










CU
a
o



0
B


0
u~\
CO
H





o

1

C5 O
o
pq i

-; o
CO O
t< 1
•H * '
H CD CO
O H
W 1 O
CiXO CD

OJ 0 P,

1
^ 1
irio
O -P
•H -H

CJ 'H t.0
rJ cj (H
rd 0 -rH
(D fn H
fn Pi -P
H S H 0)
•H -H U
-P O H tl
01 f-t "J O
^j & rc; -H
•d O a -p
G ' "
t- -1 f-i



tjD t

•--t O

H 'p, C
0) ctf

bO hQ



•H -H G

•H O cd
.a H p,
o cd
«j *


(U £j .,_( ,*-)
> -H ISJ ,0
•H C! -H E3

t> (U rf CO

•H a P aj


























^^
S>i
E?

--^
CO

O H
C\j
. •• LTN LP\ O
CO -— - • VD 0
PH 0 H

CO -d

"p, § •— ' rd -f 5
O iU aJ
* £j £4 -p 0)
O <3 ^
t H 0) -P
I cd fn C!
rH -P ^ P
t: -H o
O O fH

h O

-p -)J
rH H Cd
•H -H fn
^H O tl) 1
Cti CO
,-H « -H

0 O C
s^ o -H c\j j rH
OJ '.d -H (D O 0
J-t ?H > rt L3
-p rd O O -P fn
H C H u £ aJ
•H cd rO OJ O rCj
ftn CO O FH O U









B
o

t) H

FH CO
CU O
-p -p
cd uj
£ cd
Ji

C rH
•H Cd
H 'H
0 ^
o ^
CJ W
3
v-, rd
O G
CO HH

o

1 ON

c
aj
h)


CJ
-p

_d

03
o

p.

1 £
EH


o o
o o
in co
in t—






rH

o
G
cd
+3
1
CO
CO
(U
H

1
vo

CJ

o
O 1
CO
en

—— *,_-«.— 	 _


-p
•H
o

o
1 d H
rH Cd
£>, (U -rH
aJ OJ -p
-p H co
•HO 2
£4 'tl
cd  o
•H O

O CM
«J O

to -p
G in

-P CO
o) G


bO

•H



























m

H

i

^-~,
PL,
CO
cd


CO
o
AH


H
cd
Ho
EH



















fl
N

OJ
-p
CJ
OJ
r H
H
O
CJ

OJ

cd


^
P

































































b£)
C
                                                                                             w

                                                                                              !>>
                                                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                                                   K  i
                                                                                                                                           CD
                                                                                                                                          -P  0}
                                                                                                                                           c;  he
                                                                                                                                           oj  o
                                                                                                                                          o ^:
                                                                                                                                               C\J

-------






c\
*o

rH

CD
C











tj
cd
g
(X





























































•H 3
CU 6!
6 0
CD r<
03 PL,

a
D
S to
O oi
r
-p -p
O ^ *H
0) 0) 0) d) H
 0 FL<
0) O O O
JH H H

U)
o
•H
-P
CO
•H
^

•P
o
a)

cd
5 "H
^

M p

aj ^"
X
o
CO
•H
Q
'd
. . a;
-p PH >
W 0 ^
pi^ P-l GJ
CO


























-p

QJ 
0 O






to £-. A
*H o  ,£) c3 -p
-p O *H O fs
aJ -H JH 0) -P rU O ^J
^, +3 O > j rH -H ,C Cfl
^ CO >i O £; bD H)
iH -H O O -H -H £H
•H OW OOiH^-P
O +J >; PC 0)
H E S h
rt"Tjcd0O(UO U
tiOajc;^:fH^^>
^3 hO cd -p CM *i-t O
O JH O -P
^H ai 5~t O in -p bO
^ & O -P QJ Co

w  d
4^ l>
C G
CD 11
43 4J
H^ 4^
•H -H
g tj
ID CD
H M


CM CO








^
tj
I cd >,

•• cd G fij
t>) cj o >d
'-H ^ O G
d  ^
rf fd cd o
+> C CD Lj
43 Cd VH 43
0 H HJ 43
CU 1
CO J> £j CD
•H CD CD CJ
rH 43 C
^ O 4^ O
CD H
cd o C
* G
MHJ G °
G -H cd fd
•HO 11
rH G tO
O CD CD 3
0 43 >
CJ 43 -H CO •
bfl -H to
tO E -H
•H O 4^ 'd W
43 ^ O G cd
EH IIH G cd 43

1





1)
a
o


o
a

o
o
o
CO



CD
bO
q
3
43
CJ



S
U
^
. T,

CD fij
HJ
cdo
f* UT\
S 0
•H
CJ CM


1


i a
•H 0)
•d S

a) id

rl tD O ^
U U U P
4^ O
cj f, •- JH
Is 43 to O
-P 15
M t CD to
S3 CJ p CD
•H O tO t>
rH '1 !>. -rH
o o to ±>
o
CJ
bO
G
   , 1
   -i;
   L '
   ti
CJ  *'.
C)  i!

-------






^R
rH
CU
C
3








CO
JH
d
f3
CJ
«
























































r-l
0) g
°*
js o
PS PH
CU
6 CO
CU tj
O C
Pi
a
-p -p
U JH tH
cu cu cu  o PH
CU O O CJ
AH [IH • 	
w
o
•H
•p
CO
1

-p
o
s
cd

O r—

Q) bfl
bO E

cd ^
-C
u)
Q
. . cu

CO O JH
M PH cu
CO

















-p
CD  en"?
•H JH -H
CU CU CO
O H-' Cd
cu cu M
o; s^

i-H
2 p -p
10 'M CO C3
fn 'in W a; tu
CD O 2 • " p3 p i g rH

U rH rC f> P -H -P rH H Cd
O O G bO 2 rH

< Ci "-D rH PHpHrH O










o


,
CO
O
H -^ -—
cd cd

\ ~^,
rH CO CO
•V3. Cd ,Q rd
U\ > H H
ON O
IS O\ -*
O CU OJ • t— •
OS rH • C\J ' CM
0 ^ "^

03
1 W TJ
O CQ Cd CD
OJ -H cd CU
M pn CD p
1 O rH Oj
CO H -P , Cl O
Ct> -H O "C) 43 'H
>> CO p CU OJ T-1 -p -p
rH td rH rH ,lJ Cd
Cd ' " S CL, [.Tj -H r° rH
-p _(J *H PH rQ CU
•H SH ^-| — | Cd *" P)
rt cd o rf TJ PH *d o
td H H o il cd CD
co PH & •• i cd o 'd ' pJ
CJ S -H -H
C 4-J « CD ?, P >
CdCD^O-HCDrHO
S i-', «1 •— * P r4 ft S
O
O '^s
rH *U
(-Q -H
H r-H
10
1 11 1
1 £ CU CU rH t>. 1 C
C! -rH>rHr-t pOOJ
O tJ td -r-t Cd -H -p p
ucu^pto t>r^cu
P O -r-t •* -H td fn
fH cd O cd > jv, P
p 
^Hpcdi-H OOrS-H CU > p. O O -H CD-H CUCJ CUrO(Ur>srcJ rHOOO •" O 03 rH CUHO cd -Hcdcocvj OHcdpn rG 10 P rH W 4-3 O •H -rH -H td (U rO rH O -iH Cd -H 1 OJ Pi o o ^ o o o en H 0) -H CU •a .-H >J t>, -H H rH H cd cd 3 •H C1 P Pi rH d) CU en p to cd W > I JL ^ t O O 1 JH CO p rH -H td -H " -H <*H rH H JH P; O O O Tj O fd 1) O g -H cd OJ ^ CU ,5 p, 4^ *M CI--OH) OOOOO O in fn cO ttO TJ ;J P -H M riO+^fnl-l+'d^WPi cdp cl cd'H r-I-H cd fn CU O O ,O rH OJ P CU CO co cd o ej o p ti • , •H p CO 01 cd p. bO 3 T. S C a1 H p -H 0) 0) CD T3 -rH 0) rQ cd CH hO C aJ >>-H cu ^ H H O P 0) -H cd c o P PH CD td 1 W rH X > CD PH C CU JH 0 cd K PH JH P I 1 0 0) ^ O OJ p 0 5 --- 1 o rH | OO 'd p) o CM PH fP !>» HO rH P3 OJ td -H P "C? r^H •H P; co CO O -H 0 H p CU O CO CO p, CD EH CD OJ oO S o cd p -~- td Si rH .kj f(-| -rH fl| O SH cd O P rH O f-, 00 TJ P W (9 "3D ^4 ." cd 1) ,cj r> 0 •H 10 p -H O t3 cd £ CU •H P to • >i .-d to rH > o o C ) -rH O p c; cd cu O 4^ -H r) CO ?H H fU (5 o >. !M Ai [ 1 01
-------











M
IH


CJ










H
ctj E

T3 IH
(JJ tj£
6 0
CD ,M
K PH

HP
C
CD
(3 to
d) *o
O cu

ft

M
4> +>
O >H -H
d) CD d) 0 H
 0?
'S ^
d) O O
co > o PL,
CD O O O
>H H rH

CO
0
±>
Cfl
'*]
QJ
1 ^
CJ
tfl
CiJ^

~~.

60 G

TO

O
w
•H
Q
tJ
. . QJ
-p ft >
W O JH
W PH OJ





-P

0) 
g Tj
-p -H
«J i>
OJ O

EH P-,











i

^
HP
•H
CJ-
tfl
PH
03
CJ

P -d
G PH
Cfl tnD
iH
PiO
O
QJ O
M -
03 LA
O
Ifl



1






QJ
G
O
B




o'



O
CM




Cfl
CD
rH
CO
•d
•H
H
O
CO rH

CO bQ
3 G
M
0
c3 rH

LAG
0 cfl
o f:
m p


LA
CO

f?
Ifl
"G
o
o
dl
co G
o
1 -H
P
QJ >> cfl
p fn G
•H tfl -H
CO p >H
•H O
!». G rH
PL, tfl ft
CO 00 o















































O
VD






1
CO
•H
rH
O
CO

•d

rH
O
CO
CO
•H
Q


1



CO

.. CD
^ >
CD O
HJ P
tfl
> M
G
fcfl -H
G H
•H 0
H O
O O
O
O CM





X
o

PH
PH
Ifl
•d
Ifl
o
H

hi •
G a
••H p
rH B
0 -H
O X
O tfl
p

CD O
cfl
a ru



1






cu
a
o





o


i ~
^ G
O >
H O
.D -d








rH

M
e
o
o

1
O
O
CM


























t

O
03 EH

'd G
QJ O
G C'j
hO -H
•H fn
CO I-,
Cfl
00 K

^- -G
m +3
CVJ -ri
~-~ >

G 0
d tfl

< G
CO O
'J CJ
G
O t)
•H QJ
P H
0 3
cu fd
G d)
G P,
O 0
o en
tfl
tu
0 ^H
4J <

-p HO
O -H
d) O
G ^H
G p
O dl
CJ R

CO
CD


O
o
CO




v^ ^
\0 j>
o\ o
I B
O QJ
CJN rH
^3"
rH
1
CO
H -d
H -H
rH
! 0
CO
LA •
O en
fP CO
O
o
LA

"°
ifl
G
'£
O
rH

O

ri

>. fn
!H tfl
cfl -d
-P G
H o a
f. CJ o
tfl QJ 'rH,
aj CO p






PH
•H
.Ei
JJ
G
1

d)

p

^*_

dJ
J-H
dJ
Jj

Pi
•H
,G
CO



d)
p
o
p



dl
M
tfl
rH
dJ

QJ
CO



















[^ ^j
dl ,C
-p -P
cfl

t, d) QJ

•d P G
G O
P Pi 0
3
G T3
ifl ,« G
CJ tfl

a P. to
3 d)
rM O -p
4^ P CO
CO Cfl
6 G
CJ -H CO
CO -
H tn cu
H O co
•H S-, Cfl
> o m
•d O
CU •- -H
4J H Hp
QJ C-- cfl
H ~- -H
pH rH +3
o >-. a
O P -H




d)
G ^H "d
d) O -H
P t>
to O

CO p.









	 	 	
1"
in

H
LT\ rovo




b i
pi 01
dJ p
CJ G
r, -H
QJ
P 4^
C -H
•H O
CO P
CD
P.Q
•H
,G QJ
co ^;
a 4^

0 0
4J P
QJ QJ
Jl 0
P G
dJ
O SI
-P P
^

CD
CJ
<+H -H
d)
CU CO
CO
a)
£
-p
rd G
CU dl
0 0
cfl tfl
> cu

cfl -p









^^
1
CQ
rQ
i-H
O
'nP
•rH


CO
dl CO
fl dl

bD
!>. 0
P *H
PH
P
G C
0 -H
E
P • CD
cfl -P !H
01 -H Cfl
^H O
P ^H CO
p C
^H CU O
0 R -H
CM 4J
s O
PH HP 60
QJ -H d)
CJ 0 ,3



H
t—
LA

CO
CD
•H
45
•H
H
•H
0
tfl
















QJ
1 p
rj CO
4J QJ

d)' O "
> G PH
G Pi
O QJ •<
O ,G
4J 01
O t,0
O -H
CO ^t f-t
H "*H "M
Cfl rH
•H dl d)
0 fcO C/J
H Cfl
IH Is CH
tM dl O
O en
ifl
Pi >> OJ
•H rl ^H
^ cfl cfl
to p
G -,H 4J
Is G to
O tfl d)
EH to >


































O
p
P,
QJ
CJ
r^
QJ
p
G
•H
P
•H
0
r,
P
CD


dl
p

O
P
H



































4^
tfl

d)
p,
tfl
o
"tfl

p


dJ
G
G
tfl
rH
Pi

CO
'H
P
M






























O •
P rH
t— v
J
rd P
rH rH
H O
•H 43

CU
d) CJ
M !H
tfl d)
> -p
dl G
CO -rH
hDnP
G -H
•H O
3 -P
O CD
W R






























O CO CO VO
H ^D LA







H
cfl

O
EH






















i i

r^j

-P TH
dj -p
JH o3
-P 0)

"~^ c.^























* ^





































































































































































































fcO
G
d)   QJ  to
O  4-"  Cfl
d>   cu  PQ
    S;  .
    O
.
•, I  Ul
 in    •
                                 Oi   P
                                p   G
                                CO   O

-------








01

r-t
—


"









H

'O (H
CU bl
B 0
m i_,
a £

"r*
fl)
S co
0) T3
>  ff
HH CO H 0} 3.
'S '--
CD O O
to > o PU

CD C
j_i j^





1 T3  bo ,C O *~f ,Q -p

•0 rH ' U -H O -P H CO
^ £ '-^ to 

o JstoBto bDB-P
a; fe^ to -p -P -P to x: -r-t X o


aj 3 SH Js w tu • — • o (D CD
^rH'^ S CU ^ SC°vl S5
H-PG-HOC1JCO " +J
dG-HdC> +^d G
•H cu aJ (U S C -P O


^ ft -t-3 C rH 'H d G O
i3 ObO'HOG1>O-'CJb£
Gmj-H Gd-pdJ-i'HG d
H-H ft-H E CO W-p+J dH
1 OJ O»
-P O\ -P ^O
O TJ KO ••  H o o <;
o d o
£ JH i>» JH
O (U H  [3 d
to -H H -H O ^ •
+3CO ^G-'-OCOr-, "+H
.Hd-PoSo«^lS§



o


0 ^

LT\ LT\ Lf\
• • •
\Q -X CO
H


^
o IA d
O O t3

O r- CO
o oo p
O H
• 0
CM • ir\
H w •• ir\ •
cr\ o T^ w c — o
O rH [-— -H TJ 	
•* O r-i
O CM CO O P^
CO


rH P O 4J CO +3
•H O O O 2 O
O PQ O EH CO tn


1






HP
cO
d

H -H CO
d -P O rH
-H j -p
+j ^ ^ ^J cd
CO O OJ -H rH

rd -H cd d ft
G d £ 5n (U
H -~ ' bO CO
(U
ti * d  i 43 o
W (U O XIG* QJ-H <1)
rH>XTjHpOOJ COX fnVf^G-P
•rH cudG co cddGdO.cod
O J-i H co C C nJ WSD +J-H
P, -H O PQ ,G rH G -P >-,
-P (U W -H ••>X^
O^rGOJJH-pCU E3-P G-HO^d
{UG-PHOJcd^; CU-HtoG-PPirHr^
rHd VnS-P-P -PrST-JOd^+J
rH bD^H^W CO Glflr* WCD
OViCd-H »wci)rH'H-PC!43
O > >QOJO(tHpt1
QJ QJ+3OrHCOrH >-, > ^ dC06OrH
,MrHrCGOJ-P^3 OOPdrndOdOJ
O'i-i-p drQ co-p o ftgS-Pffl o^co
T3 C 0\
(U *H *vD
CO rH &\
•H ^ nj rH
Tj d) QJ .
CU QJ r° CO -P
CO ^ O ft
d o O H > 
CO Pi rH

CO
OJ

o o o •

ir\ o o o >
rn 43 vo [— aj
H CM H


*""
CO

H
CO
rJ " . OJ LA
ro o • •
CO rH O ^t O
O rH H H


CO CO *&
CO T^ O CU "
cr\ -H ,C -p -d
rH P^ -^ d Q>
1 O PH CU -P
co H rH d
LTV * d CO Hp Q>
Q 10 -P d G rH
O ^ O*— ^> E^
PQ CO EH
cu
I -H
o rH o bO
O O 03 O >
O LO, t> c\j d
LT\ OJ -— ' H
1
d
G
•«H
o
H
_G
CJ



d S
P J5 G
•H -H O
G rH -H

CO
g . 380
•tH (U
p dD
C!) 'O
(U JH -H
p a» ^H

rH 0 rH
H 01
•H tD CO
Jl 10
m o
bom -P
G
•H G T3
,G QJ QJ
W ^ rH
£ 0)

HP 0) CO
d d d
rH G rH
a -H +i
•H B CD pq
 JH [OH
+^ d <£
VD
O
rH

-P
CU
CO
£
d e
JH OJ
C JH O 0) -P
rH O +3 H |H CO
•H H d >»
d bO -P PH co
G O 
OJ d O rH P  0 O p to


CO
cu
o

vo
H






O H
-^t rH
en

1 1

CO

•H ^
H -H 1
rH O rH
IT\ CO O CM

1 H rH
cd • a)
rH -p tO .p
•H O 3 O
O EH CO (H




^
-P
cd


CO
cd
J5



•H d
+J 0 OJ
(Jl rH G
2 T-l O
id d f=5

M
 >  rt  C
•H  rn 'H
 CD  O  CO
      "
 I          'H '^
,O           O  h
 O   01 ^  ^<  (U
 C  -    CD  p  >
 (U   tt  (D  (D  -H
 SH   0)  fi O  «
&H   R U ^
                            ri  ti
                           •,-l  O
                                CT -
                                aj  p
                               in  '.-,
                                    o
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                              CJ

                                                                                                          14  4)
                                                                                                          o  a
                                                                                                          H  O
                                                                                                          H  ^

-------
Ul
X
c3
CJ
IK

















O
CD
CM
 QJ
O s
*n -H
0) C) 0) H
^ -H -P crj
CD JH 0) 3
^ w DC G?
-p
C f •
CO 3 O P-i
CD O O O
JH H r- \
R-< fc-i *»•-'•
W
O
•H
-P
V)
T!
Q>
-P
O
nJ

cd
^ ^-^
U H

0> bi



,ij
"it
Ul
R
. . 4)
P ft >
CO O JH
W PH O>
CO





p
fi *d
(D CU
e ^
p -H
cd >
QJ O
J-. rH
^ PH


-,.

ij " O
Oj CM til to (J3 p >-, CD
p O " fi rH 2 fi r-. g
tt) t)0 -H +3 cti O OJ CJ P
CD O fi fi P C -H Ul > rH
> O O -H cd cd o> h cu o
• H i-S -H C H O fH Cd f-i Ul >
-p p -H p, -H id >• p-t -H
O tO U X *+"* r>>
^JH ^0"-HWbOC H
OCU 'dcdbOCOifi-O -H
p 4J •• O {- C bO -H -H CO -H Cd
3 1~< CO r-( -H -H p 'CJ 0) P 'CJ
 £ *H • " -iH fcJJ -H T^ ^C
£13 -H C -H 03 >-s p U .£! O P
CdoJ •>-H'dpf-iOrMOlfH
E-tCUH-HHH rOcd >Pn CO
KcdpCD'St..* P
>•„ COr>-, [S bO CD ^ 0) X *H C
g-OOJcdH fiuiOg^O OJ
rHf^CO rD-"-HCOrH^HCd W
c^cd^HipEcoficdcdoprH 01
•E-^fiOi^aJ cu «n -H tu - EH
cog nJw^curciuir-.H!>> P-
•OprHUlCdrHCOl'tD-HCDO OJ
DOcdP-i vo
•H 0> >s p H "--.
pCrHO\ [OfipnON
-H «3 VO fi O B
CtHfl"^- O-HO>i
M.OcdOx OPO^D
& 0
O P r>>
P rH SH
fn Cd O P Cd R
1 CU ^H ^HJ rH P ^ CD
CO O p CD -H OJ P
OPS t> fi > Ul
H 03 O -H Cd CD S
OHO Q CO CO CO


1 O O

o o
0
o o oo
LTN CM 0- "

*

|
H
•H
cd

.-^ d)
S cd H
H cd CM P rO
• T^ • cd cd
LTN CO ^- rH tJ rH
CO -H
t— 1 ,0 1 O cd


a; ir\ i t—
O p • 'd cd
« P, cd O OJ co P 1

1 — 1 rH Cd 0) OJ ""d UH
j cd p o> ^; /H P
P fi r-t P rQ O *
WO^tHOcd^ *
P^ EH
c .1 • J3 i -acj-
f—] -H .* 1 ^> ' J O j
cd re) i o » flJ v >*
fi y -H H -H fi Ul fi rH
H*r-(fi ^JTjOfifi CD CO
c>-ii>cjcd(iJ -nOcd P ecu
OfiUJP5HO)rfi'Hrfi Ul cdfi
C K -H co OJ ^ ^ P o cd fi -H
O 0) cd H cd -H r* -H H s
tn-HUlp OrHOfihJJ Vti^fiCD
(U rHrQCUOOcd OO/OP
rc3j>,-pgcd pbDCJfi p-Htu
(U p' UlO'H^Cdcd *H i-^CUPtj
tiO-HCdrHrHCOjirHLOCxJ -drH-H
j.,, — j^j^Hpjji n5rH copPiT^Oco
cd-H uifiScu 'd ppr3rd-Prd
j^CJrHr'j^cd^-'-fi+3 cdcoO<( 0)
UtdHptjrHOp^H T3 O 'ddl
yiOncdfifiPHp Ocd hO rH
O-pHPPP'd tJ-H-H p,* W'd'-o wp





















CO '"N
01  co uj
> 0) H O ^3
3: cd r-J g cu

rH ^1 r-H " O O QJ
Cd O P J-, P ^ fi
p 01 CU CO -r-1
-H S ^ H rO
fi P no" -HO f'
cd H fi Op O
m on rq --- c^
_-^ 	 ^ .M-— .-^_ — ._- . 	 . 	 	 , 	 . 	 ^
•H rH rH
rH O fi Cd
01 CO '6
jj b>j CO


M cd S O
•H O 'd
" " rH hD 01
>j fi Pi cd H
M r5 rH H
o3 O '^ O

•rH ^ CU bD P
fi O P rH fi
Cd rH Oi CO O
OT ,0 ^ r t O
O "
P  S.
C  ID
m ,Q
ti  fi


                                                                O  h  i  i  -H

                                                               >:  o  u  w
                                            a  "5  o
                                            to ctj  o
                                            •H  H
                                              :  P.  ,o
                                            o
                                                >D   O

-------
o\
H
V
G









Remarks
Remedial
Program
Improvement
Needs
•p -P
O Jn -H

tn o J-.
H a. -. jj rH • • p ^ (U -H 03 P O £ (U rH
£ H o H > -p o etf -P o o
• • aJ " bfl ni ,"3 c3 cu t! «J -rH £! H r<{ bD
&TJ rj ^ -r( -o O tJ O H f,n -H IU £> » ^ H rH ^G ^Ei H O O
g CO B ,C -a P, a o d CM OOP .H a ,a
to H cq


-------







































-p
o
CD CD CD
t! I* '£
< iJ W
•p
c
<1)
co >
CU O
!H rH
















•P
01
F4












' S3
•H
>
•H
CD
U
111









to

a
e

(S











^ §
•H 3

O U
B O
• D
0 CD
^ a
H
-p

ID r-
•8 S
is of

oS
§s
H
*-^
o
•H
-P
CO
In

-P
O
Cd ^
U rH

Q) t»
Cd^
O

o ^
PL. CD
CO





+3
G t)
CD 0)
B -d
C' O
IH £



to G
^1 "H
d) CO
-i-' cd
oj W
D£ —




























01
o



1


*H

0 C
H O
£1 -H
O -P



O


O
LT\
i — t







a)
H
CS
H
•H
Id


cd
—,
O
o
LA


Pt,
to
08

EH
CO
^
ti
c
o
o
(U

r
d "-
G (U

—


01 T3
01 -H •
JH -H
? • +>
01 E o
p 
01 Ul fCJ

i w a>
p o\
^ ^ tju
C 11 O O\
0} -p -P rH
•P rH
•H Ul •
O Vl -H U
•H 0!
J-> Tf (U P)
P. C P
(LJ 0) -H >»
CO 01 Ul p












(U
G
0
K



O
&


o
ir\








HJ
H
H
•H
cd
.>
§
p
_w
o
l/%
t-








id >>
ID IH
O 0

cd

rH 01
O -iH
r1 W
nj •


0)
•H
P.

O
o
o

CO
4) rH
•H CLJ
-P G
•H C
rH O
•H 01
0 in
cd 4)
>

•rt Cd
CO B

0 S








1
cd
c
'H

0 G
rH 0
P: -H
U P



,§


o
CM
rH







CO
o'-p u'-p oco<;cnco



i§ B B S, s


O O CO
OJ OJ irv
H rH

9
o
o
H
o
o
Qj (D  -p 1 O O
r^J tJ rtj tJ IA "CO •
Pi to -p -P
o o o o 0200
LA LA O O LA
CU OJ IA O t—
H H CM

"m"
j CO j>i 03 cl aj w -p cd co ^-i cd CO
C £H U e* 4^ O fH b1 CJ £H uo^
OCO OCO tlQJCO '(JOJCO (i4 ^i  co aj -H > -H >
ru rS -H ^ W m -P    O
                 .-1
                     ID
                 t—  O
6
o

t-1 CJ
M3 OJ
.-I OJ
1 cj
LA pQ
                                                                                       O
                                                                                  ID  O
                                                                                               >>  CU '
                                                                                               r. P

-------





c\

o\
rH

0
c:
^











to
^
td
S
0)
CS

































































d §
•H flJ

d) bi
e o

K PH


.p
a
CU
S w
§ -d
> CU
o cu
^ ^
§•
M
-P -P
CJ *H -H
CU CU CU CU H
CM X .H -p cc

< J W S O
-p
G "•
CU O Q
co > o PL,

C' o

E^ PL,

» ^ 334
•H I -P
C £H O -P O rC tfl
d^-p^^bO'daJ
B nd UC w -H Qj >
§OJ -H G rH +3
P -P rH 2 O -P
;£ P, T3 ^J ^J
o ttuS'^^ QJ ^ft1-^
-p -H !L) d) (U ^ -P
i — 1 4-3 -P t> cd w •*
to -P aJ O H C O •
COJcdgrMOObOOJ
KJ.C: Opj4->OtdO
rH 4^ V3 -P 2 -H
PH ^ 2 d CC tO W
0) O flJ O c3 f-i S
f^j ^j .^ -H fi! ^ nJ rQ
fn a5 > ,5 P n3 a.
nJJ30.rfn3 CU^TJ
2 O f-H O •« !M s
^J Tj H 0 -P rf O
-paJ"-'H ^HiOfnfH
W r— 1 >• W CO ^ (U -P
cdrdc--O-Hto^ir>w
oca\f-.x;a.-ps
H -cJ ,b
pq
O I to
" -H cd -H
>>4J C Td
J-. 03 -H
03 c a 
nJ


LT\









a
(O
•H    ?4  ..H
 CU    CU  U
 O
 
-------
                                                           June 1969
                                                                        334-A
                            FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
                 REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS PUBLIC NOTICES
     A summary presenting the status of significant dredging and fill projects

to which we had objected in the Lake Erie Enforcement Conference Area was

prepared and submitted to the Conferees at the progress evaluation meeting on

June ii, 1968.  The following is a presentation of further information concern-

ing certain projects for which information was incomplete at the time of the

last report, and similar projects for which applications for permit have been

filed with the Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, since that time.


Projects reported, June 1968:

1.  Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.   To dredge in Buffalo Outer Harbor, Union

    Canal, Erie Basin and Lackawanna Canal at Buffalo.  Analyses of samples

    contracted by applicant were never received.   No permit was issued.  The

    Corps of Engineers reports that  the applicant finally decided to deposit

    the entire amount of dredged materials on their own property.  This was

    reported by letter from the applicant to the  Corps.

2.  Erie Marine, Inc., Division of Litton Industries.  To dredge in the slip

    between the Pennsylvania Coal Dock and Dequesne Pier, Erie Harbor, Erie,

    Pennsylvania, and dump in Lake Erie.  Mr. Stoddard wrote a letter indicat-

    ing that the dredging permit should contain specific qualifications with

    respect to the disposition of the polluted overburden.  The Corps of

    Engineers reported that no permit was issued.

3.  U.S. Steel Corporation.  To dredge in the main channel Black River, Lorain,

    Ohio, and dump in Lake Erie.  It was previously reported that, because of

    our objection, the applicant proposed to dump the dredgings on 3-5 acres of

-------
                                                                         334-B
                                                                           2.
    their own property.   This proposal was accepted "by FWPCA.   However,  in

    February 1969 > the applicant submitted another request to  dump in Lake

    Erie, probably because two other applications for permit had been approved

    by action in Washington.  We reiterated our position of one year previously.

    The applicant finally voluntarily withdrew their application.



Applications for permit - FY 1969:


1.  Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.   To perform maintenance dredging in  Ashtabula

    River at Pennsylvania R.R. Co. Coal Dock, and dump in Lake Erie.  We

    objected.  Corps of Engineers requested additional information to support

    anticipated court action.  Complete details were provided.  This matter

    was submitted to the Chief of Engineers and a permit was finally issued


    over our objections dated Dec. 2, 1968, based on a letter  of approval from

    Under Secretary Black.


2.  Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (Permit application May 10, 1968).  To dredge

    1*0,000 cubic yards of material in its coal dock slip, Lorain, Ohio.   Samples

    were collected by the Lake Erie  Basin Office and analyses  revealed pollu-

    tion.  FWPCA objected to dumping in Lake Erie.  Applicant  objected to our

    results, and subsequently more samples were analyzed and found to be

    moderately polluted.  In addition, Congressman Mosher wrote Secretary Udall

    pleading the applicant's case, and requesting favorable consideration.  The

    matter was finally resolved at the Washington level, by letter from Under

    Secretary Black, dated January 15, 1969, in which no further objection was

    made.  Permit was issued January 29, 1969, over our objections.


3.  Republic Steel Company.   (Permit application Jan. 23, 1969).  To dredge

    two areas in the Cuyahoga River adjacent to their property, and dump in

    Lake Erie.  Quantity to be dredged  not stated.  Samples revealed gross

    pollution.  FWPCA objected.  This matter was finally resolved after the

-------
                                                                          3.






    Corps of Engineers offered the applicant the opportunity to participate




    in the cost of the Corps'  diked area in Lake Erie off Cleveland Harbor




    and thereby become a part  owner with permission to dump a stipulated




    amount of dredged material.   Applicant finally accepted the offer and a




    permit was issued on April l^i, 1969-




k.   Jones and Laughlin Steel Company.   (Permit Application March 12, 1969).




    To dredge 8,500 cubic yards  of material at its dock in the Cuyahoga River




    and to dump in Lake Erie.   Sample  analyses revealed gross pollution.




    FWPCA objected.  The applicant finally agreed to participate in the cost




    of the Corps of Engineers  diked area off Cleveland Harbor.  Permit was




    issued April ih, 1969.




5.   U.S. Steel Corporation.   (Permit application March 12, 1969).




    To dredge 3,000 cubic yards  of material at its dock in the Cuyahoga River




    and to dump in Lake Erie.   Sample  analyses revealed gross pollution.




    FWPCA objected.  Applicant finally agreed to participate in the cost of




    the Corps of Engineers diked area  off Cleveland Harbor.  Permit was




    issued April 21, 1969.




6.   International Salt Company.   (Permit application February 55 1969)-




    To dredge 3,000 cubic yards  irt its slip in Old River at Cleveland, and




    to dump in Lake Erie.  Sample analyses revealed gross pollution.  FWPCA




    objected.  The applicant was offered the same opportunity as others to




    participate in the cost  of the Corps of Engineers diked area off Cleveland




    Harbor.  Applicant has indicated willingness to sign, but has  not yet done




    so.  Permit has not been issued as of this date.




T.   Erie Lackawanna Railway Company.  (Permit application March ik , 1969).




    To dredge 1,500 cubic yards  of material at its dock in Old River, about

-------
                                                                      It.

    0.3 mile above confluence with Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio.
    Samples were collected at two points in the area.   Those at the  down-
    stream point were found to be grossly polluted, and at the upstream
    point were moderately polluted.-  FWPCA objected to granting the  permi.t.
    This applicant was also offered the opportunity to participate in the
    cost of the Corps of Engineers diked area, and has indicated a willing-
    ness to sign, but wishes to delay until after July 1, 1969.  Permit has
    not been issued to date.

Applications for permit to fill in Lake Erie:
1.  Gordon Park, Cleveland, Ohio.  This project was reported on in June 1968,
    indicating our objection to the fill operation.  A permit for this
    project was not issued due to FWPCA objections.  However, the city sub-
    mitted another permit application, dated December 18, 1968, about which
    we had no knowledge, until receipt of a letter from the city, dated
    June 2, 1969.  The city now states that they are complying with all
    regulations regarding dike construction and dumping of fill materials into
    the diked area.  We have not taken any action on this letter to date,
    since we have had no request from the Corps of Engineers to do so.
2.  Associated Estates Corporation.  (Permit Application February 6, 1969).
    To fill approximately 25,000 cubic yards of shale and rubble in Lake
    Erie.  This material is waste excavated material from the site of a high
    rise apartment building.  FWPCA objected on" the basis of Recommendation 1^
    of the Lake Erie Enforcement Conference.   He appealed to  his  Congress-
    man.  A meeting was held with the applicant and his associates in
    Cleveland on May 2, 1969, with the Regional Coordinator, and representatives
    of BOR, BSF&W, and State of  Ohio.  The matter was finally  resolved that
    the  applicant would remove the material and dispose of  it  in a location
    other than dumping in Lake Erie.  The permit was not issued.

-------
        COMBINED SEWERS IN FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
                     AREAS 3N THE TOLEDO, OHIO AREA


Information was received in January 19&9 from the Director, Lake Erie Basin

Office,that Bureau of Public Roads and Housing and Urban Development projects

are being built in the Toledo, Ohio area without following the Lake Erie

Enforcement Conference recommendation for sewer separation, and subsequent

orders by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board.  It was further reported to

him that the State and Federal government have relaxed on the requirement.


Requests were sent to the respective Federal agencies by letter dated

March 6, 19^9 for information regarding their present practices (copies

attached).  BPR replied on April 2, 1969 (copy attached) and stated that they

had made a review of all active construction projects in the Toledo area, and

found them to be in compliance with their Instructional Manual 20-2-67, "but

admitted that there are cases where combined sewers are being replaced in

kind, and that this would not jeopardize separation of the sewers at a later

date.


A reply was received from HUD, dated May 5, 19&9 (copy attached), which

indicated that from the Urban Renewal Handbook it is generally considered

preferable to separate combined sewers, but it is not mandatory.  It is further

stated that combined storm and sanitary sewers are eligible in accordance with

the Handbook, if there is adequate provision for treating the combined effluent,

although, wherever there are long range comprehensive sewer plans providing

for the separation of combined sewers, sewerage construction in Urban Renewal

served by such systems must provide separate systems.


We believe that the practices of both agencies are not in compliance with the

enforcement conference provisions.

-------
                                                                        3S4-F






                                                                         2.






We plan to request that representatives  of the  above  mentioned  Federal




agencies meet vith us at a mutually agreeable time  and  place  as soon  after




the date of this conference as possible  to resolve  this problem and to  reaffirm




our position.

-------
                                                      335
                      M.  Garnet
          MR. POSTON:  I would like to ask one question
here, M". Garnet, and that is:  You have given us a
report on nine particular installations.
          MR. GAMET:  Right.
          MR. POSTON:  And I am wondering whether they are
in compliance with the schedule as set by the Conferees
in 1967.  I think it is.
          MR. GAMET:  I would say that —
          MR. POSTON:  And which ones are not, if they
are not in compliance?
          MR. GAMET:  Well, the three that I first
mentioned:  The Grosse lie Naval Air Station; the U.S.
Coast Guard, Detroit River Light Station; and the Coast
Guard Station at Toledo are not in compliance.  I men-
tioned this at the beginning of the report.
          The other installations, with the exception of
two, have time schedules already fixed.  The two that do
not have time schedules are the Nike Sites at Selfridge
Field, the Michigan Army Missile Plant — there are
three — and the Detroit Arsenal.  A part of the deficien-
cies have been remedied and are now in compliance, and a
part of thorn are not.
          Now, two of these, as I mentioned, are dependent
upon a decision based on consultants' reports, as to the
feasibility of additional1 "treatment facilities, or

-------
                     M. Garnet



transmission of wastes to the Detroit interceptor system,




and I mentioned that both the State and ourselves have



recommended connection to the Detroit system.




          MR. POOLE:  Well, they are not in compliance



yet, then, are they?




          MR. GAMET:  No, not on that basis.




          MR. POOLE:  I want to suggest to the Chairman



that the next time you make a table up there, put the




Federal installations on.  I don't think they look a




bit better than the States do when you put this report



on it.




          MR. POSTON:  I think the reason I brought this



out is that our Chairman indicated at the beginning of




the meeting that this was a progress meeting in which we



were going to evaluate the progress that has been made,



and I am having difficulty knowing exactly what the pro-



gress has been up to this time.



          We have heard reports that indicated some of



the dates had been extended.  We had heard about some



new plans, for example, on the Cuyahoga River, where




they may go into the city system or they may go their




own way.  We have heard about advanced waste treatment




where advanced waste treatment means just phosphate



removal, and in some places we find that phosphate removal




is considered chemical treatment alone, and we have heard

-------
                                                       337
                      M, Garnet
reports on research.
          But I think we came here to find out what the
progress is and evaluate that progress as compared to the
dates which these same Conferees gave to the Secretary,
and which the Secretary of the Interior said was the
schedule for abatement of pollution.  These dates were
set in 1967> I think, this schedule for abatement, and
now we come along with all these different things, and
I am really interested in finding out how we are meeting
this schedule,,  Are we meeting the schedule?  Is this
thing going along just like we planned it, or are we
given a research project as a diversionary tactic, or
these other things as diversionary tactics?  And this
is what concerns me, and this is why I asked the question
of you, Merrill.  I think we are getting ourselves in
the same position.
          MR. STEIN:  Mr. Metzler.
          MR. METZLER:  I wasn't sure from this speech
that the Federal Conferee was making whether he was
directing himself to the Federal report, or whether he
didn't understand the reports he has gotten from the
States.  I can speak only for New York, but I think it
is very clear in the report that we presented at least
where we are meeting the schedule and where we are falling
behind.  If there is any doubt in his mind about it, I

-------
                      M.  Garnet




would be glad to ask Mr.  Seebald to review it again.




          MR. STEIN:  I think it is pretty clear, as I




see it,  As a matter of fact, I have a few points




here that I would like to raise with the Federal report.




          You know, I was once in a situation like this



out in, I think, Wyoming, and I think they operated a




little differently than that.  It just got to about this




point in the discussion and, at that time, the health




officer of Wyoming who was in the west a long time said,




"You know, this reminds me of when the west was really



young, and I was a boy, and I went into the town and was




in the parlor in a local house of ill repute, and I saw



two of the girls there arguing with each other, and the




argument was:  Which one of us is more respectable?"



(Laughter)



          The point is, though, we do have dates, and



these dates have been established, I think, for the



program.  We had a question on the phosphate date.  There



wasn't quite clarity, I don't think, on when we wanted to




have a date for the removal of phosphate.




          We haven't taken that up yet*  But I do think




with the dates that we had originally  and the dates you




had proposed here, it doesn't take much for a man like




me to say:  If we originally set a date for 1970, and



someone said that they were going to complete that in




1971, or something, in June, they were six months behind,

-------
                                                       3^9




                      M. Garnet



maybe that wasn't too significant.  If they said they were



 going to complete it in 1972, they were a year or a year




and a half behind.  But if they said they were going to




complete it in 1973, they might be three or four years




behind, and I think you have to evaluate this project by




project.



          Again — and I know a lot of you people




here are professionals, because you are following this



kind of arrangement.  I don't think there is anything to




be ashamed of or anything unusual here.  When we first



set this program up, we were dealing with one of the




largest and major pollution problems in the country, a




tremendous body of water such as Lake Erie, with very




complicated problems:  five States, many industries, many



cities.  You can tell from the listings you have had here.




          From all of these, we came up with the same



time schedule.     For all of the people at the head



table  and I am sure most of you people who are in the



room  know when any regulatory agency in pollution control




sets up a schedule like that at the beginning, the reason




we have these periodic meetings is to see what develops



and make adjustments accordingly where there is good




reason to make the adjustments.




          I have never been in a single case yet where




we have set this for a large group of people,  as cities

-------
                                                        390
                       M. Garnet



and industries, for everyone to be completed on a date



certain like January 1, 1970, that suddenly January 1,



1970, comes and 40 cities and 60 industries push the



button all at the same time and the plants go into opera-



tion.



          You have to recognize that originally we made the



best estimate.  I see here we are not too far off on the



dates.  However, Mr, Poston, let me call your attention to



two factors,  I noticed the date from every city and every



industry in the State — two things disturb me and they



may not be large sources, but one is U.S. Army Nike Sites



15 and 16, where they show "no projected date is available



at this time;11 and the other the Michigan Army Missile



Plant at Warren, Michigan, "no projected time schedule



for remedial measures is available at this time."



          Now, I think in the absence of that perhaps the



Federal report is beyond the State report, because we have



two sources where we have no date at all,



          MR. GAMET:  Mr, Chairman, may I answer that?



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.



          MR. GAMET:  In the first place, we have notified



every Federal agency as to the expected dates of compliance



in accordance with the Conference recommendations and the



State requirements.  However, these are installations



which are Department of Defense installations, and I

-------
                                                       391
                      M. Garnet
believe we all understand what happens at times to
Department of Defense funds.  We have experienced several
instances recently where funds for waste treatment
facilities have been diverted to other uses, which simply
means this, then:  that the waste treatment or remedial
measures are going to be postponed.  We are working as
hard as we can to get every single Federal installation
in our region at full compliance with all requirements:
Executive Order, Water Quality Standards, and the
Conference Recommendations.
          MR0 POSTON:  I think, in answer to Mr. Metzler's
question — and I haven't noted this in Mr. Metzler's
report, because I guess I couldn't absorb all of the
informtion that is in all of the reports — but I see
here in the Maumee River Basin, for example, and it says
Adelphis, plan extended.  They extended the time schedule.
For the next community, which was Toledo, the date for
detail plan is extended.  Van Wert, date for detail plans
extended.  Antwerp, date for detail plans extended.
          MR. METZLER:  Mr. Chairman.
          MR. POSTON:  And this is what I was referring
to.
          MR. METZLER:  I want to clarify a point.
          I wasn't sure — my question was primarily:
Was the Federal Conferee referring to the report that was

-------
                                                       392
                       M. Garnet

before us by the man at the podium, or was he saying he

was dissatisfied with some of the data submitted by the

States, and he has answered that by saying that he is

dissatisfied by the data submitted by some of the States.

          MR. POSTON:  I am dissatisfied with our own

Federal agency report.  As an illustration — our particular

inadequacy at this time emphasizes what has been going

through my mind today as to how, as one of the conferees,

I am going to participate in a decision for the Secretary.

How can we come up with a report to the Secretary that will

tell what progress has been made?  How will we evaluate

this?

          MR. METZLER:  I merely say that if there is

any question about the New York presentation, I hope it

will be highlighted and we can straighten it out.

          MR. EAGLE:  Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

                      In this table, Mr. Garnet, you have

a column "Affect Lake Erie Water Quality."  In going

through this, I find only three out of the total list is

answered "Yes."  All of the rest are answered "No."

          What was the basis for this determination?

          MR. GAMET:  Well, I  think the basis was either

that there is adequate treatment, or that the flow was

of such magnitude, or the point of discharge to the

tributary stream was such that there would be essentially

-------
                                                        393
                      M • Garnet
no deleterious effect on water quality in Lake Erie.
          MR. EAGLE:  Well,  you certainly didn't give
the State of Ohio this prerogative to decide whether or
not it would have any effect on Lake Erie.  You included
everybody, per se.
          If this were the case, I don't even know what
Indiana is doing here, because they are a long way from
Lake Erie.
          MR. MILLER:  Thank you, George.
          MR. EAGLE:  That is not germane to the discussion
here at all today, that column.
          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?
          MR. LION:  Mr. Chairman, I think one comment
needs to be made here.  It came up earlier in the dis-
cussion, and it troubles me, and that is the fact that it
appears, in some cases — one of them perhaps being the
Cuyahoga River — we have been given schedules which may,
in fact, not be the course of events that might be
followed.
          The individual industries have provided schedules
for abating their pollution from their individual discharges,
but it appears from the report of the city of Cleveland
that they are considering collecting some of these  or
all of them  into an industrial waste or into their sewer
system.

-------
                                                      394
                      M.  Garnet
          If this is so,  then, wouldn't it also appear
appropriate for that plan to be related to some kind of
a schedule?  In other words, if it is possible to follow
two courses of events, then oughtn't there to be two
schedules for either possibility?
          MR. POOLE:  Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought that
was brought out this morning that it was impossible to,
at this moment, set a schedule on when the city of Cleveland
might collect some of this industrial waste, but that
it would be considered as soon as Cleveland had proceeded
to the point where it could be»  Did I misunderstand,
George?
          MR. EAGLE:  No, I thought I fully answered
that question.  I don't know whether Walt was here at
that time or noto
          MR. LYON:  Well, I think we should realize,
then, that we really don't have a schedule for that
possibility.
          MR. EAGLE:  No.  It is only in the discussion
stage at this point.  There is no proposals in this regard.
          MR. STEIN:  I think — and let me again say  —
I tried to summarize this, this morning.  Ohio  and Mr.
Eagle have dates set for these industries in the Cuyahoga
River, according to his report.  These dates remain
unchanged  for compliance  is that correct?
          MR. EAGLE:  That is right.

-------
                                                      395
                      M. Garnet
          MR. STEIN:  Right.  And there is no proposal
before Ohio to change the dates there.
          MR. LION:  Does that mean that if the city
takes these industries into a regional system that the
same schedule will pertain and the schedule will not be
changed?
          MR. EAGLE:  I don't know, Walter.  I don't know
what is going to happen.  I don't know.  I can't tell you
what is going to happen a year from know.  I can't even
tell you what is going to happen tomorrow really.
          MR, STEIN:  Do we have any more?
          MR. POSTON:  To get back to the Federal report,
I see that we indicated back at an earlier date that we
were going to have all of the Federal installations with
the exception of the NASA  Lewis Research Center  to be
in compliance by August of 1966.  That means that all of
these are in  noncompliance with the exception of the NASA
Research Center.
          MR. GAMET:  Well, I don't believe that is
correct, mainly because — with the possible exception
of phosphate removal —
         • MR. POSTON:  In June of 1966, the summary of
our meeting was that Federal installations — all but one
major Federal installation will have the necessary
treatment facilities completed and in o;•;•,• ,0ion by August

-------
                                                      396



                      M. Garnet




of 1966.  The NASA Lewis Laboratory at Sandusky, Ohio,




not in compliance with Conference Recommendations  has




engineering studies under way.




          MR. GAMET:  Well, the others that I have men-




tioned here, such as Selfridge Field, Nike Sites at




Selfridge, have not been in compliance with the State of




Michigan requirements for discharges to the Clinton




River.      As you know, they now have specific plans,



which has been State Recommendation and ours, to discharge



their waste to a municipal system where feasible.




          This, of course, is now going to happen.  As



of this date, they are not in compliance  until such time




as the Detroit interceptor is available in that area



for connection to it.




          MR. POSTON:  It is quite probable and possible



that Selfridge was not considered since Selfridge Field



is up above Lake St. Glair, tributary to St. Clair



through the Clinton River, as I understand it.



          MR. GAMET:  Well, it discharges into St. Clair




— that is, the Clinton River — but we were given to




understand that Lake St. Clair is included within the



Conference area.  This was the reason why we have included




that installation in this report.



          MR, STEIN:  Any other comments or question?




          Does that conclude the Federal report?

-------
                                                      397
                     M. Garnet



          MR0 POSTON:  Mr. Garnet, you have another state-




ment?



          MR, GAMET:  Well, I do have a short statement




here regarding phosphate removal which I can give in two




or three minutes.




          MR. STEIN:  Go ahead, Mr. Garnet.



          (The above referred to report follows in its




entirety,,)

-------
                                                                   June  3969
                                                                             398
                       REMOVAL OF TOTAI", PHOSPHORUS
                   FROM WASTE DISCHARGES TO LAKH ERIE
                        BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
     The total phosphorus (as P) contained in untreated waste discharges

from major Federal installations in the Lake Erie Basin is estimated to

be about 200 Ibs.  per day.  Treated effluents from existing treatment

facilities at these installations contain approximately 7^ Ibs.  per day.

     The remaining eleven (ll) installations, as shown in the inventory

report, are all relatively small, and have a total contributing  population

of about 1,200 persons.  They are estimated to contribute a total of about

15 Ibs. per day of phosphorus to Lake Erie.

     The following information in tabular form shows data from the above

mentioned major installations in the basin that generate phosphates, primarily

from industrial processes, and the reduction that is achieved through their

treatment processes.

                          Phosphorous Loadings
                    from Major Federal Installations
                        Lake Erie Enf. Conf. Area
Installation
NASA, Lewis Research Center
NASA, Plum Brook Station
Michigan Army Missile Plant
Detroit Arsenal
Selfridge Air Force Base
Naval Air Station Grosse lie
Cleveland Army Tank Automotive
Plant
Total P (Ibs /day)
Untreated
8.0
2.9
l.U
.5
68.8
1U.5
100.0
Treated
8.0
2.h
.7
.2
56.0
Ik. 2
0.5
Present
Removal
(*)
0
17.2
50.0
60.0
18.6
2.08
99.5
                                       196.1

-------
                                                                         399
     It will be noted that the Cleveland Arr^y Tank Automotive PI ant achieves




almost 100/j reduction of phosphoj us by chemical  corgulation, mixed media




filtration and finally sand filtration.




     At such time as Selfridgc Field is connected to the Detroit interceptor,




the direct phosphorus discharge to the basin vill be eliminated.  Ths




phosphorus contribution of Grosse lie Naval Air Station will also be




eliminated when the station closes in September 19<->9-




     When these reductions are effected, it is estimated that the remaining




total phosphorus contribution from all Federal installations to Lake Erie




will not exceed about 25 Ibs. per day.

-------
                                                        400
                    Hon. Charles A. Vanik



          MR, STEIN:  Any comments or questions?



          If not, thank you very much, Mr. Garnet.



          We have a telegram addressed to the Chairman



which I would like to read into the record now.



          "Urge your Conference to recommend separate



Federal funding for Lake Erie pollution problem.  A



recommendation urging construction of diked areas for



receipt of dredged materials would be helpful in my



efforts with Army Corps of Engineers for long-term



solutions of this problem.  In separate statement* which



I will submit, I protest the action of Ohio Water Pollu-



tion Control authorities in zoning water quality.  Cleveland



communities are entitled to no lesser water quality than



other citizens of Ohio.  Full statement will be submitted



for the record."  Signed Charles A. Vanik, Member of



Congress.



          I think Michigan called a couple of participants



who didn't answer.  Do you want to try again, Mr. Purdy?



          MR. PURDT:  Yes.  I have a note that Mr.



O'Keefe, representing the UAW, is now present in the



audience and we are ready to hear his statement if he



would come forward.








*Appended at the end of Conference Proceedings.

-------
                                                      401
                   James O'Keefe



          STATEMENT OF JAMES O'KEEFE,  INTERNATIONAL




          REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED AUTO WORKERS,




          DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE




                 DEVELOPMENT, COLUMBUS,  OHIO






          Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,  my name is




James O'Keefe.  I am an International Representative




serving the United Auto Workers, Department of Conserva-




tion and Resource Development.  I am here today on behalf




of Director Olga Madar and the 160,000 UAW members




residing in Ohio.



          I am not a technician nor a professional water




pollution control expert, but then neither are the




citizens of the Lake Erie Basin that I represent.




          In tribute to your expertise,  first  let me say



that I am overwhelmed by the wealth of written material



available today to attendants to this Conference.  As a



lay person interested in the problem of water  pollution,




I must confess, however, that I am confused.  I am



somewhat like the boy who dropped his chewing  gum in




the chicken yard and didn't know exactly what  to pick




up.




          I have read reams of verbiage:  The  Lake




Erie Environmental Summary 1963-1964, the Proceedings




of the Conference dealing with Pollution of Lake Erie

-------
                                                      402
                   James O'Keefe



and Its Tributaries, the Lake Erie Water Treatment Cost




Related to Water Quality, a Report on Lake Erie Bathing




Beaches and Bacterial Water Quality, and even the Lake




Erie Environmental Summary for 1963-1964.  And I repeat,



like that boy in the chicken yard, I am confused,




          I am confused about the label given this




meeting today.  It is called a public hearing, but yet




the agenda excludes the public.  I am confused that the




Chairman has seen fit to reaffirm that the cost of clein-




ing up pollution must be borne by the polluters.  If




this is so, what is the real role of the U.S. Department




of Interior, and why the waste of time and taxpayers'




money on this charade called a public hearing?  Couldn't




the information exchanged here today by representatives



of State Governments have been transmitted by 1 ;ttor'r   la



this so-called public hearing a display aimed at quieting




the public furor?



          I know that Ohio is doing a very poor job on




cleaning up the waters  of the State.  The bureaucrat would




say this differently.   He would say, for instance, that:




"Ohio has made an effort but there has been some slippage,"




Further that he is  convinced that Ohio will clean up its




waters, but that the real question is when.  The bureau-



crat may go a step  further and say that:  "Ohio is doing

-------
                                                        403




                   James  O'Keefe




as well as other States," and dispense with a criticism



on the progress of Cleveland as compared to Detroit by




saying that:  "Detroit has a new Director."




          Now, like most citizens of Ohio, I am fed up




with gobbledygook.  It has been adequately demonstrated




that the people of Ohio are powerless to turn the tide




of pollution of its streams, rivers, and lakes, and I



therefore call for the Federal Government to perform the




job of doing for the people of Ohio that which they cannot




do for themselves:  Restore to the citizens of Ohio their




lakes and streams; give back to the people their heritage.




          As starters, how about a complete and absolute




prohibition on all drilling in Lake Erie and the other




Great Lakes, followed by an Executive Order to the Corps




of Army Engineers to stop, not next year, not next month,




not tomorrow, but today, and stop, stop pollution by



subsidy, stop dredging in Lake Erie.



          These may sound like radical proposals, and they



are, but the situation wherein the Cuyahoga River catches



fire or a great city like Cleveland living on the shores




of one-fifth of the country's freshwater supply is obliged




to chlorinate lake waters for a safe swimming hole for




its citizens calls for unusual responses from public




officials.




          The UAW is obligated by membership action to

-------
                                                       404
                   James O'Keefe



cooperate with all interested groups in the protection




and enhancement of our environment.  Today, to you




gentlemen, I reaffirm that obligation.  In return, could




we possibly get a pledge from you of less talk, more




action?




          Thank you for allowing me the time to make these




observations, and, if it pleases you gentlemen, I would




like to submit some copies of this statement for inclusion




in the record.




          MR. STEIN:  That will be done without objection.




          I feel obliged though, Mr. O'Keefe, to make a




comment on two of your remarks:  one, that we held a




meeting and the public wasn't invited.  I think by your




statement alone, besides all of the other public people



who wanted to appear, that, on its face  the public is



invited.  The Secretary said so in his letter to the



States.  We have made every effort for the public to be



here.




          Also, the statement allegedly made by the




Chairman as to who is to pay for pollution, and that the




Chairman said that just the cities and the industries




responsible are to pay  for it.  The Chairman has no




recollection of saying  that.  He never did say it.  As



a matter of fact, if you examine the  congressional hearings,

-------
                                                        405
                       James 0'Keefe
my testimony  through the years  for more construction
grant appropriations, I think the record is very clear on
where I stand on that  in the development of State laws
and State codes, on the promotion of State bond issues
to get public funds into this.
          What I did say was just a plain statement of
the law of the land:  that the people who produce the
pollution are legally and technically responsible for
its cleanup*
          And let me make this clear.  Whatever you say
about the State of Ohio, or any other State, or even the
Federal Government with its few installations, the State
of Ohio isn't polluting your waters, it is the people in
the cities and the industry in Ohio that is polluting
them, and we can say the same for all of the other States.
          MR. LION:  Mr. OfKeefe, what has the United
Auto Workers done about asking the Ford Motor Company to
have its pollution of the Cuyahoga River cleaned up sooner?
          MR. 0'KEEFE:  Well, let me ask you a question.
What has the Water Pollution Control Administration dono
about the pollution o^ the Cuyahoga River?  I think we are
in the same situation.
          The Chairman has said that the people of Ohio
are responsible for the pollution of its waters.  I say
that this is not so.  I say that there have been a few

-------
                                                        406
                    James O'Keefe
privileged people throughout the State that have taken it
upon themselves to use a natural resource without paying
the cost for the resources, and I think that we have sat
through meeting after meeting.
          My reference to the public being at these
meetings — I notice that there is no chance for response
from the attendants to these meetings.  There is only —
if you submit your name beforehand, you are allowed a
chance to speak, and I notice that the scales are weighed
in favor of the professionals.  There is very little
response from the general public, the people that are
confronted with this problem.
          People in Ohio don't have places to go swimming.
The Cuyahoga River is a national disgrace, and I read
years ago about a congressional committee that come down
in helicopters and the" flew over the river, and there was
a great big public outcry, and there was responses from
the Federal Government, and the State Government  and the
City Government.  But it is common knowledge in the State
of Ohio that there has been no progress, and all we do is
come together every June, it seems, to get a report on no
progress, no progress, further reasons for nothing being
done.
          I am telling you that the people of Ohio are fed
up and disgusted with the situation, and if the public

-------
                                                       407
                   James 0'Keefe

officials aren't going to do it for us, we have to call

upon the Federal Government to do the job that should be

done by our public officials in the State.  The State has

been deficient.  We have no money allocated for water

pollution.  When I say money I mean the kind of money that

would do the job effectively.

          We have allowed polluters to use our natural

resources and not pay the cost of the resources,  We have

denied the children and the people of Ohio the things that

we have a right to, by virtue of being a citizen of this

great State, have.

          Now, "profit" is not a dirty word in the great

State of Ohio,  Evidently "pollution" is not also.

          MR. LYON:  Mr. 0'Keefe, you didn't answer my

question.

          MR. 0'KEEFE:  If you answer my question, I will

answer yours.

          MR. LYON:  I asked you first.

          MR. 0'KEEFE:  I will tell you what they have

done.  They have applied pressure on the major industries

where we have representation to stop polluting the streams,

the lakes, the air, the natural environment  and we have

a clause in our agreement that calls for a strike.  It

gives us the right to strike when working conditions are

abnormal.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised in the very near

-------
                                                      403
                      James 0'Keefe
future to see this become one of the programs of labor
throughout the country.
          If the natural resources aren't properly pro-
tected by the public officials that are charged with
this responsibility, why then, perhaps it would call for
more radical action on the part of united labor.
          MR. LION:  Well, Mr. O'Keefe, the schedule sub-
mitted by the State of Ohio on the Cuyahoga River — there
are only two industries that are going to wait as long as
1971t and one of them happens to be the Ford Motor
Company.  Now, what I would like to know is what has
your union done to get the Ford Motor Company to clean
up its pollution as soon as some of the other polluters?
          MR0 O'KEEFE:  Just for the record, and for you:
The Ford Motor Company hasn't given James O'Keefe the
keys to the front door, and we don't enter into the
decisions of management.  The only thing we can do is
exert some kind of influence or pressure that is dictated
by the desires of our membership.
          MR. LION:  All I want to know from Mr. O'Keefe
is:  I/That did you do?  Did you write a letter?  Did you
talk to somebody specifically?  Could you tell us what
you did?
          MR. O'KEEFE:  Yes.  I will start back in 196?.
In 1967, the UAW, at a convention in Atlantic City,

-------
                                                       409



                   James O'Keefe



organized the Department of Conservation and Natural



Resources, and as part of their program they have contacted




employers that they have contracts with, and asked them




to honor the local State and Federal laws relating to




pollution of natural resources.  There is not too much




more than that we can do.




          MR. LYON:  Well, did you take the time, on at



least one occasion, let's say, to write a letter to the



Ford Motor Company in connection with the pollution at




Brook Park, which goes into the Cuyahoga River, which




is polluting Lake Erie, which you are so concerned about?



Did you take time to at least write a letter to them?




          MR. O'KEEFE:  Personally, no, I did not.  But




I know it has been done.




          MR. LYON:  If you didn't, what did you do?




Did you do anything specific?




          MR. O'KEEFE:  I have done whatever I could do



within the limits of the law.



          MR. LYON:  Well, what did you do?




          MR. O'KEEFE:  Well, I might be telling you



something out of school, but I am interested in seeing




that all kinds of pollution is stopped, just as I imagine




that .you are.  What we have done is activate our member-




ship  because we are limited to our fields of action.



We have activated our membership and educated them on

-------
                                                       410
                   James 0 'Keefe
some of these problems of the environmental problems,
and urged our membership to take part in citizens'  groups
and organizations within their own community that are
battling for improvement in the — or battling for
enhancement of the natural environment.  This is what we
have done.
          MR, LYON:  All I am trying to point out here,
Mr. O'Keefe, is that it is very easy to complain about
pollution. But we are all polluters, too, and we all have
a responsibility, and I think we all agree on that.
          MR. O'KEEFE:  Well, your statement is well
taken, and your point is well made, I think.  I think
we are all a part of the society, but I think you have
missed the point that I have made.  The point that I made
in my statement was that Ohio has failed miserably  in
correcting problems of water pollution, and it is obvious
to me  and it is obvious to the membership of the UAW
that the present arrangement will not work.
          The people have insisted and asked for higher
qualities — higher water qualities.  They have not
received them.  It is obvious that the present arrangement
won't work.
          Government is supposed to provide for the
people those things that they can't provide for themselves,
and I say to you and to this assemblage that this whole

-------
                                                       411
                      James O'Keefe
question of water pollution is beyond the realm of the
average citizen, and it demands immediate action on the
part of the Federal Government.
          MR, STEIN:  Are there any other questions or
comments?
          If not, thank you very much.
          MR. O'KEEFE:  Thank you.
          Mr. Purdy.
          MR. PURDY:  On behalf of the State of Michigan
with respect to the UAW, they have had a very active
program in Michigan.  They have given us a great deal of
support and cooperation, and we are very encouraged by
it.
          A few years ago, on the United Action for Clean
Water Conference  they organized their membership at
local levels  and it has been a productive organization.
          Also, I think, for the record, with respect
to this being a public hearing, I think that at least I
should indicate that we did  in Michigan  write specific
invitations to eleven municipalities, and township units
of government, twenty-one industries, and seventeen
organization.0, to participate in this meeting today.  So
we did attempt to inform the public in Michigan and give
them an opportunity to appear.
          Now, I called on the Lake Erie Cleanup Committee

-------
                                                        412
this morning, and I am wondering if, at the present time,


there is a representative of the Lake Erie Cleanup


Committee that would like to make a statement?


          That is all.


          MR. STEIN:  If not, I think we are completed

                         /
with the detailed reports.


          Now, the next item I have here was detailed


reports on removal of total phosphorus.


          I think we may have largely covered that, but


if any of the States want to say anything in addition on


phosphorus, at this time, I will call the roll.


          Indiana.


          MR. POOLE:  No.


          MR, STEIN:  Michigan.


          MR. PURDY:  No.


          MR. STEIN:  New York.


          MR. METZLER:  No.


          MR. STEIN:  Ohio.


          MR. EAGLE:  No.


          MR. STEIN:  Pennsylvania.


          MR. LYON:  No.


          MR. STEIN:  And the Federal Government.


          Mr. Poston.


          MR. POSTON:  I think Mr.  Garnet gave the  report.


I might, for my edification, ask whether or not we are up

-------
                                                       U3
to schedule with regards to phosphate removil.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, I think if you ask ti«ib




question, Mr. Poston, you have got two problems:  One,




what is the schedule?  And, by the way, I am not being



at all facetious about this, because we did put out a




schedule of 1970 for completion of secondary treatment




and disinfection; 1971 for phosphates.  That, I think,



was done by the Federal people in good faith on the basis




of the summaryo



          According to several of the Conference



participants, when we arrived at that, they genuinely




did not believe that we arrived at that 1971 date for the



completion of the phosphate removal.



          Now, in going over this record, and checking




everyone's notes, there were differing opinions on this,




and one of the things that we are going to do here is




try to get a firm schedule for phosphate removal that



hopefully all of the Conferees could agree on.  This is



one of the major purposes of this Conference.  So when



you ask about are we on schedule on phosphorus removal,



the first question I have to ask is what the schedule is.




          Mo POSTON:  Well, Mr. Chairman, I was referring



back to the date — the Conference dated October 4, in




1968, and it was Recommendation 1 that each State — now,



wait a minute.  The terminal date for construction of

-------
                                                      414
facilities to effect such phosphate removal shall be




1971.



          MR. STEIN:  That is the statement, because I




just said that it is in dispute  and that is one of the




major reasons for having this meeting here today, pre-




cisely that statement that you read.  It is not the



recollection of any of the Conferees that the Conferees




agreed on that at that Conference.




          This is one of the things we have to bear in



mind, and I hope we can work that out this afternoon.




          MR. LION:  Well, it might be helpful, Mr.




Chairman, to go back to that meeting, and the discussion




on Page 133 and 134» which does imply at least — you



have to admit that it wasn't nailed down absolutely, but




it sure has a lot of language in there about 1971.



          MR. STEIN:  That is right.



          Now, here is my point here:  We read that, and



obviously when this issue came up we went over the



transcript with a fine tooth comb.  As a matter of  fact,




that date wouldn't have been in there unless the people




in Washington did not think this applied in the transcript,



          Now, if you read the transcript — and we are




getting into a very technical legal discussion here but




you have to bear with us  — if you read the transcript,




what you will find  in the transcript is an  indication

-------
                                                     415
that the 1971 date might have been the date intended.



However, as you look at this transcript, very frequently



in this transcript — and we had this once today — we




went off the record.  What went on off the record is not




recorded in the transcript.



          At least three of the Conferees had a different




notion of what happened  and what appears in the transcript.




With the state of the record  in that condition, the



determination was made — and I think I corresponded with




Mr. Metzler, Mr0 Poole, I believe, Mr. Purdy, on this




matter — we said in view of this, no one is having a




shell game here or putting something through real fast.




If there is a genuine difference, we thought the time to




resolve that would be when we next would all get together.




And now is the time  and we are going to get to the date.



And I think rather than go over the past record where we




know there are different interpretations, we start out



and go on from here, because I don't think we are going



to resolve what the record said, since there are many



different opinions.



          Well, Mr. Poston —



          MR. POSTON:  Pardon?




          MR. STEIN:  Now, did you want to wait until we




get to the discussion on these phosphates, then, to take



that up?

-------
                                                       416
                     J.  L.  Hicks



          MR.  POSTON:  I will wait if you wish.




          MR.  STEIN:  But I think this is one of the key




things we are  here for.



          Now, how about the report on the program to



protect Lake Erie from agricultural and urban runoff?




Do we have that?




          MR.  POSTON:  Yes, sir.




          I think Mr. Jesse Hicks of the Soil Conserva-




tion, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation



Service, is here today,  and he has a statement to make.




This is to be  followed by Mr. Lloyd Harrold of the



Agricultural Research Service.






          STATEMENT OF JESSE L. HICKS, ASSISTANT




          STATE CONSERVATIONIST, UNITED STATES



          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL



          CONSERVATION SERVICE, COLUMBUS, OHIO






          MR.  HICKS:  Mr. Chairman, Conferees, and




ladies and gentlemen, I am Jesse L. Hicks, Assistant




State Conservationist for the U.S. Soil Conservation



Service, Department of Agriculture, .stationed here in




Ohio, and I have a brief statement, and I can furnish




this for the proceedings.



          Sediment, the product of erosion, is a major

-------
                                                      41?
                     J. L. Hicks




pollutant of our streams, lakes, and rivers.  It is



defined as solid matter, organic or mineral, that is



being moved from its site of origin by water, air, ice




or gravity.



          Of the many water pollutants, sediment is the




most common and occurs nationwide.  From the standpoint




of volume, it greatly exceeds the combined total of all



other substances that pollute the surface waters of our




nation.



          Sources of sediment are sheet erosion by water;



gullying by concentrated runoff; streambank erosion;




flood erosion by scouring in low areas; erosion from



urban, industrial, and other construction sites; roadside



erosion from cuts and fills; runoff from surface mining




areas; and pollutants from wastes of cities and industries,



          Because of the large area involved, agricultural



lands supply the greatest amount of sediment to the total



load carried by streams.  Land in row crops produces the



most soil loss.  This amount is dependent to a large



extent on the crops, tillage practices, slope, and



climate.




          The Maumee Basin, a major agricultural area



in northwest Ohio is estimated to have a sediment yield




of two million tons per year.  While agricultural lands

-------
                                                    413
                     J. L. Hicks




produce much sediment, urban areas under construction




produces a much larger proportionate share of the




sediment load.  It has been found that the average storm




yield from a construction site is:




          10 times greater than from cultivated land




          200 times greater than from grass areas




          2000 times greater than from forest lands




Many such areas lie in close proximity to major streams




and bodies of water, so the massive amounts of sediment




are introduced directly into the water.  Much of the




tilled agricultural lands such as we have here in




northeast Ohio are scattered and, therefore, much sediment




is filtered out before it reaches major water sources,




Conservation practices on cultivated areas can reduce




sediment yields by as much as SO to 90 percent according




to studies.




          In recent years, urban developments have vastly




increased the evidence of land erosion and created untold




damage.  In many of these developments, soil conservation




is ignored and the result is disastrous.  One such urban




area in Maryland, of the many thousands in the country,




produced 25,000 tons of sediment per square mile annually,




many times the amount  produced by nearby  farmland.   Girnil^r




cases are occurring in the Lake Erie drainage area where

-------
                                                      419
                     J. L. Hicks



construction leaves soil material unprotected.



          Erosion damage and silt production along road-




sides is likewise a large contributor to the total



sediment problem.  Roadside erosion defaces landscapes



and makes roads dangerous to travel.  It results in ex-




cessive highway maintenance cost.  As much as 350 tons




of soil per acre may be lost in a single year.  This is



many times the maximum loss from a cultivated field.




          Another large source of pollution in the




United States is the 3.2 million acres of land disturbed




by surface mining.  Of this figure, over two million




acres need conservation treatment.  Forty percent has



eroded enough to form rills and gullies, causing a




heavy silt load that may drain into streams and lakes,




and destroy fish and natural beauty.  In many areas,




surface mining is the major source of water pollution.



Disturbing the land surface for mining also destroys



wildlife habitat.  Nearly two million acres have been



destroyed by surface mining alone.




          Much of the sediment in many streams comes from



erosion of the streambank itself.  Because stream and




river banks are part of the water and sediment conveyance




system, soil eroded from these lands is immediately




converted to damaging sediment.  This is also true of




erosion on many lake shores which dump thousands of tons

-------
                                                       420
                     J. L. Hicks




of soil directly into the lakes annually.




          Storage capacity of artificial reservoirs and




natural lakes is depleted by deposition of sediment.




This not only affects water supply and hydroelectric




power, but flood control as well*  Sediment obstructs




storm sewers and road ditches.  It impedes navigation



in harbors and waterways and makes treatment more




expensive for municipal and industrial water.  It causes




excessive wear on pumping equipment and irrigation




systems.  It causes damage to aquatic life and loss of



recreational opportunities.  In some situations,




sediment in water has clogged underground aquifers,




This is extremely important when there is a need to




recharge depleted water sources.



          Most of the other pollution resulting from



agricultural activities enters flowing streams through



runoff from the Iand0  Many of the polluting materials,



such as phosphorus and others are carried along attached




to sediment particles resulting from erosion of farmland.



Measures that control runoff and reduce erosion, there-




fore, will help to reduce the volume of other pollutants.



          The list of the adverse effects of sediment on




our environment and costs to our economy is long.   But,




perhaps the greatest cost of all is the loss from its

-------
                                                      421
                     J. L. Hicks



original location of valuable topsoil that makes up a




large part of the sediment burden.



          In the past, the control of erosion upstream




on farms has received the most attention.  But if conserva-



tion measures were applied everywhere, not just on farms,




much of the sediment pollution could be eliminated.  It



is the unwise land use on all the acres of both urban




and rural land that fills reservoirs with sediment,



floods basements, cracks foundations, pollutes water,



damages roads costing millions of dollars, and damages



wildlife and recreation areas indefinitely.  With the




further concentration of industry and people in the




watersheds, the problems of sediment pollution will be



intensified unless all segments of society lend their




support to effective sediment control programs on all



land uses.



          Individual citizens control most of the



countryside, landscape, and natural resources.  Here on




privately owned land is where the biggest and most



difficult job of resource management is being performed,




and where, by necessity, it will have to be performed



in the future.




          The problem of controlling critical sediment




sources on nonagricultural land exceeds that of

-------
                                                     422
                     J. L.  Hicks




agricultural land because few people are aware of the




serious problem or are willing to do anything about it.




          Road builders, developers, other builders, and




land users can reduce erosion and subsequent deposition



by (1) exposing the smallest amount of bare land for the




shortest period of time; (2) using temporary ground cover




and planting permanent sod quickly; (3) using diversions,



sediment basins, and terraces to trap sediment; (4) saving




and using natural vegetation whenever possible; and (.5)



following natural topography and land drainage patterns




when laying out large developments.




          Controlling erosion and sediment has long been




an objective of the U.S. Department of Agriculture



through its technical assistance, cost-sharing, research



and credit programs.  Through the years, we have gained



the technical know-how and ability to deal with these



problems but are limited by legislation, authorities, and



resources.  Local soil and water conservation districts




are organized in all of the Lake Erie Drainage Area, and




have going programs for erosion control and sediment



reduction.




          Rates of erosion can be reduced significantly



on both agricultural and urban areas through low cost ero-




sion control measures.  By reducing erosion, these  control

-------
                                                      423
                     J. L. Hicks




measures would reduce sediment pollution in our streams




and reservoirs by a corresponding amount.



          How can pollution from sediment be reduced in




Lake Erie?  Several actions are essential:



          (l) Technical and financial assistance in




installing special measures for pollution control should




be expanded.  Long-term credit and cost-sharing should be



included in current programs of the USDA to be used for




this proposal.



          (2)  Local units of government and other public




bodies need further assistance for effective erosion and




sediment control programs in urban and industrial




developments.




          (3)  Authorities and institutional arrangements



are needed to control erosion along roads and highways,




streambanks, and strip mined areas.



          (4)  Greater attention should be given to



pollution control in watershed and river basin planning.




Pollution is a watershed problem and its solution requires



action on a watershed or river basin basis.  Control of




high-sediment-source areas, additional emphasis on land




treatment practices, and storage for water-quality




management should be given greater consideration.



          Additional funds are needed to adequately

-------
                                                    424
                     J.  L.  Hicks




finance the upstream watershed program, both for planning




and construction.  For example, in the Maumee Basin, which




is a large contributor of sediment to Lake Erie, as pre-



viously mentioned, there are 26 applications for assistance



under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act




(Public Law 566).  Three of these watersheds have been



planned, approved by Congress, and construction is now




underway.  Eight watersheds are in various stages of



planning.  There is a backlog of 15 applications waiting




to be planned, and under the current level of funding it



will be several years before construction and land




treatment work can be started.  The land treatment portion




is one of the most important elements of a watershed plan




and is the key to sediment reduction.




          (5)  We need to accelerate research.  Additional



practical methods to control the various types of pollu-



tion from agricultural lands should be developed.  The



ARS and FS in the USDA are presently doing research in



sediment control and pollution abatement.




          We have a technical staff available to help



plan and apply those measures already known to be effective




in erosion and sediment control.  Minor amendments to




existing legislation would probably be necessary to provide




adequate financial assistance to carry out these measures.

-------
                                                     425



                      J.  L.  Hicks



          We know that our natural environment is



deteriorating.  We believe that the agricultural



agencies are in the position to work alongside other



Federal, State, and local organizations to help improve



the water quality in Lake Erie.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



          Are there any comments or questions?



          MR. METZLER:  Yes, I would like to ask some



questions, and I will try to keep them short  ana hope



you can keep the answers brief.



          But I am interested in developing a little



more point of view here for my own understanding.  We



understand what the problem is and you described it very



well.  The last couple of minutes I thought you were



almost getting to the solution.



          First, what area do you work in?  Are you fam-



iliar with Ohio only?



          MR. HICKS:  I am familiar with the areas we



work in, in the Department of Agriculture, all over



briefly.  I cover the State of Ohio here, but I have



worked in other States.



          MR. METZLER:  Can you give me some idea  in



the State of Ohio, or in the Basin that we are talking



about, what percentage of the land is covered by



organized soil conservation districts?

-------
                                                      426



                   J.  L.  Hicks




          MR. HICKS:  One hundred percent,




          MR0 METZLER:  What kind of compliance do you




have?  What percentage of compliance would you have on




the average?




          MR. HICKS:  With the district programs?




          MR. METZLER:  Yes.



          MR. HICKS;  I would say probably around 50 to




60 percent.  I wouldn't want to be quoted on that, but



pretty high.  I could get that figure for you,




          MR. METZLER:  Well, I was thinking that before



you could go into a watershed development program, you




require 65 percent, don't you?




          MR0 HICKS:  I think we are talking about two




different things.



          MR. METZLER:  All right.  I asked first about



soil conservation.



          MR. HICKS:  Soil conservation districts —



we cover the whole area, and we furnish technical



assistance to these local districts in carrying out




soil and water conservation programs.  This is not




mandatory; all we have is our power of persuasion.




          MR. METZLER:  That is correct.




          Now, how about watershed districts?




          MR. HICKS:  Watershed districts are made on an




application  basis.

-------
                                                       427
                   J. L. Hicks
          MR. METZLER:  Yes.
          MR. HICKS:   And they have to be on areas of
250,000 acres or less.  When we receive an application —
or maybe I should say it this way:  The application is
submitted to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, or
to the State agency,  depending on the State.  If it is
approved by the State agency, it is then turned over to
the Soil Conservation Service for assistance in planning,
and subsequent construction.
          MR. METZLER:  And my question was:  Can you give
me some idea of the percentage of the area in Lake Erie
Drainage, for example, that is covered by watershed
districts?
          MR. HICKS:   I am sorry.  I could get that
figure for you.  In the Maumee Basin  it is  I would
say  probably 60 to 70 percent covered now with applica-
tions.  This is where we have the 26 applications on hand.
          MR. METZLER:  You would think that was maybe
one of the more advanced ones though.
          MR. HICKS:   Yes.
          MR. METZLER:  What kind of appropriations do
you have at Ashley for planning, first, and construction,
second, in watershed work?
          MR. HICKS:   Well, traditionally we have been
getting about $6 million nationwide for total watershed

-------
                      J, L.  Hicks



planning.



          MR. METZLER:  For planning.



          MR. HICKS:  Which means that here in Ohio we



get around $120,000 or $30,000 a year.



          MR. METZLER:  Does the State put any money in?



          MR. HICKS:  No,  not as of now.



          MR. METZLER:  And your constuction budget



nationally is running around ten times that figure?



          MR. HICKS:  Roughly.



          MR. METZLER:  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your



permitting me to develop this line of questioning.



          The point that ought to be made here is that even



though we are putting small investment in other parts of



water pollution abatement, that the effort that is going



into this particular activity of holding the soil on the



land where it belongs is perhaps — is extremely small.



          The construction budget for the Corps of



Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation runs about $2



billion a year for the country.  We are talking about $60



million a year for the country here in this kind of a pro-



gram.  I just quote these two figures to give you some



feeling for the fact that, again, in this area, there



needs to be a lot more support both from the Department



of Agriculture  and the Department of Interior for



adequate funding of these programs that hold the soil on

-------
                                                      429



                        J.  L.  Hicks




the land and prevent erosion.



          MR. STEIN:  I think that is very true, but, again,



let me say this to all here, particularly to our friends



in the Department of Agriculture:  I have heard these



reports again and again.  I think most of us here are



familiar with the program.  I think we can do a lot better



by it.  We can zero in if we want to get help for a "Save



Lake Erie," or a pollution control program, if we can



deal with specifics  on what program is going to keep



out what material from the lake, whether it is silt,



whether it is pesticides, or any other deleterious



material; where these are going to be and what they are



going to keep out.



          Now, with all of the admitted imperfections of



the State and Federal programs or the municipal programs



that you have heard, what we attempted to do is go down



industry by industry, city by city, Federal installation



by Federal installation, see where we were and what had



to be done.



          Try as we might — and I am not saying this



as a criticism here in Ohio, because this is general —



try as we might, we couldn't do this in Lake Michigan



either.  We had the same kind of problem.  The people



came up and asked about a problem of controlling the silt



going into Lake Michigan  or probably agricultural chemicals

-------
                                                      430




                      J. L. Hicks



going into Lake Michigan.



          Again, this was vague.  No one had any notion



specifically except in the most general terms where these



were applied, how much was applied, how much, if any, was



getting in, and I think the way we can really help, if



we are going to help with this, and if we are going to



really get at this problem of pollution from runoff, is



to really try to get down to the nitty-gritty of the



specifics, by those horrible tables, if you will, going



basin by basin; what is running off from where; what



kind of material is coming out; and if we do certain



programs what we are going to stop.  Then I think we have



something to sell.  But until we come up with that, I



do believe we are going to have some very real problems«



          I am going to be very frank and say that I have



been disappointed in not being able to get anything more



tangible and more specific from the agricultural



authorities that we have had here.  And then, in general



— I don't want to specify the ones here, because the



ones we are getting here are no different than the ones



we are getting in other areas of the country.



          Did you want to comment on that, or answer?



          MR. HICKS:  I think we could give you some



specifics in terms of what is being done right now,  if



this is what you need.



          We have reports in our Washington office

-------
                                                     431
                      J.  L.  Hicks
county by county on the amounts of conservation practices
that are being applied in every county every year, and
this could be made available to you, I am sure.
          I appreciate the other gentleman's comment
there on the reduction of sediment.  We think it is a
tremendous problem.  We can keep the soil on the land, so
to speak, for a matter of a few cents a cubic yard, whereas
if we have to let it run down into Lake Erie, it would be
billed out more like a dollar or a dollar and a half per
cubic yard.
          MR. STEIN:  Mr. Eagle, did you want to comment?
          MR0 EAGLE:  Mr. Hicks, are you familiar with this
Technical Committee's report of this Conference which
gives some figures on phosphates in Lake Erie from various
sources and where it says here that the land runoff in
the Lake Erie Basin carries 20,000 pounds of phosphates
per day?  Do you know about this or —
          MR. HICKS:  I am not sure of that report.  I
don't believe I have seen it0
          MR. EAGLE:  You haven't seen it.  You mean Mr.
Poston didn't supply you with a copy of the report when
he asked you to comment on it?
          MR. HICKS:  Who made that report?
          MR. EAGLE:  The Technical Committee of this
Conference.

-------
                                                      432


                   L. L. Harrold


          MR. POSTON:  I think we got this report this


morning, Mr, Eagle.


          MR. EAGLE:  You got it about a year ago.


Haven't you seen it?


          MR. POSTON:  I thought you were quoting from


our other report.


          MRo EAGLE:  No.  But these are figures that


we are guided by  in our waste treatment  and unless you


have some better figures or some reason to refute these,


I think we ought to get squared away here as to who is


contributing what pollution.


          That is all of my comments.


          MR. POSTON:  How long will that be?


          MR. HARROLD:  I will cut it down 80 percent


like you are cutting down phosphorus.  (Laughter)


          MR. STEIN:  I hope you didn't have that quote


on there.  You said you are cutting it down #0 percent


like you are cutting down phosphorus?  If you are doing


that, well, it will take a long time.




          STATEMENT OF LLOYD L. HARROLD, RESEARCH
                            f

          LEADER,  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF


          AGRICULTURE, SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION


                 RESEARCH, COSHOCTON, OHIO




          MR. HARROLD:  I am Lloyd Harrold, officer

-------
                                                     433
                   L. Lo Harrold



in charge of the Soil and Water Conservation Research



Station, United States Department of Agriculture,



Coshocton, Ohio.



          The United States is quite proud and we are



all proud of the quality and quantity of our agricultural



production and yet we are receiving numerous questions



about how did we get there; what are the signs along the



way of this agricultural prosperity, signs of gullies,



signs of lakes filled with sediment, pollution; rivers



clogged with soil — these are all signs that something



has happened.



          We, in this country, have gone like mad and



have created havoc, and we are concernede



          Indeed, agriculture itself, through its



research agencies, is critically examining the use of



chemicals  and their pollutional effects on and beyond



the food production farm.  The Soil and Water Conservation



Research Division of the Agricultural Research Service,



in cooperation with the Ohio Agricultural Research and



Development Center has started a cooperative research



program near Coshocton, Ohio.  That is about three years



ago.  They started it there because we have some 25 years



of hydrologic observations upon which to base our analysis



of our pollutional effects that we have studied during the

-------
                                                       434
                   L. L. Harrold



three years so far.



          This research program is to continue  if we are



going to get averages and quantify the pollution coming



from agricultural use of chemicals.



          On one area  farm chemicals were applied at



very high rates.  We set up a program of sampling



relating the samplings perhaps to water flow rates,



total water flow for each storm, and our objective is



to quantify the amounts of nitrites, phosphorus coming



from the watershed, as well as dieldrin.  We must use



current and historic records of land treatment and water



flow regimes to quantify and interpret the data.



Individual samples are not enough.



          Research has shown over numerous years that



phosphorus, a widely used plant nutrient and a major



factor in reservoir and lake pollution by algal growth.



is mostly absorbed on the surface of soil particles.



It does not readily dissolve in water.  It will not move



from farm fields in water in sizable quantities unless



erosion moves the  soil.  Then it deposits in river



channels, reservoirs  and lakes.



          Erosion-control farming practices recommended



and applied through  Soil and Water  Conservation Districts



are effective in reducing this kind of pollution from

-------
                                                     435
                   L. L. Harrold



farmland.



          In 196£, the sod on one watershed at the



Coshocton Research Station was plowed to about 15 percent



land slope.  It was worked down with numerous tillage



operations, after applying farm chemicals — nitrogen,



phosphorus, potash and dieldrin — on the land, and one



storm runoff caused an inch an a half of runoff and erosion



of nearly six tons per acre, a sizable amount of



pollution.



          Nitrogen and phosphate was transported from



the field by the soil erosion process.



          In the same vicinity across the hill and



subject to the same storm rainfall, there was another



corn watershed.  However, on this one, contour tillage



and fewer mechanical soil pulverizing operations were



performed.  Runoff was only one-fifth that on the



conventional practice area, and there was no erosion.



Therefore, we can say that there was no transport of



large quantities of phosphorus from this watershed.



          The results of research on movement of sediment-



transported agricultural pollutants — phosphorus and



dieldrin — into water bodies during a three-year study



period, 1966-196&, cannot be considered to represent



severe or even average rainstorm recurrence expectancy,

-------
                                                      436
                   L» L. Harrold



because with the backlog of information that we have,



our experience so far has been less than average.



          Studies in recent years at the Coshocton



Station have shown that conventional tillage farm



practices of plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, and



cultivating encourage soil erosion and transport of



soil-attached pollutants into surface streams and lakes.



          New and somewhat revolutionary-like soil cropping



practices such as minimum of no-tillage, in which rough



or mulch-protected soil surfaces reduce runoff and



erosion to almost insignificant amounts are being tested.



For six consecutive years  on a nine percent slope  there



has only been a little bit of runoff.  There has been



no erosion on continuous corn — unheard of in conven-



tional practices.



          This success story owes much to the mulch



surface which prevents raindrop splash erosion and



soil-surface sealing.  Although there have been, as



yet, no really big rainfall events in the study period,



the beneficial effect of mulch for erosion control is



expected to be quite large even when they do occur,



Mulches on the well  drained soils of the Coshocton



watersheds are proving to be desirable from the stand-



point of farm economy and are likely to be adopted

-------
                                                      437
                   L. L. Harrold



widely on areas of like characteristics.  Although these



practices are expected to reduce erosion, they may



depress crop yields on slowly permeable soils of other



areas, thus diminishing the likelihood of widespread



acceptance in these areas.  This problem will have to



be solved if sizable reductions in soil-transported



pollutants in such areas is to be accomplished.



          In the lake bed area, the work by Dr. Schwab



of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center



at Castalia, Ohio, near Sandusky, where they have small



plots, they apply irrigation water.  Some plots are surface-



drained only; some plots are sub-surface-drained only,



and in the area of surface drainage where they have



applied three inches of irrigation water, the total



sediment yield was 50 percent per acre, and it is a



little hard to see where the amount of erosion from the



lake bed soils under these conditions could reach a



total of half a ton or a ton per acre per year.



          He found that there was 34 pounds per acre of



nitrates and all were in the surface runoff from this



irrigation.  There was 17 pounds of nitrates per acre



in the drainage water, and the phosphorus was less than



zero.



          They were applying water from the ground

-------
                                                      433
                   L. L. Harrold



which had more phosphorus in it than they were able to



detect in the drainage water from the area.  In other



words, the soil was picking up phosphorus instead of



adding to the amount going off of the land, and being



in the area of no surface runoff, they could consider



that there was no phosphorus added to the water system



from the agricultural production.



          Nitrate moves readily dissolved in water.  An



increase in nitrogen fertilizer from 6 to 1& pounds per



acre applied in the corn-to-wheat year of a four-year



rotation at Coshocton has not in six rotations — 24



years — resulted in increased nitrate movement downward



to the ground water reservoir.  In fact, less nitrate



leached below the root zone in the improved area than in



the unimproved area.  The additional nitrogen produced



greater crop yield; which used more water; which resulted



in less percolation water and less total nitrate pollution



of ground water.



          When nitrogen fertilizer is applied at rates



of 100 pounds per acre or greater, there is a strong



possibility that more nitrate is carried in percolation



to the ground water reservoir.  Such situations are hot



spots whether they be local or widespread.  It is possible



to apply more nitrate and water to crop land than can be

-------
                                                       439






                   L. L. Harrold



used by the crop.  Waste of investment in fertilizer



and irrigation water as well as pollution of downstream



surface and underground water supplies results.  Research



has developed a science of fertilizer and water management



and is increasing knowledge in this field.  Such knowledge



must be used to the maximum for farm economy and to



reduce the hazard of polluting water.



          I was quite interested in hearing that the



State of Ohio plans to do research work in runoff water



quality from the lake bed soils»  Indeed,this is many,



many years too late, but there is no later time we should



begin.  We should begin now.  This is very hopeful.  I



hope that we in agriculture research service can cooperate



in the plans and in the analysis and in assisting working



with the State of Ohio, in gathering these data and



interpreting them.



          Pollution of the environment is a real and



present problem.  Agriculture is involved both by being



adversely affected by pollution and as a source of



pollutants.  Research is defining the involvement of



agriculture in the pollution picture by determining the



fate of chemicals applied on farm lands.  It is also



developing cropping systems and other means for



stabilizing or constraining pollutants arriving from

-------
                                                      440
                     G. L.  Harlow



agricultural operations.  Such research will be profit-



able for the farmer by assuring maximum effectiveness



of essential investments for fertilizers and other



agricultural chemicals.  The research also will benefit



the general public by enhancing the quality of land and



water resources.



          Mr. Chairman, that is my presentation.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



          Are there any comments or questions?



          Thank you very much, sir.



          We will move on, and I think the next report



is a short one, a report on the surveillance of Lake



Erie.



          Mr. Poston.



          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Harlow is presenting this



report.





          STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. HARLOW, DIRECTOR,



          LAKE ERIE BASIN OFFICE, FEDERAL WATER



          POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION,



                       CLEVELAND, OHIO






          MR. HARLOW:  My name is George Harlow.  I am



Director of the Lake Erie Basin Office, Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration, Cleveland, Ohio.

-------
                                                      441
                     G. L. Harlow



          Conferees, Mr, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.



I hope you will permit me to give my discussion here



without,putting my coat on.



          I will summarize this statement, and I will



provide copies to the —



          MR. STEIN:  How about passing them out to the



Conferees now?



          MR. HARLOW:  Okay.



          In our surveillance last year, especially for



dissolved oxygen, we found one very interesting phenomena



that somewhat surprised us.  On August 6, testing the



dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion of Lake Erie, or the



bottom waters, we found that the waters were pretty well



saturated with oxygen.  We expected the level to be lower



than it was.



          Two days later, we sampled two stations that



we had sampled on August 6, and found that the dissolved



oxygen had dropped in that period down to 1.8 milligrams



per liter.



          This, in essence, involved a depletion of 6.5



milligrams per liter in the hypolimnion from the tests



that we made in 52 hours.  Why we felt this was rather



interesting is because we had suspected up until now that



the dissolved oxygen gradually depleted beginning about

-------
                                                      442
                     G. L. Hallow



June in the hypolimnion to a low level late in August,



rather than as this date indicated going all of a sudden.



          That, in essence, summarizes the dissolved



oxygen studies that we took last year, and we are doing



a much more extensive dissolved oxygen study this summer



to try and better define that particular phenomenon.



          That completes the statement on surveillance.



          (The report presented by Mr. Harlow in its



entirety follows•)



          At the request of the Lake Erie Enforcement



Conferees, a survey was made to determine algal and



dissolved oxygen characteristics in the Central Basin



of Lake Erie during summer temperature stratification.



Between June and October 196&, 22 locations were occupied



repetitively.



          Summer thermal stratification in Central Lake



Erie begins in June.  A thermocline is well formed by



the first of July, remaining at a relatively constant depth



during July and August.  In September, the thermocline



depth increases until isothermal conditions are estab-



lished by the  firsfe of October.



          The  average water depth above the thermocline:



during the survey period  was  54 feet.



          A biological analysis of the Central Basin

-------
                                                       443
                     G. L. Harlow



waters in July and August indicated total algal popula-



tions in both the surface and bottom waters were larger



in the northern portion of the basin.  Smaller populations



occurred in midlake.  Bottom water temperatures were



generally warmer in the northern portion of the basin.



          In late June, surface and hypolimnion dissolved



oxygen was at or near saturation.  Green algae were



prevalent with similar numbers near the surface and in



the hypolimnion.



          During July and the first six days in August,



algal populations diminished to about one-half of the



June populations in both the surface and bottom water.



Green algae were the most prevalent.  Surface and bottom



water dissolved oxygen was still at or near saturation.



          On August 6, hypolimnion dissolved oxygen



averaged S.4 milligrams per liter.  Two days later, the



average bottom water dissolved oxygen dropped to 1.9



milligrams per liter, or a loss of 6.5 milligrams per



liter in 52 hours.  During the same period, average algal



numbers increased on the surface while decreasing in the



bottom water.  Throughout August, bottom water algae pop-



ulations remained low while surface populations increased.



          By the end of August, throughout the hypolimnion



the dissolved oxygen averaged 0.5 milligrams per liter and

-------
                                                       444
                     G. L. Harlow



values ranged from zero to l.# milligrams per liter.  The



average algal population in the bottom water was about



one-third of the surface populations.  The most prevalent



algae were greens, with occasional taste-producing blue-



green dominance noted  in the northern portion of the



basin at the end of August.



          By the end of the first week in September,



the bottom water dissolved oxygen had increased to



above 3 milligrams per liter.  During the same period,



algal numbers had increased four to seven times in both



the surface and bottom water.  Blue-green algal "blooms"



were noted in the northwest portion  of the Central Basin



during the last week in August and first week in September.



          By the end of September, algae populations  were



similar to those found in June with  greens again becoming



prevalent.  By the first of October, temperature stratifi-



cation had disappeared with consequent replenishment  of



dissolved oxygen in bottom waters.



          A program to further investigate oxygen depletion



mechanics is now in progress. Continuous automatic



monitoring both above  and below the  thermocline for



temperature and dissolved oxygen is scheduled July through



August at five locations.  During the last week in May,



in early July, mid-August  during quiescent and storm

-------
                                                       445
                     G. Lc Harlow



conditions, and mid-September, pertinent physical,



chemical, microbiological, and aquatic biological tests



will be made at the five locations.  During the same



periods, manual monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temper-



ature  and turbidity profiles will be accomplished at an



additional eight stations strategically located between



the automatically monitored stations.



          Pertinent tests will be made on sediments



sampled at the five automatic stations in early July.



Instruments to mechanically measure sediment resuspension



have been devised and will be used during periods of



instability along with photographic techniques.  Divers



will be employed to photograph the sediment water inter-



face during quiescent and storm conditions.  With such



a program, it is hoped a more definitive answer to the



mechanics of oxygen depletion in the  central basin



hypolimnion can be ascertained.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions



on surveillance?



          Yes, Mr. Poston.



          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Harlow, you heard some discus-



sion here about evaluation and deadlines, and in your



studies in this Lake Erie Basin  could you make a summary



of progress with regards to dates as set forth in 1970?

-------
                                                      446



                     G. L. Harlow



          MR. HARLOW:  Every six months,  we collect from



each State in the Lake Erie Basin how far we are along



on meeting the schedules that were established at the March



22, 1967, Conference in Buffalo.  Based on those original



dates, our data shows that as of last January 1, that



75 percent of the cities have fallen behind  and 47



percent of the industries.



          MRo POSTON:  This applies to their schedules



for development of plans —



          MR. HARLOW:  This applies either to completion



of final construction and pressing that button or to



intermediate schedules that have gone by and without action



having been taken by the local community or industry in



regard to that interim schedule.



          MR. POSTON:  I noted a table back here —



          MR. HARLOW:  And it is summarized on that table



back there, and unfortunately it does not have the Federal



installations on there, and I think that is a good sug-



gestion.



          MR. LYON:  This does not include any phosphate



schedule, does it?



          MR. HARLOW:  No, this is just for the original



schedules that we established in Buffalo on March 22, 1967,




in regards to secondary treatment and an equivalent degree



of treatment by industry.

-------
                                                     447
                      G. L. Harlow
          MR. LION:  But the thing that is a big issue,
of course, and affects the whole pollution is the phos-
phate question.  It shouldn't be misinterpreted to include
that.
          MR. HARLOW:  It does not include that particular
thing because, like we said earlier, there is some ques-
tion there as to what is the schedule.
          MR. POOLE:  It must go beyond secondary treat-
ment because all of the independent municipalities have
secondary treatment.  I think where we are behind schedule
is on chlorination.
          MR. HARLOW:  I think you are right there, Mr.
Poole.
          MR. STEIN:  That is right.
          On the old schedule — and, again, you have  to
put this into perspective — I think there are several
things here, and no one wants to keep up with a schedule
as much as I do, because that is our business, but when
we work with a schedule  we have to be precise  and that
is exactly where we have to be precise.
          Now, there are several things you have to
determine:  One, where a schedule is not met because
secondary treatment isn't being provided  and obviously
the plant isn't completed yet, if that is the case, to handle
all of the sewerageJ and the other thing, if chlorination

-------
                       G. L. Harlow



isn't being provided.  These are often due to equipment



delays, and I think the development or putting in of



chlorination or a chlorination device, while very impor-



tant, is not precisely in the category of a missed date



of not having the plant operating at all on secondary



treatment.



          The other kinds of dates we have to determine



are 1) whether the slippage is on a completion date or



will make the completion date impossible of compliance, or



2) whether this missed date is an interim date.



          Now, sometimes municipalities or an industry



will miss an interim date, but yet be able to catch up



in a later period and still come under the wire in the



operation date.  As long as we are dealing with schedules



we have to work with refinement, so to speak, with a



scalpel, and be sure precisely what we are dealing with



in each case.



          Again, let me just give you this analogy —



and Mr. Poole is a hunter.  We are not at the beginning



where we talk in general terms about phosphate removal



for all.  That was fine.  But when you are trying to get



compliance and you are talking in general terms, it is like



going down and shooting at that flock of geese.  If you



shoot at that flock and just at that flock-, you are bound



to miss because you would be surprised what the spaces are

-------
                                                      449



                      G. L. Harlow



between each goose.  What you have to do is take a lead



on a particular one and go for that one or you are not



going to bring any down.



          In compliance, I think that is the trick.  The



reason I keep going over these lists, over and over case



by case is that is the only way to get this done  to make



the list smaller and smaller.  I am not sure  with these



percentage points if it is a notion of whether it is



going to be helpful in getting that list smaller.



          Again, let me try to summarize this in another



way.  We have a list of people we think are contributing



wastes.  We have a schedule.  We have one list where we



believe people are in compliance, another where they are



not quite making it.  The name of the game is to get the



first list as big as possible  and the second list as



small as we can get it.  The only way you can do that is



zero in on specific cases  one at a time, as boring and



painful as it might be.



          Are there any other comments or questions on



this?



          MR. PURDY:  I don't have a question of Mr.



Harlow, but I am somewhat confused by the line of ques-



tioning, and following along on Mr. Metzler's earlier



question as to whether or not the State reports were



adequate  and dealt with this question or the evaluation

-------
                                                      450
                      G. L,  Harlow
of  where we are on the present schedule.
          With respect to Michigan's report this morning,
Mr, Frost went over page four of our report, and I think
it is laid out rather clearly on the 25 industrial plants
and the 12 municipal units that have signed stipulations
and were included in the original approved time schedule
of the Conferees earlier      It specifically lays out a
table here of those that are on the original schedule and
are in compliance; the number that are on a modified sched-
ule; those that are not in compliance, and action pending;
and those that are not in compliance and legal action being
taken.
          Now, later on in the appendices of the report,
there are some 17 pages that give the details on all of
the municipalities and industries in the basin.
          Now, if the Conferees wish to take the time,
we are prepared to go over those one by one, but to save
time we did summarize in the table, and I think it has
been presented.
          MR. STEIN:  That is right.
          I have no problem with that.
          Does anyone have one?
          MR. POSTON:  I still have a question in my mind
regarding Detroit as to whether or not they are going to
have secondary treatment by 1971> if that is the date that

-------
                                                        451
                       G. L. Harlow
they are going to extend to, and what degree that will be.
Will it be #0 percent removal or —
          MR. PURDY:  The stipulation requirements require
an BO percent minimum total phosphorus removal, and also
a pound figure, and Detroit stated this morning that they
will meet that percent removal figure, and they will meet
that pound figure by 1972.
          MR. POSTON:  BOD as well as phosphate?
          MR. PURDY:  The pound figure, and BO percent
removal on phosphates, suspended solids, phenol, coliform.
          MR. STEIN:  All of the words.
          As I understood Mr. Remus this morning, he said
he would make these, and I know originally we had the
stipulations.  But the extension of time he said over the
original time was what?
          MR. PURDY:  Twelve to eighteen months.
          MR. STEIN:  Now, the issue that the conferees had
particularly with a big city like Detroit where they are
taking in the suburbs, in view of the problems that they
have had in Detroit, and the outline of the work that
Mr. Remus and his people have done, we have two questions.
One is under the circumstances are they making a bona
fide effort to comply?  The second is, given the results,
the circumstances, and all of the factors we have, with
what is indicated might be a twelve to eighteen month

-------
                                                        452






                       G, L. Harlow



delay, do the Conferees consider that to be in substantial



compliance with the recommendations of the Conference in



light of developing circumstances, or do they consider it



such a stage of noncompliance that you believe you can get



faster pollution action by taking another legal step?



          If our objective is to get Lake Erie clean as



fast as we can, I think this is the question we have to



keep in mind:  Considering what any particular industry



or municipality has done, will we get any real faster



action if you go to the next legal step?  Or should we



consider what they have done up to now for substantial



compliance?



          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I don't know that



further legal action is the only way you can get this



stepped up.  I think, in the past — I know Mr. Poole



has shortened these time schedules in places by conver-



sations and prodding of particular industries or the



municipality concerned.  This was the exploration that



I was interested in.



          MR. STEIN:  I think we have a semantics



difficulty.  I know what Mr. Poole has done, and we have



done the same thing in many cases.  If you call those



friendly conversations to cut down the date not further



legal action, I guess that is your privilege.

-------
                                                       453
                       G. L. Harlow



          MR. LYON:  Mr. Chairman, I think that the



question you are raising is a very relevant one.  In my



mind, it narrows down to the simple question:  How many




extensions of time are you going to give any individual




case?  How often?  And it seems to me that, at some




point, it would seem appropriate for the Conferees —



perhaps not today, but some day soon — to agree on that




particular question:  How many extensions of time should



any case be given?  Once we have agreed on that, we are



in business.



          Then, the next question is:  Should legal action



be taken?




          MR. STEIN:  This is one of the key points we are



going to have to consider in the discussion.  So, unless you




have something more to say, I suggest we go on with the



Conference.



          As a matter of fact, because this was a Confer-



ence, I let this line of question develop with Mr. Harlow




because, as we say in the trade, your cross examination



question was beyond the scope of the direct.  He didn't




testify to that when he came up, but we let it go anyway.



          Let us get on to what are two key points.



Then we can get on with our discussion and see if we can



get an agreement.

-------
                                                      454
                     G. H.  Eagle



          One, the committee report on the model for Lake



Erie.



          Mr. Eagle, do you want to report on that?



          MR, EAGLE:  Mr. Chairman, Conferees, ladies



and gentlemen.



          Mr, Chairman, a tremendous lot of work has gone



into this report and recommendations.  At this late hour,



you know, I hesitate to get into the details of this,



but I don't know how we can adequately discuss it if we



don't get into some detail.



          I wonder if this shouldn't be deferred to a



future time.  I have sent out copies of this to the



Conferees in advance of this meeting.  I don't know



whether any of them have had an opportunity to study



from them or not.



          MRo STEIN:  I hear from the Conferees that



they have read it.



          MR. EAGLE:  And I think that this is very



comprehensive and it is going to take some time if we



do it adequately, and I certainly don't want to do it



inadequately.



          MR. STEIN:  I think the Conferees have read it.



And here is my point on this because I have read it, too,



and I am not  going to get into any of the substance, but

-------
                                                        455
                       G. H. Eagle
I am going to tell you what the problem is as I see it:
Originally, when Mr. Lyon proposed the model, he said we
could do a model for maybe 1200,000, or something like
that, as I recall the figure.
          The difficulty that I find with this — I find
nothing wrong with your proposal — is the figure has
kind of escalated.
          Now, the question is where we are going to get
the money.  If we are talking, instead of $200,000, from
a quarter of a million to a million dollars for the model,
and a budget of $100,000 a year, which may not be so bad
for four years, I think we have to take a hard look at
what we are going to do and the resources available.
          The reason we entertain this is:  knowing the
kind of ballpark figure and the money that at least I
as the enforcement man could put my hands on, I might be
ready to talk to you when you talk in terms of a project
for $200,000; but when you get up to $1 million, this
is something that Assistant Commissioners who come from
Washington cannot get too easily.  If we can relate the
scope of the project to the money and at least get that, I
have some direction in which to go because, obviously, the
thing that is either going to move the model or not move
the model is the financing.
          Or don't you agree?

-------
                                                       456
                      G.  H.  Eagle
          MR, EAGLE:   Well,  this is the committee's report;
it isn't my report particularly,  I was a member of the
committee only,
          MR. STEIN:   Right.
          MR. EAGLE:   And Mr. Lyon had a representative on
the committee and he  participated in the report, and I
might remark that there are all kinds of models, you know.
Some of them are very nice and some of them aren't so nice.
So it depends on what kind of a model we are talking about.
          MRo STEIN:   Well, that is right.   You know, I
was going to say that before  when I got that dry report
of how well they were doing in Erie, Pennsylvania.  When
they weren't doing so well  Lyon produced a model.  I am
not sure we didn't do better when they weren't doing so
well.  (Laughter)
          MR. EAGLE:   Is that the type he was talking
about ?
          MR. LYON:  If I may comment on the report, Mr.
Chairman, I think the Model Committee, even in the scientific
sense, did a very good job in pulling together some of the
broad objectives that need to be followed over the long
term in relation to the development of a model.
          We have to develop a model sooner or later
because we owe it to the people who are going to spend
the money to somehow relate their efforts in terras of

-------
                                                       457



                      G.  H.  Eagle




money and treatment plants to the improvement of the



quality of the lake.



          One reason, I suspect, why the price tag went



up is because the Model Committee did go, quite frankly,



beyond the original assignment which related, if I recall



correctly, to the question of eutrophication, nutrient



problems, as the original resolution indicated,



          I would believe that if one were to concentrate



on the nutrient problem initially that the cost is likely



to come down significantly..



          There is another point that we did make in the



context of our membership of the committee that is not



included in the report, and  that is that it is our



opinion that a governmental  agency should be the agency



•which does carry out this  project.



          There are a number of reasons for this, and in



this particular case it is particularly important because



we are dealing with international waters, and the only



way we are going to clean up Lake Erie is to make it



an international project.  There is pollution on both



sides of the lake, and the organization that is designed



to do that by treaty between the United States and Canada



is the IJC.




          Now, there is another benefit to working through



the IJC, International Joint Commission, and that is that

-------
                                                      453



                      G.  H.  Eagle



the Canadians themselves have done a great deal of work



on models; they have an awful lot of data that will be



useful, so that their brainpower and our brainpower



together can make this a much more feasible and perhaps



less costly task*



          In addition to the fact that it just simply



doesn't make any sense to do a model of half the lake,



it has got to be a model of the whole lake, and if we are



going to do that, we will have to work through the IJC.



So, basically, there are two important points I want to



make:  Let's stick with the nutrient aspect of the



problem initially and expend to the others later, and



this will help keep the cost down; and, secondly:  let



us have the IJC be the organization that does the model.



In that way we will have the full participation of the



Province, particularly, of Ontario, the Dominion of Canada,



the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and



the States, and I think you well know that the present



IJC report that is being developed is attaining this same



kind of hand where the scientists on both sides of the



international boundary are putting their best shoulders



to this effort.



          MR0 EAGLE:  Mr. Lyon,  could you tell me where



we went beyond the nutrient problem or departed from it?



          MR. LYON:   Well, again, George, I don't mean to

-------
                                                       459
                      G.  H.  Eagle
be — I think you went beyond it, and I think this is
fine.  I think ultimately —
          MR. EAGLE:  Well,  be specific.
          UK* LION:  Sub project (2), Chemical Quality.
          MR. EAGLE:  You don't know that doesn't have
anything to do with the algal problem.  How do you know
that doesn't have anything to do with it until you make
an investigation and determine that it doesn't have
anything to do with the algal problem in Lake Erie?
          MR. LION:  Some aspects of chemical quality,
of course, have something to do with it.
          MR. EAGLE:  That is why it is in there.
          MR. LION:  There is things like BOD and DO
in there, and this will no doubt raise the cost.  I think
we should delay on the oxygen cycle part of the problem
and do the crucial one first which is the nutrient one.
BOD and DO do not have any direct causal relationship
with the nutrient problem.
          The algae response we have got to do.  No
question about that.
          The effect of the waste loads, we should do
only as they relate to the nutrient problem.
          And then you get Sub project (4), causal
relations between DO in the Central Basin and thermocline.
I don't know.  I suspect that this is not too closely

-------
                                                      460
                      G. H. Eagle
related to the phosphate problem.
          The point is to try to emphasize the nutrient
eutrophication problem initially so that we can get that
one out of the works, because that is the big unanswered
question.
          We have a pretty good feel for the fact that
BOD and DO problems tend to be local problems.  In other
words, near Erie, near  Detroit, near Cleveland, we get
low DO because of the BOD  discharges.  So this we under-
stand a lot better than we understand the nutrient
problem.
          MR. EAGLE:  Well, Mr. Lyon, I would just say
in rebuttal, and I am certainly no expert in this area,
but we did have experts in from all over — from the
Federal agencies, from  other State agencies, from private
agencies, and so on —  and almost unanimously, they
agreed that all of these things were necessary to make
a proper evaluation of  the problems in Lake Erie so far
as eutrification is concerned.
          MR. LYON:  I  can't help but agree with the  fact
that in order to do a complete job you have to do all
these things ultimately..
          MR. EAGLE:  You  can take it one, two, three,
but I think there ought to be a  complete plan in mind
to come out of this eventually.

-------
                                                      461



                      G.  H.  Eagle



          MR. LYON:  I agree with you.



          MRC EAGLE:  That is why we broke this down in




parts.



          MR. LYON:  All I am saying is —



          MR. EAGLE:  Take it in steps, one, two, three,




four, five.



          MR. STEIN:  Let me try to get some steps.



          MR. EAGLE:  Yes.



          MR. STEIN:  George, I would like to get started



on this.  As I read the figures, is it possible — you



have said that what we have to do now is come up with



— on Page & — and I am assuming that we have all at



least read part of this — that funding to the extent



of our $400,000 be made available at once to retain a



central coordinating administrative agency.  Does that



relate to the four years cost?



          MR. EAGLE:  That is just for the coordinating



agpncy.  Now, for one year.



          MR. STEIN:  For one year.



          MR. EAGLE:  1400,000 — $100,000 per year.



          MR. STEIN:  Okay, now, let me try to just put



— you know we have to finance this on a one-year basis,



that is our fiscal year.




          MR. EAGLE:  A hundred thousand dollars a year.



          MR. STEIN:  Would this be reasonable, if in

-------
                                                      462
                       G. H. Eagle
one year we are going to embark on this, to say — I am
just trying to get this off the ground — that the kind
of money we have to look for is $100,000?  Can we get
started with that?
          MR, EAGLE:  I don't know, Mr. Stein, whether
this would be practical or not because this agency —
whoever it might be — has got to go out and hire some
very talented expert personnel, and whether you can hire
them for one year or not, I don't know.  I would doubt it.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, we will get to the kind of
people.  The point is we are not asking any people to do
any more than we are asking you or me to do, George, or
anyone sitting at the table.
          In other words, Congress hasn't appropriated
money for ray next year's salary.  I am not sure they
have appropriated it for this one, but they surely haven't
appropriated for next year.     I think anyone who works
on a governmental project lives by year to year.
          MR. EAGLE:  Some kind of a — you know, a three-
year project, funded one year at a time.
          MR. STEIN:  But, you see, we run into — George,
what I am trying to do is get a realistic figure of money
we can get.
          We run into two problems in the Government, and
you have all been familiar with it:  Obviously, we  can just

-------
                                                       463
                       G. H. Eagle
get money on a fiscal-year-by-fiscal-year basis.  When we
tie people down in a specific agreement to more than one
fiscal year, they would say we are holding a gun to their
heads for the next year.
          But I am also suggesting, if we can, with a
year's money — let's assume they buy the rest of this —
we are talking in terms of $100,000.  I think we are in
the realm of what I conceive of possibility of putting a
financial structure together.  Once you get up to these
other figures for the next years then I think we have to
adopt a different approach.
          What I am saying, Mr. Eagle — I am not saying
we shouldn't do this — but I think by that time, unless
we are going to get a lot more money from the State than
I suspect is available and go for the $400,000 —
          MR. EAGLE:  Mr. Stein, aren't you familiar
with the amendment to the 1969 Water Quality Improvement
Act which carries a $20 million authorization for studies,
pollution studies in the Great Lakes?  And my information
is that this has a very good chance of passing.
          Now, how much money would be appropriated I
have no idea, but this would be an authorization.  And
granted that we may not be able to get anywhere near what
I have outlined here as a total figure, but I think that
we should make a very concerted effort to try to get a

-------
                                                        464
                       G. H. Eagle
substantial amount of money.
          MR. STEIN:  Mr. Eagle, I am not arguing with
what you are saying.  What I am saying, if you wanted to
depend on that —
          MR, EAGLE:  This is up to the Conferees.
          MR. STEIN:  If you are going to depend on an
authorization and appropriation, then, again, this is a
judgment for the Conferees to make.  Obviously, the
kind of funding to get started would really be beyond
the resources of what we can do as Conferees or even
going back home with it.
          However, if we are talking in terms of $100,000,
then I think we as Conferees may have a job to do in
our own operations to try to get the money together and
get started.
          Now, the question here is:  If you are going to
get started, do you want to start on a $100,000 basis,
or do you want to wait until there might be —
          MR. EAGLE:  I think you are way ahead of us,
Mr. Stein.  I haven't heard from the other Conferees —
only Mr. Lyon — whether the others feel that this is
a worthwhile undertaking or not.  I think this is the
number one thing to decide, whether it is a worthwhile
undertaking.
          MR. STEIN:  All right.

-------
                                                       465



                       G. H. Eagle



          MR. PURDY:  Mr. Stein, I am  concerned about how



many dollars we are going to be spending for studies — model



 studies  of the same nature.



          For example, the Great Lakes Basin Commission



 has programmed,  I think, something in  the neighborhood



 of $1  million for their  1970  budget.     It would  seem



 to me  that it would be a waste of money it" the Great Lakes



 Basin  Commission would go off and do modeling studies, on



 one hand, and this group of Conferees  would put additional



 moneys in a separate  study.   I think we ought to save some



 of those scarce  dollars  for construction.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments on



 that?



          MR. METZLER:   Mr. Chairman.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.



          MR. METZLER:   I would like to support two things:



 First, I would like to support doing this cooperatively



 with the Canadians, because I don't see how you can really



 get a  meaningful study otherwise; second, because, in this



 case,  I  have a feeling our  partners know more about this



 than we  do, if they were to become our partners.   So I



 think  it ought to be  done through that kind of mechanism.



          This is the first time  I have seen the $400,000



 figure.  The figure that I have heard  about is 1100,000.



 And I  have a feeling, just  in a quick  look at this report,

-------
                                                        466




                       G. H. Eagle



that we have talked about putting in a lot of data collection



type of thing, actually getting more field data, and so



fortjv.    It is my understanding, George, that the experts



— and my representative on the committee feels — that



for $100,000 it was possible to put together, using the



existing data  and get a mathematical model on phosphates;



and that is what I have supported, and that is what I would



like to continue to support.



          MR. EAGLE:  I am sorry, Dr. Hetling didn't



express that in the committee meeting.  We got these



figures from prospective contractors of how much it would



take to put this together step by step, and these figures



are in the appendix here from the prospective contractors



of how much it would take to do this.  A hundred thousand



dollars is for the administrative agency, whatever it



might be.



          MR. LYON:  Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may I would



like to make a specific suggestion.  Mr. Purdy has already



pointed out that there is more than one  cook on this



particular broth, and so has Mr* Metzler.



          The committee has put together a wealth of very



relevant data to help guide anybody who wants to develop



a budget for a modelj particularly the information from the



consultants was very helpful.



          Now, let's look at all of the  organizations who

-------
                                                        467



                       G. H. Eagle



are working with this.  Certainly FWPCA has made a study



of Lake Erie; the Ontario Water Resources Commission has



a lot of talents; the Canadian Ministry of Mines and



Energy and Resources has done a great deal of studying



not only on data on the lakes  but on modeling, too;



similarly, the Great Lakes Commission is getting into



this, the Great Lakes Basin Commission; IJC, in its report,



will no doubt talk about the need for a model.



          It would be my suggestion that we bring together



the States, the IJC, the Great Lakes Basin Commission, the



FWPCA, the Ontario Water Resources Commission, the appro-



priate Federal agency, and in Canada — there are possibly



two of them — the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the



Ministry of Energy and Mines — and get them to attempt to



jointly plan and budget a cooperative modeling study of Lake



Erie.



          MR. EAGLE:  You are suggesting another meeting



for this purpose?



          MR0 LYON:  Yes.  I think it is essential, because



from what Ralph Purdy has said, there already is another



agency planning to budget $1 million for a separate model



which is certainly something we don't want.



          MR. STEIN:  Let me just raise a very relevant



factor about your suggestion.



          I don't know how it is with your States but —

-------
                                                       463
                       G. H. Eagle
I know you can go up to your counterparts in the Provinces
of Canada, but in the Federal Government, you don't quite
operate that free and easy, and I think this is for good
reason.
          The State Department is the coordinating depart-
ment.  In other words, unless we work through IJC, we, in
the Federal Government, except with the approval of the
State Department, cannot arrange the joint meetings with
Canada or any other foreign government.
          MR. LYON:  All right, let me comment on that.
          I think that problem is very easily solved.
The only agency that I have mentioned that is not on the
IJC, the International Lake Erie Pollution Abatement
Board, is the Great Lakes River Basin Commission.  Is
that the proper name, Great Lakes Basin Commission?
I am sure that the IJC could arrange for them to parti-
cipate.  I think if you ask the International Lake Erie
Pollution Abatement Board, on which these States and
all of the agencies I mentioned are represented, that
they would do this job of putting together a project and
a plan for developing this model.
          They are now putting together a complete report
on Lake Erie and have worked very well together, and I am
confident that they can do this, too.
          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I think I agree with

-------
                                                       469



                       G. H. Eagle



him wholeheartedly.  There is only one agency that has an



official study, an official job to go ahead and look into



pollution problems on both sides of Lake Erie.     Lake



Erie to be studied in part on a model study, I think, would



be incomplete.  I think also that the nutrient problem —



to confine our work to nutrients is something that we can



probably handle, and move out later into other things  if



it is deemed desirable at that time.



          I personally hate to see this Conference tc  be



too closely involved into this matter of model studies,



I think our job is to clean up this water.  I really get



concerned sometimes.  I think we can recommend this all



right, but I like to see us stick to our job here.



          MR. STEIN:  No one was going to suggest that we



study the operation.  Now, conferences have done many



peripheral things.  You know we did deal with the alewife



program in Lake Michigan  from the Conference.  But when



we set that up, we turned that over to another group



because cleaning up the alewives was another function of



the Conference.  We were just the catalyst.



          Presumably we are doing the same thing here, but



I think we have several points.  According to Mr. Eagle



he claims in this report, and I think, reading just the



face of it — and I don't pretend to have all of the



technical knowledge that you eminent gentlemen have —

-------
                                                       470
                      G. H. Eagle
but on the face of it, it looks like he is dealing with the
nutrient problem all of the way through this.  I don't
think he has gone beyond it.  If he has, I think that is
a technical question.
          Now, the point is:  Do I understand your pro-
posal, Mr. Lyon, that we try to get IJC to sponsor a
technical meeting of this type, let them have this report,
with whatever comments we have for the purpose of getting
the model started  and preparing a program  and a budget
for it?
          MR. LYON:  les, I think that is what we should
do.  We should also invite the Great Lakes Basin Commission
to participate in this, and I think you would be very
gratified, Murray, with the results of such an effort.
          I might suggest, if it is permissible, Bill
Steggles, from the OWRC is here.  He has been one of the
most active members in the International Joint Commission
activities.  He might want to react to this informally.
          MR. STEGGLES:  I am very, very happy to be
here.
          MR. POOLE:  Mr. Chairman, it is 340 miles to
Indianapolis  and I have to go there tonight.

-------
                                                       471
                     W.  A.  Steggles






          STATEMENT OF W.  A.  STEGGLES,  ONTARIO



          WATER RESOURCES  COMMISSION, ONTARIO,



                        CANADA






          MRo STEGGLES:  Mr.  Chairman,  Conferees, and



ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity of



coming here today and joining with you,



          I have listened  with great interest to essen-



tially the entire day's  proceedings, and we are really



delighted  on our side of  the lakes  with the course that



you people are putting — the emphasis that you are




asserting on Lake Erie.



          Of course, we  fp.el that Lake Erie is pretty



vital to the future of not -only the Province of Ontario



but to Canada itself.  The subject of models, from our



point of view, is, we feel, a very desirable planning



tool, that you cannot plan successfully unless you take



a comprehensive approach to the problem, and only by



working together with the  States and ourselves do we feel



that we could successfully as a community around the



lakes achieve this very desirable objective.



          I am certain that in speaking this way that



I speak for our management and our Commission, the Ontario



Water Resources Commission, in support of the suggestion

-------
                                                       472



                      W. A. Steggles



that has been made, that this  be drawn to the attention



of the International Joint Commission; that the Inter-



national Joint Commission is very conscious of a need



for this kind of thing,  and that I think with the added



weight of this Conference behind all of the expressions



that have been made to date in the interest of this type



of planning that we would be taking a pretty sound and



desirable step in the right direction to achieve the ends



that you have spoken of here,



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you, sir.



          MR. STEGGLES:   Thank you very much.



          MR, STEIN:  Mr. Eagle, are you in substantial



agreement with Mr. Lyons' approach?



          MR. EAGLE:  If I understand the motion and



his suggestion.  If it will be put in the form of a



motion, I will be glad to second it.



          Will you state it again?  You are talking about



a meeting, are you not?



          MR. LYON:  Specifically, I would suggest that



we ask the IJC, Lake Erie International Pollution Abatement



Board, to meet, to also invite the Great Lakes Basin



Commission, and to plan a specific model project on a



cooperative and joint basis, and to put the number one



priority on the nutrient problem.



          MR0 EAGLE:  I will second it.

-------
                                                       473
                       W.  A.  Steggles
          MR. STEIN:  I think there is general agreement
on that.
          I think, in order to save time, we will make
that part of the summary,  if there is no objection to
that.
          Now, the next point, and I think this should
be —
          MR. EAGLE:  Mr.  Chairman, I don't want this
overlooked, but I would like to have this report in the
record in its entirety.
          MR. STEIN:  This report will be in the record
in its entirety, because the Conferees did ask for it,
and I would like to add that I think this report should
be made available to the IJC as the basis of calling the
meeting.
          MR. LYON:  Yes,  I think that should be added
to my statement that the report should be used by this
group as a basis.
          MR. STEIN:  Yes, because I think this raises
all of the questions certainly.
          (The above referred to report follows in its
entirety.)

-------
                                                                       V74
REPORT OF LAKE ERIE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE








                             on








                   CONSTRUCTION OF A MODEL








                             for








                  ANALYZING AND CONTROLLING



                   LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY

-------
                                                                           475
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
                                                  Jxrne 16, 1969
To the Chairman and Conferees
Lake Erie Enforcement Conference

Gentlemen:

The representatives of the Technical Committee for Construction of
a Model for Analyzing and Controlling Lake Erie Water Quality is
pleased to present this report to the Conferees in accordance with
the resolution adopted at the October U, 1968, session of the
Conference.

This report generally represents the discussions, Investigations,
conclusions and recommendations of the committee.
Respectfully submitted,
George H.
Chairman

-------
                                                                                476
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                    Page

INTRODUCTION 	     1-3

OBJECTIVES   	     k

COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS 	     5-6

CONCLUSIONS  	     7

RECOMMENDATIONS  	     8

APPENDICES

    A - Informal Proposals for Study of Management
        Plan for Lake Erie	     A1-A9

    B - Resume7 of Various Proposals	      B1-B7

    C - FWPCA Review of Proposals for Study of
        A Management Plan for Lake Erie   	      C1-C6

-------
                                                                                   477


                                 INTRODUCTION


    At the request of the Honorable James A. Rhodes, Governor of the State of Ohio,

Secretary Anthony Celebreeze of the United States Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, under authority granted in Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1961, called a conference on pollution of Lake Erie and its tribu-

taries.  The conference was held in two sessions, in Cleveland on August 3-5> 19&5

and in Buffalo on August 10-12, 1965.  The conferees were as follows:

                        Dr. B. A. Poole, Indiana
                        Mr. Loring Oeming, Michigan
                        Dr. E. W. Arnold, Ohio
                        Mr. George Eagle, Ohio
                        Mr. Fred Mbhr, Ohio
                        Mr. Richard Boardman, Pennsylvania
                        Mr. Robert Hennigan, New York"
                        Mr. H. W. Poston, Federal Government

    The conference chairman was Mr. Murray Stein, Federal Water Pollution Cortrol

Administration (FWPCA), Washington, D.C.

    After hearing a Federal report on pollution in the conference area, reports on

pollution control activities in each of the five States, and statements by others,

the conferees agreed unanimously on a summary containing conclusions and recommenda-

tions that was later issued by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare on November 12, 1965.

    One of the summary recommendations stated:

                "The conferees will establish a Technical Committee
                 as soon as possible which will evaluate water quality
                 problems in Lake Erie relating to nutrients and make
                 recommendations to the conferees within six months
                 after the issuance of this Summary."

    Such a Technical Committee was appointed.  Their "Report of the Lake Erie Enforce-

ment Conference Technical Committee: was approved by the Conferees on June 1, 196?.

The Committee drew a number of conclusions and recommendations including the following:
                                      -1-

-------
                                                                                 478

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the FWPCA, the States, and other agencies

should increase the tempo of research programs in Lake Erie to more clearly

define all the factors adversely affecting the fishery, municipal water supplies

and recreational uses.

            Research should also be directed toward the following problems:

            Toxic effects of algae
            Botulism in waterfowl
            Exploration of oil and gas
            Taste and odor problems in drinking water
            Short filter runs at water plants
            Pollution by vessesl
            Uniformity of regulations on marine toilets
            Uniformity of fish laws
            Effect of lake levels on Cladophora

There was considerable discussion of the algae problem in Lake Erie at a Technical

Session of the Conferees in Cleveland on August 26, 1968, and at the Fourth Session

of the Conferees in Cleveland on October 4, 1968.  At the latter session, the

following resolution was adopted:

            "A Technical Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. George H.

             Eagle will be established to consider construction of a model for

             analyzing and controlling Lake Erie's algae growths.  Upon request,

             the Department of the Interior will provide clerical and technical

             assistance as may be required.  The Federal and State conferees will

             notify Mr. Eagle of their appointments to the committee not later

             than October 11, 1968.

             The committee shall report within six months or sooner, if pos-

             sible, to the conferees on specific programs including staffing and

             financing for developing a mathematical model of Lake Erie, monitoring

             of flow patterns, designation of control areas and deep water dispersal

             projects as related to nutrient problems, and the feasibility of formu-

             lating allocation standards for nutrient discharges on a pound-per-day

             basis among the five conference States."

-------
                                                                                  479

The following persons were appointed to the Technical Committee on Lake Erie

Studies:

                   Richard M. Boardman and Kenneth Schoener, Pennsylvania
                   John Bohunsky, Michigan
                   George Harlow, FWPCA, Cleveland
                   Leo Hetling, New York
                   Oral H. Hert, Indiana
                   George H. Eagle, Ohio, Chairman


J. E. Richards, George B. Garrett and John E. Kinney of the Ohio Department of

Health and Ed Johnson, FWPCA, Washington, D.C., served as resource persons to the

Committee.  Mr. Richards also served as secretary.

The Technical Committee held four one-day meetings, all in the offices of the Ohio

Department of Health in Columbus, October 2U, 1968; -December k, 1968; January 23,

1969 and March 21, 1969.

-------
                                   OBJECTIVES





   The Committee recommends a program to construct a model for analyzing and



controlling Lake Erie water quality.   The program should have the following



objectives:



   1.  To develop the basis for an effective water quality and eutrophication



       control plan for Lake Erie which will permit anticipating effects of



       various uses and controls,



   2.  To develop a summary of the information required for evaluation of



       all influences on the quality of the lake water and for evaluation of



       the eutrophication processes in Lake Erie.  Principal concern is the



       algal problem but there are also other problems which are of concern.



   3.  To determine the validity of existing data and the absence, if any,



       of necessary data,



   k.  To develop a predictive model for the lake water quality.  As a pre-



       requisite the Committee suggests development of several subproject



       models to furnish input for the predictive model.
                                       -U-

-------
                                                                                 431
                    COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
     At the first two meetings of the Technical Committee "to consider construction



of a model for analyzing and controlling Lake Erie's algae growths" a listing of the



factors that influence water quality of Lake Erie and the probable relationship to




its biology resulted in the following:



     (l)  Water flow distribution patterns;



     (2)  Chemical quality;



     (3)  Biological response patterns;



     (4)  The relationship between various waste loads and



          factors (2) and (3); and



     (5)  The dissolved oxygen response resulting from factors (l),




          (2) (3) and (1*).



     FWPCA water quality models specialists, and other consultants, gave the  committee



considerable encouragement in the development of models encompassing the above listed



factors.  It was the concensus that five models would be required initially, one for



each of the factors.  Subsequently, an overall predictive model could probably be



developed from the five.




     Accordingly, at the January 23, 19&9, meeting of the committee a "Proposed



Systems Study for Development of a Water Quality Management Plan for Lake Erie" was



developed.  (See Appendix A)



     Prospective Contractors.  Under date of February 14, 1969, invitations for S"b-



mittal of proposals for the Systems Study were sent to eighteen (18) prospective



contractors located in the states bordering Lake Erie.  (See Appendix A).  Twelve (12)



proposals were received.  These were reviewed in detail by Mr. George B. Garrett of




the Ohio Department of Health, Division of Engineering staff and a resume'was presented



to the committee at the March 21, 1969, meeting (See Appendix B).   Subsequently,



Mr. Ed Johnson,  FWPCA, made a review of the proposals (See Appendix C).
                                       -5-

-------
   In gena-oJ, the proposals Indicated that considerable data and knowledge are



available to develop the proposed models.  In fact, several of the prospective




contractors are presently working on certain phases of the proposed study.  One of



the major problems in the submittal of formal proposals will be to define the



degree of refinement needed for the development of the models.



   Administrative-Coordinating Agency.  It was the consensus of the states repre-




sentatives on the committee that an Administrative-Coordinating Agency to manage



the program, be retained as soon as possible and that such agency be acceptable to



the Technical Committee and Conferees.




   Further, the Technical Committee or another committee appointed by the Conferees



should serve as a "board of directors" to the Administrative-Coordinating Agency.



Also, the Technical Director appointed by the Agency for the study should be a very




knowledgeable person in the fields of water quality management and systems analysis.



The names of Mr. Kenneth Young, Water Resources Engineering, Austing, Texas;



Mr. David Marks, Johns-Hopkins University; Dr. Leo Hetling, New York State Health




Department, and, Mr. Norbert Jaworski, FWPCA, Chesapeake Field Station were mentioned



as examples of the capability needed for the position.



   Cost.  It may be noted from Appendix B that the cost for the development of the



proposed models would approximate $750,000 to $1,000,000.  In addition, the



Administrative-Coordinating Agency would require a budget of about $100,000 per year



or a total of $1*00,000 for the program if completed in four (k) years.  The committee



felt that the program must be financed by all interests - governmental agencies at



all levels, industries, private organizations and individuals if it is to have the



interest and cooperation required for success.
                                     -6-

-------
                                                                                 433




                                   CONCLUSIONS






1.  A key to the overall program for Lake Erie is a predictive model



    relating mans activities to the lake's water quality.



2.  Five subproject models are essential to the development of a final pre-



    dictive model.



3.  There are sufficient data available to permit approximations of the



    subproject models and to begin the development of a predictive model.



k.  There should be a central agency to direct the overall study, since in most



    instances, there will be opportunity for utilization of findings in one



    project for assistance in confirming findings in another.   This emphasizes



    the importance of a well qualified Technical Director.



5.  Development of the subprojects will permit appraisal of the adequacy and



    validity of existing data.  Periodic reporting by the  Technical Director



    of such findings will permit survey programming to get confirmatory or



    missing data.



6.  The final development of the models in the various subprojects will, for the



    first time, provide a full appraisal of what is known  and  what is essential



    to answer unknowns in the organization of an effective program for the Lake



    Erie basin.  Such an appraisal will guide research by  specifying deficiencies,



    reduce costs of surveys and monitoring by defining proper  control points, and



    allow the development of a final predictive model which can assess effects



    of various control programs and their costs.



7.  The FWPCA and the States should agree to assembling available data from



    sources within their respective jurisdictions.
                                     -7-

-------
                                                                                 4^4



                                 RECOMMENDATIONS





1.  There should be a Joint federal-state development of a program for  Lake  Erie



    which would permit appraisal of influences  on water quality and controls



    which can effectively achieve desired objectives.



2.  In preparing such a program there should be developed a predictive  model which



    could assess various approaches, costs and  benefits,  The  recommended  approach



    would be to organize the model development  in five subprojects which can be



    carried on concurrently.



3.  There should be a central Coordinating-Administrative Agency,  which maintains



    close liaison and guidance of the subprojects.



U.  The development of the subprojects should utilize existing data and unless it



    can be shown that essential data are lacking, the initial  approximation  should



    be limited to existing data.  Confirmatory  data may be developed in subsequent



    studies.  The states and FWPCA should assume  responsibility for compiling data



    within their respective Jurisdictions.



5.  If the Conferees agree that the five subproject models and a predictive  model



    should be developed, then the funding to the  extent of about $400,000, should



    be sought at once to permit retaining a Central Coordinating-Administrative



    Agency to (l) prepare specific detailed contract proposals for subproject con-



    tractors, (2) coordinate the collection of existing data from the various agencies,



    and (3) endeavor to obtain funds for the entire study recommended by the



    Technical Committee.
                                      -8-

-------
JAMES A. RHODES. Governor
EMMBTT W. ARNOLD. M.D.
    Director of Health
   450 East Town Street
      P.O. Box 110
   Columbus. Ohio  4321C
State  of Ohio
PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL
 Mr. Von II. Kiepini'.er    535
            Chairman
 Richard V. Brunner. D.D.S.
            Vice Chairman
 J. Howard Holmes. M.D.
 Ralph K. Ramsa.ver, M.D.
 J. F. Mcar, Ph.O.
 Phillip T. Knies. M.D.
 Lloyd E. Larrirk M.D.
                         Department of Health
    February lU, 1969

    Re: Informal Proposals for Study of
        Management Plan for Lake Erie
    Gentlemen :

    At the Fourth Session of the Enforcement Conference on the pollution of Lake
    Erie, a technical committee was formed.   This committee was  charged with
    investigating the feasibility of carrjdng out a system analysis  study of
    Lake Erie as an aid to managing the lakes euthrophication problem.  The
    committee, with representation from the  five border states and the Federal
    government has met several times to discuss the proposed study.  As a result
    of these meetings, a description of the  type of study which  appears most
    desirable was written.

    In order to further determine the feasibility of the study,  to obtain a list
    of potential contractors and an estimate of the time and funds required to
    carry out the work described, copies of  the study description  are being sent to
    potential contractors, such as yourself.

   _If after reviewing the attached you are  interested in any part of the study,
    please prepare ah informal proposal and  submit it to 'me by March 10, 1969.
    Such proposals should include the following information:

          1.  Are you interested in any phase of the study?

          2.  What are your general capabilities for carrying out  the
              study phase in which you are interested in?

          3.  What suggestion would you have for modifying the study
              plan?
          U.   What data would you require  to carry out the  study?  Is
              this data available and can  you obtain  it?

-------
                                                                                486
      5.  What time schedule -would be feasible for carryinc out
          the work?

      6.  What order of magnitude of cost micht be expected for
          carrying out the work?
Very truly yours,
George' R. Eaglp^Chairman
Technical Committee on
 Lake Erie Studies
Enc.

-------
                                                                              487

                        Proposed Systems Study

                                  for

                    Development of a Water Quality
                     Management Plan for Lake Erie
          The overall objective of the study is a systematic study of
Lake Erie's Eutrophication problem in order to develop a water quality
management plan.   In order to  carry out the project it will be broken
down into five  specific  sub-projects which will be coordinated by a
central project  staff.   In general,.it is expected that the sub-projects
will be carried  out by contract under the following conditions:

       1.  The objective  of the study is to develop the model as far as
          practical utilizing  existing data.  Therefore, no field or
          laboratory studies are  to be carried out unless the absence
          of vital data  is clearly demonstrated.  The need for such
          additional field or  laboratory data must be clearly indicated
          in the project proposal.

       2.  Based  on the data needs outlined in the preliminary proposal,
          the interagency committee will contact Federal and state
          agencies to determine the availability of the data and con-
          ditions  for its utilization.

       3.  Recommendations for  specific data collection systems or special
          studies which  will increase the accuracy of the model will be
          expected as part of  the study results.

       4.  Sub-contracting and  consultation with other groups with expertise
          or data  in the area  of  interest is encouraged.

       5.  As part of the preliminary proposal, the contractor is to propose
          procedures which could be utilized to provide verification of
          the model.

       6.  Sensitivity analysis on the significant parameters will be
          carried, out a.s part  of the study.

       7.  All computer programs will be required to be operational on the
          computer system specified,

       8«  Specific rigid, detailed time schedules will be established.
          Such schedules are necessary if all phases of the study are
          to be coordinated and completed in a reasonable time.

      9.  Quarterly progress reports will be required.

          The following more detailed description of each sub-project is
presented  as guidelines to what is expected.   One method of approach is
suggested.   Other -approaches to the problem will be considered.

-------
                                                                                  488

                              CENTRAL PROJECT STAFF
Functions -

            (a)  Negotiate and monitor the sub-project contracts.

            (b)  Coordinate the sub-projects in such a way that the programs
                 are compatible in accuracy, computer systems, etc.

            (c)  Develop the necessary linkages so that the models can
                 be used jointly.

            (d)  Keep coordinating committee informed of progress so that
                 when there is sufficient achievement in developing these
                 sub-projects a final linked, model can be proposed which
                 would permit projections on effect of various control
                 proposals and an estimate of capital and operating costs.

-------
                                                                              489
                             SUB-PROJECT I
Problem - To develop a model capable of demonstrating flow patters in the
          lake and predicting paths of flow of point discharges.

Suggested Method of Solution -

          This basically physical model will describe mixing and diffusion
as affected by currents, physical characteristics of the lake, inflows,
wind and lake level and at a scale adequate to permit extension to local
area definition of flow patterns.

Example of Questions l.'odels Should be Capable of Answering -

          1.  A determination of which sources (point of tributary) effect
areas of the lake in which algal blooms occur.

          2.  Possibilities of locating physical structures which could
influence flow patterns or changes in discharge points which could promote
diffusion — both of which would result in reducing concentrations of
elements found essential to bloom development.

-------
                                                                           490
                             SUB-PROJECT II

                            CHEMICAL QUALITY
Problem - To develop a model capable of predicting the resultant chemical
          quality in the lake of various levels of waste discharges.

Suggested Method of Solution -

          (a)  A model which in conjunction with the flow pattern model
describes mixing and diffusion of conservative materials in the lake.  It
should be capable of predicting the resultant concentration of any con-
servative substances introduced into the lake from any point or non-point
source.  The possibility of dividing the lake into two or more basins
should be considered.

          (b)  The above model should be expanded to account for a non-
conservative substancee such as BOD or NHg. when the sources, sinks and
rate of degradation are known.

          (c)  The above model should, be specifically adapted to describe
the temperature, BOD, DO, N and P cycles so as to predict conditions in
specific areas of the lake under different load conditions.

Examples of questions model should bo capable of answering -

          1.  For given waste discharges what chloride concentration
will occur at Longitude 77° and Latitude 43° 50' in 1985.

          2.  Vfnat total P concentration can be expected at the above
point if the waste treatment plants surrounding the lake achieve a uniform
58% P removal?  If specific discharges are reduced?

          3.  If a pesticide manufacturing plant located at Dunkirk, New York
has an accident and discharges 10 tons 'of Pesticide X with a decay rate of
0.1, what concentrations can be expected to occur at a water intake at
Buffalo, New York.

-------
                                                                               491
                            SUB-PROJECT III

                            ALGAE RESPONSE
Problem - To develop a model which will predict the algae conditions for
          given chemical and physical conditions in the lake.

Suggested Method of Solution -

          (a)  A review of all existing algae, chemical and physical data
on the lake will be made as well as personal interviews with ecologists,
limnologists and biologists who have expertise in this area.

          (b)  From the above data, statistical correlation between algae
conditions (number, chlorophyll concentration and diversity) and the
chemical and physical data should be made.

          (c)  The statistical results should be integrated in the light of
the theoretical knowledge of the experts interviewed.

          (d)  A final model relating chemical and physical quality of the
lake with the rate of growth and quantity of algae should then be constructed,
It may be necessary to develop different models for different areas of the
lake, such as the deep water center portion, or the shallow shoreline.

Example of Questions Models Should be Capable of Answering -

          1.  "What are the apparent essential element concentrations to
cause algal blooms (and define blooms)?

          2.  What are the chemical and physical factors which differentiate
bloom and non-bloom areas and/or occurrences in the same area?

          3.  If the following chemical and physical conditions exist in the
vicinity of the Cleveland water intake, what algae conditions should be
expected.

          P = a                        Temp = e

          N - b                        Current Velocity = f

          BOD = c

          Cl = d

-------
                                                                          492
                            SUB-PROJECT IV

                         EFFECT OF WASTE LOADS
Problem - To determine the effect of varying degrees of treatment for
          waste being discharged to Lake Erie and its Tributaries.

Suggested Method of Solution -

          (a)  A complete inventory of present and future point source
waste discharges to the Lake and its tributaries should be completed.
Most of the data required for such an inventory is available from the
State and Federal water pollution agencies files.

          (b)  A similar inventory of tributary loads should be developed
which (by subtraction of known point source loads) can provide estimates
of natural and agricultural loads and their variability with season and
precipitation.

          (c)  Projection of raw waste loading to the Lake and its tributaries
for the next twenty years should be made.  Here again, data should be readily
available from previous economic base studies made of the area.  The main
task of the sub-project will be to gather together and systemize the existing
data.

          (d)  Specific load curves for various degrees of treatment for
the major wastes sources (<1 MGD) should then be developed.  Actual data
for each plant should be utilized.  Curves for BOD, SS, Total P and Total N
will be required.  Generalized curves for the smaller plants «1 MGD) should
also be developed.

          (e)  All of the above information should be computerized so that
rapid access to the information is possible.

-------
                                                                            493
                             SUB-PROJECT V
Problem - To determine the causal relations effecting dissolved oxygen
          in the central basin at times of occurrences of thermocline.

Suggested Method of Solution -

          (a)  A determination of the relationships of lake level,  elevation
of thermocline, oxygen level, temperature and such other physical factors
as may be involved.

          (b)  A determination of the quality characteristics of the bottom
sediments and their relationship to oxygen consumption.

          (c)  A determination of the mechanics of utilizing bottom sediments
and biota in the lake during oxygen depletion occurrences.

          (d)  A determination of the kinetics of oxidation - reduction
reactions occurring in the central basin.

          (e)  A determination of zones influenced by the oxygen'changes
which could later be related to influence on fisheries.

-------
                                                                                 494
                          RESUME OF VARIOUS PROPOSALS

                          Battelle Memorial Institute

Interest - All Sub-projects

Comments - a.  Would add literature research and data accumulation
               sub-projects.
           b.  Hierarchial modeling approach with continuous  inter-
               linkages using either a deterministic or Monte Carlo basis.
           c.  Sub-project III broaden to include overall biological
               response including important commercial species and those
               important to food chains.

Proposed Models and General Technique.

    A.  Flow distribution

           1.  Three demensional thermodynamic analyses.

    B.  Chemical Quality
           Would use mass transport concepts and a typical mixed tank
           model segmented as may be necessary.

    C.  Biological response

        1  Win include
           a.  Algae              e.  Protozoa
           b.  Bacteria           f.  Benthos
           c.  Fungi              g.  Fish
           d.  Zoo plankton
           Would use a modified mass transport and decay approach.

    D.  Waste Loads
           General approach

    E.  Dissolved Oxygen Response
        1.  Diurnal variations
        2.  Annual variations
        Would break lake into a series of tanks and connecting pipes.

                     Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.

Interest - All Projects

Comments - a.  All projects should be carried out by a single contractor.

           b.  Suggest an overall water management
               Set of models interlinked to the proposed
               5 sub-projects.

Proposed Models and Techniques

    A.  Flow distribution

           1.  A two layer model

           2.  A general thermodynamic approach

-------
                                                                            495
    B.     Chemical quality
              Mass transport approach

    C.     Algae response
              Limited to correlation of algae counts of a few species
              with meteorological conditions and concentrations of
              nutrients.

    D.     Waste loads
              General approach

    E.     Dissolved oxygen response
              Diurnal variations
              Two layer model

                   Franklin Institute Research Laboratories

Interest - All projects, however, proposal covers only sub-project 1-U
           suggested Models or Projects

Comments - a.  Sub-project 5 is not closely related to other h sub-projects
               If desired, would make a separate proposal.

           1.  Accumulation of data and construction of preliminary model.
                 (Divide Western basin into finite pools (suggest 12)
                  sequential additions to the upgraded preliminary model
                                                       tL
           2.  Upgrade preliminary model and construct themical quality
               model.

           3.  Algae response model
                 Multi-variate analysis
                 sequential additions to the chemical model

           U.  Add on economic model to (2) and (3).

           5.  D.O. model.

                              Hydroscience, Inc.

Interest - Sub-projects II, III, V

Comments - Emphasis should be toward answering directly and quickly those
           problems which are amenable to solution by models which are now
           substantially completed.  These models should be verified and
           from them more complexed models developed.
           The first phase would be concerned with:

           a.  Long-term variation of conservative and non-conservative
               water quality constituents.

           b.  Seasonal variations in water quality.

           c.  Seasonal succession of phytoplankton and high tropic levels.

           d.  Steady state analysis of the spatial variation of the above.

           e.  Preliminary analysis of time variable, multi-demensional
               systems.

                                      -2-

-------
                                                                               496
           Results of above may be sufficient for engineering solutions
           and further refinement not necessary.  If not, the following
           Phase II is recommended:
                                           £
               a.  Flow model (Sub-project 
-------
                                                                             497
                             Ohio State University

Interest - Some phases of all projects but particularly Sub-projects
               I, II, III.

Comments -  a.  Suggest a basin by basin approach; i.e., western basin,
                then central and eastern basin.

            b.  First three sub-projects so interrelated that separation
                would be difficult.

            c.  It seems unlikely information for sub-project III is
                available.

                       Quirk, Lawler & Matusky Engineers

Interest - Sub-projects I & II

Comments - a.  Three-dimension time variable mass transport approach.

           b.  Would suggest a two-phase approach.

               1.  Complete mix steady state conditions overall view.

               2.  Breakdown into smaller units  for refinement.

           b.  Item a sub-project II is more properly a part of sub-project  I.
               Sub-project II would then be primarily related to decay kinetics.

               Phase I  3-6 months

               Phase II  12-2** months

                              Syracuse University

Interest - Sub-project II

Comments - a.  Divide lake into two regions

                  1.  Western basin

                  2.  Central and eastern basins

-------
                                                                     498
                          ADDENDUM


Carnegie - Mellon University


Interest   Flow distribution (Sub-project I)

         1  A general thermodynamic approach.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and New York
    State Health Department
Interest   Waste loads  (Sub-project IV)

             General approach

-------


Ci
+
^





£>



£>
t-



•p
O
0) H
•OH
O t-

pj
1
£
W


H







H













j*
O
•H
•P
o)
to
•H
§
bO
£










O •
O co
O 0
CM"S
ONOO
COH
-69-



3
o

IA

O
H

r-T
ON

8
CM

O

H



O
O
VO
•V
co
o
H


O
0
co

co

•69-





0)
•p
pj
^j
•H
-P
CO
C
H

H
td
•H
O
B


0)
H
H
0)
-P
•P
rt
m



i






i




i





i








i



o
o •
O 
•H
C


d

1 — I
s

cu
•H
b()
CU
C
f_j
CO
0
o
o
o •
~ CO
O 0
p
1 0
O CO
o



o •
8J

8co
H H
O •
O CO
O O
« B
O
VO-*
H CM
0 •
O to
o o
o" 6

O CO
H H



O to
0 0
•> B
0
(A IA
H H


§*
CO
o
•\ f*
0
O CM
H H


£
o
-p
cd
fn
O
fi
A

H
cd
o
•H

M
cd •
C 0
O G
1* M
0)


H
H
4)
C
£_<
O
O

o
o •
O W
* o
0 B
^3





1

o «
O CO
o o
" B
0
LTN f-
CM
O CO
O O
- S
ITN
C- O
CO



8W
0
o B
fs
0 H
IACM


to
O O
8J

ITN CO
b- 1
OJ J-
CM

,0
,J)

A
O
^J
CO
0)
to
0)


cu
-p
p)
-p
•H
•P
CO
C
M

C
•H
i— )
r*l
^
cd
t^
C
o o
o o
On°~
O 0
ITN IA
CO CO
1 1
80
o
CM CM
H
H H


^




1 1





X i









X i







1 1









f — *
(— j
to
O

o
£4
* ft
£_)
C tU
H to
cd
** .*"!
CU ft
t)
C CM
Q) s 	 '
•H
O
to
O
T)
£*3
W
•
CO
O •
S VI
O
3 6
CM "CM
H

M
H M































































                                                                     499
  i   i
8     CO
     o
 CD* g

 ON CM
-4- H
    O
 >>
4-5
•H
 to
 f-t
 cu
 c:  a!
fi
 U

2
  I   I
           O  CO
           81"
           in CM
            i   i
              oJ
              0)
-P -H
•H H
 W £>

 *« P
 0> ft

•H 
                                       o
                                       o
                                       o
                                                 CO CM
                                         O      •
                                      O O   • co
                                         8O  w O

                                       •vo* i S
                                      cTiA    j-
                                      IA t-l \D OJ
                                       I   I  I   I
                                      O IA ro CM
                                      CO C-     H

                                         M     H
                                      H H H H
                                         O
                                      O O      •
                                      O O   -to
                                      O  •> to  O
                                       •>O  O  S
                                      O o  B
                                      IA CM    -ct
                                      I   I  VD CM
                                      O O  I  I
                                      CO O CO CM
                                         H    H
                                     H H H H
           w  to
           3  O
          •P  ft
                                                   4)
                                                   to
                                               ^
                                                   CM

-------
•p
 o
                                                                                                       500
     o    w
           i
H
8
     CO
     s    H
H
H

H
                o
           _  W


           2 a
           vooo
           CXJ-3-
W
           •s
     -p
      w

     A

      o
     •H
      0)
      R




      1
                -P

                •H
                to
i-P O
O)
co
to
C


K
                 to
                 pi
                W
                        S-
                              H CM CO

-------
                                                                           501
Preproposals for Study of a Management Plan for Lake Erie


     Six preproposals were reviewed.  Two respondents propose to cover
the five subprojects; four would cover no more than three subprojects.
The following table, in alphabetical order, summarizes the response:


             Respondent                       Subproject

                                      I     I!     Ill     IV    V     VI*

1.  Battelle Memorial Institute       XX       X      X    X      X

2.  Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory   XX       XXX

3.  Hydroscience                             XX           X

4.  Michigan, University of                          X

S.  Monsanto                          XX       X

6.  Quirk, Lawler & Matusky           X      X

* Additional subproject suggested by Battelle


     Of the six, Battelle, Cornell, and Monsanto specified their approaches
in considerable detail.  Battelle and Cornell are experienced in the
specialties required and in Lake Erie studies.  Monsanto 's forte is their
computer facility and mathematical modeling.  Hydroscience has recent
experience in a chemical quality model.  The University of Michigan
(Deininger- Bender) proposes a small-scale attack on a large complex
problem.  Quirk, Lawler S Matusky are nonspecific in detail.

     Rankings are a consensus of those reviewing the preproposals.  The
absolute rank obliterate any small differences in potential performance.
Hence, two or more of the top-ranking may be nearly equivalent.  The
following table summarizes the ranking.  Respondents are identified by
the numbers in the alphabetical list in the table above.

-------
                                                                          502
                                    -2-
Rank

First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Subproject
I
1
2
5
6
^
II
2
1
3
5
6
III
5
1
2
3
4
IV V
1 1
2 2
3
.
.
VI
1
-
-
-
.
     Comments relative to ranking appraisal are given.   More detailed
comments are given in the second attachment.

     Two respondents made preproposals for the whole study.   They are
ranked in order of overall quality and potential for success.

     Battelle.  Presentation is explicit and concise.  All models are
linked logically.  Staff and past performance rank high.

     Cornell.  Presentation is specific.  The algal response model is
weak because it is limited to a statistical correlation.  Staff ar.d
past performance rank high.

     For each subproject all proposing companies are ranked:

     Subproject 1   Flow model

          Battelle,  Good, well developed proposal.

          Cornell.   Proposes a valid assumption of a simplified
                     two-layered model.

          Monsanto.  May not be aware of potential for adapting
                     related models.

          Quirk, Lawler 5 Matusky.  Nonspecific.

     Subproject II  Chemical quality

          Cornell.  A grid model to overlay the hydraulic model is
                    probably a good approach.

          Battelle. Assumption of a mixed tank appears valid in
                    the segmenting approach suggested.

-------
                                                                      503
                              -3-

Subproject II Chemical quality (continued)

     Hydroscience.  Experienced with Raritan Bay study.

     Monsanto.  A full-scale kinetic model is probably overelaborate.

     Quirk, Lawler 5 Matusky.  No proposal.

Subproject III  Algal response

     Monsanto.  Grid system to superimpose algae on chemical
                quality seems good.  Similar studies in progress.

     Battelle.  Suggests partial differential equations; elegant
                solution.

     Cornell.   Statistical correlation.  Anticipate weak results.

     Hydroscience.  Response not consistent with request.

     University of Michigan.  Proposed statistical correlation would
                require large volume of good data.

Subproject IV  Effect of waste loads

     Battelle.  Discharge simulation is a good idea.

     Cornell.   Dependent on existing studies and consultation
                with FWPCA.  Would consider contributing discharges
                as well as lake body.

Subproject V  Dissolved oxygen response

     Battelle.  Would subcontract to Ohio State University:
                well qualified.

     Cornell.   Not as much detail to judge; stratification
                considered.

     Hydroscience.  Simple stratified model.

-------
                                                                           504
               Summary of Proposals by Each Respondent
Battelle Memorial Institute

     Battelle-Columbus proposes to perform all five subprojects into a
overall plan of water quality management for Lake Erie.   An additional
subproject is suggested on comprehensive acquisition of literature and
its relation to all parts of this project.


Subproject I  Flow model

     By determining the functional importance of all pertinent physical
phenomena, complex equations and a correspondingly complex model would
be minimized.  This approach makes good sense.


Subproject II  Chemical quality

     The model would be adaptable as a whole mixed tank or as any
specified portion as an approximate entity.  The model would be a mass
transport model with chemical kinetic terms.  The flexible nature of the
proposed model would allow practicable attention only to the refinement
and scope required for each substance.


Subproject III  Biological response

    The need for a comprehensive approach to analyze the biological
communities — algae, bacteria and fungi, zooplankton, protozoa, benthos,
and fish — is emphasized.  Interaction among all categories is important.
Time-dependent partial differential equations would represent individual
compartments of the biota.  A realistic approach in using various levels
of models would make best use of available information and indicate where
future efforts should be aimed.
Subproject IV  Waste loads

     This ultimate model would assess the ecological response of the
lake to various policies of pollution control and water quality manage-
ment.  The submodel would simulate waste discharges into the lake and
its tributaries.

-------
                                                                          505
                                 -2-
Subproject V  Dissolved oxygen response

     Several approaches to this model are possible.  At least two
cycles are apparent in the dynamics of dissolved oxygen - annual and
diurnal.  The optimum form1 of the model would be determined by available
information and the relation of this model for others and the whole
management model.  BMI suggests subcontracting this to Ohio State
University and monitoring the effort.  OSU expertise would then be
introduced and interact to benefit other subproject models.
Subproject VI Literature

     A proposed subproject,for literature and data acquisition would
be subcontracted possibly to University of Michigan.  This is a sound
suggestion.

     Battelle Memorial Institute has highly qualified personnel and
extensive research experience both in the technical fields involved
and in the study of Lake Erie.
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Proposal

     CAL would perform all five subprojects.  They suggest a single
contractor to insure compatibility of results.  Their analysis of the
interrelationships of the subprojects presents a strong argument for
one contractor to coordinate all subprojects.

     Subproject I   Flow patterns and prediction of flow paths at point
                    of discharge

          The assumptions and simplifications appear reasonable.  Seasonal
stratification requires a two-layered model.  Important variables are
discussed in a way that indicates practical familiarity with the basic
problem.  Conservative substances would be handled by this model.


Subproject II  Chemical quality model

     A three-dimensional grid related to the flow model would be used
to describe each substance of interest.  Nonconservative substances,
seasonal variations,  interacting substances, anc cyclic actions would
be considered.

-------
                                                                          506
                                  -3-

Subproject III   Algae response model

     To form a comprehensive model is recognized as an immense task.
A limited effort such as statistical correlation of various observed
algae count with coordinate  data is proposed.  The proposal is weak
in this subproject compared to the approaches proposed by others.


Subproject IV  Effect of waste loads

     Would consider tributary discharges and their reaction effects.
Considerable dependence on published data and consultation with FWPCA
and others would be necessary.


Subproject V   Model of DO in Central Basin

     Viewed as an extension of I, II, and III.  Effects of stratification
important.  Output would be general description of what is occurring
in the basin as a function of interrelated factors.

     CAL has highly qualified personnel and research experience in
closely related projects.  They have researched numerous fluid flow
problems and the hydrologic and energy budgets and water transport
characteristics of Lake Erie.


D. J. O'Connor - Hydroscience, Inc.


Subproject II  Chemical Quality
          III  Algae Response
            V  D.O - Thermocline Study of the Central Basin


Subproject II

     Hydroscience, Inc. has conducted a study in Raritan Bay which
answers the quality pattern and intensity type of question posed in
Subproject II.  It is reasonable to believe they can also do this in
Lake Erie.  In the past they made a first cut at the Lake Erie problem
but it is not as detailed as the current request.
Subproject III

     Hydroscience, Inc. conducted a study including algae growth in
the San Francisco Bay-Delta Project.  It is not clear what was done in
this study. The proposed analysis does not indicate any correlation
studies to define predictors of algae conditions.  Section d in the
project request by the State of Ohio and the Enforcement Technical

-------
                                                                        507
                                   -4-

Subproject III (continued)

Committee seems to be interpreted by Hydroscience, Inc. in a manner
not consistent with sections a-c.  This should be discussed with
Hydroscience, Inc. to resolve any differences.  As proposed, this part
of the Hydroscience, Inc. proposal should not be funded.


Subproj ect V

     Hydroscience, Inc. is prepared to carry out a simple stratified
study of Lake Erie assuming complete mixing in both the epilimnion and
hypolimnion.  This type of study should be sufficient for a first cut
at the problem to give  approximate answers to the effects of pollution
in the Lake.  This part of the proposal does not attack the actual
questions in the form of the "Suggested Methods of Solution,"  posed by
the Enforcement Technical Committee.  The answers to the questions
posed may not be within the scope of expertise of Hydroscience, Inc.
This is perhaps why two added years and a doubling of costs are involved
in responding to this request.


Deininger-Bender - University of Michigan School of Public Health

Subproject III  Algae Response "Proposal for Modeling the Productivity
                of a Lake Ecosystem"

     The request from the technical committee of the Lake Erie Enforcement
Conference basically asks for a set of predictors of algae location
and intensity given an input of chemical and physical water conditions
at various points within the lake (i.e., a map of lake conditions for
physical and chemical conditions is an input.  The output will be a
map of algae conditions).  They ask for statistical correlation of algae
and the other conditions.

     The proposal is not geared to this type of solution but to the
whole ecological system in the lake in what appears to be a non-statistical
approach.  This is truly an ambitious plan but one that would need to
be spelled out much more fully before consideration should be given
for funding.  I expect that these people are well known in their field or
they would not have been given the opportunity to respond to the
proposal.  If this is so, perhaps they should again be contacted to
make sure that there was no mistake in interpreting either the request
or the response.

-------
                                     -s-

Monsanto Research Corporation

I.  Transport Model of Lake Erie

     Before making an outlay of between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for a
2 to 2 1/2 year study of the transport of water and wastes within Lake
Erie, it would be wise to investigate the possibility of using
C. H. Lee's If or G. T. Orlob's 2/  estuary model for this part of the
study.  Some of the people in FWPCA familiar with Orlob's Model are
Dick Caswell, Jerry Troyan,  and Ken Feignor (now at Cornell).  Lee's
model will be available in September of this year.  He and Orlob could
also be contacted to determine i'f their models can be applied to Lake
Erie.  Monsanto Corporation should be made aware of these models to
see if their availability will affect the development cost of a transport
model.  This part of Monsanto's proposal appears to be the weakest of
the three sections.

II.  Chemical Systems Model

     I do not know if a model involving reaction kinetics in an open
environment with varying temperature, pressure, and concentrations of
reagents can be developed.  Before this type of project is undertaken,
a first cut sensitivity analysis should be made using the variables
involved in the model.  This will at least indicate whether  the
variables can be measured to an accuracy necessary to obtain meaningful
answers from the model.  If a sensitivity analysis indicates there is
promise to this approach, this section of Monsanto's proposal should be
given serious consideration as having the most promise of not only
answering questions involving Lake Erie but also in answering many
other water quality problems in other lakes and perhaps estuaries
and streams in our Nation.


III.  Biological Model

     Monsanto appears to have begun work on this aspect of the problem
already.  Their reference number 8

               Konstam, A. H., et al., "Exploration for a
          Statistical Correlation between Algae Growth Rate and
          Environmental Factors," final report, Monsanto Research
          Corporation No. 6700, May 1968

may already provide a matrix to superimpose on a quality grid of Lake Erie

I/  C. H. Lee, Graduate Student, Mass. Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

2/  G. T. Orlob, President, WAter Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, Calif.

-------
                                                                           509
                                     -6-

to delineate algae productivity areas.  This part of the proposal
appears to be the type of response the Technical Committee of the
Lake Erie Enforcement Conference wants.
Quirk, Lawler 5 Matusky Engineers Proposal

     Proposal would be limited to Subprojects I and II.   Suggested
two phases of development; first, an overview and second, development
in detail.

     The letter is brief and indicates more detail would be forthcoming
(Mid-March).

     They state their ability has been demonstrated .over the past five
years in developing mathematical models and computer programs related
to the subprojects.

     There is not enough information to make a critical  appraisal of
their ability.  The scope or complexity of any of their  previous  work
is not known.

     They estimate the work would take one to two years.

-------
                                                       510
                      Ralph Purdy



          MR. ST3IN:  Now, the next point is on watercraft



waste control, and I think we are in substantial agreement



on that,



          MR. PURDY:  We have a report that we are placing



before the Conferees, and I will just briefly state that



the committee, chaired by Mr. Granger, who was appointed



by Mr. Oeming to act as his alternate, did not call a



meeting but carried out their deliberations by corres-



pondence, and by telephone, and they used the Lake Michigan



Basin regulations as a starting point.



          Now, very quickly I will go down through the



chart as to where things stand at the present time.



          New York has a regulation or statute that will



go in effect 3-1-70.  Pennsylvania does not now have



regulations specifically directed to control wastes from



watercraft.  Indiana has a statute that will go into



effect 1-1-71; Michigan, 1-1-70.  Ohio has one in effect



now, but it exempts Lake Erie waters, and it is my under-



standing that they expect this exemption to be eliminated



by legislative action.



          Now, in summary, the Lake Erie Basin States



are in agreement for uniform "no waste" discharge to the



waters of Lake Erie and endorse the recommendations of



the Lake Michigan Basin States, and the recommendation  of

-------
                                                       511




                      Ralph Purdy



the Lake Michigan Basin States is attached to the report.



          MR, STEIN:  Just for a matter of information,



Ontario, after 6-1-71, will go along with the incinerator?



          MR. PURDI:  Ontario has a regulation in effect



at the present time.  The effective date, 1-1-69, they



will approve the macerator chlorinator under special



permit until 6-1-71 for boats registered in Ontario.



          MR. STEIN:  But after that —



          MR. PURDI:  After that date, it is no overboard



discharges.



          MR8 STEIN:  Right.  Then, there is complete



uniformity?



          MR. PURDY:  Complete uniformity.



          MR. STEIN:  I would suggest with this that this



is a significant breakthrough, that the States have gotten



complete uniformity on the no waste discharge policy from



watercraft into the waters of Lake Erie, as I see this,



with the legislative and administrative progress in the



States.



          Unless anyone has any question, I think the



States are proceeding with dispatch to bring this about,



and I think the Conferees can accept this report as



significant progress toward abating the pollution from



watercraft, and I think this is about the shortest time



you can reasonably expect this to happen.

-------
                                                       512



                      Ralph Purdy



          This report should be accepted, and the only



time we will necessarily take this up again  is if there



are deviations from the schedule, as indicated here, and



we find that there is some problem,  I don't think there



will be any since all of the States are committed to it,



and in Lake Michigan this program went ahead without a



hitch.



          Okay, now, I think that will handle the summary,



and the boat pollution, too, and the model,



          (The above referred to report follows in its



entirety*)

-------
                                                                               51:
                    Report of the Technical Committee to Develop
                    Recommendations for Uniform Regulations to
                    Control Pollution from Watercraft for the
                                Lake Erie Basin

                                   June 1969


     Pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Session of the Lake Erie

Enforcement Conference, the following representatives were designated to serve

on a committee to develop uniform regulations to control wastes from watercraft:


          Pennsylvania               Paul R. Heitzenrater, Acting Director
                                     Division of Water Supply and Sewerage
                                     Pennsylvania Department of Health

          Indiana                    Oral H. Hert, Director
                                     Division of Water Pollution Control
                                     Indiana State Board of Health

          New York                   Joseph Salvato, Associate Director
                                     Department of Health

          Ohio                       Paul Sarossy, Chief
                                     Division of Watercraft
                                     Department of Natural Resources

                                     E. E. Rosendahl, Assistant Engineer
                                     General Engineering Unit
                                     Department of Health

          Michigan                   Dale W. Granger, Chief
                                     Hydrological Survey Division
                                     Bureau of Water Management

Mr. George Harlow was designated to represent the Federal Water Pollution Control

Administration in these matters.

     Mr. Granger, as Chairman of the Committee, forwarded to the respective states'

representatives,  copies of the recommended regulation which had been adopted earlier

by the Lake Michigan Basin States.

     The Committee completed its study by letter correspondence and telephone
                                        *
communication and did not find it necessary to call  any committee meetings.

-------
                                                                               51
                                                                                  •4-
                                     -2-


     It was suggested that the Lake Michigan Basin regulation should be carefully

reviewed with the view that it could properly become the basis for a similar

regulation for the Lake Erie Basin.

     Tabulated below is the status of existing or proposed controls for the

Lake Erie Basin States and the Province of Ontario:
New York

Pennsylvania
                  Effective date
                  of regulation
             Pollution Control System Approved
            Holding                Macerator-
             tanks   Inci neerator  chlorinator
3-1-70
Yes
Yes
No
                                   Remarks
Province of
Ontario
1-1-69
Yes
Yes
See remarks
Wi 11 ap
macerat
chlorinator under
special permit
until 6-1-71 only,

Pennsylvania does
not now have
regulations
specifically
directed to
control waste
from watercraft.
Indiana

Michi gan

Ohio
1-1-71

1-1-70

In effect
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
No

No

No
Law now exempts
Lake Erie waters.
This exemption  is
expected to be
e1imi nated by the
Legislature upon
recommendation  of
the Governor's
office.

-------
                                                                                515
                                     -3-






     The Lake Erie Basin States are in agreement for uniform "no waste" discharge




to the waters of Lake Erie and endorse the recommendations of the Lake Michigan




Basin States.

-------
                                                                                516

                                  PROPOSED  ACT
                            (or Rules  and Regulations)
                 FOR  THE  DISPOSAL  OF SEWAGE  FROM  MARINE  TOILETS

     Developed  by Subcommittee on  "Wastes from Watercraft"  -  Lake  Michigan  -
     Four  State Enforcement  Conference.  Approved by  All  Conferees,  March 2,  1968.



     AN  ACT  (or Rules and Regulations)  to regulate the disposal  of sewage from

     watercraft.

1.0  DEFINITIONS

     For purposes of  this Act  (or  Rules  and  Regulations), unless the context  clearly

     requires  a different meaning:

     1.1  "Watercraft" includes every  description of  watercraft, other  than a

          seaplane, on the water,  used or capable of  being  used  as a means  of

          transportation  on  water,  except vessels engaged in  Interstate Commerce  and

          vessels of  foreign registry.

     1.2  "Sewage" means  all  human body wastes.

     1.3  "Litter" means  bottles,  glass, crockery,  cans,  scrap metal, junk,  paper,

          garbage, rubbish,  plastic, or similar  refuse discarded as no  longer

          useful  or useable  (or use definition  in own state boating law).

     1.^  "Marine Toilet" means any toilet  on or  within  any watercraft.
                                                                             •
     1.5  "Waters of  the  State" means  all of the  waterways  on which watercraft  shall

          be used or  operated (or  state definition).

     1.6  "Person" means  an  individual,  partnership,  firm,  corporation, association,

          o'r other entity (or state definition).

     1.7  "Owner" means the  person who hac  lawful possession of  a boat  by  virtue  of

          legal title or  equitable interest therein which entitles him  to  such

          possession  (or  state definition).

     1.8  "Department" means the  ....(name'of the State  agency  which shall

          administer  this Act).

-------
                                                                           517




                                  -2-









2.0  LITTERING OR POLLUTING WATER   -   RESTRICTIONS




     Restrictions on placing, throwing, depositing or discharging litter




     into waters of this State are contained in .... (refer to appropriate




     State Act or Rules and Regulations).




3.0  MARINE TOILETS   -   RESTRICTIONS




     3.1  No marine toilet on any watercraft used or operated upon waters of




          this State shall be operated so as to discharge sewage into said




          waters, directly or indirectly,  unless the sewage has been rendered




          non-pol1utional  by passage through a device approved by the Depart-




          ment (or .... name of State Water Pollution Control Agency if




          Department and said agency are not the same).




     3.2  No person owning or operating a watercraft with a marine toilet




          shall  use, or permit the use of, such toilet on the waters of this




          State, unless the toilet is equipped with facilities that will




          treat, hold,  incinerate or otherwise handle sewage in a manner




          capable of preventing water pollution.




     3-3  No person shall  dispose of sewage, accumulated in a holding t^nk or




          any other container on a watercraft, in such manner that the sewage




          reaches or may reach the waters of this State, except through a




          sewage disposal  facility approved by the Department (or .... name




          of State Water Pollution Control Agency if Department and said




          agency are not the same).




4.0  MARINE TOILETS   -   POLLUTION  CONTROL DEVICES




     k.\  After the effective date of this Act, every marine toilet on water-




          craft used or operated upon waters of this State shall be equipped




          with a pollution control device in operating condition approved by

-------
                                                                                  518




                                       -3-








          the Deportment (or ....  name of State Water Pollution Control Agency If




          Department and said agency are not the same).




     U.2  Pollution control devices that are acceptable for purposes of this Act




          are:




          ^.21  Holding tanks which retain toilet wastes for proper disposal




                pursuant to Rule 3.3.




          ^t.22  Incinerating devices which will reduce to ash all sewage and




                toilet wastes produced on the watercraft.  Ash is to be disposed




                of on shore - not to waters of the State.




          ^.23  Any other device determined by the Department (or agency)  to be




                effective in preventing pollution from marine toilets.




5.0  ENFORCEMENT




     (Refer to enforcement authority of State Boating Act).  (or'Pollution Control




      Act).




6.0  EFFECTIVE DATE




     The provisions of this Act with reference to requiring watercraft with toilet




     facilities to be equipped with pollution control devices shall take effect




     January  1, 1970.

-------
                                                       519



                   Closing Statement's



          MR. STEIN:  Now, let's move to the easier ones




first.



          I guess on the surveillance, as I understand



it, the FWPCA is charged with surveillance and will



continue to make reports to the Conferees on surveillance,



is that correct, Mr. Poston?



          MR. POSTON:  We will do that.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Well, I think that a surveillance



report  can stet then.



          Do we want to say anything  to move on more



specifics on the agricultural and urban runoff program



for the Conferees?  Do we want to get down to specifics



on programs, on how we are going to do it or not?   If



not,  fine.



          MR. METZLER:  Well, Mr. Stein, just quickly —



and I don't want to delay this — but it does seem to me



that  we ought to be on record as urging more adequate



funding both State  and federally toward the Soil Conserva-



tion  Districts and  the watershed programs.  You heard the



Maumee mentioned, and there are three  going and 15  applica-



tions on hand, and  it will be another 20 years before



anything really happens in a lot of those.  I am mention-



ing Ohio only because I don't have the same information



for New York.  But  it will take 20 years to get something



dono  there, unless  we can get an order of nagnitude higher

-------
                                                       520




                  Closing Statements




of funding from a combination of State-Federal forces.




          MR. STEIN:  Do all of the States agree with




that?



          You have got the question not because of lack



of sympathy, but because of appropriations law there will




be an abstention on this matter by the Federal members of




the panel, since we cannot take any position on funding




matters.



          MR. POOLE:  We support it — Indiana does.




          MR. STEIN:  Yes.




          I assume this is supported all of the way along




the line from the State representatives.




          Now, let's get to the next point on the removal



of phosphorus.




          Do we want to come to a judgment on a time



schedule, and the evaluation of the States' approaches



to the  phosphorus removal program?  I know this has been



a matter that has been a little unclear, and if we can



clear it up, I would be delighted.




          MR. PURDY:  Mr. Stein, again, this is being




considered as a part of the International Joint Commission



report  on Lake Erie, a coordinated program between the




States  and Canada.  Hopefully, this Conference  could



coordinate their requirements with the  International




Joint Commission.

-------
                                                     521
                  Closing Statements
          Now, right at the present time, I don't believe
we are at liberty to discuss those dates in that they
have not been reported to the International Joint Commis-
sion, and as such remain privileged communications.
          But it would seem s trange to have two bodies
dealing with the pollution of Lake Erie to present different
schedules for compliance.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, I hope they wouldn't be
different schedules, but the Conference did attempt to
set up a date for compliance with the phosphates.
          MR. PURDY:  I realize this, and this is the
confusing part of more than one particular body dealing
with the pollution of a specific body of water.
          MR, LYON:  Let me recommend that we make the
same recommendation here that was made to the IJC board,
and that is that each of the States provide SO percent
phosphate removal by 1972 for direct discharges to Lake
Erie, and by 1975 — isn't that right? — for the
tributaries to Lake Erie.  This was the same recommen-
dation that was made to the IJC board.
          MR, STEIN:  Are there any comments on that?
Do the Conferees agree to thati
          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Metzler made reference this
morning to a phosphate requirement that New York has.
          MR, METZLER:  Well, given an earlier hour and

-------
                                                      522




                      Closing Statements



adequate time to lay a basis, I would perhaps suggest



some modification of this.  I think we have neither, and



since we have participated in the work with IJC, I think



we would support the direct lake discharge removals by



197?  and the indirect ones by 1975.



          I might say  for New York  that we expect to



be well ahead of this schedule,



          MR. PURDY:  I think it should be understood



that these are outside dates  and that in no way should



it modify the existing schedules that call for earlier



completion dates.



          MR. STEIN:  That have been submitted to the



Conference.



          MR. PURDY:  That is right.



          MR. STEIN:  How about putting it that way,



Mr. Poston?  On phosphate removal  the dates will prevail



that are earlier than these dates  that have been submitted



by the  Conferees for individual discharges, but in



accordance with recommendations made to the IJC by  the



States  that the outside date for removal of 80 percent



of phosphates on a  statewide basis will be 1972, direct



discharges to the lakes  and 1975 for tributaries.



          Are there any comments on that?



          MR. EAGLE:  We would support that.



          MR. STEIN:  If there are any objections to  that,

-------
                                                       523



                 Closing Statements



I want to hear it,  because we have got to get Mr. Poole




back,



          MR. POSTON:  I think we are asking Detroit —



well, that is a direct discharge.



          MR. PURDI:  Whether it is direct or indirect,



there shall be no changes on the earlier time schedule,



          MRo STEIN:  Detroit is taken care of.  It is



a specific date for Detroit.



          MR, POOLE:  It is 1972 for direct discharges,



and 1975 for tributary discharges.



          MR. STEIN:  Except where you have put into the



Conference an earlier date for phosphate removal.



          MR. POOLE:  Well, I just put in 1975 for Fort



Wayne-, but I am going to be in a hell of a shape to go



back to them and tell them they have to do it by 1972



and all of the other tributary places can wait three



more years.



          MR. LYON:  We told our tributary places 1971,



and we are not going to change that.  I think the under-



standing should be that these are the final dates, if



there is any problem, but we should stick to the schedule:



that have been submitted.




          MR. PURDY:  Again, in Michigan's report this



morning  we stated that 90 percent of the tributary popu-



lation should have phosphate removal by the end of 1972.

-------
                                                       524




                  Closing Statements



          So this is well in advance of phosphates and



I don't think would interfere with what you have got



established for Fort Wayne.



          MR. POOLE:  Well,  ours is all of them.  I am



just looking at the record.   We put them on notice in



May — everybody with a population of more than 2000 —



that December 1972 was the date.



          Now, apparently Pennsylvania has done that,



and Michigan has done that,  so why are we relaxing to




1975?



          MR. POSTON:  And evidently New York feels that



way.  There is going to be a tighter date than 1975



probably.



          MR. LYON:  The problem is that not all of us —



on the tributaries — are up to 1972.



          MR. POSTON:  I think you have a terrific job to



sell a community that is discharging direct to the lake



that they have to put theirs in before the guy upstream



who might only be a mile up there, and it is very difficult



to do a selling job on that man that is one mile up the



stream and would be considered a direct discharge.



          MR0 LYON:  But, Wally, I think you will find



that that is the exception.  Most of them are more than



a mile up.  Usually those are small ones.  The big ones



are quite a ways upa

-------
                                                        52$



                  Closing Statements



          MR. POSTON:  I'd even go for 10 or 20 miles.



          MR, POOLE:  As I understood the phosphate problem



as far as the algae in Lake Erie was concerned is the



origin of the phosphates makes no difference,.  If a hundred



pounds comes out of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and gets in



through the Maumee, it fertilizes just as much algae as



a hundred pounds that comes out of Toledo.



          MR. METZLER:  Mr. Chairman, I think we had an



agreement here, but in the event that there is any great



difficulty, I think so far as New York is concerned, we



could live with the 1972 date for upstream as well as the



others  because we intend to meet them.



          MR. LYON:  So could we.  I think basically it



is up to Ohio.  (Laughter)



          MR, EAGLE:  Big deal.  You are talking about



nine plants; I am talking about 132.



          MR. PURDY:  I just jumped in along beside you,



George.



          MR. STEIN:  What would you prefer, 1972 and 1975?



          I think Mr. Poole may have some problems with



that.




          Are you for the States?



          MR. POSTON:  He has already said 1972.



          MR. PURDY:  Like Mr. Remus this morning, I don't



intend to tell the Conferees something that we cannot

-------
                                                        526



                   Closing Statements



 carry  out in the way of an enforcement  program, and I am




 not of the opinion that we can  carry out an enforcement




 program  that would bring  one hundred percent  of the




 communities in the Lake Erie Basin  in the phosphate removal




 by 1972  when we are also  looking at the Lake  Michigan



 Basin, and that under  prior conclusions has established




 some priorities that we must meet,  and  we cannot  do it.




          MR. STEIN:   I thought you were in pretty good




 shape, Ralph, if you said 90 percent of your  people would




 have phosphate removed, or 90 percent of the  wastes would




 have phosphate removed by 1972» You just required an 80




 percent  reduction  on a statewide basis.  That would come




 pretty close.




          MR. PURDY:   Ninety percent will have an SO




 percent  total of phosphate removal. If you are satisfied



 with that, I am satisfied with  that.



          MR. STEIN:   What is your  date, Mr.  Eagle?



          MR. EAGLE:   We  have some  as late as 1975 in



 existing plants.




          MR. STEIN:   Are they  on tributaries or  direct?




          MR. EAGLE:   Yes, tributaries.




          MR. POOLE:   I will buy the 1972 and 1975, and



 worry  with the Indiana cities,  and  might  come back to




you for an extension  of one  if  I have too many problems.




          MR. STEIN:   Well, if  you  —

-------
                                                        527




                   Closing Statements




          MR. METZLER:  We have an agreement, Mr«,



Chairman.  Let's go.



          MR. POSTON:  I see great  concurrence on the



part of the Conferees; majority concurs that 1972 is a



reasonable date for them, and I recognize that Mr. Eagle



does have a problem  and his problem is with about 40



percent of his load, and I hate to see us go back to



197 5» which is six years away, about, for a final date



here  when we have got P resource here.  This is really



the hard part of the job to get this phosphate out here



and to protect this lake.



          This is really the job that we are here for.



This is the biggest thing that we have got going.



          MR. METZLER:  There is some virtue in consistency,



Wally.  What did you vote for, representing the United



States, when the IJC handled this problem?  What were



the dates you agreed on, representing the Federal



Government?



          MR. POSTON:  I think nineteen — this was a



problem of negotiation.  (Laughter)

-------
                   Closing Statements



          MR. STEIN:  Let me try to do this:  I want to



get a formulation that we can buy here and live with.



          Let us suppose — let's try, with the slippage



we are going to have — and I don't care if you put in



this reduction by 1972 or 1973 — take your pick — but



the Congress recognizes that this subject of phosphate



removal is not just a question that can be solved on one



side of the border, that we recognize IJC is going to take



this up, and that when the IJC formulation comes out, we will



reconsider this problem in order to get the consistency.



          Now, any date, again — with the proviso that



any date that the Congress has put in which is prior to



either 1972 or 1973 is one that we will stay with, because



I don't think this is going to be one that is going to be



easily resolved, and we are going to have to modify for



IJC anyway.



          What would you suggest the date we pick, 1972



or 1973 as the first go-around?  Will you have 100 percent



by 1972, Ralph?



          MR. PURDY:  Close.



          MR. STEIN:  All right.  Let's do that, because



we have got to do this.  We are asking the Conferees if



they will agree that except where the dates are set



earlier the target date for 30 percent phosphate removal

-------
                                                    529





                       Closing Statements



is going to be 1973> recognizing that this is not just



a problem on one side of the border, that the International



Joint Commission is going to take up this problem, and



when the International Commission takes up this problem



and formulates its recommendations, we will reconsider



this in an effort to make the conference recommendations



consistent with the IJC recommendations,.  I think that



will push us as far ahead as we can*



          MR0 PURDY:  The earlier dates as presented here



will prevail.



          MR. STEIN:  Will prevail.  That will be it.



Okay?



          MR, EAGLE:  I want to make this one thing



clear:  You are talking about #0 percent reduction in



tne total State load?



          MR. STEIN:  Yes, sir.



          MR. POSTON:  Municipal-industrial wastes.



          MR. STEIN:  No, industrial-city.



          MR. EAGLE:  You didn't say that.



          MR. ST^IN:  That was not open.  I think the



only thing was the date,  I think we can live with that,



George, and work the program ahead,



          MR, EAGLE:  I am glad you can.



          MR, STEIN:  Well, I tell you, I can see — let



me go off the record here.

-------
                                                    530




                  Closing  Statements



          (Discussion off the record.)



          MR. STEIN:  Let's go back on the record.



          Let's go to the gun issue on the reports	



abatement from municipalities, industries  and Federal



installations.  Are those behind schedule?



          Now, what is the recommendation that we make



   the^e?  Do we consider these substantial compliance?



Do we consider them out of compliance in the next step?



Do we consider these dates that we are going to have the



first big shakedown after we set that relatively uniform



date in 1970, and these are the dates we will consider



reasonable from here on, or what?  What are your views?



          MR. PURDY:  I am not sure I can understand the



question, it is so complicated.



          MR. STEIN:  The question isn't very complicated.



The question is very simple.  We had a 1970 date for all



municipal sources to put in secondary treatment plus



disinfection of the effluent, and the industries to have



a commensurate program, all plants being operating by



1970.



          It seems to me abundantly clear that the dates



are not going to be met in very, very many cases.  What



do we do about this?  This seems to be the heart of the



case.  What kind of recommendation do we want?  Do I hear

-------
                                                  531
                  Closing Statements
anything on that?
          MR. PURDY:  Mr. Stein, I am not sure whether
it was a 1970 or a 1971 date on the original, and I am
not sure that that is too important but —
          MR. STEIN:  In a few cases, in 1971; that is
correct, yes.
          MR. PURDY:  I don't believe that, at this point
in time, and with the progress that has been shown by
the major municipalities  that presented statements dir-
ectly here today, that anything is to be gained by saying
they are not in compliance  and initiating the second
step in this enforcement proceedings.
          Certainly, I think all of the Conferees, and I
am sure that the municipalities themselves, regret the
slippage that has taken place in the time schedules.
          At the time that the original time schedules
were established, it was known that they were tight
schedules, particularly if you had an operating plant
of several hundred million gallons  a day  and were
attempting to construct additional facilities around
this  and maintain this in operation.
          So, therefore, in view of the financing
difficulties, the technical difficulties, I would suggest
that the reports that have been presented here today are
reasonable  and in view of the circumstances that have

-------
                                                       532
                   Closing Statements
been presented.
          MR. STEIN:  As I understand Mr. Purdy's
position — and let me modify this just slightly, if you
will buy the modification — that we accept the reports
of the States as representing — under the existing cir-
cumstances and the complexity of the situation — a sub-
stantial compliance with the program, that the munici-
palities and industries concerned have indicated that
they have made a bona fide effort to clean up and comply,
and in those cases where such bona fide effort was not
evident, the State agencies have taken appropriate legal
action and have them under process.
          MR. POSTON:  I think it is very difficult for
me to analyze all of the numbers of communities here in
the reports that have been brought in today, and I wondered
if it would be in line to make as a part of our summary
a tabular compilation by States of those that are in
compliance and those that are behind schedules, to make
it a part of this record, and the States might submit
this, or I could ask our staff to develop this from the
information that was presented here today.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, I would prefer, if we do this,
that the States submit —
          MR. POSTON:  I would, too —
          MR. STEIN:  — that the States submit a list.

-------
                                                  533




                  Closing Statements



          Do you want to?  Is this agreeable?



          MR, EAGLE:  I thought it was in my report.



          MR. POOLE:  I have the report.



          MR. EAGLE:  What more do you want?  It is



in the report.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, what do you think, Mr.



Poston?



          MR. POSTON:  Well, I think, as we pass some-



thing on, I think we could summarize these reports which



are, as you know, quite voluminous, and merely get at the



progress that has taken place, and this would be the way



to evaluate that.



          MR. STEIN:  Let me again go off the record



here, if I may.



          (Discussion off the record.)



          MR. STEIN:  Let's go on the record.



          My suggestion is that we consider either



putting out from Washington or from Chicago a list —



if the Region considers it appropriate — of those



communities which are in compliance and those communi-



ties which are not in compliance  and make these



available.



          I would go on to say that I believe if anyone



gets a copy of the record and reads it, they can find



this out for themselves.  I don't think there is any

-------
                                                     534





                  Closing Statements



secret.  This is a matter of public knowledge.



          Are we set, then, with this?



          MR. POOLE:  How are you going to summarize it



for the Secretary?



          MR. STEIN:  No, I just said that.  1 will say



it again.



          We will say that in view of the circumstances



involved, the complexity of the situation, difficulties



in financing, the magnitude of the job, that, on the



whole, most of the cities and the industries are in sub-



stantial compliance with the recommendations even though,



in many cases, there is slippage in the time they are



going to take to accomplish the result.  However, they



are going to provide the kind of treatment agreed on.



          Now, in the vast majority of the cases, there



has been a bona fide effort of the communities and the



industries to comply, and in the few cases where there



have been evidences that such a bona fide effort has



not been forthcoming, the State agencies have taken



appropriate legal action under their own laws to assure



compliance.  Okay?



          And I think that is a fair statement about what



your reports showed.  Are  we set then?  If we are in



agreement on that —



          MR. POSTON:  Haven't the States taken appropriate

-------
                                                 535



                  Closing Statements



action in every case where the date has gone by?



          MR. STEIN:  No.  I said where the State was



convinced that a bona fide effort was not being made,



they have either had a hearing, issued an order, or taken



it to Court, and those specific cases are spelled out,



if you followed the reports and read it.



          As I read the reports, they moved on this with



discretion.  They didn't — just because the date passed



by — they didn't say, "Okay, the date passed by."  They



evaluated the situation.  When they felt the force of



circumstances was such, and there was being a bona fide



effort, they recommended adjustment.  Where they did not,



they either went to a hearing, or went to court action,



or issued an order.     I will say this:  I thin* the



reports of these five States are excellent, when you



look at the enforcement reports.  I think we are emphasiz-



ing the negative here, because under the circumstances,



I really do think we have got a big cleanup program



going, and we are just in that hard, hard phase right now



where we are coming to the end of the planning  and the



beginning of the throwing of dirt  and the pouring of



concrete, and things always look toughest at this stage



because things have gone on for a long time  and the



people really haven't seen things happen.  But this is a



stage we get into in every enforcement case, and I think

-------
                                                       536
                   Closing Statements



we are moving along rather well.



          Are there any other comments or suggestions?



          I really do think that the States ought to be



commended:  one, for their candor and full disclosure,



and I think our people are, too, for the exchange of



views, for laying out all their efforts for everyone to



see without any secrets.



          I think we have come a long way with this, and



unless there is more to say, I would like to thank all



you people for sticking with us until the end.  I think



we are on our way to a cleaner Lake Erie, and the Conference



stands adjourned.



          (Whereupon, at 6:06 p.m., the Conference was



adjourned.)

-------
                                                          537
      STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CHARLES A. VANIK, OHIO



          BEFORE THE LAKE ERIE WATER POLLUTION




             CONTROL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE






                                       June 27, 1969



Mr. Chairman:



          In four years of conferences, we have amassed




over half a million words on the pollution problems of




Lake Erie.  The major sources of pollution continue to




flow into Lake Erie.



          I notice from last June's "Progress Report,"



that in Pennsylvania, two sewage cases were discussed.



One was the Hammermill Paper Company and the other was




Larry's Truck Stop.  The Hammermill Paper Company was



ordered to begin treatment of its wastes more than twenty




years ago on February 26, 19^6, but has been granted ten




extensions.  As of June last year, "negotiations" were



continuing but an "agreement" had not yet been reached.



          Larry's Truck Stop, on the other hand, had




facilities but was not operating them properly.  It was



reported that the Pennsylvania Department of Health was



going to "get after them."




          This has been our problem.  We've been "getting



after" the truck stops and other little polluters,  while



"negotiating" with a large papermill for over twenty




years.  It is projected that there will be fifty million

-------
                                                         538
people living on the Great Lakes by the year 2020.  If we



continue to approach the pollution problem by "getting



after," ten people in a lighthouse here, twenty people in



a Coast Guard station there, while ignoring the city of



Detroit's failure to treat millions of gallons of sewage,



the pollution will continue to grow faster than our



solutions for it.



          There is a great need for developing a coordinated



program for Lake Erie.  Water quality standards are not



standard, for one thing.  I see the State of Ohio has in-



vented a new category that outdoes even the euphimous



"Aquatic life B."  It is "Partial Body Contact," but is



not safe for swimming or children.  I hope that the State



does not expect people to go wading in water in which the



bacteria count is five times the level considered safe



for public beaches!



          At the original enforcement conference in 1965t



I first directed the attention of the Nation to a major



source of Lake Erie pollution — the dumping of polluted



dredged material into the lake by the United States Corps



of Engineers.  Since then, the Corps of Engineers has been



diking part of their dredged materials — as high as



71.9$ in some harbors in fiscal year 1969.



          In a report titled "Dredging and Water Quality



Problems in the Great Lakes," however, the Corps of

-------
                                                          539
Engineers disclosed the results of a two-year study of



dredging operations, and now it has been decided that no




funds will be allocated for continuation of this vital




project in fiscal year 1970.  I would like to discuss a




few of the findings of the Corps.



          Last year, the "Lake Erie Surveillance Data




Summary" of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-




tion stated "In a polluted zone only a few kinds of



organisms can survive in the soft, shifting bottom organic




blanket.  These include sludgeworms, ... bloodworms, ...



leeches ..."  The Corps of Engineers reported that "...




small forms of animal life in sediments were either killed




or forced to move at some disposal sites."  In the same




paragraph, however, the Corps reported that "no harmful




effects on water quality were positively identifiable."




In other words, the Corps could find nothing conclusive



in the fact that when they dumped their goop in the lake,



they drove even the sludgeworms away.




          "The Department of Interior disagreed with the



conclusions of the Corps of Engineers, stating "While the



study as conducted did not conclusively demonstrate a



massive deleterious effect on water quality from open




water dredging, it did show that polluted sediments were




toxic to small forms of animal life.  We believe that this



fact should be recognized in the conclusions of the report."

-------
                                                          540
          Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers reported that



"if all dredgings were put into diked areas, the volume of



sediments and dissolved solids reaching the lake would be



reduced by less than eight percent, and of pollutants by



the same general magnitude."  The Corps concluded, however,



that this is only a "small part" of the problem.  If we



are talking about ending the major sources of pollution,



I maintain that $$ constitutes a major source of



pollution.



          The Corps played down such possible improvements



as reducing turbidity, odor, and oil slicks, and possible



ecological improvements.  This is particularly disturbing,



since pollution of the bottom sediment is the most



dangerous kind — it is irreversible.  This conference



has discussed many times how phosphates in the sediment



build up from year to year and are reused — speeding the



eutrophication of the lake.  Is the Corps prepared to pass



on to future generations a 10,000 square mile peat bog?



          In its "cost benefit analysis," the Corps



weighed the cost of diking dredged pollutants against



immediate savings in water purification.  Stating that



the Great Lakes are "still an excellent source of municipal



raw water," the dorps concluded that "reduced costs to



municipal and industrial water intake systems were shown



to be negligible."  But what about twenty years from now?

-------
                                                          5-41
The Corps, in its calculations, has failed even to consider

pollution effects five years from now.

          The Department of Interior stated that:

               "The costs of a program to prevent
               pollution from dredging disposal cannot
               be justified on a cost-benefit basis
               in this study without attempting to
               engage in cost-benefits numbers of
               questionable meaning.  We should point
               out that the values to be protected
               by this program and other programs
               intended to reduce pollution in the
               Great Lakes are the total worth of
               these lakes.  The real worth of these
               lakes to present and future generations
               is almost incalculable."

          It should be clear that we can't risk the life

of a vital water supply on the "unconclusions" of the Corps

of Engineers.

          In closing I would like to call the attention

of the conference to a bill presently before the Congress

which has major implications for the battle against

pollution in the Great Lakes.

          On April l6th of this year, during the debate

on the Water Quality Amendments of 1969» I introduced an

amendment, now called section 20, which was accepted to

provide for Great Lakes Water Pollution Control Demonstra-

tions.  It allows the Secretary of the Interior, with the

cooperation of other Federal agencies, to enter into

agreements with other public bodies to carry out projects

          1.  to demonstrate new methods and techniques,

-------
                                                          542
and

          2.  to develop preliminary plans for the
              elimination or control of pollution

in the watersheds of the Great Lakes.  The non-Federal

public bodies pay not less than 25$ of such project costs.

The authorization is $20 million.

          It is my understanding that the amendment will

be accepted by the subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution

of the Senate Public Works Committee, and I am now trying

to obtain full appropriation from the Appropriations

Committee.

          In testimony before the House Appropriations

Committee, I suggested a number of technical anti-pollution

projects which the twenty million could be used for.  I

would like to enter in the record my suggestions in this

area, but I would also urge you as scientists and as people

engaged in this vital struggle against pollution to begin

to develop your own ideas and your own suggestions on how

this twenty million can best be spent to save the Great

Lakes.  This amendment is the chance for new and innovating

ideas for a comprehensive attack on the pollution of the

Great Lakes and Lake Erie.  Only with your ideas and

contributions can this program be made a success.

-------
                                                          543
     Ideas submitted to House Appropriations Committee



              by Congressman Charles A. Vanik








          1.  Coordinated Federal-State-local research,



monitoring, and model basin studies assistance



          The House Science and Astronautics Committee in



a 196$ report noted that "monitoring in the environment



is usually inadequate as to number of stations, length of



time covered, and accuracy of measurement."



          This is particularly true on the Great Lakes and



it has become clear that we know very little about lakes



and lake pollution in general.  There is a great need for




research, and better dissemination of such research results



between States, cities, universities and the United States



and Canadian governments.  I notice in today's paper that



the highly respected director of Canada's Center of Inland



Waters said that $1.4 billion would be needed to clean up



the U. S. side of Lake Erie.  Adequate research should



enable us to find cheaper ways to control pollution and



lower the cost of cleanup.



          A call to the Great Lakes Regional Office of the



FWPCA resulted in a list of eleven areas where they feel



more research is needed on Lake Erie alone.  The Army Corps



of Engineers Great Lakes Research Center has an additional



list of research plans.

-------
          In addition, five Great Lakes States have been


working together to coordinate research and anti-pollution


programs on the lakes.  Among the research tools advocated


are detailed large-scale models of each of the lakes which


will finally give us definite answers as to the whys of


algae blooms, the effect of waste loads, currents, water


levels and other factors on the environment.  Such models


will enable truly rational planning for the development


of this huge industrial area.  For example, Lake Michigan


has one nuclear power plant; by 1973 it will have six.  A


model can show the best location and construction require-


ments of such potential polluters.


          To develop such information in Lake Erie, 50 to


70 surveillance stations along a grid network have been


proposed for the intensely polluted western Lake Erie
                >(

basin alone.  Sampling could be done of the shores of the


lakes to pinpoint sources of pollution and progress in


curbing the flow of wastes and industrially created heat.


          Finally, cities and communities could be assisted


in establishing systems to monitor incoming water and to


keep records on such water quality so that we may have a


more complete record of lake problems and conditions.


          2.  Aeration of dead bodies of water


          A system of floating or shore-based pumps to


force oxygen up through presently dead bodies of water would

-------
                                                         545
improve the quality of marine life, bring about chemical



reactions to break up the worst pollutants, and encourage



current flows and flushing action.  Such a project would



be ideal for the five-mile length of the Cuyahoga River as



it flows through Cleveland where there is no oxygen or



form of marine life.  Such a process could also restore



some 2600 square miles of oxygenless water in the center



of Lake Erie and be of assistance in many of Lake Michigan's



tributaries.



          3.  Crop planning, beach and erosion control



          One of the largest sources of nutrients and



chemical pollution is runoff from agriculture fields and



land erosion.  Bottomlands are needed for planting and,



for the foreseeable future, chemicals are needed for



healthy crops.  But experimentation with fringes of land



around rivers and lakes planted to prevent runoff and



erosion can be developed and applied to cut down on the



resultant nutrient enrichment of waters.



          4»  Dredging of highly polluted bottom materials



and disposal of harbor dredgings into contained islands



          Such islands would be particularly beneficial



for airport, recreation, and, of course, pollution control,



off Cleveland and in western Lake Erie.



          5.  Diversion of pollutants and collector canals



          Lakes are basically stagnant bodies of water.

-------
                                                          546
Where feasible nutrients and pollutants that can be



diverted into flowing bodies of water or collected in canals



between the shore and a lake breakwater and routed elsewhere



should be developed to help the lakes.  Deep well disposal



and injection of pollutants into lower rock strata should



be considered.



          In addition, diversion of fresh waters into lakes



and better control of water levels in the lakes can aid in



the flushing process.  Studies between States and between



America and Canada on this issue should be begun.



          6.  Introduction of algae that have an inhibitory



growth on more obnoxious forms of algae might be experimented



with.



          7.  Dispersion of discharges into main channels,



colder levels of water, or bottom materials better able to



react an absorb them.



          Present research indicates that better planning



of discharge can significantly cut down the effect of



nutrients in the lakes.  This is particularly true in the



Detroit area where the mass of discharges, treated and



untreated, are released in a small, slow moving channel,



rather than into the larger and colder central Detroit



River.



          8.  Study by the States and the Federal Government



on ways to increase the flow in the western basin of Lake

-------
                                                          547
Erie.



          The western basin of Lake Erie is perhaps the worst



concentration of pollution in the Great Lakes, not only



because it is an extremely shallow area, but because (as



the map shows) for large parts of the year the dominant



bottom flow pattern is circular — thus the pollutants



from the upper lakes and Detroit do not so much flow through



Lake Erie and on to the ocean, they flow in circles in



western, cesspool-like Lake Erie.  Study could easily



determine where dredgings in this shallow area could be



dumped to form shoals that would break this circular



cycle and force a direct flow through the lakes, much as



a river flows.

-------
                                                                                                          548
                              GfiBAt  LAKES  BASIN   COMMISSION
                                   INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING
                                         22OO NORTH CAMPUS BOULEVARD
                                         ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 481Q5

                                               June 30, 1969
                                                    TEL:
                                                          313/763-3590
                                                          313/663-B433
                                                          313/663-B434
 ALTERNATE CHAIRMAN
   VERNE M. BATHURST

 VICE-CHAIRMAN
   FRED E. MORR

 STATE or ILLINOIS
   WILLIAM T. LODGE, DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

 STATE OF INDIANA
   JOHN E. MITCHELL, DIRECTOR
 STATE OF MICHIGAN
   RALPH A. MACMULLAN, bl RECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE!

 STATE OF MINNESOTA
   WILLIAM C. WALTON
   WATER RESOURCES PLANNINO DIRECTOR
Mr.  George Harlow
Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration
U.  S. Department  of the Interior
21929 Lorain
Cleveland, Ohio
STATE OF NEW YORK
   R. STEWART KILBDRNE, COMMISSIONER
   CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT

STATE OF OHIO
   FRED E. MGRR, DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
   MAURICE K. GDDDARD, SECRETARY
   DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WATCMS

STATE OF WISCONSIN
   LESTER P. VOIGT, SECRETARY
   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
   VERNE M. BATHURST,
   STATE CONSERVATIONIST
   SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, MICHIOAN

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
   BRIO. BEN. ROBERT M. TARBCX.
   DIVISION ENOlNEEf)
   U. S. ARMY CORPS OF EHBINECRB
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
   ERWIN C. HANNUM,
   WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR
   DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
     EDUCATION & WELFARE
   DONALD MARSHALL.
   REGIONAL PROBRAM CHIEF
   WATER SUPPLY AMD
   SEA RESOURCES PROORAM
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT
   FRANCIS D. FISHER,
   REBIDNAL ADMINISTRATOR
   REGION IV

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
   CHARLES H. STODDAHD,
   REGIONAL COORDINATOR
   UPPER MISS.-WLSTBRN GREAT LAKES AREA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
   WALTER KIECHEL, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF
   LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
   JOSEPH MCCANN, ADMINISTRATOR
   ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
   DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
   LENARD B. YOUNG, REGIONAL ENOINEER

GREAT LAKES COMMISSION
   ROBERT E. BTOCKDALE, CHAIRMAN
Dear George:

The progress  evaluation meeting on  Lake  Erie
at  Cleveland  on  June  27,  1969  was very  interesting
and useful.   It  certainly indicates that progress
is  being made, but we still have a  long  way  to go
on  Lake Erie.

I did  not have an opportunity  to present a state-
ment at the  June 27 meeting.   Enclosed  is a  copy
of  a prepared statement,  which I hope can be
incorporated  in  the proceedings of  the  meeting.

                             Sincerely yours,
 cc:
                         ionard  T. Crook
                       Planning Director

Mr.  H. W. Poston
Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration
33  East  Congress  Parkway, Room  410
Chicago, Illinois    60605
    (with enclosure)

-------
                                                                          549
       STATEMENT BY MR.  LEONARD T.  CROOK,  PLANNING DIRECTOR
        GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION,  ANN  ARBOR,  MICHIGAN,
        AT THE PROGRESS  EVALUATION  MEETING IN THE MATTER OF
       POLLUTION OF LAKE ERIE AND ITS  TRIBUTARIES (MICHIGAN-
               INDIANA-OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA-NEW YORK
                          June 27,  1969
                         Cleveland, Ohio


     I am Leonard T. Crook, Planning Director on  the staff  of the Great
Lakes Basin Commission.   I will be  speaking from  the standpoint of the
Commission as a whole and not necessarily  representing the  views of any
individual Commission member.  As most of  you know, each of the States
in the entire Great Lakes Basin (including the States represented here),
as well as every Federal Department having a role in the water and re-
lated land resources of  the basin,  are members of the Commission.

     The Commission is vitally interested  in the  progress of efforts to
improve the water quality aspects of Lake  Erie.  You might  be interested
in the progress of the Great Lakes  Basin Commission's efforts in related
water resource investigations.  At  the present time, it is  sponsoring
the ongoing Great Lakes  Basin Framework Study which is to be concluded
in 1972, with a draft of the main report scheduled for mid  1971.  Lake
Erie is an integral part of this Framework Study  and all of yo'u conferees
are partners in it.  This study, a  preliminary-type investigation, will
(1) provide broad-scaled analyses of water and related land resources
needs and problems, and  (2) furnish estimates of  the probable nature,
extent, costs and timing of measures for their solution.

     The Great Lakes Basin Commission  was  established by Executive Order
on April 20, 1967 and in accord with the Water Resources Planning Act of
1965.  The principal duties and responsibilities  of the Great Lakes Basin
Commission, as stated in the Act, are:

     The Commission shall, to the extent consistent with Section 3 of
     the Act—

     (1) serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal,
         State, interstate, local,  and nongovernmental plans for the
         development of  water and related  land resources in its area,
         river basin, or group of river basins;
     (2) prepare and keep up-to-date,  to the extent practicable, a
         comprehensive,  coordinated, joint plan for Federal, State,
         interstate, local and nongovernmental development  of water
         and related resources:  Provided, that the plan shall include
         an evaluation of all reasonable alternative means  of achieving
         optimum development of water  and  related land resources of the
         basin or basins; and it may'be prepared  in stages, including
         recommendations with respect  to individual projects;

     (3) recommend long-range schedules of priorities for the collection
         and analysis of basic data and for investigation,  planning, and
         construction of projects;  and

     (4) foster and undertake such  studies of water and related land
         resources problems in its  area, river basin, or group of river

-------
                                                                          550
         basins as are necessary in the preparation of the plan described
         in clause (2) above.

     The river basin commission shall—engage in such activities and make
     such studies and investigations as are necessary and desirable in
     carrying out the policy set forth in Section 2 of the Act and in
     accomplishing the purposes set forth in Section 201(b) of the Act.

     We are here today to evaluate the progress of action programs for
pollution control on Lake Erie and its tributaries. You conferees have
made many studies on water quality in Lake Erie and its tributaries,
and developed plans for water pollution control.  Governmental units
at all levels from the local boards to the Federal government, includ-
ing many private interests, have worked very diligently for many years
at carrying out these plans.  In a recent report on "Great Lakes Ins-
titutions" cosponsored by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, as many as
sixty-two (62) State, Federal and international agencies are active in
water-related activities in the Great Lakes area.  In addition, many
universities, local governments and nongovernmental entities are also
active in various aspects of evaluating problems and finding solutions.
As a result, we find there are many diverse and duplicated studies—
either single-purpose, or so-called multi-purpose or comprehensive—
related directly or indirectly to the water quality problems on Lake
Erie and its tributaries. As far as we have been able to ascertain, no
other agency has attempted to correlate all these studies and .determine
the total impact of these studies and the solutions they propose upon
the vater quality of all the lakes themselves.

     These problems are very complex, the solution to one problem has
to be related to the solution for other problems, and what one unit of
government does, or what private entities might do, must be related to
actions of other units of government or private entities.  The need for
overall coordination seems apparent.  Congress recognized this when it
enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  But it saw need for
more coordination and went further.  It recognized that coordinated and
comprehensive action to solve pollution problems must also be related
to coordinated and comprehensive programs in every other aspect of the
water and related land resources.  Hence the Water Resources Planning
Act was passed in 1965.

     As I said, the Framework Study for the Great Lakes Basin is now
underway.  Later studies- for development of the more detailed Compre-
hensive Coordinated Joint Plan will provide the means for developing
the action programs in the matter of water quality as well as all other
aspects related to the water resources of Lake Erie and its tributaries.
The Work Groups organized for the development of the Framework Study
have representation from all State and Federal and many local governmen-
tal units as well as some private firms.  The Great Lakes Basin Commis-
sion is the principal coordinating agency.  These Work Groups are now
assembling data on the Great Lakes Basin and making preliminary evalua-
tions.  The Work Group on Water Quality has a Lake Erie sub-group which
represents many segments of state and local governments, and private en-
tities in the Lake Erie area.  As results are developed, these will be
coordinated with any plans being developed by any governmental units or
private areas for the conservation and utilization of the water and re-
lated land resources of the Great Lakes Basin.

-------
5'51
                                -3-

     The Maumee River Basin has been evaluated by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration as providing major contributions to
the pollution problems in Lake Erie.  In particular, the sediment in-
put to Lake Erie from Maumee River has been recognized as being one of
the more serious problems.  Because of the many interrelated problems
in water and related land resources in this basin, the Commission is
sponsoring at the request of the involved States, a detailed planning
study on the Maumee River Basin.  This will be an action producing
type program in that the study will recommend specific actions to be
taken at all levels of government and by private interests to secure
for the people of Maumee Basin, and with direct results upon Lake Erie,
the full range of uses and benefits which may be provided by balanced
conservation and development of the water and related land resources
of this area.  This study could serve as a basis for authorization of
projects by Federal agencies for implementation of recommended measures
within 10-15 years after the report is completed.  It will provide guid-
ance for administration of Federal and State assistance programs and
will guide community and regional action programs as well.  Depending
upon Congressional appropriation of funds, the study is scheduled to
start in Fiscal Year 1971, with the combined efforts of State and Fed-
eral agencies, local governments and private interests, under the coor-
dination aspects of the Great Lakes Basin Commission.

     With the multitude of data collection, data analyses, studies and
reports now available on water and related land resources in the Great
Lakes Basin, including the Lake Erie portion, it is difficult to relate
with any one mind, or with any group of minds all this data without some
assistance.  You conferees recognized that use of automatic data pro-
cessing, electronic computers and system analysis would be extremely
valuable.  At your last progress evaluation meeting held June 4, 1968,
a systems approach for water quality management was discussed.  You are
to hear a report of efforts made by your participants to implement this
program.  In a parallel program for all the lakes the Commission recog-
nized the complexities of the problem—not only of water quality in the
lakes—but of all physical, chemical and biological aspects in the lakes,
and also of the cultural effects upon water and related land resources
in the Great Lakes Basin.  If found practicable, it intends to sponsor
a systems analysis for all of the Great Lakes starting in Fiscal Year
1971, again depending upon Congressional appropriation of funds.  This
main study will be conducted by all interested State and Federal agencies,
universities and local government entities, with the development of the
systems analysis models to be made by private and/or university contrac-
tor/s.  The models.would be of such detail and scope that action programs
would be determined through assessment of alternative courses of direction
for structural, nonstructural and management measures.  During the next
four months, the Commission and its member agencies will sponsor a Prac-
ticability Study so that the direction, scope and timing of the Main Study
may be more firmly established.  At Mr. Ralph Purdy's (Michigan) sugges-
tion, a Board of Technical Advisors has been appointed to advise on the
goals and objectives of the Practicability Study.

     In conclusion, it is obvious that the water and related land resour-
ces studies by the many agencies, entities and private interests have to
be coordinated to achieve the most desirable immediate and long range ob-
jectives of water quality and related programs.  We are seeking to find

-------
                                -4-                                       552

the best means for coordinating our efforts at  improving water  quality
with our attack on all aspects of the  total water  problems.   We need
to put these means into balanced action programs by making  the  best
choices between alternative uses of our water resources, including the
enhancement of our water quality environment.   Coordinated  joint plan-
ning whould permit us to make these choices with knowledge  and  wisdom.
We are happy to cooperate with the conferees in any mutually satisfac-
tory manner.
                                              * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O - 371-095

-------