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)
r1
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
o
C.)
H .p
iH ci
'Ci
a.> 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
f1
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 rI 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
i1 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 recognizedthe 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 shallengage 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 problemnot only of water quality in the
lakesbut 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
------- | |