I I .; .
-• 3
1 I .: :
•
ISBli
STRATEGY
FOR THE
i -Vy'-fr :~ -:'••:•''
SECTION 15
ill PROGRAM
•••/:;.;•
-^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
A STRATEGY FOR THE SECTION 15 PROGRAM
Harold F. Wise and Associates
1771 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
for the
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Contract #68-01-0170
May 1972
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Water Quality
Office, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
n
Eir7TRONMENTiE PROTECTION iGEJTCY
-------
ABSTRACT
A series of investigations were conducted to develop a strategy for
a program of demonstration projects for water pollution control in the
Great Lakes under Section 15 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(as amended through 1970). The investigations covered the basic pollu-
tion problems of the Great Lakes, barriers to their solution, current
research, development, and demonstration activities, and the needs and
priorities of state and local agencies.
The investigations showed that, under current programs, serious gaps
occur in the development and implementation of complete, basin system
solutions to pollution problems in the Great Lakes. These gaps arise
especially in coping with less concentrated sources of pollution, in
providing complete treatment and control systems, and in developing
institutional arrangements for implementing areawide or basinwide
solutions. Because the Section 15 authorization permits the demonstra-
tion of approaches that are not possible under current programs, it
makes possible a variety of projects to demonstrate approaches to fill
these gaps.
The recommended Section 15 Program includes strategic objectives,
guidelines and criteria for reviewing projects, processes for imple-
menting the strategy, and 15 suggested demonstration projects for
initial consideration.
i 1 i
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 7
IV Legislative Mandates 9
V Overview of Great Lakes Pollution 13
The Lakes
Lake Superior 13
Lake Michigan 14
Lake Huron 14
Lake Erie 15
Lake Ontario 15
Overview of Pollution Components 16
Accelerated Great Lakes Program Suggestions 19
Summary of Most Frequent Pollution 24
Abatement Gaps
VI Research, Development and Demonstration Program 27
VII Field Surveys 31
VIII A Strategy for the Section 15 Program 41
Strategic Objectives 41
Guidelines and Criteria 43
Relationship to Joining Agreement 47
IX Administrative Processes for Implementing the
Strategy 49
Administrative Processes 49
Organization and Manpower 56
X Suggested Demonstration Projects 59
XI Acknowledgements 101
-------
EXHIBITS
Page No.
1. Pollution Components 17
2. Accelerated Program Elements 20
3. Potential Project Areas in the Accelerated Program 23
4. Summary of Most Frequent Pollution Abatement Gaps 25
5. Distribution of RD&D Funds by Subprogram 28
6. Distribution of RD&D Funds by Geographical Area 29
7- Summary of Item 1 from State Questionnaires 32
8. Summary of Item 2 from State Questionnaires 35
9. Summary of Item 3 from State Questionnaires 37
10. Declining Values of Simple or Catalytic Demonstrations 45
11. Flow Chart: Administrative Processes for Implementing 50
the Strategy
12, Initial Program Funding by Projects 61
13. Continuing Program Funding by Projects thru FY 1976 62
14. Project Schedule 64
15. Summaries of Suggested Demonstration Projects: 69
Initial Program, FY 1973
16, Summaries of Suggested Demonstration Projects: 85
Continuing Program FY 1974 through 1976
VI
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn from the investigations and
analyses conducted in this study:
1. The language of Section 15 provides discretionary latitude
for demonstrating a variety of approaches, both technical and
institutional to water pollution control in the Great Lakes
that are not possible under other programs.
2. The Great Lakes present water pollution problems that are
geographically extensive, naturally unique, and highly inter-
dependent; and there are important gaps in the development of
systematic solutions left by present efforts.
3. The RD&D program in the Great Lakes Basin is producing
important new technical solutions, but these tend to be
oriented toward treatment subsystems for point sources at the
expense of system-wide, institutional and implementing
techniques, and non-point sources.
4. The status of institutional arrangements and the scarcity of
resources at the state and local level present difficulties
that hinder the conceptualization and development of innovative
demonstration projects to address these gaps.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic Objectives
Two strategic objectives are recommended as the core concept of the
Section 15 Program:
1. The Section 15 Program should support projects, that provide
demonstrations of the value of innovative, system-oriented approaches
to the solution of water pollution problems in the Great Lakes Basin.
Projects should be
0 demonstrations, in that they will develop and publicize
information that will encourage wider use of the new
methods developed;
° innovative, in that they are approaches not found
within the scope of existing technologies, practices,
policies, regulation, or legislation; and
0 system oriented, in that they address some of the
crucial pollution problems that persist in basin
systems and institutional problems that persist
in area wide political systems after the
application of other efforts in a piecemeal and
fragmented fashion.
2. In managing the Section 15 Program, EPA should develop
active, catalytic and institutionalized mechanisms for identifying
future pollution problems and overcoming barriers to their control.
The program should be:
0 acti ve, in that EPA exercises the discretionary
latitude provided by the authorizing legislation
through a strong participation role that will
stimulate, cultivate and channel grant activities
rather than merely reacting to proposals and
priorities submitted by others:
0 catalytic, in that through the active role, EPA can
make coordinated use of leverage, the incentives
and the resources inherent in other EPA and
Federal programs; and
0 institutionalized, so that the program mechanisms
developed will have the force of regular,
continuing activity supported by sufficient
-------
full time personnel and manpower to be able to act
as the trailblazer for substantially larger efforts
to control pollution of the Great Lakes in the future.
Guidelines and Criteria
The following guidelines are recommended for Section 15 projects:
1. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate new technol-
ogies in areas not covered by Section 6 demonstrations or in systems
that combine several component techniques.
2. Projects should be sought that develop and implement solu-
tions to pollution problems within a basin-wide system context.
3. Projects should be sought that fill specifically identified
gaps in basin-wide solutions.
4. Projects should be sought that develop (not just design)
area-wide and intergovernmental institutional arrangements needed
to implement pollution control solutions.
5. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the
effectiveness of new policies on regulations.
6. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the need
for new legislative authorities at both state and national levels.
Processes for Implementing the Strategy
The following administrative processes should be established to imple-
ment the recommended Section 15 strategy:
1. Review suggested demonstration projects with EPA managers;
2. Distribute Section 15 program materials and project opportunities
to State and Local Agencies;
3. Coordinate with other agency programs;
4. Discuss potential projects with potential recipients;
5. Provide support for developing institutional arrangements;
6. Provide support in developing technical and basin-wide
demonstration projects;
7. Review and approve proposals;
8. Monitor and assist in demonstration project performance; and
9. Document, publicize and disseminate results.
-------
Suggested Projects
It is recommended that an initial package of 15 specific projects be
used to start the internal and external review process leading to project
approval. The 15 projects were selected reflecting needs, state and
local interests and meet Section 15 short and long term objectives.
In the short run highly visible results are desirable; in the long
run more efficient big systems are required.
The overall approach is to cover three principal areas:
a. technology demonstrations
b. institutional and financial projects
c. projects to develop system plans and procedures.
The recommended Section 15 program is divided into an initial funded
program geared to the $20.0 million already authorized. The continuing
program growing to $400.0 in FY 1976 reflects the implementation of
plans initiated in FY 1973.
It is recommended that the near term project visibility and sound
feasibility study efforts can spark state interest in Section 15 and
lay the foundations for a truly effective effort in the Great Lakes
to realize national and international objectives.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Section 15 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
through 1970, authorizes $20 million for
"projects to demonstrate new methods and techniques and to
develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control of
pollution within all or any part of the watersheds of the
Great Lakes."
The purpose of the present study was to develop a strategy for the
Section 15 Program and to delineate the administrative processes
needed for implementing that strategy. The strategy developed herein
is intended, as is Section 15, to strengthen rather than duplicate
other efforts to control pollution in the Great Lakes. As a result,
it can be used not only for effectively administering Section 15's
$20 million and any subsequent funding that may be provided; it can
also be used to structure programs for additional funds that might
become available for specific application to pollution control in the
Great Lakes.
In developing a strategy and the administrative processes for the
Section 15 Program, it was necessary to investigate and analyze a
number of factors. The key tasks undertaken in this study were:
- to compare legislative mandates for Section 15 and other
water quality programs;
- to identify and review the basic pollution problems and
barriers blocking achievement of higher water quality standards
in the Great Lakes;
- to review the emphasis and results of current research,
development and demonstration activities; and
- to survey EPA regional offices and state agencies in the
Great Lakes Basin to determine their views on problems,
priorities, and potential demonstration projects.
These four activities provided the data and analysis from which the
recommended Section 15 Program was developed. The legislative mandate
for Section 15 was considered important because it provides the oppor-
tunities and limitations for the program to be developed. In addition,
the comparison with other programs permitted identification of the
types of projects and approaches that were not possible under other
sections. It also contributed to the development of needs and possibili
ties for coordination between Section 15 activities and other programs.
-------
The identification of basic pollution problems in the Great Lakes
was important as background for the other investigations. Review of
the R, D & D program, interviewing and devising questionnaires for field
surveys, and developing the emphasis and objectives of the strategy, all
depended on a sound understanding of the Great Lakes system and the com-
ponents of pollution. In addition, the existing literature provided
insights into the current approaches and the gaps remaining for solution.
Since the Section 15 Program is to provide demonstrations of new methods
and techniques, it was important to understand the current activities for
developing and demonstrating such techniques. For this reason, the EPA
research, development and demonstration projects in the Great Lakes were
reviewed and analyzed.
The authority provided by Section 15 allows agreements with state, their
subdivisions and other public agencies. Since they are required to
provide matching resources, their priorities are important in establish-
ing the emphasis of the program. Demonstration projects will be developed
and managed by or in close cooperation with these agencies. For these
reasons, the survey of agencies in the eight Great Lakes states was impor-
tant to the development of the Section 15 Program.
The findings from the investigations and analyses in the four areas
discussed above are presented in Sections IV, V, VI, and VII.
These findings were used to develop four elements of the recommended
Section 15 Program:
-Strategic objectives;
-Guidelines and Criteria for Demonstration Projects;
-Administrative Processes for Implementing the Strategy;
-Statements of Suggested Demonstration Projects.
The Strategic Objectives provide an overall concept of what the
recommended Program is to accomplish. Guidelines and criteria then give
a more concrete and detailed means for identifying and evaluating demon-
stration projects. Based on findings from the Field Survey, it was
concluded that a regularized and institutionalized set of Administrative
Processes would benefit both the Section 15 Program and other Great Lakes
efforts. These are included along with 15 suggested Demonstration Pro-
jects for initial use in the system of recommended processes.
The four elements of the recommended Section 15 strategy and program are
presented in Sections VIII, IX, and X.
-------
SECTION IV
LEGISLATIVE MANDATES
In approaching the task of developing a strategy for the Section 15
Program, we found it helpful to explore the legislative mandate it
provides in comparison to that of programs set up by other sections of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through 1970). This
analysis provides two useful results: first, it shows the new opportuni-
ties inherent in Section 15; and second, it establishes the possibilities
for interaction and coordination between Section 15 activities and other
EPA programs.
Section 15 provides authority for projects to demonstrate new approaches
to water pollution control in the Great Lakes. Demonstrations can cover
both the removal of pollutants and prevention of pollution. They are to
show "engineering and economic feasibility and practicality." $20 million
is authorized, to be spent at up to 75% federal share, through agreements
with "any state, political subdivision, interstate agency or other public
agency or combination thereof."
This Act also authorizes funds in other sections for research, develop-
ment and demonstration, for basin planning, and for construction or
wastewater treatment facilities. In contrast to Section 15 the legisla-
tion and administration of these programs places restrictions on the
expenditure of funds.
Section 8, for example, in providing grants for construction, establishes
a formula for allocating funds among the states. Within each state,
funds are to be allocated to projects according to priorities established
in state plans. Although the Administration has some discretionary funds,
they provide only a modest opportunity to supplement activities determined
by state and local planning. The Federal share of construction costs is
limited to 55 percent at the maximum. In addition, certain types of
facilities, such as storm and combined sewers, are not allowable expenses
under Section 8 grants.
The research, development and demonstration projects authorized under
Section 5 and 6 may cover a variety of technical areas specified in the
Act and embodied in the subprogram elements used in adminstering the
program. These elements will be discussed in further detail below. For
the purposes of this analysis, the important point is that the specific
elements represent the many disciplines, components, and pollution
sources into which scientific and engineering investigations can be
divided. The grants and contracts through which these funds are adminis-
tered are generally restricted to the boundaries of the specified areas.
Grants may cover up to 75 percent of project costs depending 0n the
section, but are generally limited to less than $1 million.
-------
Special authority is provided to support both pilot-scale and full-
scale demonstration projects on storm and combined sewer discharges,
advanced waste treatment and wastewater purification, and industrial
waste treatment and control. Industrial demonstration grants are
limited to 70 percent federal share and $1 million.
Section 3(c) provides for grants to planning agencies for comprehen-
sive basin planning. Grants are made at the Governor's request, may
not exceed 50 percent of the expenses and are limited to 3 years. The
funds provided for the 3(c) program have totaled only $11 million
nationwide during the last five years.
What opportunities does Section 15 provide that are not available under
other sections? The answer arises from our comparison. Section 15
allows the demonstration of new approaches beyond those reflected 1n state
established construction priorities, beyond those developed and demon-
strated within the specified scientific and engineering subprograms, and
beyond the few basin planning efforts that have been funded in the Great
Lakes. These opportunities are discussed more specifically below.
Section 15 implicitly recognizes that the approaches available 1n other
programs may not be adequate for controlling pollution in a basin of the
scope and complexity of the Great Lakes system. It recognizes that the
water quality of the Great Lakes is of broad national interest that may
not be fully considered in setting state and local priorities. In
response, it provides opportunities to demonstrate the value of
approaches receiving low priority at the state and local level. Section
15 also implicitly recognizes that a piecemeal approach to wastewater
management and treatment, while an important immediate step, cannot
provide the systematic solutions required by such a large, complex
environmental system as the Great Lakes.
In response, Section 15 provides opportunities to supplement the piece-
meal approach with system studies, plans, and demonstration projects that
broaden the focus beyond the boundaries of specific point sources,
specific treatment technologies, and local jurisdictions. For example,
Section 15 projects can address the full complexity of the multiple
causes of pollution, both point and non-point, within a basin system; or
the institutional barriers to arriving at areawide solutions in a politi-
cally responsible fashion; or the design of new treatment and control
measures combining the results of new technologies and regulatory tech-
niques. Projects that appear to offer such opportunities will be sugges-
ted later in this report.
Section 15, however, does not now provide a program of sufficient size
to stand alone. It is clear that $20 million of demonstration projects,
by themselves, would make little impact on the pollution problems
besetting the Great Lakes. Section 15 projects must be used in addition
to, in coordination with, and as a testing ground for, the use of
10
-------
authorities and resources available under present legislation, Section
15 provides opportunities to weld together specialized technical
advances to yield new systems. It provides opportunities to fund new
types of facilities in combination with treatment facilities and demon-
strations supported by Section 8 and Section 6 grants. And it provides
opportunities to channel these resources in ways that develop and
strengthen implementing institutions.
In comparing the legislative mandates of Federal water quality programs,
the provisions of pending legislation were also considered. Section 15
is included in fact, but substantial changes are made in the construction
grants, planning requirements, and research programs. In general, these
changes do not negate the conclusions drawn above. In fact, they provide
opportunities for Section 15 to serve as an interim testing ground for
administration of the new programs that are called for.
11
-------
SECTION V
OVERVIEW OF GREAT LAKES POLLUTION
In order to discuss and analyze Great Lakes pollution problems, 1t
was necessary to become familiar with the characteristics of the Lakes
themselves, the major components of pollution entering them, and the
types of programs being considered, This section presents a summary
of the basic facts gained from a review of the literature on pollution
of the Great Lakes and programs for its control. The key product of the
effort is the identification of gaps -- pollution problems not being
adequately addressed by current programs.
The Lakes
Lake Superior. This basin lies at the southern border of the Canadian
Shield and consists predominantly of glacial debris. The groundwater
level is discontinuous due to a frequently thin glacial cover. For the
present the quality of the groundwater is satisfactory for all uses.
The groundwater table is generally shallow, with underlying crystalline
rocks. As the glacial till does not allow efficient filtration, the
basin groundwater is especially susceptible to contamination,
There are approximately 2,OOQ glacial lakes within this watershed.
Many of these lakes are associated with bog formations, hence discharged
water is relatively low in oxygen content. They are, therefore, unable
to assimilate large quantities of organic wastes or to provide the lake
with high dissolved oxygen inputs.
There are 16 major tributaries and over 100 streams that discharge into
the lake from both the U. S, and Canada. Streams in the south and the
north, however, are characterized by steep gradients and/or falls and
rapids. In these streams the oxygen content is normal.
Lake Superior is the largest of the Great Lakes, having 95,000 square
miles of water surface, 3,000 cubic miles volume, and an average outflow
of 73,000 cubic feet per second. Its water quality, at this time, is
superior to all of the other Great Lakes.
Despite its size, Lake Superior is said to be more sensitive to pollution
and eutrophication than the other lakes. Although still oligotropic
virtually throughout, short summer seasons and low water temperatures
have kept photosynthetic outputs low, contributing relatively little
oxygen via photosynthesis. It is felt that the input of organic wastes,
which consume oxygen 1n decomposition, and the addition of nutrients,
such as phosphates and nitrates, which would lead to a relative over-
production of algae and hence add additional decaying matter > could
seriously affect the oxygen content in the lake.
-------
Surface currents divide the lake into an eastern and western dispersion
system. During the summer months an epilimnion develops containing
5% of the total lake volume. During these months eutrophlc surface
conditions and settlement of non-decomposed organic matter to the lake
bottom could occur relatively easily. During the winter months, on the
other hand, no thermocline exists and lake-wide mixing is said to take
place.
The through-flow of the lake is small compared to the total lake volume,
so persistent pollutants will tend to accumulate rather than discharge,
Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan lies in a large valley at the end of the
Canadian shield. There are a total of 8,100 lakes within the basin area.
The total drainage area of the basin encompasses 67,000 square miles. The
20 major tributaries flowing into the lake drain 80 percent of the land
area. Of these, 70 percent are monitored for water quality.
In the northern portion of the basin, groundwater is drawn from glacial
materials, while in the south, water is drawn from the sedimentary rocks,
Generally, the groundwater has proved sufficient in meeting the demands
of domestic, municipal and industrial use. In recent years, however,
shortages in ground water resources have occurred in a few urbanized and
industrialized areas, such as Green Bay,Wisconsin, and cities in the
Grand River Basin. Municipalities in these areas are investigating the
use of or are actually using surface water from the lake itself.
Lake Michigan's volume is 1,170 cubic miles, less than half of Superior.
Average outflow is approximately 48,000 cubic feet per second through
the Straits of Mackinac. Maximum depth of the lake is over 900 feet;
average depth is 276 feet.
During the summer, the thermocline reaches in some instances, 200 feet
making the hypolimnion susceptible to eutrophic conditions, because the
oxidation of nutrients is inhibited by the lack of oxygen normally
available through mixing. Mixing during the winter months is complete.
Although tributaries, the Green Bay, and some shore areas are heavily
polluted and nearly eutrophic, the main body of lake does not show
serious oxygen deficiency. Reduction of BOD and phosphate inputs might
readily reverse the current trend towards increasing eutrophication,
Lake Huron. Available information on Lake Huron is minimal. There are
approximately 1.2 million people in the Lake Huron basin, concentrated
in Saginaw, Bay City, Midland and Alpena.
Huron has a surface area of 23,000 square miles and a maximum depth of
250 feet. The water quality of the main body of the lake itself is very
good. Areas near municipalities, however, are polluted and Saginaw Bay
is seriously polluted from industrial effluents, food processing indus-
tries and municipal sewage. Oxygen deficiencies, bacteria and algae
14
-------
growth characterize the bay.
Uke Erie. Lake Erie basin is the most heavily populated of the five
lake basins with approximately 12 million people. The value added in
manufacturing in the U. S. portion of the Uke Erie basin amounts to
approximately $17 billion annually.
The surface area of the lake is 9,000 square miles, the volume 110 cubic
miles, maximum depth 210 feet, but average depth is only 58 feet. It is
the shallowest of the five lakes.
Lake Erie has the highest overall pollutant input, but the smallest
volume and poorest assimilation capacity. According to one report of the
IUC (1970), nuisance growths of algae, hundreds of square miles in extent
occur during midsummer, giving an indication of its nutrient overload.
During this season, large areas of the lake bottom are at zero oxygen
concentration or anaerobic. A replacement time of approximately 10 years
for stable contaminants in the waters is estimated. Bottom sediments are
polluted and may release contaminants in the future.
Clean water fauna has been replaced with scavenger and trash fish.
Nevertheless, the impression persists that if municipal and industrial
BOD/COD discharges, phosphate inputs and toxins were drastically reduced
- at the level of currently available technology - the lake could
recuperate to a mesotrophic state, beaches could be used and the lake
waters would be suitable for municipal water supplies to the extent that
there are no sources of bacterial contamination.
Major pollutant sources on the lake are Detroit, Ann Arbor, Monroe,
Cleveland, Ashtabula, and Erie; as well as the Maumee and Cuyahoga
drainage basins.
Lake Ontario, This basin includes currently a population of approxi-
mately 3 million. Value added through manufacture in 1963 totaled more
than $6 billion. About 40 percent of the land area is in agricultural
production, including livestock. Paper mills, chemical industry and
primary metals are important industries - and polluters.
The lake area comprises 7,600 square miles, maximum depth is 840 feet
and average depth is 300 feet. Despite the fact that Lake Ontario
receives all the residual pollutants of the other lakes, it has not
shown the advanced eutrophlcation of Lake Erie and, even during the
summer months, the bottom waters usually stay above 70 percent oxygen
saturation. A major reason for this is the larger lake volume and hence
greater oxygen availability. Yet, despite this advantage, Lake Ontario
is the second only to Lake Erie in extent of pollution.
Lake Ontario produces an abundance of sedentary Cladaphora, which break
loose, and are washed ashore to decompose on the beaches, rendering them
unsuitable for recreational use.
15
-------
The problem of alewife pollution is quite severe and is an Indication
of water quality so deteriorated that it no longer supports a balanced
variety of commercially valuable fish.
Besides the contribution from Lake Erie, major polluting centers are
Buffalo-Niagara, Rochester (oil, chemicals, steel, pulp, and paper) and
the Toronto-Hamilton metropolitan area.
Although the pollution level of Lake Ontario is not as acute as that of
Lake Erie, certain tributaries, municipal and industrial shore areas are
severely degraded and border on toxic and anaerobic conditions.
The large volume throughout of the St. Lawrence River appears to prevent
serious deterioration of the seaway below the quality of the input waters
with the exception of two severe local industrial polluters (General
Motors and Reynolds). Turbulence is high, facilitating aeration.
Overview of Pollution Components
Appendix A gives an overview of the pollution problems for each lake.
An effort was made to describe the pollutant inputs to the lakes via
tributaries and shore-located industries and municipalities separately
from the present pollution levels of the lakes.
The compilation is not intended to be exhaustive. Such information may
be found in individual reports, where they exist. However, within the
limits of the reports that were made available, an effort was made to
structure the information in such a way as to isolate types of pollu-
tants and pollution practices that are mainly responsible for current
conditions.
Some of the reports reviewed are three or four years old. This, however,
appears to have little effect on the components of the general problem,
which are relatively few and repetitive over various areas.
Pollution components are defined as pollutants or pollution causes. It
is assumed that the reader is familiar with direct and secondary effects
of pollutants, such as eutrophication, algae growth, and fish kills.
These effects are mentioned parenthetically as their description is not
the objective of the report.
Exhibit 1 summarizes the pollution components considered and briefly
describes their importance and effects.
16
-------
EXHIBIT 1
POLLUTION COMPONENTS
BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD), CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD),
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO)
BOD loads stem primarily from municipal sewage, pulp, paper, and
food processing industries. COD results from reducing agents dis-
charged by chemical and other plants. After equilibration, the
resultant DO level may or may not support certain forms of life.
PHOSPHATE
Phosphates are a natural component of sewage. However, the primary
sources are commercial and industrial detergents and agricultural
run-off. Although phosphate precipitation facilities are available
and are being installed, it is not clear whether phosphate removal
at treatment plants is more economical than restriction of phosphate
detergent use. Current agricultural practices are a cause of phos-
phate run-off. Phosphates are current! thought to be a controlling
nutrient in algae growth. Algae overproduction leading to increased
organic BOD requirements, contributes to accelerated eutrophication.
NITROGEN
Although recognized as a nutrient, it is not as controllable as phos-
phate. Nitrogen equilibrates with the atmosphere and may be assimi-
lated by algae from the air. Sources are municipalities, industries
and agriculture. Ammonia tends to neutralize chlorine and render it
ineffective for disinfection.
BACTERIA
Coliform bacteria stems from sewage, storm and combined sewer over-
flows and non-point run-off. Current measurements determine coliform
fecal coliform and, sometimes, fecal streptococci. Viral counts are
generally not available. Coliform counts closely correlate with
amounts of sewage inputs. Disinfection is an effective procedure
and, if applied in conjunction with adequate primary and secondary
treatment and control of storm and combined overflows, would make
many beaches available for water contact recreation.
SEDIMENTS
There is a natural influx of sediments from river and shore erosion.
However, disproportionately large contributions are made from
agricultural areas, possibly due to inappropriate drainage and farm-
ing techniques. Significant amounts come from urban and highway
construction projects.
17
-------
High sediment rates are known to destroy bottom fauna and spawning
beds. More frequent dredging of harbor channels is required.
Turbidity interferes with various water uses and reduces light
penetration.
PESTICIDES
Pesticides are present in some of the lakes and are found in fish
in varying concentrations. Their average levels do not appear to be
high. But as their behavior, interactions or concentrations in the
food chain are not well known, their impact is difficult to assess.
Information on the behavior of DDT and mercury compounds, which can
kill organisms or interfere with their reproduction, suggests that
close attention to these compounds is necessary. Pesticides' levels
and influx are related to agricultural practices. Control on DDT,
PCB's and mercury has been established.
DREDGED MATERIAL
Much of the dredged material consists of fine sediments and organic
sludges which contain adsorbed pollutants. Depending on river
conditions, dredged spoil can be highly polluting and toxic. Dispo-
sal of polluted spoils in the lakes is being discontinued in favor
of filling in diked areas.
OIL, GREASE, PHENOLS
Oil and phenols are contributed by many industries. Municipal
wastes are the niajor source of oil and grease. Although there
had been continuous discharges from oil industries which now have
ceased, large amounts of oil still come from the oil component of
general industrial discharges. Oil discharge is also due to the lack
of enforcement of appropriate disposal practices for used oils, as
well as enforcement of transportation and transfer techniques. Oil
decomposes slowly, is toxic, interferes with waterfowl survival, and
spoils beaches. Phenols add an unpleasant taste and odor to the
water.
DISSOLVED CONSTITUENTS
Any number of compounds can be included under this category.
Frequently, measurements are available for chlorides, sulphates,
sodium, calcium, iron, mercury, cyanides, and other organic com-
pounds. Effects of the various compounds vary widely. Sodium
chloride stays readily in solution and is easily flushed, but is a
major contributor to total dissolved solids. Sulfides and sulphates,
if soluble can seriously affect water pH and organisms. Many com-
pounds are known to be highly toxic. Cyanide is one of the most
toxic substances still being discharged.
OTHER
In this category parameters such as acidity, radioactivity levels,
and heat inputs are noted.
18
-------
Accelerated Great Lakes Program Suggestions
The EPA Chicago Regional Office is well aware of the urgency for
immediate and sustained pollution correction and abatement measures in
the Great Lakes. It has pinpointed specific priority areas and called
for effective measures to deal with municipal, industrial, agricultural
and urban pollution in both the major river basins and the lakes in its
proposal for an Accelerated Great Lakes program,
This plan focuses on systematic management of Federal Environmental
Programs and increased administrative initiative towards progressive
solutions. In dealing with the five lakes and their major sub-basins,
program elements were defined and the twelve most polluted areas
considered for action items. Exhibit 2 gives an overview of the basic
program elements. Exhibit 3 summarizes the high priority areas and
issues isolated by the accelerated program. This program and its inherent
priorities reflect considerable thought on the part of responsible
officials as to the immediate needs of the Great Lake Basin.
19
-------
EXHIBIT 2
ACCELERATED PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Control of Municipal and Industrial Wastes
Current Programs:
Regulation under Federal and State Water Quality Standards
Construction grants and assitance
180 day compliance notices
Many communities and industries lag behind. A piecemeal approach
impedes achievement of objectives.
Accelerated Program:
Focus on twelve high priority areas
Compliance with existing regulations
Greater degree of coordination
Plan improvements
Synchronization of grant financing with regulatory requirements
Additional federal funding
Assistance to the Impacted Industries
Current Programs:
No existing programs
Accelerated Programs:
Analysis of economic impact of enforced regulations
Identification of program of most impacted firms for planning
for assistance
Eutrophicatlon Control
Current Programs:
Present State and Federal regulations call for 80%-90% removal
of phosphates.
Some states and municipalities have legislation to limit
phosphate detergents
Accelerated Programs:
Specifically address phosphate problem
Control agricultural runoff
Study basin to evaluate future needs for phosphate reduction
Additional federal funding for sediment control and incorporation
of phosphate removal facilities into grant programs
20
-------
Combined Sewers
Current Programs:
Control of combined sewer flow by 1977
Federal administration programs to show
- improved technology
- water retention systems
Accelerated Programs:
Additional planning and funding
Combined sewer control and control administration
Correction and completion of limited number of highly effective
projects
Develop systems plans with municipalities and metropolitan areas
Federal funding for high impact projects
Agricultural Run-off and Sedimentation
Current Programs:
No specific programs
Soil Conservation Service and Rural Environmental Assistance
Programs provide assistance but are not focused on critical
areas
Accelerated Programs:
Comprehensive soil conservation program directed towards
critical areas
Emphasis on Great Lakes conservation programs
Demonstration projects including at least: Sandusky River,
Muskegon River, and Maumee River
Initiative towards urban and highway construction runoff control
Disposal of Polluted Dredging Spoils
Current Programs:
Diked disposal areas: 25% local contribution which may be
waived if city is on schedule with implementation of water
quality standards and has water quality management plans
Program slowed down because municipalities have not met •
requi rements
Accelerated Programs:
Wave 25% requirement
EPA collaborate with States and US Corps of Engineers to locate
suitable sites
21
-------
Research and Basin Studies
Current Programs:
Small EPA research facility on Grosse lie
International Field Year
Accelerated Programs:
More directed research
Coordination with Canada
Agreements with Canada
Current Programs:
Joint statement of interest
Accelerated Programs:
Agreements on compliance
22
-------
EXHIBIT 3
POTENTIAL PROJECT AREAS IN THE ACCELERATED GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
1. Detroit Regional Sewer Treatment Plant
Detroit, Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland Counties
2. Monroe Beach Area, Lake Erie
Bacterial pollution, insufficient capacity
Interceptor not built, but plant is funded
3. Eighteen Municipal Discharges
St. Clair, Black, Pine, Belle, Salt, Clinton and Raisin Rivers
4. Detroit Regional Storm and Combined Sewers
Demonstration project
Enforcement
5. Ten Industrial Priority Discharges
Increased surveillance and enforcement
6. Water-way Surveillance
St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River
Trend study in Monroe area tributary on beaches
7. Power Plants, Western Lake Erie
Increased efforts towards pollution abatement
8. Eight Second Priority Industrial Discharges
Monitor and enforcement
9. Minor Detroit River and Lake Erie Municipalities
Improvement of waste treatment
10. Six Third Priority Discharges
Monitor and enforcement
11. Huron River Interceptor
EPA collaboration and integration of municipalities
12, Construction Runoff
Areas of urban expansion
-Lake St. Clair
-Lake Erie
-Macomb County
-Wayne County
-Monroe County
Enforce minimization of land development and highway construction
runoff
13. Reduction of Air Pollution Fallout
Reduction of mercury and other heavy metal injections via munici-
pal incinerators, coal-fired power plants, and industries
23
-------
Summary of Most Frequent Pollution Abatement Gaps
Exhibit 4 presents a summary of the results of Appendix A. Pollution
abatement gaps were identified on the basis of quantitative data and
water quality standards, where available, or on the basis of generally
agreed upon criteria of undesirability found in the literature.
Although pollution sources are many and the extent and levels of pollu-
tion are high locally in certain river basins and Lake Erie, the major
sources causing pollution are relatively few and occur repeatedly.
The review of the pollution problems in the Great Lakes Basin and the
suggestions found in the Accelerated Program provide the basis for
identifying gaps in on-going programs. Noting such gaps does not auto-
matically lead to an obvious structure for the demonstration projects
that might be financed under Section 15, but it is clearly a useful
input in formulating a balanced program.
One thing tends to be omitted by approaching Section 15 in this way:
a broad view of the system of relationships between human activity and
nature that result in poor water quality. The total pollution problem
is a combination of highly interrelated causal factors. The variety of
pollutants combined with a variety of natural conditions compound the
complexity of the final situation. It seems likely that some system
approach may be required in addition to a piece by piece attack. It will
be seen that Section 15 has a particular advantage over other sections
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in mounting areawide and
systems approaches to Great Lakes Basin problems.
24
-------
EXHIBIT 4
SUMMARY OF MOST FREQUENT POLLUTION ABATEMENT GAPS
Absence of sewer system
Insufficient sewage treatment capacity
Combined sewers
Storm overflows - No holding or treatment capacity for combined
storm/sewage waters
No disinfection provisions
Lack of in-plant BOD-COD removal facilities
High dissolved mineral and salt contents
Discharge of toxins
Foams in effluents
Odor, taste, and color
Excessive algae growth interfering with recreation, esthetics, water
intakes, shipping
Lack of adequate phosphate removal facilities
High rural contribution of phosphates and nitrogen from agricultural
run-off and livestock
High sediment run-off and channel erosion due to drainage practices
High sediment run-off from urban and highway construction projects
Dredging and open lake dredge spoil dumping
Lack of removal of industrial suspended solids
Lack of neutralization of industrial acids and bases
Presence of oil, grease, phenols in:
Discharges
Minor spills and losses in transshipment and handling
Urban contribution relatively high - lack of appropriate disposal
practices and/or removal at sewage plant
Variable and inconsistent enforcement practices
25
-------
SECTION VI
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
In developing a strategy for a program to demonstrate "new methods and
techniques" it was necessary to review the existing research, develop-
ment, and demonstration program similarly aimed at developing new
technology.
Our review of the RD&D program was based on computer print-outs of
projects in the Great Lakes, and on discussions with R&D representatives
at both regional and headquarters level. The objectives were to deter-
mine the types of problems that were and were not being addressed under
the current program so that the Section 15 program could be designed to
extend and complement rather than duplicate.
As might be expected, the computer print-outs of RD&D projects were less
than perfect. It is clear from the information provided that not all
RD&D pertinent to Great Lakes pollution problems was included. Nor were
all the projects included specifically Great Lakes in the orientation,
Nevertheless, the data do provide a rough indication of the areas of
emphasis in the current program. Exhibits 5 and 6 show the percentage
distributions by subprogram and by location of RD&D funds.
From these data, several conclusions may be drawn. The first is that
the program in the Great Lakes tends to be strongly concentrated on
point source control, especially municipal wastes. This emphasis in
funding results from several large municipal treatment demonstration
projects. The research program on point source control is highly
"component" oriented in that projects tend to focus on treatment of
Dingle classes of pollutants. Many of the demonstrations are similarly
directed; there are a few demonstration projects that address the total
processing of municipal effluents. One of these is the demonstration
of a wastewater management system using spray irrigation in Muskegon
County, Michigan. This project, because it is not typical, illustrates
the type of endeavor that is needed to broaden more typical RD&D
activities.
A second conclusion to be drawn is that the Chicago/Calumet River area
is by far the primary location of research and demonstration projects
of the Great Lake Basin. Milwaukee scores a distant second just ahead
of the rest of the pack.
These observations are not made to imply that this allocation of
resources is incorrect. It undoubtedly reflects the distribution of
both the worst problems and the greatest capacities to develop solutions,
The point is that substantial areas are receiving little or no attention
under the existing program structure. The areas receiving less attention
are non-point sources, non-treatment control and restoration techniques,
institutional arrangements and other "soft" approaches, and the less
27
-------
EXHIBIT 5
DISTRIBUTION OF RD&D FUNDS BY SUBPROGRAM
Percent
Code Subprogram of Funds
11. Municipal Pollution Control Technology 71
12. Industrial Pollution Control Technology 13
13. Agricultural Pollution Control Technology 0
14. Mining Pollution Control Technology 2
15. Other Sources Pollution Control Technology 5
16. Water Quality Pollution Control Technology 2
17. Waste Treatment & Ultimate Disposal Technology 6
18. Water Quality Requirements Research 1
TOTAL 100
28
-------
EXHIBIT 6
DISTRIBUTION OF RD&D FUNDS BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Area
Fox River, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Super! or/Duluth
Black River, Lake Ontario
Erie, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio
Maumee River, Ohio
Detroit, Michigan
Saginaw River, Michigan
Chicago/Calumet River
TOTAL
Percent
of Funds
3
14
0
0
0
5
9
7
8
54
100
29
-------
dense municipal and industrial regions.
A brief review of the size distribution of RD&D projects 1s also
informative. The Federal share of the projects is less than $500,000
for almost 90 percent of the projects. Only a few demonstration pro-
jects receive funds nearing $1 million and none above $1.5 million. At
the other extreme, almost one third of the listed projects received
less than $50,000.
In summary, the RD&D program in the Great Lakes supports a few large
demonstrations and many small research projects. They tend to be
oriented toward specific techniques for the individual pollutants that
arise in municipal wastes. Major metropolitan areas, especially Chicago,
receive the largest portions.
30
-------
SECTION VII
FIELD SURVEYS
The field surveys conducted in this study were intended to elicit the
views and priorities of the agencies that would participate in Section 15
projects.
Interviews and questionnaires were used as a primary source of data on the
status and views in the eight Great Lakes States (Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) and the
EPA regional offices. The purposes of these investigations were:
- to establish the current and prospective status of organizational
arrangements for water quality management in the Great Lakes;
- to establish how the States rank their basic pollution problems;
- to find what they identify as key barriers to solving their
basic pollution problems;
- to determine the States' list of needed and desirable demon-
stration projects or studies that might be funded through
the Section 15 Program.
An additional implicit function of these discussions was to familiarize
state officials with the opportunities available under the Section 15
Program and to stimulate their interest in participating.
In each state, discussions were held with those officials most directly
involved in water pollution control efforts. Because of the variety of
organizational structures found at the state level, representation
from various agencies differed from state to state. In some states,
discussions with top water pollution control officials and state planning
officials was sufficient to cover the mixture of pragmatic, technical,
financial and institutional questions asked. In other states, authority
for these activities was less concentrated, requiring interviews with
state health and natural resource officials as well. The simple act
of identifying key personnel and arranging meetings often provided
much insight into the current organizational arrangements and the dif-
ficulties that Section 15 administrative arrangements would need to
overcome. The insight derived into the organizational structure and
political climate proved valuable in framing and suggesting state spon-
sors for the package of demonstration projects recommended below.
The first question on this questionnaire left with the various States
asked them to rank the problems impeding their realization of water
quality standards. Although Exhibit 7 shows that the response is not
yet complete, the pressing problems reported by the states are munici-
pal storm or combined sewers. Steel and paper industrial wastes are
next important. The third problem is probably bacterial control.
After these three common problems, the rest tended to be problems unique
to the individual states.
31
-------
EXHIBIT 7
SUMMARY OF ITEM 1 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
(RANKING OF PROBLEMS IMPEDING ACHIEVEMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS)
Prevention of Pollution:
Municipal Wastes:
-Sanitary
-Storm
-Combined
Industrial Wastes:
-Steel
-Chemicals
-Petroleum
-Pulp & Paper
Agriculture
-Pesticides
-Silt
-Nutrients
Mini ng
-Taconite
-Others
Dredcpng
-Operations
-Disposal
Thermal
-Control
-Utilization
Removal of Pollutants
Removal of Polluted
Sediments
-Heavy Metals
-Nutrients
-Pesticides
-Oxygen Demanding Waste
Nuisance Plant
-Rooted Aquatics
-Bacterial Control
-Algae
Beach Grooming
-Removal of Debris
-Bacterial Control
Dead Fish Removal
-Alewifes
Lake
Calumet Michigan
4
2 2
1 1
FO.X Duluth-
River Milwaukee Superior
3 4
2
1
3
3
4
2
3
1
4
1
3
2
4
32
-------
Saginaw SE Lake
Duluth River Michigan Erie
3
4 1 1
2
3
3 3
3
Mautnee
Cleveland River Ashtabula Other
1
2
3
4 1
3
1 1
2
5 3
2
2
2
33
-------
The states were next questioned on what are the key barriers blocking
solutions to pollution problems. The questionnaire results are summarized
in Exhibit 8. Lack of financial resources is important obviously.
Institutions are also cited as a key barrier. The impact of pollutants
and their economic consequences need investigation before actions can
be taken with confidence. Finally, certain technical capabilities are
lacking.
An even better understanding of some issues can be drawn from the Inter-
views with state officials, rather than from the questionnaires.
Financial shortages were viewed as a more substantial barrier at the
state and local level than at the Federal level. State and local officials
have been operating under the difficulties presented by raising the 60
and 70 percent matching resources required by Section 8 grants. In some
cases, construction priorities are established on the availability of
local funds rather than on the severity of the pollution problem. Finan-
cial shortages especially plagued control of combined and storm overflows.
Operating in this context, state officials although aware of the resources
that could be provided by pending legislation, tended to be less certain
that they would be forthcoming in adequate amounts. Section 15, even
with its modest 25 percent matching requirement, presented financial dif-
ficulties in some locations.
Institutional arrangements for intergovernmental coordination were gen-
erally viewed as a major barrier to implementation of pollution control
projects. This concern tended to be greater in areas where institutional
fragmentation was greater or where pollution control solutions were being
thought of in an areawide or basinwide context. Yet, despite general
agreement that institutional arrangements presented barriers, there was
little consensus on the types of arrangements that would be workable
or on the means for bringing about needed changes.
The states were next asked to suggest their own list of needed and desir-
able demonstration projects for Section 15 funding. The questionnaire
results are summarized in Exhibit 9. This material served as one of
several major basis for developing our recommended package of suggested
projects for Section 15. A quick cross reference is provided by noting
the relationship of each state's suggestion to the final recommended
package of Section 15 projects.
Five of the twenty-one state-suggested projects should be funded under
R & D or construction grants; or are already found in on-going demon-
stration projects.
The rest of the state suggested demonstrations are an interesting mix
of both very big projects and quite specific ones. Illinois, Wisconsin
and Minnesota have each suggested a large scale multiparameter problem
with broad basin and/or institutional features. Ohio has recommended
some elements of a total Maumee River clean up program. The other
state-suggested projects are more component oriented and could logically
become a part of the finally recommended package. Indiana and New York
did not complete a questionnaire.
34
-------
EXHIBIT 8
SUMMARY OF ITEM 2 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
. AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
(KEY BARRIERS' TO SOLVING IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS)
ILLINOIS
Lack of financial resources to eliminate the combined sewer
system.
Lack of economic studies that indicate that a zero industrial
discharge regulation can be implemented at reasonable cost.
Studies underway on the quantification of surface drainage into
Lake Michigan are not completed so correction measures cannot
be designed at this point.
WISCONSIN
0 Need regional management institutions to solve the municipal
and industrial waste treatment problems in the Fox River.
0 Need the institutional mechanism and financial assistance for
the interstate problem in the Duluth-Superior metropolitan area.
0 Lack of financial resources to eliminate the combined sewer
system in Milwaukee.
MINNESOTA
0 Disagreement on various treatment and disposal methods for
handling taconite processing discharges is delaying effective
action against the Reserve Mining Company.
0 Lack analysis to establish degree to which a relatively low
volume stream can be used for industrial (pulp) discharge
transport and natural treatment versus hydropower production.
0 Need techniques to eliminate existing sludge deposits behind
dams to insure quality standards over existing flow regimes.
0 Require better plant operations (particularly in smaller in-
stallations) or an alternative to conventional chemical treat-
ment methods to reach nutrient reduction (phosphorus) objectives.
^ A barrier is not a problem but an impediment to a problem's solution;
it is not the combined sewer problem but the lack of money to eliminate
the problem.
35
-------
EXHIBIT 8 (Cont.) EXHIBIT 8
0 Techniques could be used to reduce high velocity runoff com-
pounding the combined sewer problem in areas of high topo-
graphical relief.
0 Need techniques for bog drainage management to lower natural
nutrient levels.
MICHIGAN
0 Lack of financial resources to tackle the massive combined
sewer overflow problems in Southeast Michigan.
0 No control techniques to cope with the release of phosphorus
from bottom sediments in Lake Erie.
0 No program to control nutrients and silt from agricultural and
non-agricultural uses, particularly in the Saginaw River Basin.
0 Lack of means to remove or neutralize pesticides' residuals
in the aquatic environment.
PENNSYLVANIA
0 Lack of institutional arrangements.
0 Need more adequate areawide plans for water quality management.
OHIO
0 Institutional and financial barriers to Cleveland municipal
and industrial cooperation.
0 Present silt prevention techniques inadequate.
0 Inability to take certain offending lands out of farm use.
INDIANA (Questionnaire not returned.)
NEW YORK (Questionnaire not returned.)
36
-------
EXHIBIT 9
SUMMARY OF ITEM 3 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
(IDENTIFY NEEDED AND DESIRABLE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS)
ILLINOIS
An economic analysis of the impact of zero industrial
discharge requirement for Lake Michigan.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #13)
Combined sewer overflow problem needs financing, not
studies.
(Disposition: This is a construction and not a
demonstration project)
Use controlled sampling to test for salt (used in ice
removal), detergents and phosphates.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
Develop methodology using various physical and socio-
economic data to accurately project the effects of new
water facilities upon area development.
(Disposition: This can be handled as an R & D project)
Make a cost-benefit comparison of alternatives (such as
flood plain zoning, metering, slope protection, reforesta-
tion, etc.) to construction solutions for water quality
problems.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #10)
Study means of achieving bi-state cooperation.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
Consider resolving the conflicting efforts of all govern-
mental agencies in the Lake Michigan Basin or even that
portion in the State of Illinois (involving the SCS, C of E,
EPA, Illinois EPA, NE Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago
Municipal Sanitary District).
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
WISCONSIN
0 Revise and resubmit the Fox River project.
(Disposition: Covered by Suggested Projects #2 and 10)
37
-------
EXHIBIT 9 (Cont.)
MINNESOTA
Restoration and maintenance of the St. Louis River complex,
(Disposition: Covered by similar Suggested Project 11
in Maumee River Valley)
MICHIGAN
0 Treatment, storage and treatment, or other demonstrations of
new and cost-effective techniques to cope with combined sewer
overflows.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #1)
0 Ditto above relative to stormwater discharges.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
0 Thermal monitoring programs.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #5)
0 An on-land disposal system for treated sludge or partially
treated effluent.
(Disposition: Demonstrations with digested municipal sludges
and partially treated waste waters are currently underway)
0 Control of animal wastes.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #15)
0 Removal of nutrients from bottom muds or retard their nutrient
regeneration process.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #14)
0 Assess magnitude and effects of non-sanitary discharges from
commercial shipping vessels.
(Disposition: This is R & D, and not a demonstration project)
PENNSYLVANIA
Development of innovative areawide institutional arrangements
for the Erie area that are compatible with state laws.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #10)
Development of a program to identify potential and presently
unrecognized or undocumented water quality problems in Lake Erie:
(Disposition: This is R & D, and not a demonstration Project)
Demonstration of land irrigation with underdraining.
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #15)
38
-------
EXHIBIT 9 CCont,)
OHIO
0 Cleveland combined sewer project
(Disposition: This is a construction, not demonstration project)
0 Disposal of steel mill wastes
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
0 Siltation control through land use regulations in Mauraee River,
(Disposition: A part of Suggested Project #11)
INDIANA (Questionnaire not returned)
NEW YORK (Questionnaire not returned)
39
-------
The overall assessment of Section 15 activity in the states, as judged
by the list of suggested demonstration projects, the poor documentation
behind such suggestions and personal interviews in the state capitals,
is discouraging. Little or no thought has been given to exploiting
Section 15, except in the Fox River proposal from Wisconsin . Recep-
tivity and interest exists but it will certainly need to be cultivated.
40
-------
SECTION VIII
A STRATEGY FOR THE SECTION 15 PROGRAM
A number of conclusions have emerged from the analyses discussed
above. In summary, we conclude that
1. The language of Section 15 provides discretionary latitude
for demonstrating a variety of approaches both technical
and institutional to water pollution control in the Great
Lakes that are not possible under other programs;
2, The Great Lakes present water pollution problems that are
geographically extensive, naturally unique, and highly inter-
dependent; and there are important gaps in the development of
systematic solutions left by present efforts;
3. The RD&D program in the Great Lakes Basin is producing impor-
tant new technical solutions, but these tend to be oriented
toward treatment subsystems for point sources at the expense
of system-wide, institutional and implementing techniques,
and non-point sources;
4. The status of institutional arrangements and the scarcity
of resources at the state and local level present difficulties
that hinder the conceptualization and development of innovative
demonstration projects to address these gaps.
In developing a strategy based on these findings, we have attempted to
devise a program that takes full advantage of the opportunities provided
by Section 15 to address pollution problems that will need to be solved
by future programs. The recommended Section 15 Program should become a
continuing mechanism for identifying future problems and potential
solutions, both technical and institutional, and for proving their
feasibility and practicality. This subsection presents the Strategic
Objectives and the Guidelines and Criteria that comprise the recommended
Section 15 strategy.
Strategic Objectives
Two strategic objectives are recommended as the core concept of the
Section 15 Program:
1. The Section 15
demonstrations
approaches
the Great Lakes
Program should support projects that provide
of the value of innovative, systern-oriented
to the solution of water pollution problems in
Basin. Projects should be
demonstrations, in that they will develop and publicize
information that will encourage wider use of the new methods
developed;
41
-------
-innovative, in that they are approaches not found within
the scope of existing technologies, practices, policies,
regulation, or legislation; and
-system oriented, in that they address some of the crucial
pollution problems that persist in basin systems and
institutional problems that persist in areawide political
systems after the application of other efforts in a piece-
meal and fragmented fashion.
2. In managing the Section 15 Program, EPA should develop active,
catalytic and institutionalized mechanisms for identifying
pollution problems and overcoming barriers to their control.
The program should be:
-active, in that EPA exercises the discretionary latitude
provided by the authorizing legislation through a strong
participatory role that will stimulate, cultivate and
channel grant activities rather than merely to react to
proposals and priorities submitted by others;
-catalytic, in that through an action oriented role, EPA
should make increased use of the leverage, the incentives
and the resources inherent in other EPA and federal
programs; and
-i nsti tuti onali zed, so that the program mechanisms developed
will have the force of regular, continuing activity supported
by sufficient full time personnel and manpower to be able to
act as the trailblazer for substantially larger efforts to
control pollution of the Great Lakes in the future.
The rationale for recommending these objectives emerges from recognition
both of the uniqueness of the Great Lakes and of their pollution control
problems, together with the opportunities provided by Section 15. The
inclusion of a special section for the Great Lakes in national legisla-
tion is implicit recognition of their uniqueness and value to the country,
As current efforts succeed in controlling the major municipal and
industrial point sources of pollution, further means of control will need
to rely on new approaches addressed to the less concentrated sources of
pollution and to the problems that "fall between the cracks" in the
current institutional arrangements. Section 15 provides opportunities
for demonstrating such approaches. Other programs are aimed at major
individual pollution causes and problems. Section 15 should be the
vehicle for trade-off planning and integrated solutions.
42
-------
Guidelines and Criteria
Identifying, cultivating and approving project proposals is a crucial
function in implementing the recommended strategy. For this reason, we
have developed a series of guidelines and criteria to be used 1n this
activity. The guidelines are intended to describe characteristics of the
various types of projects that should be sought. The criteria, on the
other hand, represent qualities that are desirable, to one extent or
another, in all types of projects.
The following guidelines are recommended for developing Section 15
projects:
1. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate new technolo-
gies in areas not covered by Section 6 demonstrations or 1n
systems that combine several component techniques.
2. Projects should be sought that develop and implement solutions
to pollution problems within a basin-wide system context.
3. Projects should be sought that fill specifically identified
gaps in basin-wide solutions.
4. Projects should be sought that develop (not just design)
area-wide and intergovernmental institutional arrangements
needed to implement pollution control solutions.
5. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the effective-
ness of new policies or regulations.
6. Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the need for
new legislative authorities at both state and national levels.
7. Projects should be sought having a scale sufficient to provide
visible impact, either through the immediate performance of
the demonstration itself, or through less immediate but more
extensive benefits.
These guidelines are not presented in order of priority. The projects
that will together make up the Section 15 Program should reflect a
balance among these characteristics. Individual projects may, as should
be encouraged, include two or more of these key characteristics, The
value of adopting such guidelines is that they provide a specific means
for separating projects that will contribute to the recommended strategy
from those that should be supported by other programs.
The rationale for each of the guidelines is closely related to the
detailed findings from our investigations. The first three relate to the
RD&D program. Section 15 projects, rather than adding effort within the
structure of the RD&D program, should be used to extend its coverage and
expand its emphasis. The emphasis should be on demonstrations of tech-
43
-------
niques that are not eligible costs under Section 6, or on demonstrations
of pollution control systems or basinwide system solutions rather than
on components or subsystem solutions.
Guidelines 4, 5 and 6 focus on "soft" rather than hardware demonstrations.
We found substantial agreement that the lack of adequate areawide and
intergovernmental institutions was a serious barrier to the implementation
of technically and economically sound solutions. Several references were
made in the course of our discussions to studies that described the
current institutions and prescribed, in more or less specific terms, new
institutional arrangements that would be more effective in water quality
management. What is missing, it seems, is the administration of the_
prescription. The development of new institutional arrangements to imple-
ment pollution control activities depends on an active and aggressive
implementation of institutional change. This requires skill in locating
people with the power and authority to act, convincing them of the value
of the new approach, and developing patterns of interaction between them.
Section 15 provides the opportunity to support projects that include
both the type of pragmatic prescriptive study and the entrepreneurial
approach needed to administer institutional change.
In addition to new institutional arrangements, it is clear that existing
policies, regulations, and legislative authorities are not always
adequate for coping with present and future pollution problems. The
adoption of new approaches on a wide scale may require changes in these
"soft" constraints. In such situations, a Section 15 project can be
justified on the grounds that it demonstrates the value and practicality
of an alternative policy, regulation, or authority.
The last guideline is based on the practical need to demonstrate new
approaches at a scale that will provide results visible to the public,
to those controlling the purse strings, and to potential users of the new
approach.
There is an inherent tradeoff in demonstration activities between Immedi-
ate results and the extent to which benefits are increased by innovation
or coordination. This trade off is illustrated in Exhibit 10. Because
resources of value can earn a return when employed in the economy over
a period of time, benefits are less valuable in later years than in
earlier years by an amount determined by the discount rate. Using the
12 percent discount rate, the highest used by the Office of Management
and Budget, the present value of $1 is $1 if it is received today, $.89
if received 1 year from today, $.80 if received 2 years from today, and
so forth. Exhibit 10 shows the decline in the present value of the
impact of projects through two families of declining curves, one for
12 percent and a second for 20 percent. The 20 percent discount rate is
intended to reflect the urgency that might be associated with achieving
the benefits of pollution abatement efforts. The Catalytic Index repre-
sents the increase in impact that results from the effectiveness of the
44
-------
DECLINING VALUES OF SIMPLE OR CATALYTIC
DEMONSTRATION, ASSUMING ON-LINE VISIBILITY
DISCOUNTED AT 12 PERCENT (THE SOLID LINE)
DISCOUNTED AT 20 PERCENT (THE DOTTED LINE)
Catalytic
Index
0
Year on Line
Note: A simple expenditure of EPA funds on, for example a Construction
Project, which does not significantly increase the effectiveness of
other EPA Projects, is assigned a catalytic value of 1. Another
project, for example, an R&D Project might increase the effectiveness
of subsequent EPA expenditures or could attract multiples of EPA
funding from other agencies to warrant a catalytic index of 2, 3 or 4.
45
-------
innovation or the "catalytic" inducement on use of other funds. Thus
one can see the trade-off between getting early impact without much
increased impact, Point A for example, and later impact with substantial
increases in impact, Point B.
The value of this concept is that even without elaborate cost/benefit
analysis, it helps crystalize the trade-off between immediacy and impact,
Recognizing this trade-off, the projects sought for Section 15 should
fall as far into the upper-left area of Exhibit 10 as possible. That is
to say, they should be of large scale, either in immediate impact, or in
the increase in impact gained at the expense of time.
In addition to the seven guidelines presented above, demonstration
projects should score well on a substantial number of the following
criteria:
-visibility of results
-extent of potential application
-cost-effectiveness
-adequacy of technical plans
-•engineering feasibility
-adequacy of institutional arrangements
-adequacy of political support
-availability of state and local matching funds
-availability of other Federal funds for supplementation
-conformity with strategies and priorities of other EPA programs
Each project proposed can be evaluated in light of each of these
criteria. Some projects may score poorly on two or three criteria and
yet appear attractive because of high scores on others and compatibility
with the guidelines.
Many of these criteria are measures of soundness that are not unique
to Section 15 projects. Others, however, reflect needs that are more
specifically related to the recommended strategy and the investigations
on which it is based. Demonstration projects must ultimately be measured
by the extent and rapidity of diffusion and acceptance of the innovation.
Visibility is a key element in this performance, although it can be
augmented by both publicity and dissemination of technical reports.
Institutional arrangements and political support are also important
criteria given the finding that their absence frequently impedes pollution
control efforts. This is especially true for projects that do not, in
themselves, address these issues.
The current $20 million limitation of Section 15 funds makes crucial the
availability of matching funds, and of other Federal funds that can be
coupled with the Section 15 funds. Other Federal funds that can be used
to substantially increase the incentive to state and local governments to
participate and to accept projects having a broader context or different
emphasis than they might otherwise welcome. In a broader context,
46
-------
however, the real value of the $20 million is the opportunity 1t
affords to prove that EPA has a strategy and a program for the
Great Lakes that could effectively use funding many times larger
than this initial seed money investment.
Relationship to Joint Agreement
On April 15, 1972, the President and the Prime Minister of Canada
signed an Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America
on Great Lakes Water Quality. The agreement contains water quality
objectives and general statements on the standards, regulations,
and programs that shall be directed toward achievement of the agreed
upon objectives.
The Agreement specifies powers, responsibilities and functions of
the International Joint Commission including the establishment of a
Great Lakes Water Quality Board and a Research Advisory Board. Although
the IJC will have no pollution abatement programs of its own, it will
perform the tasks of information gathering and dissemination, and
advising and coordinating the activities set forth in the Agreement.
The IJC activities will provide the base for additional future commit-
ments of the two countries to additional water quality objectives and
pollution control activities.
The Section 15 Program, under the strategy presented in this report,
would make substantial contributions to the achievement of the water
quality objectives of the Agreement. This would occur in a number
of ways.
One contribution of the Section 15 Program will result from the
pollution abatement efforts of Section 15 projects and the increased
effectiveness of subsequent projects that use methods and techniques
demonstrated by Section 15 projects. It will be seen below that 6 out
of the 15 suggested demonstration projects proposed to get the Section 15
Program started are related to the proving out of techniques that can
help stop,pollution on both sides of the U.S. - Canadian Border. In this
sense, Section 15 is one of the many U.S. programs contributing to abate-
ment of pollution in the Great Lakes.
There are also several planning and programming contributions that can
emerge from the Section 15 Program as developed herein. Because of the
extent of the Boundary Waters, the IJC and the two Parties are concerned
with objectives and strategies for the Great Lakes Basin as a whole.
Section 15 provides the opportunity for the U.S. to contribute new
information and approaches from the perspective of the entire basin
system. More precise information on the consequences of pollution
control activities, both their benefits and their costs, will enable
the IJC to develop and gain commitment to sounder objectives and
strategies for the Great Lakes. Section 15 could even be used to
contribute to specific investigations undertaken or coordinated by
the IJC.
47
-------
Again it will be seen below that the Section 15 Program as proposed
in this report can make a significant contribution to the Joint
agreement program. A group of four projects are suggested that will
(1) develop a Great Lakes System overview for construction grants
management, (2) develop cost-effectiveness curves indicating the costs
of approaching 85 and 100 percent pollution control (to estimate total
program costs and also R & D directions), (3) undertake a small, total
lake restoration project to pilot test technologies and prove out costs
and (4) develop a non-point source project to acquire experience on
the various implementation alternatives.
Even after the planning and technical problems are solved, it is clear
that implementation will be through state, provincial and local units
of government. Section 15 provides EPA an opportunity to strengthen
(at,least in the U.S.), implementation efforts by active-oriented,
cooperative projects to develop new institutional arrangements for
areawide water quality management.
The projected Section 15 Program as envisaged in this report Includes
four specific projects aimed at addressing institutional problems. These
projects will involve (1) short-term local coordination institutions
at the metropolitan level, (2) middle-term state coordination institu-
tions, involving water managers, state planners, resource managers
and other environment activities,'(3) the concept and character of
intra-state regional institutions and (4) a multi-agency basin clean
up project to obtain inter-federal and interstate experience in
cooperation, communications and organization.
In Article X of the Agreement, the Parties commit themselves to seek
the appropriation of funds, the enactment of additional legislation
and the cooperation of the state and provincial governments, to carry
out the programs provided for in the Agreement. The Section 15 Program
outlined in this report provides EPA a means of meeting these commit-
ments. The appropriation of funds and enactment of legislation hinge
on the demonstration of a strategy, a management capability, and
specific, successful methods and techniques for control of pollution
of the Great Lakes. The recommended Section 15 Program provides a
visible, attractive strategy and as described in Section IX, the
administrative mechanisms needed to manage a broad attack on Great
Lakes pollution. The Section 15 Projects will demonstrate success
of specific, innovative methods and techniques for more effective
pollution control. In addition, through an active, catalytic approach,
the Section 15 Program can strengthen the mechanisms for working with
the state and other federal agencies.
48
-------
SECTION IX
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY
A number of administrative actions are needed to implement the Section 15
strategy outlined in this report. They are important not only to the suc-
cessful management of Section 15, but also in the strengthening of internal
mechanisms in EPA for developing innovative approaches and coordinating
broad, system-oriented efforts. By institutionalizing these mechanisms
in the Section 15 program, EPA will have them available to rely on as
larger programs are established.
The recommended actions are discussed below in two sections. The first-
presents administrative processes, the actual steps to be taken in
developing and managing Section 15 projects. The second recommends the
organization and manpower needed by EPA for performing these steps.
Administrative Processes
A flow chart depicting the recommended processes is shown in Exhibit 11.
Although the various processes are shown in logical sequence, iterations
and concurrencies are likely to be needed in actual practice. As the
program gains momentum, it is expected that each process, if not in
continuous operation, is performed at least regularly as conditions
change and new needs and opportunities emerge. The recommended processes
are outlined in more detail in the discussion to follow.
1. Review Suggested Demonstration Projects with other Programs
The purpose of this step is to draw on the knowledge and expertise of
regional staff responsible for other EPA programs to compare suggested
projects with known gaps and pollution control, with barriers to pollution
control and possible innovations that provide opportunities for potential
Section 15 projects. In administering their programs, these other staff
members have access to different types of information and contacts. These
sources should be tapped to provide basic guidance in developing Section
15 projects.
In the course of our investigation, we discussed Section 15 with these
other staff groups. We found that each program staff group could con-
tribute a specific type of information. The Research and Monitoring
staff should provide guidance on the types of technical demonstrations
needed to supplement their efforts. The Standards and Enforcement people
should identify localities where immediate progress in abatement efforts
has been blocked or delayed. The Planning Branch should identify the
major basin-wide gaps that need consideration and the status of areawide
and state planning efforts. The Construction Grants staff can identify
areas lacking in construction activity under state priorities or those
in which key facilities are missing.
It is important to emphasize the value of achieving the strategic
objectives of the Section 15 program. In additions it is important
to develop Section 15 projects that contribute to objectives of
49
-------
EXHIBIT 11
FLOW CHART
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SECTION 15
STRATEGY
REVIEW SUG-
GESTED DEMON-
STRATION
PROJECTS WITH
OTHER EPA
PROGRAMS
Research &
Monitoring
Planning
Branch
Enforcement
Division
Facilities
Construction
Grants
DISTRIBUTE
SECTION 15
PROGRAM
MATERIALS &
PROJECT
OPPORTUNITIES
State Water
Pollution
Control
Agencies
State Com-
prehensive
Planning
Offices
Regional &
Areawide
Institutions
University
Consultants
HUD
Commerce
Corps of
Engineers
Agriculture
IJC
State-Local
Counterparts
DISCUSS
POTENTIAL
PROJECTS
WITH POTENTIAL
RECIPIENTS
Adjust to
State-Local
Needs
PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR
DEVELOPING
INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
Use Institution
Experts
PROVIDE SUPPORT
IN DEVELOPING
TECHNICAL &
BASINWIDE DEMON-
STRATION
CONCEPTS
Use Systems
Experts
50
-------
REVIEW AND APPROVE
PROPOSALS
Responsiveness to
Guidelines
Criteria
Technical Merit
Institutional/
Administrative
MONITOR AND ASSIST
IN DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
DOCUMENT, PUBLICIZE
AND DISSEMINATE
RESULTS
Continue Institu-
tional and
Systems Support
Public
Political Leaders
State and Local
Officials
51
-------
other EPA programs while achieving Section 15 objectives. The review
of suggested projects should produce a package that reflects both the
special opportunities of Section 15 and the needs of other EPA organiza-
tions. The resulting project descriptions should include target areas,
objectives, need for coordination with other agencies, and approximate
time and cost estimates. Finally, while Section 15 projects should
support other programs, any tendency to treat Section 15 funds simply
as more money for each separate program pot should be resisted.
2. Distribute Section 15 Program Materials and Project
Opportunities'to State ana Local Agencie's"
This step is intended to familiarize potential grant or con-
tract recipients with the Section 15 strategy, the guidelines and
criteria to be applied in developing and reviewing project proposals,
and the specific project opportunities that EPA desires to pursue.
This is the first step in EPA's active role in approaching the states.
It should be taken in a manner that makes clear that EPA will be acting
as more than a passive beneficiary. Personal rather than mail contacts
are essential.
This information should be given not only to the state water
pollution control and water resource agencies, but also to the State
Comprehensive Planning Office, and to selected regional and municipal
agencies. It would also be useful to include selected university
organizations and consulting groups in this distribution. This would
facilitate participation in project development and implementation
working either with the potential grantees or with EPA directly. As a
result of such personal distribution the initial responses will not be
limited to the habitual patterns and contacts. Such an approach can very
likely simulate a discussion leading to modification or even better
projects. If significant changes are made then Step 1 should be
repeated to obtain a review by the other regional staff groups.
3. Coordinate with other Programs
As initial responses and discussions occur, it is important to
develop coordinated approaches for bringing the resources of other pro-
grams to bear in conjuction with Section 15 programs. In the coordina-
tion process, special effort should be taken to identify available incen-
tives, leverages or resources available in these programs. This step
is_critical to the catalytic value of Section 15 and to the continued
maintenance of EPA initiative. It will encourage discussions with
potential Section 15 projects to be undertaken on a "this is what we
would like and this is what we can provide" basis.
While such efforts should initially include the various EPA pro-
grams, they should be rapidly expanded to include other Federal
programs. Discussions with other program administrators should be held
at both headquarters and regional levels.
In this vein, there are a number of important programs in other
Federal agencies that should be considered in developing a catalytic,
52
-------
coordinated approach to Section 15 projects. The Office of Management
and Budget has provided the following list of agency activities in
water pollution control and abatement:
FY 1973 Funding
Department ($ in millions)
Defense $16.2
Agriculture 71.3
Transportation 20.5
Commerce 24.1
Interior 8.6
Atomic Energy Commission 15.0
TVA 3.1
Housing and Urban Development 3.8
The Department of Defense is primarily involved through the
activities of the Army Corps of Engineers which is currently studying
wastewater management systems in the Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland-
Akron areas. The Corps is also involved in public works in water
supply, flood control, and harbor dredging, all of which relate to
water pollution problems.
The Department of Agriculture is involved through the Farmer's
Home Administration which makes water and sewer grants in locations of
less than 5,500 population. The Soil Conservation Service has programs
in soil erosion control, flood prevention, sediment reduction and land
use planning, all of which are relevant to water pollution control. In
addition, the USDA has programs to develop and disseminate information
on agricultural practices, many of which relate to sources of water
pollution.
The Department of Transportation's activities in water pollution
control pertain primarily to sources of pollution with trans-
portation systems, especially from vessel wastes and spillage of oil and
hazardous materials during shipment.
The Department of Commerce enters the water pollution con-
trol business primarily through the grants and loans for water and
sewer systems made by the Economic Development Administration. These
public works activities are available for areas designated as Redevelop-
ment Areas or Economic Development Districts. Such districts provide
the elements of areawide institutions that can often be used to develop
stronger institutional arrangements.
The Department of the Interior has several programs pertaining
to water pollution that could be brought to bear in conjunction with
Section 15 projects. The Geological Survey is charged with gathering
basic data on water resources and has an Earth Resources Observation System
(EROS) program to develop remote sensing techniques for natural resource
surveys. The Office of Water Resources Research is also involved in
developing techniques for solving water resource management problems.
53
-------
In addition to these technical activities, the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ad-
minister programs designed to foster specific uses of water resources.
Water quality is a major concern in both wildlife and recreation.
Grants available through these programs can be used to plan and develop
water resources of high quality in conjunction with Section 15 activities.
The water pollution control activities of the Atomic Energy
Commission are concerned primarily with radioactive materials and thermal
pollution of nuclear electric generating plants. These problems are not
now of great concern to the Great Lakes Basin, but as nuclear plants
are installed over the next decades, they are likely to come to the
forefront.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides
water and sewer facilities grants under its Section 702 program. In
addition, it has a strong influence on the development of areawide
institutions through its comprehensive planning assistance programs. The
relationships between EPA and HUD in water quality management planning
programs has been described in institutional arrangements for Water
Quality Management Planning of a report prepared by H.F. Wise and
Associates.
4. Discuss Potential Projects with Potential Recipients
The discussion process is intended to achieve more detailed
understanding and agreement on the objectives and approach of potential
demonstration projects and on the way they are to relate to other projects.
During the discussion, the number of candidates projects should be
reduced somewhat through elimination of those deemed impractical or un-
acceptable. EPA's objective in undertaking the discussions should be
to stimulate and cultivate a project concept that is in keeping with
the objectives of Section 15. Agreement in principal should be reached
on the Federal assistance to be provided during the proposal development
and other resources to be applied.
5. Provide Support in Developing Areawide Institutional
Arrangements'
In some cases, it may be advantageous for EPA to provide
support to potential Section 15 recipients for developing areawide
institutional arrangements needed. It is possible that some projects
will be devoted almost entirely to this task and that the project agree-
ment will involve EPA support in both the design of the institutional
arrangements and in the entrepreneurial activities needed to establish
them. Even projects that are essentially technical in their orientation
may require this type of support. A key rationale for providing it at
an early stage is that it maintains EPA's active, problem-solving role.
Institutional barriers frequently exist because existing agencies and
political forces have been unable to resolve their interests and con-
flicts. In many cases, outside., problem oriented assistance can break
the log-jam.
54
-------
Several key actions are required in developing new institutional
arrangements. The first is to identify the existing jurisdic-
tions, authorities, lines of communication and funding, and the key
actors in the institutions involved. The next step is to design with
these key actors, new institutional arrangements that take advantage of
the opportunities provided by the existing situation and that are
capable of gaining acceptance. It is of prime importance that the new
institutional arrangements emerge from an increased interaction between
these key actors with a leavening of ideas, challenges and resources
provided through EPA assistance. Institutional change by prescription
and decree is seldom effective.
6. Provide Support in Developing Technical and Basinwide
Demonstration Concepts
In providing this assistance, EPA can actively help to over-
come difficulties that state and local agencies face in determining and
responding to the needs of an entire basin system. It is also possible
that some technical assistance would be useful in developing new waste
management and treatment system concepts from the many elements of
technology emerging from research. By providing support during the
proposal development state, EPA can help cultivate fertile fields for
new concepts.
7. Review and Approve Proposals
This step is essentially similar to its counterpart in the
R, D&D program. Proposals should be evaluated in terms of the objectives,
guidelines, and criteria recommended in this study.
8. Monitor and Assist in Demonstration Project Performance
The project monitoring envisaged for the Section 15 program
involves far more active EPA participation than conventional R, D&D
monitoring. The manpower assigned to this effort should be sufficient to
make regular, frequent visits to the project site to play an active role
in identifying and solving policy issues and coordination problems as
they emerge during the course of the project. Demonstration projects are
unlike the typical research project in which the research team can work
in semi-isolation. The more valuable demonstrations are likely to involve
extensive interactions with other organizations and activities and re-
quire more EPA participation.
9. Document, Publicize and Disseminate Results
This step is intended to provide the results of demonstration
projects for use by the public, by policy makers and legislators, by
those who should be encouraged to adopt the demonstrated approach, and
by EPA program management including Section 15. It should be closely
coordinated with general technology transfer programs.
It is particularly important that this process be recognized
as an on-going need rather than an after-the-fact effort. This is
especially true with regard to legislators who are potential sponsors
55
-------
of additional Great Lakes programs. Their participation in events such
as grant announcement, ground-breakings, ribbon-cuttings and their in-
stitutional counterparts can be of advantage in publicizing the projects
and gaining future support.
Organization and Manpower
In order to carry out the processes required to develop and manage $20
million of projects, an expanded Section 15 organization is needed.
The manpower and skills that should be applied are determined by the
internal and external activities outlined above and by the nature of
the demonstration projects to be pursued. Internally, the staff will
be coordinating with other EPA organizational elements and other Federal
agencies. The basic requirements for these tasks are familiarity with
the substance and process of key programs, especially research and
facilities construction.
Externally, the requirement is for working closely with grantees to
develop the project concept, to help establish and implement the
project, and to monitor and assist in its performance. In addition
to research and construction background, Section 15 programs should
make use of skills in analyzing and managing complex natural and tech-
nical systems and in designing and developing new institutional
arrangements. Systems-oriented assistance provided to grantees should
focus on innovative approaches to environmental system problems, and
on interdisciplinary, interagency team efforts. In these areas, skills
in the process and procedure of analysis and management of large systems
are key and should be combined with the substantive and content know-
ledge currently available in other EPA organizations. The institution
building skills needed are those of the entrepreneur, bringing people
and new ideas together, and fashioning new patterns of interaction.
In each fiscal year, manpower should be allocated in the following
manner:
Position Man-Years
Section 15 Coordinator 1
Administrative Assistant 1
Project Development & Monitoring:
Research Specialist 1
Construction Specialist 1
Systems Specialist 2
Institutional Specialist 2^
TOTAL 8
56
-------
We recognize that it may be difficult to shift this much manpower to
the program immediately. This may make it desirable to look to outside
help in the early stages of implementing this report. Such outside
help should exhibit the same background and skills.
In addition to this full-time effort, the Section 15 program should
draw on the resources of other EPA staff for internal reviews and
coordination and technical back-up. For this purpose, each of
the key organizational elements should assign one person as a Section
15 representative. This group need never meet as a committee, but
each representative should provide the channel for communication
between the Section 15 program and its organization. In this manner, the
internal reviews can be conducted expeditiously in a personal context
rather than through the routing of paper materials.
57
-------
SECTION X
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
The key words in the strategy proposed for integrating Section 15 Into
EPA's overall program and particularly into the Great Lakes Basin were:
active. catalytic and system-oriented. It was expected that the demon-
stration programs under this section would also be innovative in both
technical and institutional terms,
To go beyond strategy, this report has proposed an administrative pro-
cess by which the objectives of Section 15 can be realized. What this
process envisages is a way to get the programs under way, to obtain
appropriate inhouse coordination, to stimulate good proposals from the
states and to evaluate submitted proposals against objectives and goals.
In order to get the process started, an initial package of project
descriptions has been developed. It will be seen that the package is a
balanced one, intended to accommodate several philosophies or objectives
with respect to the use of Section 15.
The selection of the following package of projects represents our judg-
ment on the best way to rapidly expand the use of Section 15, In coming
to this point we have
a. reviewed the components of the Great Lakes pollution problem
b. grossly indicated the gaps between the current position and
desired goals
c. reviewed the Accelerated Program
d. summarized our interviews with state officials
e. tabulated our questionnaires from the states and
f. incorporated our interviews with EPA officials
The principal attributes of the suggested package of Section 15
projects are:
(1) some immediate short-term highly visible results
(2) foundations for longer-term, more effective system results
(3) basis for a significant growth program for Section 15 through
fiscal year 1976,
59
-------
The overall approach has been to cover three principal areas:
a. technology demonstrations
b. institutional and financial projects
c. projects to develop plans and procedures.
A total of fifteen projects are suggested and presented in tabular form
in Exhibit 12.
It is important to recall the purposes of suggested demonstration
projects. The immediate purpose is to give the Section 15 staff a
balanced group of appropriate projects in order to start the internal
and external review process in moving to acceptable proposals from the
states or other agencies for Section 15 funding. The suggested projects
are sound in the sense of being compatible with needs, with articulated
state-local interests and national and regional goals relative to the
Great Lakes. The suggested list is not likely to be final and during
the review process considerable flqshing out of the basic concepts is
essential. The point at this time is that the administrative process
proposed in this report, to get the Section 15 program underway can be
activated with the help of the suggested projects described more fully
below.
Exhibit 12 indicates the relative level of funding on the 15 suggested
projects out of the initial $20 million authorized by Congress. It will
be seen that, if EPA undertakes to support the projects at 75 percent of
their total, up to $17.4 million would be obligated. Another $.5 million
is earmarked for program management and support and about $1.0 million
is available out of the original $20 million for contingencies. No
decision on the budgetary issue of obligating all of the money in FY 1973
can be recommended. EPA must weigh the short term advantages of starting
slower, against the long term advantages a faster start on the continuing
program following the $20.0 million effort.
Exhibit 13 indicates the relative funding levels suggested for the 15
projects in the follow-on phase through FY 1976. The projected dollars
up to $400.0 million in FY 1976 are goals and, of course, dependent on
the establishment of feasibility in FY 1973 and following years.
Basically the original $20.0 million program is only meaningful in
attacking as serious a problem as pollution in the Great Lakes if it is
judiciously used to develop a short and long term strategy that has some
opportunity of coming to grips with the massive issues involved.
60
-------
EXHIBIT 12
INITIAL PROGRAM FUNDING BY PROJECTS
(In Millions of Dollars)
Projects by Class
Technology Demonstration
1. New municipal pollution control process $5.0
2. New industrial pollution control process (i.e. pulp) 5,0
3. New waste treatment process (i.e. chemical additives) 8,0
4. Mechanical beach grooming ,3
5. Improved pollution monitoring ,2
6. Improved septic tank operations .25
7. Detention basins for overflows 2.1
Institutional and Finance
8. Short-term local coordination .2
9. Middle-term state coordination ,4
10. Intra-state regional institutions ,1
11. Multi-agency basin clean up .5
Plans and Procedures
12. Great Lakes system overview .3
13. C/E curves for increasingly tougher standards .2
14. Total small lake restoration .5
15. Agricultural run-off management .1
TOTAL $23.15
EPA 75 percent obligation 17.36
Program management and support .50
Contingencies 1.00
61
-------
EXHIBIT 13
Continuing Program Funding By Projects Thru FY 1976
[in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Years
Projects by Class
Technology Demonstration
1. New municipal pollution control process
2. New industrial pollution control
process (i.e. pulp)
3. New waste treatment process
(i.e. chemical additives)
4. Mechanical beach grooming
5. Improved pollution monitoring
6. Improved septic tank operations
7. Interim projects prior to con-
struction grants
1974
$50.0
50.0
50.0
.6
.2
.5
50.0
1975
$25.0
50.0
50.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
25.0
1976
$10.0
25.0
50.0
2.0
.0
10.0
10.0
Institutional and Finance
8. Short-term local coordination
9. Middle-term state coordination
10. Intra-state regional institutions
11. Multi-agency basin cleanup
Plans and Procedures
12. Great Lakes system overview
13. C/E curves for increasingly
tougher standards
14. Total small lake restoration
15. Agricultural run-off management
TOTAL
EPA 75 percent obligation
Rounded Totals
.3
.5
.1
25.0
.05
.2
100.0
1.0
$328.45
246.34
250.00
.4
.5
.1
100.0
.05
.2
200.0
5.0
$460.75
345.56
350.00
.5
.5
.1
300.0
.05
.1
100.0
10.0
$518.25
388.69
400.00
62
-------
Exhibit 14 shows a schedule for the various projects and the points
at which they can be on-line and visible to EPA's constituency. Some
projects will require some start-up coordination and others can commence
shortly after the formal acceptance of the present report. Some projects
are visible shortly after start up; others not until completion; and
even others not until some time thereafter.
The details on the 15 suggested projects are set forth 1n Exhibit 15 and
16 following this section. Individual project sheets have been developed
on each project for both short and long term funding. The project sheets
give a brief description of the project, where it might best be activated,
the short and long run costs and the short and long run program contribu-
tion of completing such a project, The following paragraphs briefly
summarize the projects by class.
The projects in the Technology Demonstration class reflect EPA's current
emphasis on municipal pollution control (#1), industrial pollution
control (#2) and waste treatment (#3). The costs of individual projects
are usually high. The R&D program and state interests must furnish the
basis for good demonstration efforts in these areas over the last four
years. (Each of the suggested projects are presented on two summary sheets
as part of Exhibits 15 and 16 which follows the text. The summary sheets
describe the project briefly and note its programmatic contribution. The
initial and follow-on costs are estimated and schedule projected).
The other four demonstrations in this class address the beach grooming
problem (#4), improved pollution monitoring systems (#5) improved septic
tanks operations for small communities (#6) and detention basins for
overflows (#7).
The projects in the Institutional and Financial class address four issues.
A simple, clean cut solution to the fragmented institutional at the
local level of government is not available. Rather with the help of
illustrative cases, EPA can build transplantable techniques and can
acquire a helpful image with local governments with respect to solving
their institutional problems relative to water management (#8). A
broader attack but somewhat slower one, is required in working at the
state level with water managers, planners and their various channels to
local governments (#9). No pat solution will be accepted across state
lines unless the Federal Government is anxious to impose Institutions
by fiat at this time. Thus, an entrepreneurial case by case approach
aiming at maximum transplantability of techniques is required.
The literature and enthusiasm of at least one segment of the Great
Lakes Basin argues for an exploratory look at regional water quality
institutions between the state and local governmental structure (#10),
There are a number of novel organizational tax, subsidy, programmatic,
etc. proposals that can be explored in the content of a regional water
authority. There are also serious problems of the level of responsibility to
63
-------
EXHIBIT 14
PROJECT SCHEDULE: PLANNING. PROCUREMENT PERIOD AND POINTS
OF VISIBLE AND/OR PUBLISHABLE RESULTS
Month
FY 1972 FY 1973
Projects by Class JFMAMJ/JASONDJFMAMJ/
Technology Demonstration
1. New Municipal Pollution [ | ^
Control Process
2. New Industrial Pollution L
Control Process (i.e.
pulp)
3. New Waste Treatment Process E
(i.e. chemical additives) __
4. Mechanical Beach L_JY
Grooming
5. Improved Pollution C [
Monitoring
6. Improved Septic Tank Ł
Operations ~
7. Detention Basins for
Overflows
Institutional and Finance _
8. Short-term Local LID m
Coordination __ »
9. Middle-term State II~1!
Coordination _~
10. Intra-state Regional LIU W
Institutions *
11. Multi-agency Basin |~ ~]
Clean-up
Plans and Procedures
12. Great Lakes System C~Ii Ą
Overview »
13. C/E Curves for Increas- \I_~_~\
ingly Tougher Standards ' T
14. Total Small Lake 1 f
Restoration
15. Agricultural Run-off Ii
Management ~ '
LEGEND
.JPeriod for planning and/or procurement
/\ Point of visible and/or publishable results
64
-------
and Year
FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976
JASONDJFMAMJ/JASONDJFMAMJ/JASO'NDJFMAMJ
T f
T
T
T
f
T
T
f
T
T
65
-------
constituencies and of obtaining fully coordinated operations (both
intra- and inter-state). Plans and models are needed for this explora-
tory case and for its broader potential use throughout the region. The
development of a firm regional concept, fully reviewed and supported by
a definitive program, all need to be realized before funding the final
demonstration effort.
The final project in this class is directed at the currently fragmented
efforts across various federal, state and local agencies (#11). EPA can
spend its funds piecemeal and run into more and more cases of sharply
diminishing returns. On the other hand, it can use Section 15 to
operate as an inter-agency catalyst for R&D, operating and constructing
funds in order to mount a significant basin clean up job. A coordinated
project, with enough funds and effectively scheduled, can succeed where
piecemeal efforts would fail.
The Plans and Procedures class is used to start work on several important
issues.
Priorities for construction grant under Section 8 are substantially set
by the several states. Basin and area planning should begin to emerge
from the states in 6 - 12 months. Even so, EPA needs a framework by
which to review state priorities, before and even after whatever state
planning is forthcoming in the next few years (#12). A systems over-
view of the Great Lakes would enhance the agency's ability to review,
suggest and even direct (with discretionary funds) projects of an
inter - and intra-state nature.
Current standards are the best that good judgment could furnish and have
effectively served to get the whole program rapidly underway. Consider-
able concern has been voiced as to the costs of increasing severe
standards. Tightening some standards may run into rapidly increasing
costs. Cost-effectiveness curves for various pollutants under various
circumstances can isolate difficult or easy cases, help direct R&D and
allow us to anticipate total budget levels required to realize national
objectives (#13).
Cost-effectiveness curves can be developed theoretically for a major lake
like Ontario. However, valuable insight and hard data can be obtained
by approaching the practical problem of achieving 1985 or total restora-
tion levels on a small lake with essentially present state-of-the-art. (#14)
The last project is concerned with developing plans for implementing
new agricultural practices to reduce the nutrient content of agricultural
run-off (#15). Again it appears that EPA can multiply the effectiveness
of its funds by working in consort with other agencies.
It is proposed that the administrative process to activate and implement
good state proposals under Section 15 get started with this package of
15 suggested proposals.
66
-------
The recommended program envisages a review of this package and Its
strategic objectives within the Section 15 program operations. The
acceptable suggested projects (as modified or replaced) then should be
cycled through the other interested EPA offices. The Section 15 program
should then involve an active program to interest and support the Great
Basin states. The evaluation of the final state proposals, monitoring
and on-going support activities can insure a rapidly expanding and
effective Section 15 program. Both plans and results must then be
documented in support of a growing appropriate to fund the strategic
objectives of Section 15,
It is our belief that rapid administrative action is critical and in
the balance program herein presented we have the basis for expanding
an active, catalytic and system-oriented Section 15 program to make a
practical and innovative attack on the pollution problems of the
Great Lakes.
67
-------
EXHIBIT 15
SUMMARIES OF SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS;
INITIAL PROGRAM, FY 1973
69
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 1
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: New Municipal Pollution Control Process
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: A flotation and skimming process in the treatment
plants is envisioned. Provision and enforcement of alternative
urban oil/grease disposal practices would lower removal capacity
requirements.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality
Dept. of Environ. Conserv.
Richard A. Wiebe, Director
Office of Planning Services
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Monroe County
BUDGET: $5.0M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) March '73
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Municipal pollution control process research has been a major
area of EPA R&D funding. This area should supply important
demonstration ideas for high near term visability. It is
suggested that oil removal process techniques could furnish an
appropriate project in this area.
70
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
(Dollars In Millions)
TITLE? New Industrial Pollution Control Process (1,e,? test
pulp plant waste treatment processes)
CLASS; Technology Pemonstratlon
DESCRIPTION; In-plant filtration and oxydlzation via aeration bacterial
action and/or non-polluting chemical oxydants would appear to
offer feasible and effective solutions.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Wisconsin (or elsewhere)
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Thomas Frangos, Administrator John M. Cain, Chief
Div. of Environ. Protection Water Planning Section
Dept, of Natural Resources Div. of Environ. Protection
Dept. of Natural Resources
E. Jack Schoop, Director
Bureau of State Planning
Dept. of Admin.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)
BUDGET; $5.0M plus company contribution
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) June '73
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Industrial pollution control processes, particularly pulp plant
waste treatments, have been the objective of considerable EPA
research. It appears that technology is available in this
area for testing. The implementation in the Lower Fox River
in cooperation with private industry support could contribute
substantially to improved relationships between EPA, private
industry and the state of Wisconsin. Care must be taken to
balance actions with enforcement programs underway in this area,
71
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 3
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: New Waste Treatment Process (i.e., add chemical to
treatment process)
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: Phosphorus removal techniques using additives in a
precipitation process need further testing in an operational
context. After precipitation, removal, disposal or potential
re-use must be tested.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Michigan
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Ross Lowes, Director Ralph Purdy
Off. of Program Dev. and Plan. Executive Secretary
Water Resources Commission
Mr. Bradford or
James P. Dooley
Water Resources Planning
Dept. of Natural Resources
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Detroit
BUDGET: $ 8.0M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) Nov. '72
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Additives need to be tested in an operational context. In this
way efficiency and costs can be determined before implementing this
technique more broadly.
72
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 4
(Dollars In Millions)
TITLE: Mechanical Beach Grooming
CLASSj Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project is directed to the fabrication and use of
a mechanical beach grooming device. Cladophora algae now 1s
serious on the beaches of Lake Ontario. Grooming of beaches
will encourage their use by the public.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): One beach 1n Ohio, Pennsylvania or New York
Oh i o; New York
Dr. Ira Whitman Dwight F. Metzler
Dept. of Health Dept. of Environ. Conserv,
Jack Frost Richard A. Wiebe
Natural Resources Dept. Off. of Planning Services
Andres Priede Pennsylvania
Dept. of Community Dev*
R. M. Boardman
Chief Div. of Water Quality
GEOGRAPHIC AREA; Lake Erie or Ontario
BUDGET: $ ,3M for equipment and 3-4 month operation
SCHEDULE; Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) June '72
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
The imrnedtate objective is to make at least one beach acceptable
to the public by eliminating cladophora. The choice of the first
site for cleaning operations is important. If all other conditions
of the site are not acceptable to the public, the clean-up opera-
tion will be judged a failure.
73
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 5
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Improved Pollution Monitoring
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: State officials indicate that the present monitoring
systems are not sufficient to establish pollution conditions
before and after treatment plants are put on-line. Remote
sensor techniques should be explored in a search for a new
monitoring system.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York or Michigan
INITIAL CONTACTS:
New York Michigan
Dwight F. Metzler Ralph Purdy
Dept. of Environ. Conserv. Water Resources Commission
Richard A. Wiebe Mr. Bradford or
Off. of Plan. Services James P. Dooley
Dept. of Natural Resources
Ross Lowes
Program Dev. and Planning
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York or Muskegon , Michigan
BUDGET: $.2M
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) Nov. '72.
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
In the short run a cost and benefit analysis should be used
to establish the feasibility of augmenting the present data
collection systems with a remote sensor component. If the
feasibility analysis is favorable, then implementation in
one state or area should serve as the test demonstration for
more general use.
74
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 6
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE; Improved Septic Tank Operations
CLASS; Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project is directed to several actions intended
to improve the operation of septic tanks where the community
served is below the economical threshhold size for a practical
treatment plant. The improvement program includes better
septic tank design, potential use of chemical additives and
regular collection program for residual sludge.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner Richard A. Wiebe, Dir.
Environmental Quality Dept. Off. of Planning Services
Dept. of Environ. Conserv.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York
BUDGET: $.25M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) March 3. 1973
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Techniques to handle very small population concentration must
be packaged and demonstrated. Many such concentrations are
well below the economic threshold for even the smallest
efficient treatment installation. The package to be tested
should included improved septic tank design (or modifications),
chemical additives, regular collection and all operated under
supervised control conditions.
75
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 7
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Detention Basins for over flows
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project involves a series of detention basins
intended to retain storm and combined flows that the present
system cannot handle. The available processing plants are
more than capable of handling projected flows if peaks can
be smoothed through the construction of these basins.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Indiana, Ohio, N.Y., Mich., Wise.
INITIAL CONTACTS: Various State officials
GEOGRAPHIC AREA:
BUDGET: $2.1 M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) June '73
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
An immediate project will solve a bad situation on Great Lakes
beaches and will contribute to the minimal cost of water treat-
ment in some areas.
76
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 8
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE; Short-Term Local Coordination
CLASS; Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: This project is intended to show that cooperative arrange-
ments between local bodies can be encouraged in order to attach
their mutual pollution problems more effectively. The purpose
is to strengthen similar efforts elsewhere employing the same
or even different institutional solutions,
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio
INITIAL CONTACTS;
Jack Frost, Deputy Director Dr. Ira Whitman, Deputy Dir.
Natural Resources Dept. Environ. Programs
Dept. of Health
Andres Priede
Off. of Planning
Dept. of Community Dev.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Cleveland
BUDGET; $ ,2M planning budget
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) Nov. '72
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
In the short run it is important to show that organizational entre-
preneurship is a feasible route to new rapport, communications and
modified or new institutions if required. It is meant essential to
show that with favorable publicity and modest support good ideas
can be transplanted to the new metropolitan area,
77
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 9
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Middle-term State Coordination
CLASS: Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: This project envisages an effort to bring water quality
institutions at the state level in closer coordination with state
planners and through them regional and local planners, The purpose
is to work within a state to suggest new institutions, better lines
of communications and both shorter lines of command and better
coordination. Experience in one state can be used as illustrative
in the other Great Lakes states.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Deputy Director Andres Priede
Dr. Ira Whitman Off. of Planning
Environ. Programs Dept. of Community Dev.
Dept. of Health
Deputy Dir. Water
Jack Frost
Natural Resources Dept.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: State
BUDGET: $.4M planning budget
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) June '73_
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
The keys to success in this area are again organizational entre-
preneurship and transplanting of proven techniques. EPA has a
related program underway in Massachusetts in the program planning
area whose success argues well for a similar technique as applied
in the Great Lakes. A near term success in one Great Lake state
can encourage similar efforts in the other states.
78
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT i 10
CDollars in Mill tons)
TITLE: Intra-State Regional Institutions
CLASS: Institutional and financial
DESCRIPTION: This project requires the formulation in detail of the
character and responsibilities of a regional water quality manage-
ment authority. The concept should then be critically reviewed
for financial foundations, regulatory powers and responsiveness
to its constituency. Plans and models should be developed in
order to project its 5-10 year program. Finally, demonstration
funding from EPA should be available during its formative period
of operations, if found desirable to activate the authority,
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATECS); Wisconsin Cor elsewhere)
INITIAL CONTACTS;
Thomas Frangos, Administrator E, Jack Schoop, Director
Div. of Environ, Protection Bureau of State Planning
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Admin.
John M. Cain, Chief
Water Planning Section
Div. Environ. Protection
Dept. of Natural Resources
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)
BUDGET: $ ,1M
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) Jan '73
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION;
Intra-state regional institutions are beginning to emerge but they
have not reached their full potential. Ideas are developing in the
Great Lakes region and new legislation anticipates their evolution
into operational agencies. Their potentials and constraints need to
be assessed as soon as possible and acceptable prototypes tested.
79
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 11
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Multi-Agency Basin Clean-Up
CLASS: Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: A major opportunity in Sec. 15 is found in the possibility
of planning a multi-agency basin clean-up program. Sec. 15 money
should be used to address a basin plan and to marshal! EPA Sec. 8
and other funds as well as funds from other Federal and state agencies.
The demonstration should develop the processes, institutions and
financial arrangements to attach a multi-dimensional total basin
clean-up with milestones and a completion data.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio and Indiana
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Indiana Ohio
Perry E. Miller Dr. Ira Whitman
Stream Control Brd. Dept. of Health
Ted W. Schulenberg Jack Frost
Dept. of Commerce Natural Resources Dept.
William Andrews Andres Priede
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Community Dev.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Maumee River
BUDGET: $ .5M
SCHEDULE: Start ...Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) Dec. '75^
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Efforts to secure cooperation at the inter-state level and inter-
department at the Federal level must start immediately if basin clean-
ups are to be achieved at reasonable cost. The immediate task is to
define the task and select among the various alternatives one that
can be successful in a test area so feasibility can be demonstrated.
Then implementation is in order in an area such as the Maumee.
80
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 12
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Great Lakes System Overview
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: This project will develop a framework for reviewing con-
struction grants and discretionary projects in the Great Lakes Basin
through a system analysis overview. Gross measures of pollutant
inputs, in stream and in lake residuals, population-industrial changes
and projected treatment plants. From an overview of needs, R & D,
projects, standards and objectives, a scheduled program of overall
goals can be structured for guidance purposes.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): 8 States in Great Lakes Basin
INITIAL CONTACTS: Various State Officials and IJC
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Great Lakes Basin
BUDGET: $ ,3M analysis budget
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results (Initial) Nov. '72
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
An overall framework with respect to the problems, impacts and
priorities of solutions from the view of the Great Lakes system
can contribute to the effective management of Section 8 construction
grants. A first-cut as such an overview can contribute to both
U.S. and international policies and programs, A continual updating
effort can be implemented if the first-cut analysis is as successful
as anticipated.
81
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 13
CDollars in Ml 11 tons}
TITLE: Cost-Effectiveness Curves for Increasingly Higher Standards
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: Cost-effectiveness curves relate costs and the level of
pollution control. Interim goals envisage levels at 85$ effective-
ness. Ultimate objective anticipate achieving 100% effectiveness,
The suggested project is aimed at developing the shape of such curves
for the principal pollutants entering a major lake.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Dwight F. Metzler. Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality
Dept. of Environ. Conserv.
Richard A. Wiebe, Director
Office of Plan. Services
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lake Ontario
BUDGET: $ .2M analysis budget
SCHEDULE: Start June '72 Visible Results Clnlttal) Nov. '72
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Cost-effectiveness curves can guide policy and suggest the need for
R&D alternatives. By sizing the program to obtain complete pollution
control, administrators can plan their budgeting, manpower, etc.
strategies through time. As the curves indicate that present tech-
nologies are moving into areas of sharply decreasing returns, it
will become clear that new R&D directions should be pursued.
82
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 14
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE; Total Small Lake Restoration
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: This suggested demonstration project will show the tech-
niques and costs of first achieving the 1985 standards and then
total restoration of a small lake. Techniques involved will relate
to municipal and industrial inputs and to lake bottom deposits.
Various methods must be included to cope with inputs and deposits
if restoration is to be achieved.
INITIAL ACTIVITY Note: Not determined at this time,
STATE(S):
INITIAL CONTACTS:
GEOGRAPHIC AREA:
BUDGET: $ .5M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) Dec. '75
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION;
The immediate task is to develop a systems project and management
plan to achieve the complete restoration of a small lake that is
seriously polluted. The system will be multi-discipline in nature,
involve various hardware and procedural innovations and requires a
complete budget and schedule, The initial planning stage can then be
fully renewed before attempting the more costly implementation phase.
83
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 15
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Agricultural Run-Off Management
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: Cornell and others have undertaken various studies on new
agricultural practices aimed at reducing the nutrient content of
agricultural run-off. Since lower net yields or higher costs will
apparently be realized, it is necessary to plan the implementation
of such practices. Various alternatives including subsidies, regulation,
tie-in soil conservation, etc., programs need to be reviewed for the
optional route to the reduction of agricultural run-off problems.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio or Maumee Basin
INITIAL CONTACTS:
Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner Richard A. Wiebe, Director
Environmental Quality Off. of Plan. Services
Dept. of Environ. Conserv.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York
BUDGET: $ .1M
SCHEDULE: Start Sept. '72 Visible Results (Initial) May '73
SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Given various studies on agricultural practices to minimize non-point
pollution, the economic and institutional aspects will allow
EPA and supporting agencies to move rapidly toward implementation.
The issue will be to establish what can be done by education, govern-
ment regulation and finally economic incentives. The character and
costs of the implementing program can be projected and renewed at
this time.
84
-------
EXHIBIT 16
SUMMARIES OF SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS;
CONTINUING PROGRAM, FY 1974 THRU 1976
85
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 1
[Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: New Municipal Pollution Control Process
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: A flotation and skimming process in the treatment plants
is envisioned. Provision and enforcement of alternative urban oil/
grease disposal practices would lower removal capacity requirements.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Monroe County
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $50.0 FY '75 $25.0 FY '76 $10.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
The gap analysis and the form of the Acceleration Program indicate
that this is a major pollution problem where new technologies
should be tested. The suggested project will demonstrate the
potential effectiveness of oil removal process applicable to many
other municipalities in the Great Lakes Basin.
86
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 2
(Dollars In Millions)
TITLE: New Industrial Pollution Control Process (i,ef> test
pulp plant waste treatment processes)
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: In-plant filtration and o.xydizatlon via aeration bacteria
action and/or non-polluting chemical oxydants would appear to
offer feasible and effective solutions,
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Wisconsin (or elsewhere)
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $50.0 FY '75 $50.0 FY '76 $25.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Industrial pollution and waste, particularly pulp plant wastes, were
seen in the gap analysis and the Acceleration Program to be a high
priority problem in the Great Lakes. The process to be demonstrated
will use EPA research and EPA seed money to obtain company Cor
institute) support of a test of an operational version of laboratory
processes,
87
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 3
(Dollars in Millions!
TITLE: New Waste Treatment Process (J,Q., add chemical to treatment
process)
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: Phosporus removal techniques using additives in a pre-
cipitation process need further testing in an operational context.
After precipitation, removal disposal or potential re-use must
be tested.
INITIAL ACTIVITY:
STATE(S):
GEOGRAPHIC AREA:
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $50.0 FY '75 $50,0 FY '76 $50.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
The addition of chemicals to present treatment plants offers an
opportunity to obtain secondary/tertiary treatment without major
plant changes. The suggested project will permit operating person-
nel to use and evaluate such additives over a year of plant opera-
tion. Various techniques of phosphrous precipitation collection
and disposal need to be tested for low cost effectiveness.
88
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 4
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Mechanical Beach Grooming
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project is directed to the fabrication and use of
a mechanical beach grooming device. Cladophora algae now is serious
on the beaches of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Grooming of beaches
will encourage their use by the bathing public.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): One beach in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New York
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lake Ontario or Erie
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $.6M FY '75 $1.5M FY '76 $2.0M
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
This project represents an interim solution to obtain immediate
visability of the program's efforts to clean up a serious problem.
To maximize results at minimal cost, it is important to designate
a beach that is basically healthful, where the currents enhance our
objective, where bathing facilities are in place and where the
problem is unsightly algae.
The project can be demonstrated on one beach in FY 1973. If funds
are not available from other sources, Section 15 can be refunded
in FY 1974, FY 1975 and FY 1976 to cover 2, 5 and then 7 beaches.
89
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 5
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Improved Pollution Monitoring
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: State officials indicate that the present monitoring
systems are not sufficient to establish pollution conditions before
and after treatment plants are put on-line. Remote sensor tech-
niques should be explored in a search for a new monitoring system.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York or Michigan
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York or Muskegon, Michigan
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $.2M FY '75 $1.0M FY '76 $.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
A monitoring project employing remote sensing in coordination with
present EPA and New York information could demonstrate what elements
of the New York, NASA, USDA, etc., programs can be effectively com-
bined. The purpose will be to monitor land and water in order to
maintain a continuous surveillance of pollutants and the environment
and to monitor short lived, unpredictable ecological disasters.
A somewhat less extensive project could be mounted near Muskegon.
In FY 1974 and FY 1975, the analysis can be extended to the imple-
mentation problems in the other 7 great lakes states. Actual imple-
mentation should be funded under a new section or an expanded Section
15.
90
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 6
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE; Improved Septic Tank Operations
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project is directed to several actions intended to
improve the operation of septic tanks where the community served
is below the economical threshhold size for a practical treatment
plant. The improvement program includes better septic tank design,
potential use of chemical additives and regular collection program
for residual sludge.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York or Michigan
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York or Upper Michigan
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY ' 74 $.5M FY ' 75 $2.0M FY '76 $10.OM
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Small communities may be causing pollution of significance relative
to their environment. The construction of even the smallest treatment
plant may be too big for the community and may encourage undesirable
land development (more polluters). This project would demonstrate
a combination of improved septic tank design (or modifications),
use of chemical additives to improve treatment and specified periodic
collection. Preliminary results should be obtainable 1n 6 months
and a seasonable assessment at the end of 12 months. Other communities
can be addressed in subsequent years.
91
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Detention Basins for Overflows
CLASS: Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION: This project involves a series of detention basins
intended to retain storm and combined flows that the present system
cannot handle. The available processing plants are more than capable
of handling projected flows if peaks can be smoothed through the
construction of these Basins.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Indiana, Ohio, N.Y., Mich., Wise.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA:
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $50.0 FY '75 $25.0 FY '76 $IQ.Q
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Detention Basin projects of this size have not been funded to prove
full scale feasibility. The construction of the Basins would
immediately stop unprocessed overflows into the Great Lakes and result
in a clean up action of high visibility, similar efforts may be found
appropriate in other states and locations.
92
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 8
CDollars in Millions)
TITLE; Short-Term Local Coordination
CLASS: Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: This project is intended to show that cooperative arrange-
ments between local bodies can be encouraged in order to attack
their mutual pollution problems more effectively. The purpose is
to strengthen similar efforts elsewhere employing the same or
even different institutional solutions.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Cleveland
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $.3 FY 75 $.4 FY '76 $.5
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
The problems of local cooperation are complicated by a multiplicity
of agencies, fragmented responsibilities and differing personalities.
EPA needs to establish the image of helping local governmental units
with their pollution problems in terms of the problems as they are
seen locally. Considerable effort must be taken to support a few
local areas in order to develop techniques and acceptance for EPA
efforts at the local level.
Each metropolitan situation tends to be different in many respects.
What is needed is the ability to practice organizational entre-
preneurship. Knowledgeable and sympathetic people can build rapport,
communication channels and modified or new institutions if required.
It has been found that good ideas are in turn transplantable to
other environments with favorable publicity and a helping hand.
93
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 9
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Middle-term State Coordination
CLASS: Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: This project envisages an effort to bring water quality
institutions at the state level in closer coordination with state
planners and through them, regional and local planners. The purpose
is to work within a state to suggest new institutions, better lines
of communications and both shorter lines of command and better
coordination. Experience in one state can be used as illustrative
in the other Great Lakes states.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: State
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $.5 FY '75 $.5 FY '76 $.5
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION
Major solutions of institutional problems in implementing water quality
programs must be attacked at the state level. State planning fre-
quently has (or can get) powers over land use that can greatly enhance
the powers given to water quality managers. State planners also
often have planning mandates with respect to local and regional
programs. State planning is a natural focus for land, water and
resources in the state. It is also a logical center for population
and industry location. It can also be the place to initiate new
control, regulation or pricing techniques to support water quality
management. New institutions at the local level can only be built
state-wide by dealing with the state government. This program
must envisage a 3 year effort at a minimum. Such middle range
institutional planning is appropriate at this point in time.
94
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 10
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE; Intra-State Regional Institutions
CLASS: Institutional and Financial
DESCRIPTION: This project requires the formulation in detail of the
character and responsibilities of a regional water quality manage-
ment authority. The concept should then be critically reviewed
for financial foundations, regulatory powers and responsiveness
to its .constituency. Plans and models should be developed in order
to project its 5-10 year program. Finally, demonstration funding
from EPA should be available during its formative period of opera-
tions, if found desirable to activate the authority.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Wisconsin (or elsewhere)
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)
CONTINUING FUNDING; FY '74 $.1M FY '75 $.1 FY '76 $.1
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
There are a number of institutional issues that need to be addressed
if an intra-state regional body is to be effective and responsible
to its constituency. There are a number of tax, regulation, subsidy,
grant and R&D options that might be explored in presenting or treating
municipal, industrial and non-point sources of pollution. Plans
and. models need to be developed to develop and evaluate cost-effective
or cost-benefit programs. Some modest hardware in R&D, data collection
and like activities can be employed to test their contribution to
basin management of water quality. Consideration should also be
given to broadening the Interests of the regional body from water
quality to a total range of environmental protection services.
The authority should also be reviewed in terms of pending or new
water quality legislation.
95
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT % 11
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Multi-Agency Basin Clean Up
CLASS: Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION: A major opportunity in Sec. 15 is found in the possibility
of planning a multi-agency basin clean up program. Sec. 15 money
should be used to address a basin plan and to marshall EPA Sec. 8
and other funds as well as funds from other Federal and state agencies.
The demonstration should develop the processes, institutions and
financial arrangements to attach a multi-dimensional total basin
clean up with milestones and a completion date.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio and Indiana a)
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Maumee River a)
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $25.0 FY '75 $100.0 FY '76 $300.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
This project can be used to explore and develop inter-agency techniques
in order to develop a "critical mass" in overcoming basin pollution
in contrast to the present tendency to piecemeal efforts. An appro-
priately funded and timed program will have as visable and effective
an impact on a basin's water quality problems as several times
that same amount of money and effort would have if expended in
an uncoordinated way. A success in one area can certainly lead to
similar success in areas not half as difficult to manage as the
Maumee.
a) Illinois has suggested that an intergovernmental project might
be undertaken in that state to coordinate SCS, C of E, EPA, Illinois
EPA, NE Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago Municipal Sanitary
District.
Minnesota wants a multi-parameter attach to restore and maintain
the St. Louis River.
96
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 12
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Great Lakes System Overview
CLASS; Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: This project will develop a framework for reviewing con-
struction grants and discretionary projects in the Great Lakes
Basin through a system analysis overview of gross measures of pollutant
inputs, in stream and in lake residuals, population-industrial
changes and projected treatment plants. From an overview of needs,
R&D, projects, standards and objectives, a scheduled program of
overall goals can be structured for guidance purposes,
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S) 8 States in Great Lakes Basin
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Great Lakes Basin
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY ' 74 $.05 FY ' 75 $.05 FY ' 76 $.05
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
EPA Sec. 8 priorities are essentially established by the states
developing the projects. State priorities can easily be somewhat
less than optimal from an overall EPA point of view. If an overall
updated framework of needs and priorities based on improving tech-
nologies, better measurements of pollutants and the ecological
environment and Interstate coordination can be constructed, EPA
can furnish guidance to the states in the development of the priorities,
Local and state considerations should continue to be reflected
by the state programs but with a full understanding of the conse-
quences of their impacts on the Great Lakes. The same overall frame-
work can be used to direct discretionary funded projects to maximize
program objectives. After the initial study only modest updating
is anticipated.
97
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 13
(Dollars in Millions)
TITLE: Cost-Effectiveness Curves for Increasingly Higher Standards
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: Cost-effectiveness curves relate costs and the level of
pollution control; interim goals envisage levels at 85% effective-
ness; ultimate objectives anticipate achieving 100% effectiveness.
The suggested project is aimed at developing the shape of such
curves for the principal pollutants entering a major lake.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): New York
OTHER PARTICIPANTS: IJC
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Lake Ontario
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $.2 FY '75 $.2 FY '76 $.1
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
Current standards covering a number of variables in the total
pollution problem have been set with the best judgment available
in order to get the total program underway as rapidly as possible.
Some attention should now be paid to the different cost-effectiveness
curves associated with the different parameters of the pollution
problem. The even rough quantification of such curves can help
establish the costs associated with increasing the severity of the
different standards, can guide R&D efforts, anticipate institutional
issues and anticipate total budget levels to realize national ob-
jectives. After Lake Ontario has been analyzed, the other major
lakes should be addressed. If 100 percent effectiveness in the
control of pollutants into the Great Lakes is to be achieved, it
is important to plan the paths and costs of getting there.
98
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 14
(Dollars In Millions)
TITLE: Total Small Lake Restoration
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: This suggested demonstration project will show the tech-
niques and costs of first achieving the 1985 standards and then
total restoration of a small lake. Techniques involved will relate
to municipal and industrial inputs and to lake bottom deposits.
Various methods must be included to cope with inputs and deposits
if restoration is to be achieved.
INITIAL ACTIVITY Note: Not selected at this time.
STATE(S):
GEOGRAPHIC
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY '74 $100.0 FY '75 $200.0 FY '76 $100.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
It is anticipated that cost-effective curves will tend to show
severely diminishing returns from increased expenditures as standards
are pushed higher and higher. Under such circumstances the problem
of what might be regarded as residual pollutants becomes a major
issue. The proposed plan will deal with the natural mechanisms
of the watersheds, water courses and lakes relative to the different
tolerance levels to different pollutants at different times. The
objective will be to move toward an optimal combination of man and
natural processes to cope with expensive residuals. The demonstra-
tion will indicate the effectiveness of state-of-the-art techniques,
This information can be used to scale the size of the total Great
Lakes job (either 1985 objectives or total restoration) and to
indicate critical areas of required research if total costs are
to be significantly reduced.
99
-------
SUMMARY
SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $ 15
(Dollars in Mi 11 ionsJ
TITLE: Agricultural Run-Off Management
CLASS: Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: Cornell and others have undertaken various studies on
new agricultural practices aimed at reducing the nutrient content
of agricultural run-off. Since lower net yields or higher costs
will apparently be realized it is necessary to plan the implementa-
tion of such practices. Various alternatives including subsidies,
regulation, tie-in to soil conservation, etc. programs need to be
reviewed for the optional route to the reduction of agricultural
run-off problems.
INITIAL ACTIVITY
STATE(S): Ohio or Maumee Basin (Including Indiana)
OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Cornell University and Ohio State University
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Up-state New York
CONTINUING FUNDING: FY ' 74 $1.0 FY '75 $5.0 FY '76 $10.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:
As a non-point source, agricultural run-off 1s a source of significant
nutrients going into rivers and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin.
The problem is to develop both agricultural practices that are
effective in reducing run-off problems and to find an economical
way to motivate the farmer to change his present methods of operation.
It is anticipated that if EPA attempts to undertake the entire
task, it will be both unnecessarily costly to EPA and inefficient.
A coordinated, inter-agency attack stimulated by Section 15 funds
may prove practical.
100
-------
SECTION XI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people were Instrumental in the performance of this study.
The 11st of people 1n EPA regional offices and state agencies who
contributed their time and thought is too long for inclusion here,
Nevertheless, their efforts are acknowledged and appreciated.
Mr. Ralph G. Christensen of the Region V office who was Project
Officer and Mr. Joseph A. Krivak of the Division of Planning and
Interagency Programs, Water Quality Office Headquarters, both
provided support and assistance throughout the project. Their
contribution is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
The field surveys were conducted by Dr. Allan H. Muir, Harold F. Wise
and H. Theodore Helntz, Jr. Analysis of the basic information on
pollution problems was performed by Kurt Hecht and Lucy Wallace.
Overall project management and supervision were provided by Harold
F. Wise and Dr. Allan H. Muir
101
-------
A STRATEGY FOR THE SECTION 15 PROGRAM
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
by
Harold F. Wise and Associates
1771 N Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20036
for the
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
May 1972
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
Page No.
A. Summaries of Indicative Pollution Problems 1.
in the Great Lakes Basin
B. Sample Questionnaire 165.
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARIES OF INDICATIVE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Note: Appendix A provides a summary of indicative pollution problems in
the Great Lakes area in tabular form. Available information on both the
basins of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario was relatively comprehensive. Scant
descriptions of the basins of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan as well as
some detailed area reports were the basis for information on these lakes.
Due to a lack of information on Lake Huron, a summary of its pollution
problems was not tabulated. The status of this lake is, however, briefly
discussed in the text of the report.
For each major pollution component (or cause) a table was established. A
distinction was also made between the tributary - shore water area and the
open lake water area.
The information collected in this appendix is not intended to be fully
complete or detailed. It was used to establish the major pollution prob-
lem types and to indicate the types of gaps that exist in current remedial
activities.
-------
Lake Superior
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
St. Louis
River.
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Municipal and industrial waste water
discharges
°Condition aggrevated by hydroelectric
plants through intermittent flow
restrictions
Magnitude
°Serious in the lower portion of the St.
Louis River, the Duluth-Superior Harbor
and Montreal River
°Inadequate sewage treatment facilities
"Hydroelectric plants restrict flow volumes
Pollution Problem: Phosphorus
Causes
°Industrial and municipal wastewater
discharge; agricultural runoff
Magnitude
°Greatest concentration in Duluth Harbor,
Two Harbors, Grand Marais, St. Louis River
and Montreal River
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Dissolved Oxygen
°Michigan
•Mmg/1
°Minnesota
47mg/l Oct.-May
*5mg/l Ju. -Sept,
"Wisconsin
$ 5mg/l
Insufficient treat-
ment
Capacities; and
facilities
Combined sewers
phosphorus removal
facilites in Duluth
Harbor, Grand Marais
and Two Harbors
°Michigan
no criteria
°Minnesota
no criteria
0Wisconsin
no criteria
°IJC
no criteria
High detergent input
High agricultural
runoff
Sewage
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Nitrogen
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
""Industrial & municipal wastewater
discharge; agricultural runoff
Magnitude
°Harbor areas more susceptible to effects
of effluents - concentrated in Duluth-
Superior Harbor, Grand Marais and Two
Harbors
General
St. Louis
River
Pollution Problem: Bacteria
Causes
°Municipal & Industrial sewage effluents
°Combined sewers
Magnitude
°Most severe in St. Louis River, Duluth-
Superior Harbor, Ashland area, Montreal
River
'Severe contamination
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
"Michigan
^ 45mg/l at
intake
°Minnesota
Ł 45 mg/1 for
public water
use
°Wiscons in
> 45mg/l
°IJC
no criteria
Additional nutrient
input but effect minor
uncertain relative to
phosphate inputs
°Michigan continues
disinfection &
separate sewer
systems
°Minnesota continues"
disinfection &
separate sewer
systems
°Wisconsin continues
disinfection &
separate sewer
systems
°Chlorination
capacity for storm
overflow
°Michigan
Fecal coliform
>100/100ml
Total coliform
>1000/100ml
°Minnesota
Fecal coliform
no criteria
Total coliform
>50 MPN
°Wiscons in
Fecal coliform
no criteria
Total coliform
> 1000/100 ml
°IJC
FC 5 200/100ml
TC > 1000/100ml
Sewage plant overflows
Insufficient treatment
Lade of disinfection
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Area
General
5t. Louis
*iver
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°From tributary inflow, erosion, runoff
°Dredging in Duluth & Ashland Harbors
Magnitude
"General 10 tons/mi 2/yr runoff
°Southern shore red clay area 380,000
°184,000
°184,000 tons/yr due to agricultural
°Taconite mining
tons/yr
runoff
Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Causes
°Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
°Not severe yet
°Beginning to concentrate in fish
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Watershed planning
Replanting
Contour plowing
Mining tailings
aesthetics turbidity,
destruction of bottom
fauna high heavy metal
input, enters into
adjacent municipal
water supply systems
DDT
.5ppm
DIELDRIN
.3ppm
in fish
-------
Lake
Water
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Dissolved Constituents
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
I
""Principally from industrial wastewaters
Magnitude
°Generally concentrated in harbor areas
such as Ashland & Duluth-Superior
Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Causes
Industrial, municipal discharges, discharges
from vessels
Magnitude
°Concentrated in harbor areas, especially
Duluth
10
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
""Michigan
* 200mg/l
°Minnesota
\ 500mg/l
°Wi scons in
> 750mg/l
200mg/l
State laws prohibit-
ing dumping of
refuse & garbage
from boats
problematic in harbor
areas
11
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Solid Disposals & Refuse
Area
General
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
"Discharge from watercraft
°Disposal in shore areas
Magnitude
°Concentrated in harbor areas
Pollution Problem: Other
"Mining Activities
- 151 mining operations in lake area
introduces taconite, sulphates, chlorides
& Generally ciscolers water
- especially severe on St. Louis River
°Radioacti vity : nuclear plants
- contamination water with radioactive
material
- produces thermal pollution
- not severe
0 pH Range
12
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Closing of E.W.Davis
Works
Settlement ponds for
mining water
States:
B Ł• 1000
- 3
S0
10
pH Range
Lake Superior States
6.5-8.8
IJC
6.7-8.5
13
-------
Lake Superior
Water Open Lake
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
°The lake itself is oligotrophic
Pollution Problem: Phosphorus
Causes
°Assimilated from polluted shore & tributary
waters
Magnitude
°Not severe concentration in lake
°No algal over production is cited
Pollution Problem: Nitrogen
No information
14
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Dissolved Oxygen
°Michigan
«6mg/l
°Minnesota
Ł7rog/l Oct.-May
«fc5mg/l Ju,-Sept,
°Wisconsin
1 mg/1
°Wiscons in
no criteria
°IJC
no criteria
Michigan
at intake
°Minnesota
145mg/l
for public water
use
(continued)
15
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Nitrogen
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Pollution Problem: Bacteria
Causes
°Discharge from commercial vessels (garbage
& refuse)
Magnitude
°Not severe in lake body
16
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
°Wiscons in
;f 45mg/l
°IJC
no criteria
°Michigan
Fecal coliform
MOO/100ml
Total coliform
^100/100 ml
°Minnesota
Fecal coliform
no criteria
Total criteria
>50MPN
°Wisconsin
Fecal coliform
no criteria
Total coliform
^1000/lOOml
°IJC
Fecal coliform
>100/100ml
Total coliform
* 1000/100ml
17
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Sediments
Area
Causes and Magnitude
No current problem
Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Detected but no major problem
Pollution Problem: Dissolved Constituents
Said to be very low
Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Not significant at this time
Pollution Problem: Solid Disposals & Refuse
No information available
18
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
"Michigan
4-200 mg/1
°Minnesota
*500 mg/1
°Wisconsin
Ł750 mg/1
°IJC
f 200 mg/1
19
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Other
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Genera'
upH Range
20
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Lake Superior states
6.5 - 8.5
IJC
6.7 - 8.5
-------
Lake_
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
Little
Calumet
River
Grand
Calumet
Ri ve r
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Untreated municipal
Magnitude
and industrial waste
0 Severe in lower portions of Fox River,
Little and Grand Calumet Rivers, Indiana
Harbor Canal and Indiana Harbor
0 Occurs periodically
Grand River, Menoini
River & Harbor, St.
Southern portion of
° Municipal
Plants operate at 1
BOD in effluents
0 Municipal
combined sewers
0 Industrial
BOD & COD
mean
DO
in portions of the
nee River, Milwaukee
Joseph River, and
Green Bay.
/2 capacity.
5-10 mg/1
30-1100 mg/1
35 mg/1
7.6 mg/1
At river mouth, DO mean saturation - 90%
22
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Milwaukee
Sewerage
Commi s s i on
Demonstration
Sewage plant
effl uent
chlorination
Facilities for
disinfection of
storm water over-
flow due by 1970.
Dissolved Oxygen
0 Illinois:
industrial
Jf. 2 mg/1
°Indiana
J!3 mg/1
°Michigan
*4 mg/1
"Wisconsin
* 4 mg/1
°IJC
4.6 rog/i
See Illinois
standard above
See Illinois
standard above
Untreated effluents
Insufficient treatment
(primary)
Combined storm sewers
No overflow capacity
Insufficient in-plant
treatment or lack of
interceptors
23
-------
Lake Michigan
25
-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
I.H.C.
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Wolf Lake
Causes and Magnitude
0 Combined sewers and plant effluent are
major polluters
BOD, 1969 mean 4.7 mg/1
COD, 1969 mean 22 mg/1
DO, 1969 mean 6.8 mg/1
0 Municipal
Plants operating 10% above capacity
BOD average 40 mg/1
DO, 1969 mean 10 mg/1
0 Industrial
Recently installed facilities
have reduced BOD load.
26
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Various facilities
under construction
See Indiana
standard above
Combined sewers
No storm water
storage capacity
See Indiana
standard above
Installation of
waste facilities
See Illinois
standard above
27
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phosphorus
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Grand
Calumet
River
East
Chicago
Sanitary
District
Causes
0 2/3 of total phosphates come from
untreated municipal and industrial wastes,
Approximately 15 Mill. Ibs/yr.
° 1/3 of total phosphates come from
agricultural run off.
Magnitude
0 Problem with overproduction of algae
which washes up on beaches and serves as
breeding ground for flies.
0 Severe on Fox, Little and
Grand Calumet Rivers, Kalamazoo River,
St. Joseph River, lower Green Bay, and
Indiana Harbor.
Municipal and industrial effluents
1969 Mean .053 mg/1
Waste treatment by chlorination
ineffective with increased ammonia inputs.
23
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Illinois shore area
}.04 mg/l/day
Indiana shore area
:k04 mg/1/day
High uses of phosphate
detergents
No phosphate removal
capabilities
Algae clutter beaches
and render them
unusable for recrea-
tion
Illinois: Calumet
& Chicago Area
>.1 mg/l/day
Storm water demon-
stration project:
Deepwater detention
Lagoon.
Guggenheim advanced
treatment plant
Advanced treatment
facilities needed to
meet standards.
29
-------
Lake_
Hater
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phosphorus
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Phosphate level
1969 mean
0 Phosphate level
1969 mean
.23 mg/1
.05 mg/1
30
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Phosphate removal
facilities to remove
80% of phosphates
to be ready by 1972.
Annual average
^ .016 mg/1
Daily average
4 .033 mg/1
Annual average
* .016 mg/1
Daily average
Ł .033 mg/1
Frequent violation of
time.
Quality standard not
met.
31
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Nitrogen
& Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Grand
Calumet
Ri ve r
Ammonia nitrogen 1969 mean .1 mg/1
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
0 Ammonia nitrogen 1969 mean 2.2 mg/1
0 Organic nitrogen 1969 mean .4 mg/1
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Ammonia nitrogen 1969 mean .12 mg/1
32
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
No information on
current status
0 Michigan
H5 mg/1 at
intake
0 Wisconsin
Ł45 mg/1/day
Annual average
^.05 mg/1
Daily average
5-12 mg/1
Annual average
Ł1.0 mg/1
Daily average
Ł1.5 mg/1
Annual average
Ł.05 mg/1
Daily average
* .12 mg/1
Violated 75% of time.
Violated 80% of time.
Violated 55% of time.
33
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Bacteria
& Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Municipal and industrial waste discharge.
0 Combined sewers' overflow.
Magnitude
0 Severe in lower portions of the Fox River,
St. Joseph River, Milwaukee River, Grand
River and Calumet area.
0 Has restricted or eliminated beach uses
near major urban/industrial areas.
34
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Illinois
Continuous disin-
fection of sewage
effluents.
Indiana
Continuous disin-
fection of sewage
effluents.
Michigan
Continuous disin-
fection of sewage
effluents.
Wisconsin
Continuous disin-
fection of sewage
effluents.
Illinois
Fecal coliform
*> 20/100 ml
Total coliform
no criteria.
Indiana
Fecal coliform
> 200/100 ml
Total coliform
no criteria.
Michigan
Fecal coliform
>100/100 ml
Total coliform
>1000/100 ml
Wisconsin
Fecal coliform
No criteria
Total coliform
J> 1000/100 nil
IJC
Fecal coliform
^200/100 ml
Total coliform
^1000/100 ml
Insufficient sewage
treatment
Insufficient capacity
Combined sewers
Chiorination not
consistent
35
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Grand
Calumet
Ri ver
0 Coliform Bacteria
1969 Mean
0 Fecal Streptococci
1969 Mean
0 Col i form Bacteria
1969 Mean
0 Fecal Streptococci
1969 Mean
0 Col i form Bacteria
1969 Mean
0 Fecal Streptococci
1969 Mean
32/100 ml
1700/100 ml
2282/100 ml
52/100 ml
125/100 ml
11/100 ml
36
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Calumet Conference:
C.B.
Annual Average
•Ł2000/100 ml
Daily Average
Ł5000/100 ml
F.S.
Daily Average
Ł100/100 ml
Violated 75% of time
Violated 65% of time
Violated 5% of time
Violated 5% of time
No Violations
No Violations
37
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pesticides
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Runoff in agricultural areas
0 Soil erosion
Magnitude
0 Severe in Green Bay watershed, SE
portion of Michigan watershed and NE
shore between Manistee and Traverse
City, Michigan.
38
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
DDT
Dieldrin
.5ppm
.3ppm
High levels tn portion
of watersheds
39
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Sediments
Area
General
Grand
Calumet
River
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Agricultural Runoff
0 Dredging in harbor areas
0 Urban runoff
Magnitude
0 U.S. Corps of Engineers, harbor dredging
approximately 1 1/2 Mill yds^/yr.
0 Suspended solids
1969 Mean 187 mg/1
0 Suspended solids in sewage, plant
discharge >40 mg/1
0 Suspen-ded solids
1969 Mean 19 mg/1
40
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some soil conserva-
tion measures
Disposal in dyked
areas
Alternate disposal
areas for Indiana
Harbor, Calumet
Harbor and Green Bay
Harbor.
Dumping in lake
Annual average
^ 190 mg/1
Daily average
25 230 mg/1
Difficulty of locating
areas suitable for
dyking and disposal
Possibly inappropriate
Violated 8% of the
time.'
Agricultural drainage
practices
(stream channelization
high speed runoff;
lack of vegetation
for water retention)
41
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Principle source is industrial wastewater
effluents.
Magnitude
0 Severe in Calumet Area, Milwaukee
Harbor, South End of Green Bay
0 Increase in organic chemicals, ammonia,
suspended matter, alkaline matter,
chlorides and sulfates.
Grand
Calumet
River
Dissolved solids, mean
194 mg/1
42
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
No information
0 Illinois
>170 mg/1
0 Indiana
$200 mg/1
0 Michigan
>200 mg/1
0 Wisconsin
}>500 mg/1
0 IJC
}>200 mg/1
Max. 230 mg/1
Min. 190 mg/1
Lack of precipitation
facilities
Inforcement
No info on percentage
of violations
43
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Hammond
Plant
Intake
0 Filterable Residue
1969 Mean
0 Dissolved Iron
1969 Mean
0 Sulfates
1969 Mean
0 Flourides
1969 Mean
0 Chlorides
1969 Mean
26.3 mg/1
.095 mg/1
5.7 mg/1
.29 mg/1
10.2 mg/1
44
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Ł 190
* 230
^, .15
-? .30
^ 36
*- 75
•Ł• 1.0
18
30
No violations.
Violation 16% of the
time.
No violations.
No violations.
No violations.
45
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
0 Filterable residue
0 Dissolved Iron
1969 Mean
° Sulfates
1969 Mean
0 Flourides
° Chlorides
1969 Mean
.17 mg/1
32 mg/1
28 mg/1
46
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Daily Ave. Ł 275
8% violation
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
0.15
0.3
60
75
1,0 mg/1
Ł 1.3
* 25
Ł 35
47
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Oil, Grease,
& Tributaries
Phenols
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Grand
Calumet
River
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Causes
0 Industrial effluents
0 Municipal Sewage
0 Oil Spills
0 Watercraft
Magnitude
0 Severe in
Mi Iwaukee
harbor areas,
and Gary.
such as Chicago,
Phenol substances
1969 Mean
Oil and Grease
1969 Mean
Phenol substances
1969 Mean
.015 mg/1
4.6 mg/1
.003 mg/1
48
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Insufficient
enforcement
Lack of removal
facilities from
municipal sewage.
Annual Average
Ł .005 mg/1
Daily Average
<Ł 0.1 mg/1
Annual Average
* .002 mg/1
Daily Average
^ .005 mg/1
Violated 72% of the
time.
Violated 24% of the
ti me ..
49
-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Solid Disposal & Floating Refuse
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Refuse and garbage discharge from vyatercraft;
industrial discharge
Magni tude
0 Contaminates beach areas and navigation
areas
0 Contributes to bacterial pollution
50
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Lack of Enforcement
Difficult to enforce
51
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Others
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Alewifes
Alewifes are overproducing, taking food from
other fish and dying off in large numbers,
contaminating beaches and harbor areas.
0 Radioactivity
Potential threat with discharge from
nuclear plants.
0 Thermal pollution
Potential problem with water cooling
systems for nuclear plants.
0 Ph range
52
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
1000
<* *- 3
Strontium 90 10
Lake Michigan
states
6.5-8.5
IJC
6.7-8.5
General ecological
imbalance of lake
waters
No current problem
Local effects
High local variations
Lack of neutralization
Lack of compliance
53
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Phosphates - algal overproduction
Municipal & industrial BOD/COD inputs
Discharge from vessels - requirements
for on-board retention facilities
Magnitude
0 Not a severe problem in the lake itself
54
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Dissolved Oxygen
0 Illinois
4 5 mg/1
0 Indiana
{ 4 mg/1
0 Michigan
4 6 mg/1
0 Wisconsin
4- 5 mg/1
0 IJC
{ 6 mg/1
High phosphate/
nutrient input
55
-------
Lake Michigan
Water Open Lake
Pollution Problem Phosphorus
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Assimilated from polluted shore and
tributary inflow
Magnitude
0 Overproduction of algae in open lake
waters
56
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
0 Illinois
> .04 mg/l/day
0 Indiana
>.04 mg/l/day
no criteria for
Michigan and
Wisconsin
57
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Lake Michigan
Open Lake
Nitrogen
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
No information available
58
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
Illinois
total N
>.4 mg/1
Indiana
Michigan
>45 mg/1
i ntake
Wisconsin
45 mg/1
Currently no serious
problem
at
59
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Lake Michigan
Open Lake
Bacteria
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 discharge from commercial vessels
(garbage, refuse)
Magnitude
0 not severe on open lake
60
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
On-board sewage
retention and/or
treatment required
0 Illinois
Fecal coliform:
Ł20/100 ml
Total coliform:
no criteria
0 Indiana
Fecal coliform
Ł20/100 ml
Total coliform
no criteria
0 Michigan
Fecal coliform:
Ł100/100 ml
Total col i form
Ł1000/100 ml
0 Wisconsin
Fecal coliform:
no criteria
Total coliform:
>1000/100 ml
0 IJC
Fecal coliform:
>100/-100 ml
Total coli form
>1000/100 ml
No current problem
61
-------
Lake Michigan
Water Open Lake
Pollution Problem Sediments
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Dredged materials dumped in lake
Magnitude
No information available
62
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Disposal in dyked
areas
63
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Pes ti ci des
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Traces detected
64
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
DDT
Dieldrin.,
in fish
.5ppm
.Sppra
65
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Assimilated from shore and tributary
inflow
Magnitude
0 Average concentration of dissolved
constituents increasing in main body
of lake
66
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
' Illinois
>170 mg/1
1 Indiana
±200 mg/1
' Michigan
Ł200 mg/1
' Wisconsin
^500 mg/1
' IJC
^200 mg/1
No severe problem
although effects of
specific toxins are
not known.
67
-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Oil, Grease, Phenols
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 commercial vessels
0 oil spill
Magnitudes
0 not severe in open lake waters
68
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
69
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Solid Disposal & Floating Refuse
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 garbage and refuse from watercraft
Magnitude
0 no information available
70
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
No information
Interferes with
boating
71
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Other
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Alewife
See .tributaries and shore waters
0 Radioactivity
Not a problem lake-wide
0 Thermal Pollution
See shore waters and tributaries
0 Ph range
72
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Lake Michigan
States:
6.5-8.5
IJC:
6.7-8.5
73
-------
Lake Erie
75
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
I
°Combined or combined-separated sewers (approx.
90%); no sewage facilities
°Inadequate sewer system - bypassing of plants
°Storm overflows
Magnitude
°705,000 people produce 183,000 Ibs. raw
bods/day. About 80% of sewage plants provide
secondary treatment, reducing total bod5 to
approx. 25,000 Ibs. /day.
0 Inputs vary along the tributaries. An
estimated 75% of the tributaries receive
sufficient waste to reach less than 4 mg/1
do 50% of the time.
°Input to Lake Erie at Toledo: 0-1.0 mg/1 do
40-100% of the time.
°Total input at Toledo: 40,000 Ibs/day bod (1968)
76
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Total of 45 sewage
facilities in basin
36 secondary bio-
logical treatment
5 oxydation lagoons
2 intermediate
treatment
2 primary treatment
11 minor treatment
Dissolved Oxygen
°0hio
4 5 mg/1 daily
4. 4 mg/1 at any time
77
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee River
&
Toledo
The Maumee-Basin-Todedo complex is the third
largest contributor of U.S. municipal wastes
to Lake Erie - 3.5% (Detroit 65%, Cleveland
9.0%)
Causes
°Pulp, food processing waste, reducing
chemicals, sewage
Magnitude
°Minimum BOD contribution (1966) 15,000 Ibs/day
°Minimum COD contribution (1966) 12,000 Ibs/day
°Total in basin 27,000 Ibs/day
°Total sub-basin BOD,COD production
- 15% of total basin production or
approximately 190,000 Ibs/day = 32,000 tons/yr
°Total estimated input at Toledo: 50,000 - 100,000
Ibs/day
- BOD/COD or approximately 9,000-18,000 tons/yr
•
°Blanchard River is anaerobic in stretches
78
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Industrial waste
treatment being in.
stituted
Dissolved Oxygen
°0hio
X- 5 mg/1 daily
<=P- 4 mg/1 at any-
time
Effluents do not meet
general standards
Lack of in-plant BOD
and COD removal
facilities
Possible lack of re-
cycling facilities
Aeration settling
lagoons
79
-------
Lake
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Water
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
Area
Southeast
Michigan
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Municipal, industrial, storm sewer overflow,
insufficient treatment
°Lake St. Claire heavily polluted through
storm sewer overflow, especially Clinton
River
°City of Detroit mostly primary treatment
°Daper mills, Raisin River
Magnitude
°Detroit & Wayne Co. discharge more BOD than
Lake Erie could assimilate
°City of Detroit plant contributes 95% of
municipal waste to Detroit River
°Area contributes 60% of total BOD of entire
basin, or approximately 100,000 tons/yr
°Pulp input, Raisin River, of 225,000 popula-
tion, equivalent BOD or 6,700 tons/yr
80
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Basically primary
treatment
Sewer extention &
interceptor program
proposed (1968)
Storm sewer overflows
Lack of secondary
treatment
Direct discharges from
paper mills
Dissolved Oxygen
0 Michigan
Jfi 5 mg/1 daily
Lack of sufficient
treatment facilities
mg/1
time
at any-
81
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Cleveland-
Akron Area
Causes
°Municipal and industrial
Magnitude
°BOD/COD output second to Detroit - all
bathing beaches (except Huntington)
polluted
°Rivers locally chocked with rotting organic
masses
°Input of 11.0% of total lake BOD - 110,000
tons/yr
°Lower Cuyahogh River - virtually a waste
treatment lagoon, very high BOD - inadequate
treatment of Cleveland southerly plant &
storm overflows
°Rocky River - few inadequate plants; no
area wide system, foul, interferes with
recreational park uses
°Cleveland Lakefront - constant overflow of
raw sewage even in dry weather, floating
BOD material, debris, etc.
82
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Lack of treatment
capacity
Lack of storm overflow
capacity
No disinfection
No areawide sewer
system
Lack of capacity - even
primary
83
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Pennsylvania
Causes
°Papermill wastes extend for 10 miles 4
foam, odor, discoloration, BOD - requires
excessive treatment to Erie's raw water
supply
New York
°Buffalo River
municipal and
Zero oxygen
- resembles holding basin for
industrial sewage & wastes.
and almost sterile
'Cattaraugus Creek - similar conditions
beaches - rocky but covered with algae
84
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Dissolved Oxygen
0 Pennsylvania
«& 6 mg/1 daily
«Ł. 5 mg/1 at any-
time
Lack of Settling
basins, areation-
treatment
Dissolved Oxygen
°New York
-Ł4 mg/1 at any-
ti me
Absence of effluent
treatment
No Phosphorus removal
85
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phosphates
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee Basin
&
Toledo
SouthEast
Mi chi gan
Causes
°Municipal (sewage, detergents)
Industrial (detergents, chemical wastes)
°Urban (runoff)
°Agricultural (primarily fertilizers)
Magnitude
Municipal (2) 10,000 lbs/day=l,750 tons/yr
Industrial (2) 1,000 lbs/day= 750 tons/yr
Urban (2) 1,000 lbs/day= 750 tons/yr
Agricult. (1) 10,000 1bs/day=2,000 tons/yr
Total Maumee Basin Input 6,050 tons/yr
Causes
'Primarily municipal Detroit sewage plant -
largest source in Lake Erie
Magnitude
Municipal
Industrial
Urban
Rural
Total
7,800 tons/yr
510 tons/yr
510 tons/yr
510 tons/yr
9,500 tons/yr
Other Estimates (4) Detroit River 17,500 tons/yr
Rural Runoff 500 tons/yr
86
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
None
None
Some soil conserva-
tion measures
°0hio
no criteria
°IJC
no criteria
°Lake Erie
Agreement
.025 mg/1
High inputs vs
desirable assimilation
capacity
Municipal: no treat-
ment facilities
High use of phosphate
detergents
Industrial: possible
lack of sufficient
precipitation facilities
Use of phosphate
detergents
None
°Michigan
no criteria
°IJC
no criteria
°Lake Erie
Agreement
.025 mg/1
Lack of removal
facilities
87
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters.& Tributaries
Phosphates
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Cleveland
Akron Area
Contributes 18.6% of total Lake Erie input
New York
Buffalo River - high concentrations resulting
in heavy mats of plants and algae
88
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
°0hio
no specific
criteria;
water must be
free from dis-
charges causing
a "nuisance".
°Pennsylvania
^.1 mg/1
°IJC
none
°Lake Erie
Agreement
.025 mg/1
°New York
no criteria
°IJC
none
°Lake Erie
Agreement
.025 mg/1
Too high phosphate
input. Lack of
removal facilities
89
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Nitrogen
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee
Basin
Southeast
Michigan,
Detroit
Causes
°Municipal Sewage
°Industrial Waste (ammonia, nitrate, urea,
polymeres, others)
0Agriculture (organic nitrogen, nitrate)
Magnitudes
°Municipal
0 Industrial
Total, Min
°Agricultural
Organic
Nitrate
Minimum Total
Causes
No Data
6,200 Ibs/day = 1,100 tons/yr
500 tons/yr
11,700 tons/yr
13,300 tons/yr
°Municipal, rural runoff, some industry
Magnitude
0Detroit sewage plant 120,000 tons/yr
°Michigan Runoff 1,000 tons/yr
90
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
Possible 'some
precipitation
Some soil conserva-
tion measures
0 Michigan
45 mg/1
at
intake; or
limited to
extent necessary
to prevent
adverse effects
'IJC
no criteria
High inorganic inputs
resulting in P^
changes, toxic, & non-
decay able organic
components.
Lack of neutralization
precipitation
Nitrogen appears to
be less critical an
input than phosphates
will also equilibriate
with atmosphere.
None
3Michigan
} 45 mg/1 at in-
take; or limited
to extent
necessary to
prevent adverse
effects
'IJC
no criteria
91
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Nitrogen
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Cleveland -
Akron Area
Cuyahoga River - ammonia discharges
92
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
°0hio
"free from sub-
stances which
are toxic or
harmful" and
"free from
materials
which create a
nuisance"
"Pennsylvania
free from "ma-
terials that
are harmful,
produce color,
taste or odor".
Lack of neutraliza-
tion of ammonia
input
93
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
Area
Maumee
River
Basin
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Sewage
Magnitude
°Total Col i form -
the Maumee River & Tributary
Reservoir are heavily polluted. About 80%
of the monitored
rivers carry a median of
more than 100/100 ml. total col i form.
°In about one quarter of the stretches, con-
centrations are
°Input at Toledo
10,000/100 ml.
0 Fecal Col i form
°Streptococci
"Salmonella
about 10,000/100 ml
at a concentration of above
50% of stretches 0-500/100 ml.
15% of stretches 10.000+/100 ml.
at Toledo, input 10.000+/100 ml.
15% 0-500/100 ml
15% 500-1 ,000/
40% 1, 000-5 ,000/
30% 5,000+
at Toledo, input 5,000/100 ml.
present
94
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
Total
°Michigan
}> 1000/100 ml
°IJC
HOOO/100 ml
Fecal
0 Michigan
^100/100 ml
°IJC
Ł200/100 ml
no information
no information
Lack of disinfection
Insufficient treatment
capacity
Lack of disinfection
Lack of advanced
treatment
95
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters
Bacteria
& Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Southeast
Mi chi gan
Causes
°Sewage
Magnitude
°East Detroit River, Canada, some
tion. Detroit River below Rouge
Cleveland-
Akron Area
hazardous. Counts run as high
Rivers & lake fronts very high
contamina-
River is
as 1 mill/100 ml
96
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
0 Michigan
4-1000/100
ml
°IJC
^1000/100 ml
Lack of treatment
capacity'
°0hio
no
No disinfection
criteria
0 Pennsylvania
^1000/100 ml
97
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Sediments
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee Basin
Causes
'Agriculture - drainage practices intensive
culture
0Urban - runoff development, highway con-
struction
Industrial Mining
Magnitude
Maumee has highest sediment discharge of
any river in the Erie Basin (3). It also
carries the finest sediments carried over
large areas of the lake.
'Average suspended sediment load (3) approx-
imately 2 million tons/yr
'Agriculture - major contributor
'Urban site development & Highway construction
high local contributions
'Industrial - no information
98
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some soil conserva-
tion measures
None
None
No information on
State, Federal or
International
level
Turbidity
None
None
Rapid filling of
dredged channels
Destruction of spawn-
ing beds
Destruction of bottom
fauna.
Reduction of light
penetrati on
Lack of runoff
control
(2) Urban development
construction
(3) Highway construc-
tion
(1) Agricultural
drainage & channeliza-
tion
Appropriate agricul-
tural practices
99
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Sediments
Erie
Shore Water & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Southeast
Michigan Area,
Detroit
Cleveland-
Akron Area
Causes
Industrial, municipal, dredging
Magnitude
'Detroit River suspended solids (3) 45,000
tons/yr (industrial & municipal)
Cleveland Lakefront - suspended solids
(organics)
Rocky River - interference with water uses - from
subdivision & highway construction
100
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
No information on
State, Federal or
International
Level
Ordinances lacking
or not enforced
Ohio State Highway
Department requires
now prevention, con-
trol , abatement of
erosion during
construction
No information on
State, Federal or
International Level
Lack of municipal
treatment capacity
Lack of industrial
removal.
Lack of runoff pre-
vention
101
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Pesticides
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee River
Basin
Southeast
Michigan Area
Causes
°Agricultural practices
Magnitude
'Problem recognized as dangerous to aquatic
life & water users.
'No quantitative information
Present, but no quantitative data available
102
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None
No information
Ohio standards
on
Agricultural practices
and runoff use of
persistent pesticides
No information
on Michigan
standards
103
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Dredged Material
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee River
Baisn
Southeast
Michigan Area
Causes
°Harbor dredging
Magnitude
"Approximately 1 mill c. yds/yr from Maumee
River discharges into diked areas or open
waters
Causes
°Harbor dredging
Magni tude
'Raisin River has high input of settleable
organic solids, dredged annually
'Grand Haven Harbor - highly polluted dark
sludge 100,000 yds3/yr
104
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Discharge to diked
areas.
Regulations now
require disposal
in diked areas
None
Open discharges
to be discontinued
High sediment loads
Toxic sediments dug to
industrial & municipal
wastes
Destruction of marshes
and bottom fauna
Discharge in lake
filling of marshes
105
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phenols, Oil, Grease
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee River
Basin
Southeast
Michigan Area,
Detroit
New York
Causes
'Industrial discharges & spills
Magnitude
°In approximately 80% of monitored rivers
phenol concentrations are above 2 nricrogms/1
and in stretches higher than 20 microgms/1
at Toledo the mean lies between G-20 microgms/1
'Oils are present
St. Clair River shows elevated phenol counts
stemming from Canadian refineries
City of Detroit sewage plant discharges oil and
phenol
Buffalo River - oils, phenols under very
sluggish flow conditions
Oils from Pennsylvania R.R. shops enter via
Buffalo Creek
106
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
No information
No information
°0hio
no criteria
°LJC
*>.001 mg/1
0 Michigan
Ł.005 mg/1
°IJC
^.001 mg/1
°New York
^.005 mg/1
°IJC
>.001 mg/1
Lack of phenol removal
Lack of enforcement
Lack of urban disposal
facilities or disposal
enforcement
Lack of enforcement
107
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Maumee River
Basin
Southeast
Michigan Area
Detroit
Causes
°Primarily industrial inputs including
solids, mercury, zinc, cyanid, others
Magnitude
'Solids, approximately measured
336,620 Ibs/day
'Dissolved salts, metals, min. of
18 Ibs/day
'Cyanide
38 Ibs/day
Information scattered
°Chlorides - area applies 51% of total lake
input Detroit River 3.3 mill tons/yr
Rest Michigan 4500 tons/yr
°Iron - Lake St. Clair & upper Detroit River
320-690 mg/1 probably of natural origin.
"Cyanide - Raisin River, Ford Company
1000 Ibs/day
108
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Industrial removal
facilities are said
to be put in effect
°0hio
4> 500 mg/1
monthly average
°IJC
^200 mg/1
Lack of removal of
settlement filtration
precipitation separa-
tion and/or washing
"Michigan
mg/1
Apparently being
reduced
0 Michigan
no criteria
IJC
.3 mg/1
109
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Dissolved Constituents
Area
Northeast
Ohio Area
New York
Causes and Magnitude
Severe chemical pollution in Grand and
Ashtabula Rivers and along lake shore J
Locally waters are green, yellow, white, brown.
°Grand River dissolved solids 3,000 tons/day
°Ashtabula dissolved solids, milky white,
brown
Buffalo River - iron, organic compounds,
other metals/sacts
no
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
No information
°0hio
^750 mg/1 at
anytime
°IJC
^200 mg/1
°New York
no criteria
available
°IJC
i.200 mg/1
Lack of removal of
solids
Lack of neutralization
precipitation
Lack of enforcement
Lack of enforcement
111
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Other
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
upH range particularly severe in Buffalo
River
112
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
pH Range
0Michigan
6.5-8.8
°New York
6.5-8.8
°0hio
6.0-8.8
Pennsylvania
7.0-9.0
°IJC
6.7-8.5
Lack of neutralization
and/or precipitation
113
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Municipal, industrial sewage/nutrient
inputs.
0 Vessel wastes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
0 Total municipal and industrial
BOD load 430,000 t/yr
0 Epilymnion stays oxygenated usually
through atmospheric interchange, despite
heavy algal growth and decay.
0 Hypolymnion: severe oxygen depletion
in summer; 70% of bottom waters near
zero. Eastern basin usually stays above
50% saturation.
0 Contribution of BOD from commercial
traffic 210 Ibs/day
from pleasure boats 1000 Ibs/day
0 Oxygen depletion and other pollutants
may contribute to annual alewife deaths
114
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Dissolved Oxygen
0 Michigan
-fc-5 mg/1 daily
i.4 mg/1 at any-
time
0 New York
•^5 mg/1 at any-
time
0 Ohio
*-5 mg/1 dai ly
4>4 mg/1 at any-
time
0 Pennsylvania
•f-6 mg/1 dai ly
4-5 mg/1 at any-
time
Severe eutrophic bottom
conditions in summer.
Provision and enforce-
ment of vessel dis-
charges.
Faunal imbalance
115
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Phosphorus
Area
General
Causes and
Causes
0 Municipal sewage, detergents.
sources, agricultural runoff.
Magnitude
0 Total input, 1970
Retention, 94%
Municipal
Industrial
Urban runoff
Rural runoff
0 Average concentration
Western basin
Central basin
Eastern basin
° Surface
Magnitude
i
industrial
27,500 t/yr
23,000 t/yr
18,500 t/yr
2,500 t/yr
1 ,500 t/yr
5,000 t/yr
50 mg/1
30 mg/1
20 mg/1
1 . 1 g/m2/yr
0 Near shore phosphate concentrations
may be double or triple lake
values.
Average Seasonal Concentrations (ug/1)
Season Maumee South
Bay Nearshore
Winter 110 150
Spring 25 50
Summer 95 50
Fall 90 50
Mid NE
Basin Sector
55 20
25 20
40 20
30 20
16
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Lake Erie Agreement
.025 mg/1
Pervasive use of
phosphate detergents.
Agricultural practices
.13 g/mjr/yr
.28 g/m2/yr - dan-
gerous and criti-
cal level.
If reduced to .39 g/m2/
yr. Lake Erie might
return to mesotrophic
condition.
117
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution
Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Nitrogen
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Sewage, organic and inorganic industrial
wastes, organic and inorganic agricul-
tural runoff
Magnitude
0 Total input
Retention
Municipal/industrial
Agricultural runoff:
Western basin
Central basin
Eastern basin
0 Shore: organic nitrogen
concentrations are variable
average in summer
average in winter
176,000 t/yr
89,000 t/yr
60,000 t/yr
740 mg/1
470 mg/1
470 mg/1
400 mg/1
700 mg/1
118
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
0 Michigan
*45 mg/1 at in-
take
0 New York
no quantitative
criteria
0 Ohio
Free from toxic
or harmful
substances
0 Pennsylvania
Free from toxic
substances
Although an important
nutrient, impact of
nitrogen is unclear
relative to phosphates.
High inputs related to
agricultural practices
and industrial dis-
charges.
119
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Bacteria
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Raw sewage
Magnitude
0 Severe around harbors of Detroit,
Cleveland and Buffalo
0 Counts may exceed 1 mi 11/100 ml
0 At least 1/3 of Lake Erie shore area
is continuously or intermittently
contaminated.
0 Closing of many beaches along lake
0 Causes unpleasant taste and
odor; serious on shores near
industrial/municipal areas
when > 200 (CCE) mg/1
120
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
None for open lake;
See tributary inflow
0 Michigan
Fecal Coliform
V100/100 ml
Total Coliform
^1000/100 ml
0 New York
Fecal Coliform
no criteria
Total Coliform
^2400/100 ml
0 Ohio
Fecal Coliform
$200/100 ml
Total Coliform
no criteria
0 Pennsylvania
Fecal Coliform
no criteria
Total Coliform
^1000/100 ml
0 IJC
Fecal Coliform
}>200/100 ml
Total Coliform
Ł1000/100 ml
Lack of sufficient
treatment capacity.
Storm overflows
Lack of disinfection
121
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Sediments
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Agricultural runoff; natural erosion
0 Municipal/industrial solids
Magnitude
0 Total suspended sediments
and solids
0 Shore erosion
24 mill t/yr
15 mill t/yr
0 Siltation is higher than in other
Great Lakes.
0 Dredging - total
Cleveland Harbor
Toledo
0 Agricultural runoff
0 Turbidity:
Central basin - intermediate
Eastern basin - cleanest
0 Organic content of deepwater
sediments:
Western basin
Central basin
9 mill t/yr
1 mill t/yr
1.3 mill t/yr
8 mill t/yr
.2%
.2% - 3.6%
122
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some erosion
measures
Accelerated agricul-
tural erosion possibly
related to high speed
drainage systems.
Open lake dumping of
dredged spoils.
Insufficient removal of
organic solids from
municipal and
industrial sewage
effluents.
123
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Pesticides
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Agricultural use
Magnitude
At present no quantitative data can
be found.
Concentration of pesticides in fish
does not exceed FDA standards, yet
most fish for human consumption have
been removed from the market.
Pesticide input is probably partially
responsible for changing fauna i.e.
fewer species.
124
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Specific impacts
known.
not
In fish:
DDT .5 ppm
Dieldrin .3
ppm
125
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Dissolved
Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Industrial, municipal wastes
Agricultural and natural runoff.
Magnitude
0 Input:
Total dissolved solids
Chlorides
-Industrial
Sulfates
Mercury
0 Concentrations:
Western basin
Central basin
Eastern basin
Cadmium
Magnesium
Sodi urn
Potassium
Sulfate
Chloride
CaC03
Fluoride
35 mill t/yr
4.4 mill t/yr
1.9 mill t/yr
1.9 mill t/yr
15,000 Ibs/yr
170 mg/1
185 mg/1
190 mg/1
38 mg/1
8 mg/1
.2 mg/1
2 mg/1
26 mg/1
25 mg/1
112 mg/1
.11 mg/1
126
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
0 Michigan
>200 mg/1
0 New York
no criteria
0 Ohio
500 mg/1
monthly average
750 mg/1 at any-
time
0 Pennsylvania
4> 500 mg/1
monthly average
^•750 mg/1 at any-
time
0 IJC
^200 mg/1
Lack of sufficient
neutralization and/or
precipitation facilities
Lack of prevention of
agricultural runoff.
127
-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Oil, Grease, Phenols
Area
General
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Oil refineries; steel plants
0 Vessel discharges
0 Urban runoff and sewage
Magnitude
0 Oil and steel companies discharge
continuously.
0 Estimates of total input and concentra-
tion do not appear to be available.
Pollution Problem: Solid Disposal, Refuse
Causes
0 Dumping of trash along tributaries and
shore is widespread.
Magnitude
0 Debris interferes with navigation and
boating.
0 Spoils banks and lake fronts.
128
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Compliance.
Enforcement.
Disposal facilities
(urban).
Provisions for re-
moving oil from
municipal sewage.
Aesthetic nuisance.
129
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Other
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Aci ds
Continuous input from tributary and
shore located industries.
0 pH varies from 1.0 - 12.6
Severe local effects
0 Alkalinity throughout lake
approximately 100 mg/1 CaCOo
*
0 Radioactivity appears to be increasing;
no quantitative data available
0 Heat inputs from local power plants.
130
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
pH range
0 Michigan
6.5 - 8.8
0 New York
6.5 - 8.8
0 Ohio
6.0 - 8.5
0 Pennsylvania
7.0 - 9.0
0 IOC
6.7 - 8.5
Apparently no radio-
activity problems.
131
-------
Lake Ontario
133
-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Niagara
Genese
Magnitude
0 Large volume of flow dilutes most wastes
0 Especially high inputs below Grand Island
0 Some pulp waste
0 Buffalo River discharges pollute for 6
miles downstream
0 Niagara Falls; scum and sewage odor
0 Lower Niagara River: accumulation and
decay of algae
Total BOD5, COD5
90% from industries
Treatment efficiency
Municipalities
Industries
100,000 Ibs/day
90,000 Ibs/day
45%
35%
0 Lower river, summer almost devoid of DO
BOD concentrations 20 mg/1
0 Frequent fish kills from Rochester
primary sewage input.
134
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Total of 31 sewage
facilities on Lake:
9 with primary
treatment;
2 with oxidation
lagoon;
18 with secondary
treatment; and
2 with no treatment
Of 6 U.S. plants:
4 with primary
treatment;
1 with secondary
treatment;
1 with no treatment
Dissolved Oxygen
New York
4 mg/1 at any-
time
IJC
6 mg/1
Very high local BOD
(pulp, papermill) load.
High nutrient input
and algal congestion:
-Rochester beaches
-Water intakes
Insufficient treatment
capacity.
Lack of industrial
BOD/COD treatment
facilities.
135
-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Oswego
Black River
St. Lawrence
River
BOD waste discharges
Municipal
Industrial
Lake Onondaga, below 25' depth
BOD5
Raw and partially treated
municipal and industrial
waste
60%
40%
0 mg/1 oxygen
15 mg/1
0 Lake Oneida
Advanced state of eutrophication
0 Finger Lakes
Controlled outlets; relatively large
lake volumes which results in better
water quality.
Local pollution sources
0 Barge Canal
Serious oxygen depletion
0 Seriously polluted; mainly from pulp
mills 90%
Papermill discharges DO 0-4 mg/1
Total input
Oxygen concentration remains near
saturation due to turbulence
and mixing.
.7 mill t/yr
BOD, COD
8.0-12.0 mg/1
136
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some limitation on
industrial and muni
cipal construction
Insufficient sewage
treatment; raw and
partially treated
sewage.
Anaerobic conditions
Advanced eutrophication
Little or no treat-
ment by industries.
30% reduction of BOD
possible by munici-
pal treatment
Local enforcement
Insufficient treatment,
removal and enforcement
Lack of in-plant BOD
removal ; pulp wastes
are major source of
oxygen depletion.
Local pollution sources
Point pollution.
137
-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem Phosphorus
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Oswego
St. Lawrence
River
0 Lake Onondaga
High algae population 100,000 cells/ml
despite high chloride contents.
0 Lake Oneida
Advanced eutrophication
Total phosphate input
0 Total input
0 Concentration
700,000 Ibs/yr
1,000 t/yr
.01-1.0 mg/1
St. Lawrence
Ri ve r
Pollution Problem: Nitrogen
Total input
9,000 t/yr
138
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
No treatment of
industrial discharge
0 New York
no criteria
available
0 IJC
no criteria
Lack of phosphate con-
trol and/or removal.
New York
no specific
criteria other
than statement
that water must
be free of toxic
material.
139
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Niagara
Genese
St. Lawrence
River
0 Highest counts near Niagara River's
mouth: '
Fecal coliform average
Downstream reaches
300/100 ml
1,000+7100 ml
0 Buffalo River contributes concentrations
of (median) 4,000-6,000/100 ml
Storm overflows
20,000/100 ml
Niagara Falls discharge raw sewage.
Rochester Bay - high counts
Measured values range from
(1966):
70-400/100 ml
140
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
New York
Fecal Coliform
no criteria
Total Coliform
t> 2400/100 ml
average
IJC
Fecal Coliform
iZOO/100 ml
average
Total Coliform
^.1000/100 ml
average
Insufficient treatment
capacity/quality.
Raw sewage input
Storm sewers have no
holding capacity for
overflows.
Closed beaches.
Local point sources.
141
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Sediments
Area
Niagara
Oswego
St. Lawrence
River
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Total sediments and dissolved solids
very high.
0 Lake Onondaga
Accumulation of organic and inorganic
wastes and precipitates.
0 Total solids .9 mill t/yr
0 Suspended solids 200,000 t/yr
Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Causes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
Present in tributaries and lake. In Genese
River there has been fish kills, which are
attributable to a specific phosphate pesti-
cide used in the area on potato crops.
142
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Very high sediment
load; organic material
turbidity.
Waste load too high as
compared to flushing
and assimilation
capacity.
Due to high flow
rate, no particular
problem.
Insufficient informa-
tion on inputs, cycle
in lake system, and
impact on fauna.
143
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dredged Material
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
0 Three deep draft harbors: Rochester,
Great Sodus Bay and Oswego.
Dredged annually.
Magnitude
0 Material is mostly from the Lake, clean
and does not pose a pollution problem.
However, dredged materials are deposited
in the Lake and not in dyked areas.
144
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
In-lake disposal
145
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oil, Grease, Phenols
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Niagara
St. Lawrence
Ri ver
Noticeable problem, especially in the
upper Niagara.
Of 29 mill Ibs. of oils discharges in
1967 into upper Niagara, 40% came from
municipal sewage effluents.
In 1968 approximately 32,000 Ibs./day
discharged into upper Niagara.
Taste and odor problems.
In the lower Niagara discharges as
high as 200 mg/1
average (1968) 100 mg/1
By 1971 oil discharges greatly reduced
except in the Buffalo River.
0 Phenols
1967 range
1.2-2.4 mg/1
146
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
High inputs by indi-
vidual industries.
Lack of enforcement and
training for trans-
shipment loading and
unloading.
147
-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Niagara
Lower Niagara
Calcium
Iron
Chloride
Mercury wastes have been reduced
considerably and are reported to be
below detectable limits now.
5,000 Ibs/day
.3 mg/1
26-30 mg/1
Oswego
St. Lawrence
Ri ve r
Lake Onondaga
Chlorides
Chlorides
-concentration
S04
CaC03
Total dissolved solids
average
1,300-3,000 mg/1
70,000 t/yr
20-30 mg/1
25-35 mg/1
90-115 mg/1
185 mg/1
148
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Mercury control:
Temporary facilities
and procedures to re-
cover mercury.
Some plants under
court order to in-
stall recovery
facilities.
IJC
Iron
.3 mg/1
Chloride
^ 200 mg/1
Mercury
> 200 mg/1
Enforcement
Too high an input
relative to through-
flow.
149
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Others
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Black River
St. Lawrence
River
Discoloration, debris, paper fibers, etc.
pH Range
Alkalinity
average
6.8-7.0
112 mg/1
150
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
0 New York
6.5 - 8.5
0 IJC
6.7 - 8.5
151
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Tributary and shore municipal and in-
dustrial sewage and waste.
Magnitude
0 Total BOD5 load estimated at 350,000 t/yr
0 Because of large lake volume, oxygen
concentrations usually stay satisfactory.
Bottom waters (NE) 6% saturation
Bottom waters (Lakewide) 8% saturation
0 Continuous band of algae between
Hamilton and Toronto on shore.
152
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Dissolved Oxygen
0 New York
<Ł 5 mg/1 at any-
time
0 IJC
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Phosphorus
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Input from tributary and shore located
municipal and industrial sources.
Magnitude
0 Total input (1967)
Retention in lake
Municipal/industrial sources
Agricultural runoff
0 Average concentration
70% of municipal input stems
from detergents in U.S.;
50% from Canadian detergents
12,700 t/yr
10,000 t/yr
7,100 t/yr
5,600 t/yr
13 mg/1
Average surface concentration .7 g/m^/yr
154
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Extensive use of
phosphate detergents,
Lack of phosphorus
removal facilities.
Estimated costs for
improved removal
facilities $108 mill,
.75 g/m2/yr
Nlesotrophic conditions
at .17 g/mVyr would
probably return to
oligotrophic state
if phosphate inputs
were reduced.
155
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Nitrogen
Area
General
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Assimilated from inflow
Magnitude
0 Total input (1967) 157,000
Retention in lake 35,000
Municipal/industrial sources 47,000
Agricultural runoff and
atmospheric precipitation 110,000
0 Concentration
t/yr
t/yr
t/yr
t/yr
mean range 400-600 mg/1
Pollution Problem: Bacteria
Causes
0 Assimilated from inflow
0 Watercraft wastes
Magnitude
0 Col i form count excellent in greater
lake. 1/100
0 Bacterial contamination localized
5/100
ml
ml
156
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
New York
Water must be
free from toxic
material
Nutrients contributing
to algal growth and
eutrophication,
although importance
relative to
phosphates not esta-
blished.
Possible unsuitable
agricultural and
livestock practices.
See tributary inflow
3 New York
Fecal Coliform
no criteria
Total Coliform
^2400/100 ml
3 IJC
Fecal Coliform
^200/100 ml
Total Coliform
1000/100 ml
Problems restricted to
shore areas where they
are severe, due to in-
sufficient sewage treat
ment and lack of dis-
infection.
157
-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Dredged Material
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Harbor dredging deposited in lake
0 Disposed solids contain municipal and
industrial waste.
Magnitude
0 Total solids from all major sources, including
Canada 53 mill t/yr
0 Dredging
US 480,000 yds3/yr
Canada 570,000 yds3/yr
0 Turbidity
Current turbidity levels do not seriously
affect water quality.
158
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Dumping in open water
not to interfere with
navigation;
Use dredged material
as land fill.
Dumping of toxic dredgei
spoils in lake causes
pollution and may
damage bottom fauna.
159
-------
Lake
Ontario
Open Lake
Water
Pollution Problem Pesticides
Area
General
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
0 In birds DDT 163 ppm
0 In eggs DDT 277 ppm
Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Causes
0 Minor oil spills, industrial discharges
0 Watercraft
0 Municipal sources
Magnitude
0 Continuous small oil spills along shipping
lanes.
0 Phenols range 0-15
mean 2
mg/1
mg/1
160
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Kill and interfere with
reproduction
Stemming from agricul-
tural runoff.
Drilling regulations
Contingency plan for
spills does exist;
little information
on specifics
Surveillance, recording,
review of legislation.
Lack of training and
enforcement
161
-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Open Lake
Pollution Problem Dissolved Constituents
Area
Causes and Magnitude
General
Causes
Assimilated from inflow
Magnitude
0 Total dissolved solids
Mean
0 Total chlorides input
196 mg/1
7 mill t/yr
General
Pollution Problem: Solid Disposal, Refuse
No information available
General
Pollution Problem: Others
pH range
6.7 - 8.5
Alkalinity - mean
Radioactivity
Below permissable level
92 mg/1
® pCi/1
162
-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
0 Public Health
Service Standard
>500 mg/1
0 IJC
>200 mg/1
Dissolved salt levels
pose no current prob-
lems
0 New York
6.5 - 8.5
0 IJC
6.7 - 8.5
Lake normal
Local variations de
pending on type of
discharges
pCi/1
/10 pCi/1
163
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
165
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SECTION 15 STUDY
HAROLD F. WISE & ASSOCIATES
The matrix below shows the geographical areas and types of pollution
of greatest concern to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
1. In the first matrix,
Please identify the top four problem areas standing in the way of
achieving water quality standards in the Great Lakes. Do this by entering
1 in the cell corresponding to the location and pollution type which
presents the biggest problem, 2 in the next biggest, and so on through
4. Provide separate rankings for prevention and for removal of pollutants.
166
-------
Geographic Areas
Prevention of pollution
Municipal wastes
Sanitary
Storm
Combined
Industrial Wastes^
Steel
Chemicals
Petroleum
Agriculture
Nutrients
Pesticides
Silt
Mining
Taconite
Others
Dredging
Dredging operations
Dredging disposal
Thermal
Control
Utilization
Removal of Pollutants
Removal of polluted sediments
Heavy metals
Nutrients
Pesticides
167
-------
Geographic Areas
Nuisance plant and
algal harvesting
Rooted aquatics
Bacterial control
Beach Grooming
Removal of debris
Bacterial control
Dead fish removal
Alewifes
168
-------
2. Please provide a brief narrative discussion of the key barriers to
solving these problems, whether technical, financial, or institutional.
Please enclose reports and other documentation when available.
-------
3. In the second matrix, please identify the problem areas for which
there are needed and desirable demonstration projects. Do this by placing
a number in the corresponding cell and listing the potential demonstration
projects below.
170
-------
Geographic Areas
Prevention of pollution
Municipal wastes
Sanitary
Storm
Combined
Industrial Wastes
Steel
Chemicals
Petroleum
Agriculture
Nutrients
Pesticides
Silt
Mining
Taconite
Others
Dredging
Dredging operations
Dredging disposal
Thermal
Control
Utilization
Removal of Pollutants
Removal of polluted sediments
Heavy metals
Nutrients
Pesticides
171
-------
Geographic Areas
Nuisance plant and
algal harvesting
Rooted aquatics
Bacterial control
Beach Grooming
Removal of debris
Bacterial control
Dead fish removal
Al ewi fes
172
-------
List of Potential Demonstration Projects
173
-------
4. A brief narrative description and pertinent reports for these projects
would be helpful in our study.
174
-------
5, Please provide a general description of the status of water quality
management and water quality management planning in your state, including
A. Organization of state, basin, areawide and local levels
B. Interstate coordination arrangements
C. Relations with Federal Agencies
D. International coordination arrangements
175
-------
6. Name of Respondent
Title, address
Telephone number
176
------- |