EPA-905/9-74-010
*«..
ILS. mnROHMBfrAL PR0IKHON JMBKY
REGION V DVOROMDIT HVtSlON
GREAT LAKES HiTIAIIVE GOHTRAa PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 1975
-------
Copies of this document are available
to the public through the
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATION;
BUFFALO RIVER
by
Donald H. Sargent
VERSAR, INC.
In fulfillment of
EPA Contract No. 68-01-1569
for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regions II & V
Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program
Report Number: EPA-905/9-74-010
EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar
February 1975
/ironmer.-ai Protection Agenc;."
Region \"-, Library
230 So-:th Ji-.arbom Street
3:'9 J^.uinois 606QH
-------
This report has been developed under auspices of the Great
Lakes Initiative Contract Program. The purpose of the
Program is to obtain additional data regarding the present
nature and trends in water quality, aquatic life, and waste
loadings in areas of the Great Lakes with the worst water
pollution problems. The data thus obtained is being used
to assist in the development of waste discharge permits
under provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and in meeting commitments under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S.
and Canada for accelerated effort to abate and control
water pollution in the Great Lakes.
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Buffalo River was the subject of a comprehensive evaluation of
waste loadings and water quality, performed as part of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's committments to abate and control water pol-
lution under the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the
U.S. and Canada.
The Buffalo River, as a result of adverse hydraulic conditions
and high waste loadings from industrial discharges and from combined
sewer overflows, exhibits a summertime dissolved oxygen concentration of
less than one mg/1, a contravention of standards for iron, and evidence
of poor water quality in most of the other 24 parameters studied.
Three independent observations confirmed that the industrialized
reach of the Buffalo River is a well-mixed body of water. A water
quality simulation model was developed, verified, and utilized to pre-
dict water quality upon the implementation of Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available. The projected water quality marginally
came within the standards for temperature and for dissolved oxygen, but
more stringent waste allocations were recommended for iron. Upon imple-
mentation of BPCTCA, the oxygen-demanding waste load of the combined
sewer overflows would then become the dominant constraint for achieving
good water quality in the Buffalo River.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract v
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments xv'
Sections
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Summary 4
3.0 Conclusions 5
4.0 Reconnendations 9
5.0 Hydraulics 11
5.1 General Description of the Study Area 11
5.2 Hydrology of the Buffalo River Watershed 14
5.3 Hydrology of the Dredged Portion
of the Buffalo River 21
5.4 Empirical Hydraulic Behavior of the
Buffalo River 26
6.0 Water Quality 39
6.1 Water Quality Criteria 39
6.2 Acquisition of Water Quality Data 43
6.3 Water Quality in the Upstream Tributaries
to the Buffalo River 47
6.4 Water Quality near the Ends of the
Buffalo River 55
6.5 Water Quality Gradients in the Dredged
Portion of the Buffalo River 56
6.6 Water Quality of the Dredged Portion
of the Buffalo River 59
6.7 Sedimentation in the Buffalo River 61
6.8 Biological Data in the Buffalo River 63
V1T
-------
CONTENTS
(can't.)
Sections
7.0 Waste Loads 65
7.1 Upstream Discharges 65
7.2 Combined Sewer Overflows 67
7.3 Present Industrial Waste Loads 73
7.4 Projected Industrial Waste Loads 75
7.5 Comparison of Waste Loads 78
8.0 Simulation Model 79
8.1 Choice of Modeling Approaches 79
8.2 Features of the VEKWAQ Plug-Flew Model 82
8.3 Model for Complete Mixing and Dispersion 89
8.4 Application of the Plug-Flow Model
(for Dissolved Oxygen) 91
8.5 Application of the Completely-Mixed
Model (for Temperature) 92
8.6 Application for the Completely-Mixed
Model (for Dissolved Oxygen and for
Non-Conservative Parameters) 94
3.7 Verification of the Completely-Mixed
Model (for Dissolved Oxygen) 95
8.8 Application of the Completely-Mixed
Model (for Conservative Parameters) 100
8.9 Model Limitations 100
9.0 Water Quality Projections 104
9.1 Projected Waste Loads 104
9.2 Projected Water Quality (Temperature) 104
9.3 Projected Water Quality (Dissolved Oxygen
Non-Conservative Parameters) 106
9.4 Projected Water Quality (Conservative
Parameters) 109
9.5 Summary of Waste Loads 111
9.6 Impact Upon the Niagara River 111
V11T
-------
Sections
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
References
CONTENTS
(can't.)
Applicable New York State Water
Quality Standards
Species Characterization
Water Quality Data, Individual
Measurements
Present Industrial Waste Loads
Projected Industrial Waste Loads
Metric Units Conversion Table
115
120
126
133
137
139
140
IX
-------
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Vicinity Map ]2
2 Basin Map 13
3 Dredged Portion of the Buffalo River 15
4 Duration Curves of Daily Streamflow 20
5 Cumulative Flow in the Buffalo River 25
6 Duration Curve of Total Flow 27
7 Fluctuations of the Buffalo River at Seneca Street 33
8 Lake Erie Level at U.S. Coast Guard Station 34
9 Vertical Temperature Gradient 57
10 Vertical D.O. Gradient 58
11 Longitudinal Dissolved Oxygen Profile 93
12 Total Upstream Discharge vs.
Discharge of Two Creeks 98
13 Wintertime Dissolved Oxygen Levels 99
XI
-------
-------
TART,Kg
No. Page
1 Topographic Data, Buffalo River Watershed 17
2 Climatological Data for Buffalo at Buffalo Airport,
Latitude 42°56 N, Longitude 78°44'W 18
3 Sunmertime Monthly Average Streamflows 19
//
4 Average Summer Streamflow and MA7CD/10 Point 16
5 Stream Velocities 22
6 Calculated Geometry, Buffalo River and
Buffalo Ship Canal 21
7 BRIC Industries and Discharge Rates 23
8 Industrial Point Discharges to Buffalo River
and Buffalo Ship Canal 24
9 Calculated Hydraulics of the Buffalo River 26
10 Measured Velocities in the Buffalo River (All Data
at Mid-Channel; Positive Velocity Indicates
Downstream Flow) 31
11 Time-of-Travel Measurements in the Buffalo River 32
12 Calculation of Fluctuating Flows 37
13 Summary of Calculated and Measured Velocities 38
14 The Specific Quantitative Criteria Explicitly Defined
for N.Y. State Water Use Classes 39
15 Maximum Concentrations of Chemical Constituents
Necessary for the Protection of Fish Life 42
16 Maximum Temperatures for Selected Fish Species 43
17 Averages of Water Quality Data as Reported
by Other Agencies 45
18 Check on Trace Metal Analytical Accuracy 48
Xlll
-------
TABLES
(can't.)
No.
19 Sampling Station Locations r Field Stream Study 49
20 Averages of Water Quality Data Measured in This Study 50-51
21 Water Quality of Industrial Intake Waters 52
22 Water Quality of Tributaries 54
23 Water Quality, Dredged Portion of the Buffalo River 60
24 Dredged Sediment Analyses and Average Daily Quantities 62
25 Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the
Buffalo River Sources 64
26 Waste Loads to the Buffalo River from the Discharge
of the Upstream Tributaries 66
27 Major Combined Sewer Discharge Points
into the Buffalo River 68
28 Measurements of Overflows from the Combined
Sewer System 69
29 Waste Concentration of Combined Sewer Overflows,
Bucyrus, Ohio 71
30 Waste Loads to the Buffalo River from
Combined Sewer Overflows 72
31 Industrial Discharges to the Buffalo River 74
32 Total Waste Loads to the Buffalo River from
Industrial Point Discharges 76
33 Wintertime Water Quality Data, Buffalo River
at Ohio Street 97
34 Measured and Calculated Conservative Parameters 101
xiv
-------
TABLES
(can't.)
No. Page
35 Selected Solubility Products 102
36 Projected Waste Loads Into the Buffalo River 105
37 Projected Water Quality, Non-Conservative Parameters 108
38 Projected Water Quality, Conservative Parameters 110
39 Sources of Iron 109
40 Mean Monthly Flow Rates of the Niagara River
in Summertime 111
41 Daily Quantities of Chemical Species,
Niagara and Buffalo Rivers 113
xv
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the staff of General Technologies
Corporation, a division of Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia.
Mr. Donald H. Sargent was the principal investigator, and important con-
tributions were made by Mr. Harvey M. Armstrong, Ms. Madeline K. Evans,
Mr. John G. Casana, and Ms. Karen Slimak.
The considerable aid furnished by personnel of the Environmental
Protection Agency is acknowledged. Mr. Howard Zar (Region V) was the
Project Monitor, and valuable guidance and support was furnished by the
following Region II personnel: Mr. Charles N. Durfor, Mr. Robert L.
Flint, Jr., Mr. Richard Green, Ms. Anne Miller, Dr. Ernest Regna, and
Ms. Rae Zimmerman.
Appreciation is also extended to the following organizations for
the assistance and cooperation of their staffs throughout this project:
Buffalo Sewer Authority
Buffalo Museum of Science
Erie County Health Department
Erie County Executive's Office
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning
Board
State University College at Buffalo, Great
Lakes Laboratory
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
U.S. Department of Commerce, NQAA, National
Weather Service
xv n
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 between the
United States and Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
conmitted to an accelerated effort to abate and control water pollution
in the Great Lakes. The Buffalo River in western New York has been
identified as one of several concentrated areas of municipal and indus-
trial activity which have poor water quality and contribute to the waste
loads of the Great Lakes.
While a number of agencies have gathered much data in a piecemeal
fashion, a need existed to comprehensively evaluate the present state and
trends of waste loadings and of water quality in the Buffalo River. Con-
sequently, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency contracted with the
General Technologies Division of Versar, Incorporated on June 30, 1973,
to perform a waste allocation study of the Buffalo River. The objectives
of this program were:
(1) To quantify the effect of current industrial, muni-
cipal and non-point discharges upon the water quality
of the Buffalo River.
(2) To predict the water quality of the Buffalo River
upon implementation of Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) for in-
dustrial discharges and upon implementation of
control and treatment practices for other discharges.
(3) To determine maximum waste loads which must be al-
located to satisfy water quality standards for the
Buffalo River.
(4) To determine the impact of the Buffalo River upon
the water quality of the Niagara River with and
without achievement of waste load limitations by
discharge into the Buffalo River.
An extensive list of 26 water quality parameters received careful
attention in this program in analyzing the stream samples, in documenta-
ting the effluent data, and in the modeling and waste allocation tasks.
-1-
-------
The parameters were:
Temperature Sulfate
pH Cyanide
Total Solids Arsenic
Total Dissolved Solids Barium
Suspended Solids Cadmium
Dissolved Oxygen Chromium
Armenia Copper
Nitrogens Iron
Total Phosphorus Lead
Phenols Mercury
Oil and Grease Nickel
Chloride Selenium
Fluoride Z'inc
The waste allocation program methodology consisted of the fol-
lowing elements, each of which is addressed in detail in the body of the
report:
(1) An examination of the historical water quality and
effluent data base and identification of additional
required data.
(2) A field sampling and analysis effort aimed at filling
the gaps in the data base.
(3) The correlation of present water quality with present
waste loadings (effluents) utilizing simulation model-
ing techniques.
The simulation modeling task in this program was intended by EPA
direction to be "straightforward," i.e., of a limited sophistication.
Early in the program, however, it became apparent for a number of reasons
(including the atypical hydraulics, the large number of water quality
parameters, and the importance of combined s©\?er overflow waste loads)
that extension of existing models was necessary.
(4) To project future waste loadings, based upon control
technology appropriate for each discharge.
(5) To project future water quality, utilizing the fu-
ture waste loadings in conjunction with the devel-
oped simulation model.
(6) To compare present and future water quality with
water quality criteria and to allocate waste loadings
if required in order to satisfy water quality criteria.
(7) TO substantiate the accuracy of the results by veri-
fying the simulation model and to substantiate the
precision of the results by performing a sensitivity
analysis.
-2-
-------
(8) To perform an impact analysis of present and
projected Buffalo River water quality upon
the water quality of the Niagara River.
The program was drastically accelerated by EPA direction so that
preliminary waste load allocations would be available by December 31,
1973, in time to affect the implementation by EPA of the NPDES permit
program. The acceleration meant that the field sampling and analysis
task was started and finished very early and the present and projected
waste loads were documented very early. The necessary early expenditure
of program funds effectively prevented later revision of these data in
an admittedly dynamic pollution abatement situation. Hence, the data
and results of this program should be reviewed in the context of the
Buffalo River as of July through October 1973.
During this time period there were almost no issued NPDES permits,
almost no promulgated Effluent Limitation Guidelines, and the majority of
the applicable Draft Development Documents for Effluent Limitation Guide-
lines were similarly unavailable. Hence, the projected industrial waste
loads (which were intended to be consistent with BPCTCA) were in most
cases estimates as of October 1973. Promulgated Guidelines, draft De-
velopment Documents, and issued NPDES permits, after October, 1973, were
therefore not included in this waste allocation program.
This report is organized to guide the reader from an appreciation
of the current conditions to a projection of conditions upon the appli-
cation of abatement technology. The hydraulics of the Buffalo River is
discussed in considerable detail in the opening section. The atypical
flow behavior has a profound effect upon the subsequent correlations and
projections. Next water quality data is presented to give the reader an
appreciation of the discrepancies between current status and criteria.
The waste loads are then presented, both from the standpoint of current
wastes and projected wastes, based upon best practicable control and
treatment technology. The correlation of current water quality with
current waste loads is presented. This correlation is then utilized to
project the water quality consistent with projected waste loads. Waste
allocation recommendations are then made for the achievement of the de-
sired water quality. Finally, the current and projected water quality
impact of the Buffalo River upon the Niagara River is discussed.
—3—
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 between the
United States and Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
conniitted to an accelerated effort to abate and control water pollution
in the Great Lakes. The Buffalo River Basin in western New York, dis-
charging into the eastern end of Lake Erie at the head of the Niagara
River, was identified as one of several areas to receive special atten-
tion. This report describes a comprehensive evaluation of the present
state and trends of waste loadings and of water quality in this area.
The Buffalo River receives the waste loads of its upstream tribu-
taries, very heavy concentration of industrial discharges, and frequent
overflows from the combined sewer system. Low water velocities and high
water temperatures, combined with high waste loadings, result in a sum-
mertime dissolved oxygen concentration of less than one mg/1 and an al-
most total absence of bottom organisms. Of the total of 26 water quality
parameters receiving careful attention in this study, most provided evi-
dence of poor water quality. In addition to dissolved oxygen, iron was
in clear contravention of water quality standards.
Three independent observations confirmed that the industrialized
reach of the Buffalo River is a well-mixed body rather than a free-
flowing stream: oscillating flow in the upstream as well as downstream
direction (driven by oscillations in the level of Lake Erie) ; longitudi-
nally homogeneous water quality measurements of virtually every para-
meter; and a clear choice in successfully matching measured water quality
with water quality calculated by a plug-flew vs. a well-mixed simultation
model.
The developed and verified model was utilized to predict water
quality upon the implementation of Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPCTCA) loads. The projected water quality, at
critical flow conditions, marginally came within the standards for tem-
perature and dissolved oxygen. However, more stringent waste allocations
were recommended for iron. Upon implementation of BPCTCA, which would be
effective in reducing most waste loads, the oxygen-demanding waste load
of the combined sewer overflows would then become the dominant constraint
for achieving good water quality in the Buffalo River.
-4-
-------
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
(1) Except for the lower reach of Cayuga Creek and for the short
Buffalo River itself, most of the Buffalo River watershed (in-
cluding all of Buffalo Creek and Cazenovia Creek and the upper
reaches of Cayuga Creek) is typified by good water quality. This
is consistent with an agricultural, wooded, and vacant land use
pattern, dotted with small residential communities and scattered
park and recreational areas.
(2) The lower 13 kilometers (eight miles) of Cayuga Creek fails to
meet water quality standards with respect to dissolved oxygen,
ammonia, cyanide, and iron; and has abnormally high levels of oil
and grease, phenols, phosphorus, copper, lead, chromium, and sele-
nium. Two of the three primary municipal sewage treatment plants
discharging into this reach of Cayuga Creek (which account for 98
per cent of the total effluent from all three plants) are grossly
ineffective. The heavy metals and toxic materials are most likely
attributable to industrial wastes which are accepted by the munic-
ipal sewer system.
(3) Specific contraventions of water quality standards in the indus-
trial reach of the Buffalo River are an average summertime dis-
solved oxygen concentration of 0.9 mg/1 (compared to the minimum
allowable of 3.0 mg/1) and an average iron concentration of 3.1
mg/1 (compared to the maximum allowable of 0.8 mg/1) . Although
many of the other parameters, including temperature, are at high
levels compared to the natural waters, no other specific water
quality contraventions were found.
(4) Chemical analysis of bottom deposits from the industrialized
reach of the Buffalo River indicate high levels of oxygen demand,
oil, grease, and iron. Biological sampling of these bottom de-
posits indicate that this reach of river is essentially devoid of
bottom organisms; a finding consistent with the measured dissolved
oxygen level of less than 1 mg/1.
(5) The Buffalo River is heavily industrialized, with 32 point dis-
charges in eight kilometers (five miles). In addition, frequent
overflows, from numerous outfalls, from the combined sanitary/
storm sewer system constitute a major waste load. The industrial
-5-
-------
waste loads were quantified, and then projected based upon the
implementation of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (BPCTCA). The combined sewer overflow waste loads were
quantified based upon the consistent results of two separate
previous studies. Of all of the BOD waste load (from upstream
tributaries, from industrial discharges and from combined sewer
overflows), the combined sewer overflow presently constitutes 31
per cent and would constitute 59 per cent upon the projected re-
ductions in the other two waste loads.
(6) The industrialized reach of the Buffalo River is maintained as a
shipping channel to a depth of 6.7 meters (22 feet), and has a
very low slope, less than 0.2 meters per kilometer. Most of the
river's volumetric flow is due to industrial discharges whose in-
take source is not the River but in the Buffalo Outer Harbor.
These industrial flews amount to more than twice the natural dis-
charge at average sumnertime conditions and to twenty times the
natural discharge at critical flow conditions; resulting in a
relatively stable total flow rate in summertime. Because of the
very large man-made river cross-section, however, the calculated
average velocity is very low, less than 0.02 meters per second,
and the calculated residence time in this short reach is greater
than five days.
(7) Oscillating flow (upstream as well as downstream) of significantly
higher velocities than the calculated average, was observed and
measured in the industrialized reach of the Buffalo River. In-
dependent sets of time-varying water-level data for Lake Erie at
the mouth of the Buffalo River and for the Buffalo River itself
also exhibited significant oscillations. A dynamic analysis,
which converted observed water level oscillations to flow rate
oscillations, resulted in a calculated R.M.S. velocity of 0.096
m/sec, which is in general agreement with the R.M.S. velocity
(from direct measurements of velocity) of 0.082 m/sec, and which
is five times the calculated time-average downstream velocity of
0.018 m/sec. An extension of the dynamic analysis resulted in a
calculated longitudinal movement of water of ± 200 meters super-
imposed upon the time-average movement. These observations of
the oscillatory flow of the Buffalo River led to the hypothesis
that significant longitudinal mixing should result.
(8) Two additional observations, based upon the measurement of water
quality at various longitudinal stations in the Buffalo River,
supported the above hypothesis of significant longitudinal mixing.
First, the water quality near each end of the industrialized
reach of the Buffalo River reflected mixing with downstream
waters. The Buffalo River near its mouth reflected the better
water quality of Lake Erie, and the Buffalo River upstream of in-
dustrial discharges reflected the poorer water quality of the
-6-
-------
industrialized reach. Second, and of primary significance, the
measured water quality of the eight-kilometer (five mile) in-
dustrialized reach itself exhibited very convincing longitudinal
homogeneity for a wide range of chemical (and thermal) parameters.
(9) A water quality simulation model was constructed with the option
to use plug-flow (free-flowing) hydraulics or completely-mixed
hydraulics. The model also was constructed to treat the waste
loads from combined sewer overflows as a distributed load, with a
portion of its oxygen demand exerted as a benthic load. The
model also was designed to treat ammonia and phenols as oxidizable
(non-conservative) parameter, to treat a very large number of
conservative parameters, and to perform a full thermal analysis.
(10) Exercise of the model in both hydraulic modes led to the clear
adoption of the well-mixed mode on the basis of matching empirical
water quality data with calculated values. This choice was com-
pletely consistent with the prior evidence for longitudinal mix-
ing. Furthermore, the well-mixed model, using for the most part
constants independently published by others, came very close to
matching empirical water quality data for almost all of the para-
meters. The model was then adequately verified by comparing its
water quality predictions with measured wintertime data in a com-
pletely different flowrate regime.
(11) The developed simulation model was then utilized to calculate the
water quality consistent with the waste loads projected upon im-
plementation of BPCTCA. At critical flow conditions, the pro-
jected river temperature (29°C) and dissolved oxygen concentration
(3.1 mg/1) were marginally within the water quality criteria. All
other parameters, with the exception of iron, were also projected
to be within the water quality criteria. The projected iron con-
centration was 2.7 mg/1 at critical flow, compared to the maximum
allowable concentration of 0.8 mg/1. It was concluded that waste
allocations for iron must be more stringent than those based upon
BPCTCA.
(12) With respect to oxygen-demanding wastes, BPCTCA is quite effec-
tive in waste abatement. The BCD waste load was reduced by 43 per
cent for the upstream tributaries and by 70 per cent for the in-
dustrial discharges. However, no reduction of waste loads from
combined sewer overflows was projected for the near future. Hy-
pothetically, elimination of all combined sewer overflows could
result in a dissolved oxygen concentration in the Buffalo River,
at critical flow conditions, of 5.8 mg/1.
(13) The flow rate of the Niagara River is three orders of magnitude
greater than the flow rate of the Buffalo River (both at average
summertime conditions), making the impact of the Buffalo River
upon the water quality of the Niagara River insignificant, both
—7—
-------
with present waste loads and with projected waste loads into the
Buffalo River. This determination, however, does not take into
account any cumulative effects, either temporally or spatially/
for which evaluation is beyond the scope of this study.
-8-
-------
4.0 RECCMMENDATIONS
(1) The waste load allocations for the following five industrial
point-source dischargers should (with the exception of iron) be
based upon Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available:
043 - Mobil Oil Corporation
419 - Allied Chemical Corporation,
Industrial Chemicals Division
482 - Allied Chemical Corporation,
Specialty Chemicals Division
326 - Republic Steel Corporation
084 - Donner-Hanna Coke Corporation
The specific gross discharge limitations for these five indus-
tries, for each chemical constituent (except iron) and heat flux,
are tabulated in Appendix E of this report.
(2) The waste load allocations for iron are based upon the water
quality criterion rather than upon Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available. These allocations are:
043 - Mobil Oil 90 kg/day gross (200 Ibs/day)
419 - Allied Chemical ICD 54 kg/day gross (120 Ibs/day)
482 - Allied Chemcial SCO 36 kg/day gross ( 80 Ibs/day)
326 - Republic Steel 145 kg/day gross (320 Ibs/day)
084 - Donner-Hanna Coke 27 kg/day gross ( 60 Ibs/day)
(3) The following industries should no longer discharge into the
Buffalo River, but should be serviced by new sanitary sewers of
the Buffalo Sewer Authority for Katherine Street and Kelley
Island. This reconmendation is consistent with Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available and with active plans of
cognizant agencies:
569 - Airco Industrial Gases Division, Airco Inc.
191 - Pacific Molasses Company
424 - United States Steel Corporation
271 - International Multifoods Corporation
339 - American Malting Incorporated
056 - Peavey Company
-9-
-------
(4) The following industries, although having point discharges into
the Buffalo River and into the Buffalo Ship Canal, do not signifi-
cantly affect the water quality of the Buffalo River because of
dilution by Lake Erie waters. Their waste load allocations should
be based upon Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available:
088 - Agway Incorporated
114 - General Mills, Inc.
304 - The Pillsbury Company
(5) Dry-weather discharges into Cayuga Creek from three existing
municipal sewage treatment plants should be halted. Incorporation
of the sanitary sewage into the Buffalo Sewer Authority system is
consistent with recognized control and treatment practices and
with active plans of cognizant agencies. The sources of the heavy
metals and toxic materials (which have been found in the samples
from Cayuga Creek) should be identified and appropriate pretreat-
ment requirements should be imposed. The three sewage treatment
plants are:
Village of Depew
Town of Lancaster
Village of Lancaster
(6) Further efforts to improve the water quality of the Buffalo River
with respect to dissolved oxygen, beyond the waste allocation
recommendations listed above, should be directed at abating the
overflows from the combined sewer system. The analyses in this
report show this approach to offer the most potential for improved
water quality beyond the projections of this report.
(7) Due to significant dilution with waters of Lake Erie, water quality
data for the Buffalo River at Stations downstream of the Ohio
Street Bridge should not be utilized as a measure of the impact of
the Buffalo River upon the Niagara River, nor as a representative
treasure of the water quality of the industrialized reach of the
Buffalo River.
(8) The analysis detailed in this report, and the Conclusions and
Recommendations based upon the analysis, should be revised ac-
cordingly to reflect newly-promulgated effluent guidelines and
water quality criteria.
-10-
-------
5.0 HYDRAULICS
5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Buffalo River extends only 13.0 kilometers (8.1 miles) up-
stream from its mouth. It is an unusually complex body of water with a
great many sources of wastes and with historically poor water quality.
The Buffalo River is located in the City of Buffalo and surrounding Erie
County, in the west central part of New York State. As the vicinity map
(Figure 1) shows, the Buffalo River discharges into the easternmost end
of Lake Erie, just at the head (southern) end of the Niagara River.
Upstream of the mouth of the Buffalo River, Cazenovia Creek dis-
charges into the Buffalo River at River Kilometer 8.5 (River Mile 5.3).
Further upstream, at River Kilometer 13.0 (River Mile 8.1), the head of
the Buffalo River is defined by the U.S. Geological Survey as the con-
fluence of Buffalo Creek and Cayuga Creek.
The watershed of the Buffalo River and its three tributaries
(Cazenovia Creek, Buffalo Creek, and Cayuga Creek) is roughly triangular
in shape as the Basin map (Figure 2) shows, and has a drainage area of
about 1,150 square kilometers (446 square miles).1 The apex of the
triangle is the mouth of the Buffalo River at Buffalo, New York; the
base of the triangle, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) to the southeast of
the apex, is about 40 kilometers (25 miles) long. Buffalo Creek rises
in a fan-shaped tributary area in Wyoming County near Java, New York.
After the source tributaries join, Buffalo Creek flows generally north-
west for 69 kilometers (43 miles) to the confluence with Cayuga Creek.
To the south of Buffalo Creek, Cazenovia Creek flows generally
northwesterly for 61 kilometers (38 miles) to its confluence with the
Buffalo River. Cazenovia Creek is formed by its East and West Branches,
which rise near the southerly corner of the watershed, flow northerly
about eight kilometers (five miles) apart and join west of East Aurora.
To the north of Buffalo Creek, Cayuga Creek flows westerly to its
confluence with Buffalo Creek (at the head of the Buffalo River), which
is 64 kilometers (40 miles) from the source of Cayuga Creek. Little
Buffalo Creek, a tributary to Cayuga Creek, joins Cayuga Creek just up-
stream of Lancaster.
-11-
-------
LAKE ONTARIO
FIGURE
VICINITY MAP
YORK
NIAGARA
FALLS
LAKE ERIE
-12-
-------
NEW YORK
U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
FIGURE 2
BASIN MAP
-13-
-------
Except for a few kilometers just above their confluence with the
Buffalo River, the tributaries are fast-flowing streams with many rapids
and waterfalls.6 Their drainage areas are generally agricultural. The
land adjacent to Buffalo Creek is primarily farmland, woods, and vacant
sections. Buffalo Creek does, however, pass through the small communi-
ties of Wales Hollow, Wales Center, Porterville, Jerge-Elma, Elma, and
Blossom, receiving the corresponding municipal waste loads. There are no
major industrial facilities along Buffalo Creek.
Cazenovia Creek similarly is typified by agricultural, wooded and
vacant sections of land, with several small residential communities and
scattered park and recreational areas. Only a few light industrial fa-
cilities discharge directly into Cazenovia Creek.
Cayuga Creek, and its tributary, Little Buffalo Creek, resembles
the other two tributaries only in its upper reaches, 16 kilometers (10
miles) and above its confluence with Buffalo Creek. The lower reaches of
Cayuga Creek pass through the large urban residential communities of
Lancaster and Depew, and bear little resemblance to its upper reaches or
to the other two tributaries.
Buffalo River itself (shown in the map of Figure 3) is charac-
terized by heavy industrial development in the midst of a large munici-
pality. Its waste load and wa^-er quality problems dominate any such
concerns for the entire watershed, and consequently is the dominant area
of concern in this waste allocation study. Later sections of this report
describe in detail the 43 individual industrial discharges into the
Buffalo River, the heavy domestic waste loads into this reach from over-
flows of the combined storm/sanitary sewer system, the hydraulic charac-
ter of this reach which aggravate the problems, and the resultant water
quality deficiencies which have (until very recently) been typified by
the complete absence of aquatic life in this reach.
5.2 HYDROLOGY OF THE BUFFALO RIVER WATERSHED
Table 1 lists topographic data for the entire Buffalo River water-
shed.1 The slopes of the tributaries are rather steep, accounting for
their free-flowing characteristics. In contrast, the Buffalo River it-
self has a slope of less than 0.2 m/km (1 ft/mile).
Climatological data for Buffalo is listed in Table 2. Two obser-
vations may be made: first, the prevailing wind velocity is high
throughout the year and is almost always off Lake Erie (SW). Second, the
average monthly precipitation is rather constant throughout the year,
ranging from a monthly low of 6.17 cm (2.43 inches) in July to a monthly
high of 7.85 cm (3.09 inches) in November.
Figure 4, derived from the data of Harding and Gilbert in ENB-2,7
shows the duration curves of daily streamflow for the three tributaries,
as measured close to the mouth of each tributary. Also shown on Figure 4
-14-
-------
78°53'
78°52'
78°5l'
78°50'
42°52'
MILES
50OO
FEET
1600
METERS
78°53'
78°52'
78°5l'
78°5O'
FIGURE 3
DREDGED PORTION OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
Note: Discharger Identification Numbers Refer to Table 8.
42°52'
-------
is the duration curve for the sum of the three tributaries, which repre-
sents the "natural" discharge of the Buffalo River, i.e., the streamflow
exclusive of industrial or domestic discharges into the Buffalo River.
Table 3 lists summertime monthly average discharges as measured by
the U.S. Geological Survey,11'12 for Buffalo Creek and for Cazenovia
Creek. (The U.S.G.S. gauging station on Cayuga Creek was discontinued
after Water Year 1968.) The low-flow period of August and September,
represented by the six-year average discharges, is about equivalent to
the 70 per cent duration point from Figure 4.
Buffalo Creek Cazenovia Creek
Six-year Average Discharge 68,300 83,200
for August and September,
m3/day
70 per cent Duration Point, 77,100 79,800
m3/day
Table 4 summarizes the average summer streamflows (i.e., the 70 per cent
duration point); and the MA7CD/10 point (the minimum, average seven-day
critical discharge with a recurrence interval of ten years, approximately
equivalent to the 99 per cent duration period) which is specified by the
New York State Department of Environment Conservation as critical flow:
Table 4
Average Summer Streamflow and
MA7CD/10 Point
Avg. Summer Flow, MA7CD/10
mVday m3/day
Buffalo Creek 77,100 10,300
Cazenovia Creek 79,800 11,200
Cayuga Creek 30,300 1,000
Sum of Three Tributaries 187,200 22,500
The U.S. Geological Survey13 has conducted time-of—travel studies
on the tributaries of the Buffalo River; their provisional data is listed
in Table 5. The measured stream velocities, over a wide range of volumet-
ric flows, range from 0.05 to 0.36 meters per second (0.15 to 1.2 feet per
second).
-16-
-------
Table 1. Topographic Data, Buffalo River Watershed (1)
Creek qnd Locality
Buffalo Creek
Source
Cayuga Creek Junction (Mouth)
Cayuga Creek
Source
Little Buffalo Creek Junction
Buffalo Cfeek Junction (Mouth)
Little Buffalo Creek
Source
Cayuga Creek Junction (Mouth)
Cazenovia Creek
Source (East Branch)
East Branch at West Branch Junction
Source (West Branch)
West Branch at East Branch Junction
Buffalo River Junction (Mouth)
Buffalo River
Junction of Buffalo Creek &
Cayuga Creek
Cazenovia Creek Junction
Mouth
Distance Abovs
Mouth of
Buffalo River,
km (mi)
82 (51)
13 (8)
77 (48)
34 (21)
12 (8)
61 (38)
34 (21)
71 (44)
n 37 (23)
68 (42)
n 37 (23)
10 (6)
13 (8)
10 (6)
0 (0)
Elevation
Above
Sea Level,
m(ft)
518 (1,700)
176 (578)
500 (1,640)
206 (675)
176 (578)
408 (1,340)
206 (675)
536 (1,760)
245 (805)
518 (1,700)
245 (805)
176 (576)
176 (578)
176 (576)
174 (571)
Slope,
m/km (ft/mi)
2.48 (13.1)
3,72 (19.6)
1.12 (5.9)
7.40 (39.1)
3.47 (18.3)
4.83 (25.5)
2.31 (12.2)
—
0.19 (1.0)
0.15 (0.8
Drainage
Area Above
Locality,
km2 (mi2)
388 (150)
241 (93)
331 (128)
60 (23)
147 (57)
158 (61)
357 (138)
—
738 (285)
1,154 (446)
-------
CO
Table 2. Climatological Data for Buffalo at Buffalo Airport,
Latitude 42°56' N, Longitude 78°44' W (8)
Mouth
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Air'
I£
-3.6
-4.0
+0.6
+6.5
+13.0
+18 6
+21.4
+20.5
+16.9
+10.7
+4.4
-1.7
Femp
If
25.5
24.7
33.0
43.8
55.4
65.5
70.6
68.9
62.4
51.2
39.9
29.0
Direction
WSW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
s
s
s
WSW
Wind
m/sec
7.8
7.3
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.7
6.3
7.3
7.6
Precipitation
mph
17.4
16.4
15.9
14.8
13.2
12.5
12.1
11.7
12.8
14.1
16.4
17.0
cm
7.06
6.58
6.91
6.48
6.27
6.86
6.17
6.45
7.63
6.33
7.85
7.42
inches
2.78
2.59
2.72
2.55
2.47
2.70
2.43
2.54
3.01
2.49
3.09
2.92
Rel. Hum.
Per Cent
77
76
74
70
70
70
69
71
73
74
74
76
Year +8.6 47.5 SW 6.5 14.5 82,02 32.29 73
-------
Table 3. Summertime Monthly Average Streamflows (10,11)
1
G
i
Calendar
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
6- Year
Averages
Jul
56,300
242,000
143,700
155,000
255,000
92,500
157,200
Buffalo
Aug
75,600
67,800
52,400
63,900
85,000
66,100
68,500
Creek
Sep
56,500
48,900
116,900
61,900
74,400
49,900
68,000
Oct Jul
143,200 64,900
97,600 306,000
321,000 163,000
46,500 175,800
277,000 231,000
113,700
176,800 175,800
Cazenovia
Aug
87,600
94,300
61,400
84,200
67,100
51,400
74,400
Creek
Sep_
85,600
72,900
162,600
51,200
130,300
49,200
92,000
Oct
131,500
103,700
389,000
48,900
433,000
—
221,000
Units: Cubic Meters/Day
-------
I
CE
UJ
O.
CO
cr
UJ
H-
LU
O
CD
O
uf
CD
o:
<
o
en
2,000,000
1,000,000-
500,000-
200,000
100,000
50,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
2,000 -
1,000-
500
O.I 0.5 I 2 5 10 2030 50 70
PERCENT OF TIME
90 95 99 99.9
FIGURE 4
DURATION CURVES OF DAILY STREAMFUDW
-20-
-------
5.3 HYDROLOGY OF THE DREDGED PORTION OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
The primary subject of this study is the Buffalo River, which is
fed by the three tributaries described above, but which is different
from the tributaries in several hydrological respects. The lower reach
of 8.42 kilometers (5.22 miles) of the Buffalo River is a navigable chan-
nel, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate traffic
of lake vessels to the large industries along the river. The channel
depth is maintained at 6.7 meters (22 feet) for the entire width of the
river, which is a minimum of 51.8 meters (170 feet). As the map of
Figure 3 indicates, there are a number of much wider points in the chan-
nel, used for turning and maneuvering. In addition, as Figure 3 indi-
cates, the Buffalo Ship Canal (also 6.7 meters deep) is tributary to the
Buffalo River very close to the mouth of the Buffalo River. For the pur-
poses of later computations, the dredged portion of the Buffalo River is
defined by the longitudinal bounds of River Mile NiBu 43.06 (the up-
stream interface, at the D.L. and W. railroad bridge, between the dredged
and undredged portions of the River); and of River Mile NiBu 37.83.
(The mouth of the Buffalo River is located 1.40 km or 0.87 miles down-
stream from the Michigan Avenue Bridge.)* The length of this dredged
reach is therefore 8.415 kilometers (5.23 miles).
To estimate the surface area and Tzolumetric capacity of the dredged
portion of the Buffalo River and of the Buffalo Ship Canal, the waterway
was longitudinally divided into small segments (shown in Figure 3) on the
NOAA-NOS Lake Survey Map 314 (February, 1971 edition) for Buffalo Harbor.
Table 6 was derived with the aid of a planimeter, using a constant depth
of 6.706 meters (22 feet):
Table 6
Calculated Geometry, Buffalo River and
Buffalo Ship Canal
Buffalo River Buffalo Ship
(Dredged Portion) Canal
Upstream Boundary RM 43.06 RM 39.33
Downstream Boundary RM 37.83 RM 38.38
Longitudinal Distance, miles 5.23 0.95
Longitudinal Distance, meters 8,415 1,529
Surface Area, sq. meters 518,900 76,900
Volume, cubic meters • 3,480,000 516,000
Average Width, meters 61.66 50.33
Average Cross Section, sq. meters 413.5 337.5
*The hydrological index used throughout this report is expressed as the
River Mile measured from, the mouth of the Niagara River. When used to
locate a station; i.e., purely as an index; the metric equivalent will be
omitted. Computations involving distance intervals will however be ex-
pressed in metric terms.
-21-
-------
Table 5. Stream Velocities^ 3)
Stream
E. Branch Cazenovic
Creek
W. Branch Cazenovia
Creek
Cazenovia Creek
Cayuga Creek
Date
May 1963
July 1963
May 1 963
July 1963
May 1963
July 1963
June 1973
Aug 1964
Oct 1964
May 1965
June 1973
Discharge,
m3/day
82,800
8,600
106,200
8,800
243,000
25,900
154,000
16,900
7,800
66,000
75,000
Velocity,
m/sec
0.298
0.073
0.292
0.070
0.363
0.076
0.046
0.055
0.046
0.148
0.152
Buffalo Creek
June 1973
168,000
0.360
-22-
-------
Another important hydrological characteristic of the Buffalo River
(which was mentioned previously) is that the slope is extremely small,
only 0.17 meters per kilometer. Hence, the difference in elevation in
the dredged reach of 8.4 kilometers is only 1.4 meters.
A third important hydrological characteristic of the Buffalo River
is that the volumetric flow of the upstream tributaries is augmented by
a comparatively large quantity of industrial discharge water in the
dredged portion of the river. In 1967 five major industries jointly
formed the Buffalo River Improvement Corporation (BRIG). Intake water
from the Outer Harbor on the Lake Erie shoreline is pumped by BRIG to the
five industries, which utilize the water for process and cooling purposes
and then discharge into the Buffalo River. Hence, this discharge is an
addition to the river flow (as opposed to users which withdraw and dis-
charge water from the same waterway). Table 7 shows the five industries
and their average discharge rates.
Table 7
BRIG Industries and Discharge Rates
Discharger Rate, cubic meters per day
Mobil Oil 106,000
Allied Chemical (Specialty Chem. Div.) 62,800
Allied Chemical (Industrial Chem. Div.) 42,800
Republic Steel 172,100
Donner-Hanna Coke 32,100
Total 415,700
This quantity of BRIG flow is more than double the average sutmar
flow from the three upstream tributaries (187,200 cubic meters per day),
and is almost twenty times the MA7CD/10 flow from the three tributaries
(22,500 cubic meters per day). Moreover, BRIG is obligated to the City
of Buffalo to discharge at least 378,500 cubic meters per day (100
million gallons per day) every day; in the summer, the BRIC flow is as
much as 454,000 cubic meters per day (120 million gallons per day).
The five industries which utilize and discharge BRIC water are all
located within a 1.8 kilometer (1.1 mile) reach of the Buffalo River,
from River Mile 42.92 to River Mile 41.82. Table 8 lists the 43 indi-
dual industrial discharges into the Buffalo River within the 8.4 kilo-
meter (5.2 mile) dredged reach, and into the Buffalo Ship Canal, along
with the discharge flow rates of each. The total industrial discharge is
426,100 cubic meters per day; of this total, 97.5 per cent is accountable
to the five industries using BRIC water and discharging in the concen-
trated 1.8 kilometer reach. A graphic representation of the longitudinal
concentration and significance of these five industries is shown in Fig-
ure 5, the cumulative flow in the Buffalo River under the conditions of
average summer natural flow.
-23-
-------
Toble 8. Industrial Point Discharges to Buffalo River
and Buffalo Ship Canal
Bank
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N.
N
N
N
N
N
N
Discharge
Co. No
Buffalo
043
482
419
482
326
482
326
084
482
569
191
424
271
339
056
088
114
Buffalo
304
114
Name
River:
Mobil Oil
Allied, SCO
Allied, ICD
Allied, SCO
Republic Steel
Allied, SCO
Republic Steel
Donner Hanna Coke
Allied, SCO
Airco
Pacific Molasses
U.S. Steel
International Multi foods
American Malting
Peavey
Agway
General Mills
Ship Canal:
Pillsbury
General Mills
-
S/N
001
011
001
002
003
004
010
009
008
001
007
006
005
004
003
004
002
003
001
002
001
001
' 001
001
002
001
001
003
002
001
001
001
003
002
001
007
006
009
002
004
003
008
005
River
Mile
42.92
42.72
42.66
42.64
42.58
42.55
42.54
42.53
42.52
42.48
42.43
42.42
42.41
42.27
42.26
42.25
42.24
42.06
42.02
41.89
41.82
41.25
40.34
40.05
39.98
39.72
39.62
39.56
39.55
39.54
38.85
38.67
38.94
38.93
38.92
38.68
38.66
38.65
38.63
38.62
38.61
38.56
38.54
Flow,
MGD
28.0
4.75
4.20
2.00
3.70
1.40
4.30
0.002
0.03
8.7
1.20
7.50
0.50
0.02
0.06
15.6
8.0
13.5
8.5
0.03
0.03
0.007
0.0004
0.14
0.06
0.04
0.60
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.39
0.002
0.041
0.010
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.16
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
Flow,
cu m/day
106,000
18,000
15,900
7,600
14,000
5,300
16,300
8
100
32,900
4,500
28,400
1,900
80
200
59,000
30,300
51,100
32,200
100
100
30
2
500
200
100
2,300
100
300
400
200
1,500
8
160
40
80
80
150
600
150
80
40
40
-24-
-------
I
r
700
Q
a: 600
UJ
Q.
CO
ffi 500
h-
Ul
o 400
5
~*i
O
•*> 300
| 200
UJ
b 100
5
3 o
-
UJ
8
8s
<£
ad
i
CO
ci
H-
{jj
en
fc>
*
o
o
< r"
r
,J
/
/
y
,
43.5 43.0 42.5
RIVER
MOUTH
I
_,. 1
J y t s
*• E S ^
jj t) 1— W
J UJ >
£ iij Ul <
n = C Z
ul ^ Jo ui
b f 2 £Q
s 5 i Q £
(rt ^ o S 35
,
J
i
• , i il i
• i
i
42.0 41.5 4I£) 40.5 40D 39.5 39.O 38.5 38.0 37.5
RIVER MILE
FIGURE 5
CUMULATIVE FLOW IN THE BUFFALO RIVER
UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES AT 70% DURATION
-------
Included in the cumulative flow in Figure 5, and in total flows in
subsequent analyses, is an average daily contribution of 20,300 cubic
meters attributable to overflows from the combined sewer system. The
derivation of this quantity, and the justification for treating it as
distributed both spatially and tenporally in the dredged portion of the
Buffalo River, will be presented in a later section of this report.
The total flow rate from all three sources (upstream fron the
tributaries, the industrial discharge, and the overflows from the com-
bined sewer system) is shown in Figure 6 as a function of the natural
upstream flow. During the surrmertime the natural discharge from upstream
tributaries is only a minor portion of the total flow rate. In addition,
the total flow rate during the summertime is rather constant, not subject
to the large day-to-day variations characteristic of more conventional
rivers, nor of the extremely low flow rates of dry periods.
Table 9 lists the calculated volumetric flow rates, average ve-
locities, and average residence tdjnss in the dredged portion of the
Buffalo River for several upstream flow conditions.
Table 9
Calculated Hydraulics of the Buffalo River
Duration Point, Flow, Cubic Average Velocity, Residence Time,
Per Cent Meters per Day Meters per Second Days
26 1,574,000 0.0441 2.21
50 858,000 0.0240 4.06
70 634,000 0.0177 5.50
90 513,000 0.0143 6.80
95 491,000 0.0137 7.09
99 471,000 0.0132 7.39
For average sunrnsrtime conditions (70 per cent duration), the average
velocity is extremely small, less than 0.02 m/sec; and the corresponding
average residence time is extremely large, greater than five days; owing
to the great enlargement of the channel cross-section by the dredging
operation. Based upon these calculations, the conclusion may be reached
that the dredged portion of the Buffalo River is essentially a stagnant
body of water.
5.4 EMPIRICAL HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOR OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
There were reasons to suspect that the calculated average river
velocities were not presenting a valid picture of the true hydraulics of
the Buffalo River, that superimposed upon the average calculated velocity
were distinct local currents and gradients in all three directions
(longitudinal, transverse and vertical).
-26-
-------
CC
UJ
CL
CO
tr
UJ
LU
o
CD
3
u_
o
CO
l.6r
1.4 •
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
u. o.;
I
O.I 0.5 1 2 5 10 2030 50 70 90 95 99
PERCENT OF TIME
99.9
FIGURE 6
DURATION CURVE OF TOTAL FLOW
-27-
-------
Blum,12 in his study of the river hydraulics, found very severe
vertical thermal gradients and significant vertical gradients of elec-
trical conductivity, expecially in the heavily industrialized reach from
River Mile 43 to River Mile 42. The water at the surface was five de-
grees (9°F) warmer, and the electrical conductivity was 12 per cent
greater, than at a depth of six meters (20 feet). Blum found evidence
that an upstream flow of cooler water occurs near the bottom while the
warmer surface water flows downstream. Blum's study was made in 1964,
prior to the BRIG flow augmentation project, so that these results are
not quantitatively valid for the present situation.
Very early in this study, efforts were directed toward shedding
some light on the river hydraulics. A cursory inspection along the river
revealed the existence of localized currents significantly faster than
the very small calculated average velocities, and of instances of reverse
(i.e., upstream) flow at several locations. Because of these qualitative
indications and because of the potential importance to the waste alloca-
tion study, somewhat more definitive data of a semi-quantitative nature
were obtained with three types of measurements (Figure 3, a map of the
dredged portion of the Buffalo River, may be used to reference the sta-
tion locations):
(1) Dye injection (Rhodamine B) at the surface, with
observations made both visually and by analysis
of samples using a fluorometer.
(2) A float to measure velocity of the surface waters.
An orange was used as a float; no attempt was made
in these early tests to correct for wind effects.
(3) A device to measure velocity as a function of depth,
essentially consisting of a float with a weight at
an adjustable vertical distance. For the early ex-
periments, the weight was at 4.0 meters (13.2 feet),
six-tenths of the depth of the channel.
Dye was injected 54.0 meters (177 feet) downstream of the dredged/
undredged interface, near the D.L. and W. railroad bridge, midway across
the channel. The measured surface velocity was 0.13 meters per second
(0.42 feet per second) upstream. The weighted device, however, travelled
0.0085 m/sec (0.028 ft/sec), also upstream. When the slug of dye reached
the dredged/undredged interface, the longitudinal (upstream) movement was
halted and the dye dispersed across the stream (vertical dispersion was
not treasured). Fluorometer analyses of two samples showed that the dye
did indeed penetrate the interface and travel upstream:
Saitpling Time Dye Cone.,
Sanple Sample Location After Injection ppb
ID1 7.6 m upstream of interface 1,320 sec 7.9
ID2 At interface 1,440 sec 0.0
-28-
-------
The measured upstream velocities of 0.13 m/sec at the surface and
0.0085 m/sec at a 4.0 meter depth, combined with a calculated downstream
average velocity in the neighborhood of 0.01 m/sec demonstrates a very
large velocity gradient in the vertical direction.
A second series of observations were made in the vicinity of the
South Park Avenue bridge (R.M. 42.5), approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5
miles) downstream of the dredged/undredged interface and virtually in the
midst of the heavy industrial discharges. The surface velocity, as mea-
sured by dye slug travel, was 0.10 m/sec (0.33 ft/sec) downstream; while
the velocity at 4.0 meters (13.2 feet) depth was 0.038 m/sec (0.13 ft/sec),
also downstream. This compares to a calculated downstream average veloc-
ity of approximately 0.02 m/sec; and shows again large velocity gradients
and the likelihood of relatively stagnant, cooler water near the bottom.
A third series of observations were made near the Perm Central RR
bridge (R.M. 41.4). The surface velocity (measured with the dye) was
0.046 m/sec (0.15 ft/sec). Fluorometer analyses of samples taken 30.5 m
downstream of the injection point verified the visual data:
Sampling Time Dye Cone.,
Sample After Injection ppb
H)4 480 sec 11.0
IDS 660 sec 41.7
ID6 840 sec 2.8
In the vicinity of the Ohio Street bridge (R.M. 39.4), the surface
velocity was small. Moreover, in the neighborhood of the calculated
downstream average velocity, the dye dispersed across the channel (and
possibly in a vertical direction) before appreciable longitudinal travel
had occurred. Sample ID3, taken a few meters upstream of the injection
point after 660 seconds to document any upstream diffusion, proved nega-
tive in that the dye concentration was 0.0 ppb.
It is apparent from these first few experiments, despite the lack
of regirous quantitative techniques, that the very large vertical veloc-
ity gradient in the heavily industrialized reach becomes increasingly
dissipated downstream of this reach.
Other early experiments in this field study were aimed at quali-
tatively measuring any cross-channel velocity gradients at the surface,
using an orange as a float. Indeed, such suspicions were confirmed along
the entire length of the dredged portion of the river. Channelization
was caused by some of the large-volume discharges; and was also a result
of the numerous sharp bends in the river. Very high local velocities at
the surface approaching one meter per second were observed, compared to
the calculated average velocity of approximately 0.02 m/sec.
Later in this study, additional measurements of velocity were made.
These data, listed in Table 10, show the existence of large vertical ve-
locity gradients, of up to ten-fold-higher velocities than the calculated
-29-
-------
time-average velocities, of substantial velocities in the upstream di-
rection, and of velocities which vary considerably with time.
The observations of fluctuating velocities (Including substantial
upstream flow at times) was independently made by the U.S. Geological
Survey in a time-of-travel study on June 19 and 20, 1973.13 The U.S.G.S.
study was conducted in the Buffalo River; dye was injected at South Ogden
Street and both gauge heights and dye concentrations were recorded as
functions of time at Seneca Street (R.M. 5.9). It should be noted that
the U.S.G.S. measurements were made in the shallow portion of the Buffalo
River, one kilometer (0.7 miles) upstream of the dredged reach. The pro-
visional results, listed in Table II and shown graphically in Figure 7,
verify the oscillating flow of the river as observed in the present study.
' A Lake Erie level gauge is maintained at the U.S. Coast Guard Sta-
tion at the mouth of the Buffalo River. Efforts were made to compare the
fluctuations in the Lake level. Representative records of the Lake level,
supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,1'* are
shown in Figure 8. It is apparent that several distinct phenomena occur
at different times, no doubt the result of wind patterns over Lake Erie.
Figure 8a shows very little fluctuation for the period of October 10
through October 13, 1973. For September 30 through October 2, 1973 (Fig-
ure 8b), a peak-to-peak amplitude of Lake level of 1.3 meters (0.8 feet)
with a regular period of about 14 hours is apparent. For October 13
through October 16, 1973 (Figure 8c), the 14-hour period is again appar-
ent, but the peak-to-peak amplitude is significantly greater, and higher-
frequency components are observed.
Figure 8d is the record of Lake Erie level for June 19 and 20, 1973,
the same period of time as the upstream river data of Table 11 and Figure
7. The Lake level fluctuations (Figure 8d) for 2 a.m. through 10 a.m. on
June 20 are much smaller in amplitude than the river level fluctuations
for the same time period (Figure 7) , but higher frequencies are apparent
in both records and there were larger perturbations in the level of Lake
Erie several hours earlier (after noon on June 19th).
A qualitative explanation of the above observations would include
the following factors:
(1) The 14-hour period of oscillation of the level
of Lake Erie is a characteristic of the seiche
of the Lake which has been observed over the
years.1 **
(2) Higher-frequency oscillations of the level of
Lake Erie at Buffalo were analyzed and presented
by Platzman and Rao.61* Strong and consistent
peaks in the spectral density occurred at periods
of 14.1 hours, 9.2 hours, 6.0 hours, and 4.1
hours, which correspond to the first four modes
of longitudinal free oscillation of the lake.
-30-
-------
Table 10. Measured Velocities in trie Buffalo River (All Data at Mid-
Channel; Positive Velocity Indicates Downstream Flow)
Date River Depth, Velocity,,
0 973) Mile Meters m/sec
8/22 43,06 0.0 -0.130
8/22 43.06 4.0 -0.009
8/22 42.54 0.0 +0.100
3/22 • 42.54 4.0 +0.038
8/23 41.40 0.0 +0.046
10/17 39.44 5.4 +0.067
10/17 39.44 4.0 +0.143
10/17 39.44 2.7 +0.143
10/17 39.44 1.3 +0.079
10/17 42.54 4.0 -0.116
10/17 41.40 4.0 -0.158
10/18 41.40 1.3 -0 079
10/18 41.40 2.7 -0.049
10/13 41.40 4.0 +0.134
10/18 41.40 5.4 +0.174
10/18 42.54 1.3 +0.052
10/18 42.54 2.7 0.000
10/18 42.54 4.0 -0.043
10/23 39.44 1.3 +0.037
10/23 39.44 2.7 0.000
10/23 39.44 4.0 0.000
10/23 39.44 5.4 -0.015
10/23 41.40 1.3 +0.012
10/23 41.40 2.7 -0.049
10/23 41.40 4.0 -0.049
10/23 42.54 5.4 -0.034
10/23 42.54 4.0 0.000
10/23 42.54 2.7 +0.043
11/2 42.54 - 1.3 -0.013
42.54 5.4 +0.068
42.54 0.0 -0.101
-31-
-------
Table 11 . Time-of-Travel Measurements in the Buffalo River' '
Measurements at Seneca Street, R.M. 5.9 Dye Injected 6/19/73 at 19.92 Hours,
at South Ogden St., 2.01 Kilometers (1.25 miles) Upstream
Time of Day,
6/20/73
(Hours)
02.85
03.20
03.44
03.87
04.15
04.35
05.00
05.50
05.75
06,80
07.25
07.95
08.30
08.50
08.85
09.10
09.45
09.75
10.00
Time After
Injection,
Hours
6.93
7.28
7.52
7.95
8.23
8.43
9.08
9.58
9.83
10.88
11.33
12.03
12.38
12.58
12.93
13.18
13.53
13.83
14.08
Guage
Height,
Meters
1.58
1,74
1 .89
1 .80
1.86
1.84
1.72
1.82
1.76
1.68
1.68
1.74
1.80
1.77
1.76
1.70
Dye
Concentration,
0.58
0.59
0.24
0.05
0.15
0.32
0.93
0.24
0.17
0.92
0.54
15
23
40
16
17
0.78
1 .40
1 05
Observed
Flow
Direction*
* + is Downstream
- is Upstream
-32-
-------
to
U)
en
&
fc
2.0r
1.9
1.8
1.7
CD
£ ,.6
UJ
CD
1.5
1.4
345678
TIME OF DAY, HOURS (A.M.), JUNE 2O, 1973
10
1.6
.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
J5
o>
a.
o
UJ
FIGURE 7
FLUCTUATIONS OF THE BUFFALO RIVER AT SENECA STREET113'
-------
0.5
METERS
FIGURE 8d
N M N M
10/10/73 —^-* 10/11/73 —I
N M
• 10/12/73 —l
N
10/13/73
0.5
METERS
0.5
METERS
0.5
METERS
FIGURE 8
LAKE ERIE LEVEL
AT U.S. COAST GUARD STATION(I4)
-34-
-------
The spectral density at Buffalo at higher frequencies had peaks
at 3.7 and 3.3 hours, and the average spectral density for
periods of two to three hours was greater at Buffalo than at
other stations. At a resolution of 0.05 cycles per day, num-
erous other peaks became apparent. The oscillations are also
significantly affected by geostrophic considerations.
(3) The higher- frequency oscillations observed in Lake Erie at the
nouth of the Buffalo River may result from the effect of Pt.
Abino, Ontario (see Figure 1) , an interfering land mass in Lake
Erie just to the west of the mouth of the Buffalo River.
(4) The higher- frequency oscillations observed upstream in the
Buffalo River may be evidence of an organ-pipe effect, where
the interface between the dredged and undredged segments (at
River Mile 43.06) acts as a reflector and where oscillations
of a particular frequency may be reinforced.
Although a rigorous quantitative analysis of the observed oscilla-
tory flow characteristics is beyond the scope of this current study, a
cursory analysis of the June 20, 1973 U.S.G.S. river level data is pre-
sented to translate fluctuating river level into fluctuating volumetric
flow rate, longitudinal velocity, and travel distance in the Buffalo River.
The approach used by Feigner and Harris15 in their dynamic modeling
of estuaries was to apply the finite-difference form of the equation of
motion to the i^1 channel in a network:
.K|ui]ai . g
and to apply the finite-difference form of the equation of continuity to
the jt*1 junction (the nodes, or channel ends) in the network:
AHj
At A*j
where Ui = longitudinal velocity in i^ channel
t = time
XL - length of 1th channel
Hj = elevation of j"^ junction
g = acceleration of gravity
K = frictional resistance coefficient
EQj = algebraic sum of volumetric flow rate into the
junction
A*n = surface area attributable to the j1^ junction
-35-
-------
The frictional resistance coefficient was evaluated using Manning's
equation:
K =
qn2
2.208 R1*/3
where % = hydraulic radius of the i^ channel
n = Mannings roughness factor, which is about 0.030 ft1 /6
for dredged-earth channels.l6
The key to the FWQA. numerical analysis of estuaries is that for
each time segment, the velocity and elevation are assumed not to vary
with distance within a channel. Since good results have been attained by
application of this technique,15,17 using channel lengths of comparable
magnitude to the dredged reach of the Buffalo River, this same technique
was applied to the Buffalo River. Hence, the equation of continuity may
be written for this entire dredged reach of the Buffalo River:
Or = -24 AS ^
and Um =
At
As AH
3,600 Ax At
where H = the elevation of the river, meters
t = time, hours
Qp = transient flowrate downstream (i.e., out of the river),
m3/day
U = transient velocity downstream, m/sec
As = surface area = 518,900 m2
Ax = cross-sectional area = 413.5 m2
Hence,
Oj. = -12.44 x 105 AH/-t, m3/day
UT = -0.348 AH/At, m/sec
Table 12 shows the calculations of transient flow rate Qp and of transient
velocity Up from the U.S.G.S. data of gauge height (H) vs. time (as shown
in Figure 7) for June 20, 1973.
The velocity data of Table 12 are summarized in Table 13 and com-
pared to the steady-state values of flow and velocity calculated pre-
viously (for 70 per cent duration), and to the actual measured velocities
in the River.
-36-
-------
Table 12. Calculation of Fluctuating Flows
Time of
Day,
Hours
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5,75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7,50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
Guage
Ht. H,
meters
1.575
1.650
1.780
1.875
1.880
1.700
1.610
1.575
1.615
1 .800
1.860
1.840
1.790
1.725
1.655
1.690
1.770
1.820
1.835
1.8CO
1.740
1 .680
1 .680
1.720
1.785
1.810
1.770
1.700
1.700
AH/AN
m/hr
+0 34
+0.52
+0.38
+0.02
-0.72
-0.36
-0.18
+0.16
+0.34
+0.24
-0.08
-0.20
-0.26
-0.28
+0.14
+0.32
+0.20
+0.06
-OJ4
-0.24
-0.24
0.00
+0.16
+0.26
+0.10
-0.16
-0.28
0.0
Qt,
1C6
m-^/day
-4.2
-6.5
-4.7
-0.2
+8.9
+4.5
+2.2
-2.0
-4.2
-3.0
+1.0
+2.5
+3.2
+3.5
-1.7
-4.0
-2.5
-0.7
+ 1.7
+3.0
+3.0
0.0
-2.0
-3.2
-1.2
-2.0
+3.5
0.0
Uj.,
m/sec
-0.12
-0.18
-0.13
-0.01
+0.25
+0.13
+0.06
-0.06
-0.12
-0.08
+0.03
+0.07
+0.09
+0.10
-Oo05
-0.11
-0.07
-0.02
+0.05
+0.08
+0.08
0.00
-0.06
-0.09
-0.03
+0.06
+0.10
0.00
AXt,
meters
-no
-160
-120
-10
+230
+120
+50
-50
-no
-70
+30
+60
+80
+90
-50
-100
-60
-20
+50
+70
+70
0
-50
-80
-30
+50
+90
0
E£Xt
+ 200,
meters
+90
-70
-190
-200
+30
+150
+200
+150
+40
-30
0
+60
+140
+230
+180
+80
+20
0
+50
+120
+190
+190
+140
+60
+30
+80
+170
+170
-37-
-------
Table 13
Summary of Calculated and Measured Velocities
Velocity, m/sec
Calculated Transient Velocities (Table 12):
High +0.25
Low -0.18
RMS 0.096
Calculated Steady-State Velocity (Table 9): +0.0177
Measured Velocities (Table 10):
High +0.17
Low -0.16
RMS 0.082
The above data show that the transient velocities calculated from
oscillating gauge height measurements correspond very closely to the ac-
tual river velocities directly measured in this study. Furthermore, both
of these sets of velocity data are an order of magnitude higher than the
time-average velocity calculated from steady-state hydraulic inputs to the
Buffalo River. Hence the conclusion that the oscillating flows are real
phenomena and that, they overshadow in magnitude the time-average velocity.
Table 12 also lists the calculated transient longitudinal distance,
AXp, that an incremental quantity of river water would move, consistent
with the transient velocity:
AX? = 3,600 UTAt
and the total transient distance that this incremental quantity of river
water moves, relative to some arbitrary point X, is also listed in Table 12.
12.
These data show that the oscillating flow behavior causes transient
longitudinal advection of approximately ±200 meters, a significant frac-
tion of the total dredged reach of the Buffalo River. Since diffusive
mixing should also be expected (resulting from the oscillatory flow, from
the substantial industrial point discharges, and from the numerous bends
in the river), considerable mixing is a distinct probability.
-38-
-------
6.0 WATER QUALITY
6.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.
The water quality criteria applicable to the Buffalo River Basin
are those of the New York State Department of Environtnental Conservation.
Basically, the four water use classes relevant to the Buffalo River Basin
are:
Class A - Drinking, culinary, food processing and any other usages
Class- B - Bathing and other usages except potable water supply
Class C - Fishing and other usages except bathing and potable
water supply
Class D - Agricultural, industrial and other usages except fishing,
bathing and potable water supply.
During the period of this study, the N.Y. State Water Quality Standards
in effect were those dated November 1967; (18) the waste allocations of this
report were based upon these standards. A new set of standards became
effective on March 27, 1974, and were revised on October 20, 1974. For the
water quality parameters considered in this study, only minor differences
exist between the old and new standards. Appendix A contains the relevant
portions of the new standards; the relevant specific quantitative criteria
are summarized in Table 14 below:
Table 14
The Specific Quantitative Criteria Explicitly
Defined for N. Y. State Water Use Classes
Class A Class B Class C Class D
pH (Range) 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.5
Phenols, ppb 1 -
D.O., ppm, )Daily Avg. 6.0 6.0 6.0
trout waters/ Min. 5.0 5.0 5.0
D.O., ppm, )Daily Avg. 5.0 5.0 5.0
non-trout waters/ Min. 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
In addition, all classes require that all other waste constitutents be
limited for the protection of fish life; the New York State standards
-39-
-------
explicitly suggest the following parameters:
Ammonia or Ammonium Compounds 2.0 ppm NHs
Cyanide 0.1 ppm CN
Ferro- or Ferricyanide 0.4 ppm Fe (CN)5
Copper 0.2 ppm Cu
Zinc 0.3 ppm Zn
Cadmium 0.3 ppm Cd
Although it is not within the scope of this present study to au-
thoritatively translate the "fish life protection" criterion into quan-
titative limitations on the concentration of chemical constituents (other
than those specifically called out in the New York State Standards), some
translation was necessary for the performance of this waste allocation
study.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
classified all of the Buffalo River as a Class D stream, which imposes a
minimum dissolved oxygen criterion of 3.0 mg/1. However, for at least
the past twenty years, much of the dredged portion has been septic and
devoid of fish life.
The New York State classifications for the rest of the Buffalo
River Basin are as follows:
Buffalo Creek, from its confluence with Cayuga Creek
(NiBuBu 45.65) to Elma Centennial Park (NiBuBu 60.2) ,
is Class B; and upstream of NiBuBu 60.2, class A.
Cayuga Creek, from its confluence with Buffalo Creek
(NiBuCy 45.65) to Aurora Street in Lancaster (NiBuCy 54.2) ,
is Class C; and upstream of NiBuCy 54.2, Class B.
Cazenovia Creek, from its' confluence with the Buffalo
River (NiBuCz 43.40) to Cazenovia Street (NiBuCz 44.6),
is Class D; and upstream of NiBuCz 44.6 is Class B.
With an assumed projection that the dissolved oxygen level in the
Buffalo River would be brought up to the minimum, of 3.0 ppm, a study was
begun to identify organisms which would then inhabit the river, and to
estimate their tolerances to other parameters, with the objective of es-
tablishing limits to be utilized in determing water quality contraventions
based upon the "fish life" criterion. Two approaches to this study were
considered:
(1) a characterization of existing biota in comparable,
less polluted streams, and
(2) a species listing based on characterizations of the
Buffalo River area when it was less polluted.
A preliminary investigation determined that any stream in the area suf-
ficiently unpolluted to maintain its normal species complement would not
-40-
-------
be hydrologically comparable to the Buffalo River; therefore the second
approach was followed. To obtain data on an essentially unpolluted
Buffalo River, one must use 1880 data or earlier. At that time, however,
the stream was not channeled and its depth was not maintained by dredging.
These alterations so profoundly affected the hydrology of the Buffalo
River area that species comparison from this era would be invalid.
A useful compromise between hydrological similarity and relative
water purity, for the purposes of this program, is the result of a bio-
logical characterization of the Buffalo-Niagara watershed in 1928-1929
by the State of New York Conservation Department,23'21* which is sum-
marized in Appendix B. Utilizing this species list, the "fish life" cri-
terion of the New York State Standards was translated into the limiting
concentrations of chemical constituents of Table 16. This translation was
based upon the works of McKee and Wolf19 and of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.20 The column in Table 15 headed "New York State Standards"
will serve as the basis in this study for determining water quality
contraventions.
More recently, after the above effort was completed, the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency published a similar list2l in the form of
proposed national water quality standards, in compliance with the require-
ments of Section 304(a) of Public Law 92-500. Table 15 incorporates these
EPA proposed criteria for reference purposes only. Any attempt to compare
the two lists of limiting concentrations or to rationalize any differences
would be highly improper, within the scope of this present study. It is
fully recognized that this is a highly complex task, with many instances
of parameter interactions.
The "fish life" criterion translation, in addition to concentrations
of chemical constituents, must also include a consideration of thermal
pollution. The impact of heat addition upon aquatic biota takes several
forms (which may also act synergistically):
a) Alteration of the physical properties of water.
b) Alteration of the solubility of dissolved gases.
Thermal pollution decreases the dissolved oxygen
solubility; not only decreasing the maximum con-
centration of oxygen, but as important, decreasing
the concentration driving force for reaeration of
oxygen-deficient waters.
c) Alterations in the reaction rate of chemical and bio-
chemical reactions. In particular, the oxidation of
organic wastes is greatly accelerated by elevated
temperature, thereby more rapidly depleting available
oxygen.
d) If sufficiently-high temperatures are reached,
organisms may be directly killed.
-41-
-------
Table 15. Maximum Concentrations of Chemical Constituents
Necessary for the Protection of Fish Life
Maximum Concentration, mg/llter
Constituents
NO3-N
P-Total
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
Phenols
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Cyanide
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Ammonia
New York State
Standards
4
25
500
250
1.5
7
0.2
1.0
5.0
0.05
0.8
0.1
0.006
0.7
2.5
0.1*
0.3*
0 2*
0.3*
2.0*
EPA Proposed Criteria
(Hard Water)
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.0002
1.0
0.005
0.03
0.03
0.17
0.02
'Explicit in New York State Standards
-42-
-------
e) Physiological processes such as reproduction,
development and metabolism are temperature-
dependent.
f) Spatial temperature anomalies can block the
passage of anadromous fish, greatly reducing
future populations.
The proposed EPA Water Quality Criteria21 define the maximum weekly
average temperature as one-third of the range between the optimum tem-
perature and the ultimate upper incipient lethal temperature for the most
sensitive important species (or appropriate life stage) that is normally
found at the location at that time. EPA further states that the heated
plume temperature be limited to 10 °C greater than the ambient temperature
and defines other considerations related to the sensitivity of aquatic
biota.
The proposed EPA Water Quality Criteria21 lists, for a number of
fish species, the maximum weekly average temperature for growth and the
maximum short-term temperature for survival during the summer. These
data were based upon a 24-hour median lethal limit minus 2°C and accli-
mation at the maximum weekly average temperature for summer growth. The
data in Table 16 were abstracted from the EPA table, using the species
list for the Buffalo River Basin (Appendix B) as the basis for selection:
Table 16
Maximum Temperatures for Selected Fish Species (21)
Species Maximum Temperature, °C
Common Name Scientific Name Growth Survival
Carp Cyprinus carpio - 34
Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 33 36
Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 28 31
Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens
Northern Pike Esox lucius 28 30
White Crappie Pomosix annular is 27 32
White Sucker Catostomus commersonnii 27 29
Yellow Perch Perca flavesceus 22 29
For the purposes of this program, based upon the discussion above, an
upper limit of 29 °C should permit short-term survival of the species
listed and so will be used as the upper temperature limit.
6.2 ACQUISITION OF WATER QUALITY DATA
Very early in this study, a survey of existing water quality data
was made in sufficient detail to identify what additional data would be
needed. Many agencies have been active over the years in stream sampling
and analysis in the study area, including the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the International Joint Commission, the New York State
-43-
-------
Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
U.S. Public Health Service, the Erie County Health Department, and the
Great Lakes Laboratory of the State University College at Buffalo.
Although the quantity of water quality data available from other
agencies is too voluminous and repetitive to permit reproduction in this
report, a great deal of these data were obtained and examined during this
study. Table 17 lists averages of some of the more pertinent and recent
data reported by other agencies. Note that stream, data for the dredged
lower reach of the Buffalo River must be recent in order to be useful;
the flow augmentation project of the Buffalo River Improvement Corpora-
tion in 1967 drastically affected this reach. Moreover, very recent
significant reductions in wastes have been made by the industries along
this reach.
In Table 17, the River Mile index is based upon the longitudinal
distance from the mouth of the Niagara River; for reference purposes, the
following are the indices for the junctions in the Buffalo River Basin:
Buffalo River (Mouth) NiBu 37.83
Buffalo Ship Canal (Mouth) NiBuSc 38.30
Buffalo River, End of Dredged Reach NiBu 43.06
Cazenovia Creek (Mouth) NiBuCz 43.40
Buffalo Creek (Mouth) NiBuBu 45.65
Cayuga Creek (Mouth) NiBuCy 45.65
The streams are specified according to the following codes:
Ni Niagara River
NiBu Buffalo River
NiBuSc Buffalo Ship Canal
NiBuBu Buffalo Creek
NiBuCz Cazenovia Creek
NiBuCy Cayuga Creek
The reporting agencies for these water quality data are abbreviated in
Table 17 according to the following code, which also specifies the source
of the data:
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency26
GLL - Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College
at Buffalo27
DEC - New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.28 These data include U.S.G.S. data
RPB - Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board5
The data received from DEC were the results of analysis of indivi-
dual samples. The averages of DEC data in Table 17 reflect only samples
taken during the summer months (July, August, and September) of 1969
through 1972. The GLL data averages similarly reflect only summertime
sampling in 1969 and 1970. The EPA (1971) and RPB (1972) data probably
-44-
-------
Table 17. Averages of Water Quality Data as Reported by Other Agencies
!/*•
sai
l/8ui
SSI
/ta
I/O-
I!
•"
r*. r-»
i
—
o
(N*
n
Niagara Ceoil Gucid Si . N
Cooti GuoiJ Jl. N
^ to ioio-4-o S »o
8 3 1 S
"
SS S 3 3
<•> -^ T <•» rt
28 3 S
<<_1 0<<_,< _,
33333333333
ZZZZZ-ZZ ZZZZ
< < ^ >
s
flO
w
w> r>» -^
ZZ Z
x o £
ill
is
0
5
VI
t
O
y*
as as
Buffalo Cfc. . Union Rd. N
Union KJ N
r*
< =a a*
MM"*
(1 O l»
|||
J>
U
|
S
u
T *r
'L
zz
Is
55
u
a
1^
u*.
11
£•?
< i
So
zz
o
53
32
"*. ^
O 9
3 ft
S2«
^ O O
— -O
*>«n
zzzzzzzzzzz
-------
reflect sane winter data, although most of the stream sampling was ac-
complished in the summertime.
Data for other water quality parameters, i.e., hardness, color,
turbidity, total colifirm, COD, chlorine demand, manganese and silica;
were also published by the above agencies, but were not specifically in-
cluded in this study.
For the purposes of planning the field portion of this study, the
following conclusions were reached concerning available historical data:
A considerable amount of attention has been devoted to measuring
the following groups of parameters:
Temperature, DO, BOD, COD
pH, Alkalinity, Hardness ''
TS, TSS, IDS
Turbidity, Conductivity
Bacteria
Phosphates, Nitrogens
Chloride, Sulfate
Some scattered data is available for the following:
Color
Cla Demand
Manganese
Ammonia
Phenols
Iron
Little data is available for the following groups of parameters:
Oil and Grease
Ca, Mg, Na, K
As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn
CN-, F-
Based upon a prior review of the historical stream data and upon an ob-
servation early in this program of the unconventional hydraulics of the
Buffalo River, a field effort was planned to:
(1) Provide water quality data as a function of depth
and of cross-channel position, since strong indi-
cations of significant gradients were initially
observed.
(2) Provide longitudinal water quality data sufficient
to correlate with each of the major discharges.
(3) Provide water quality data for the full range of
parameters; since prior data was incomplete with
respect to metals, oil and grease, and some toxic
-46-
-------
substances; and since these parameters are con-
stituents of the industrial discharges.
Early in this field effort, in recognition of the difficulty in
obtaining accurate analyses for heavy metals in the micrograms per liter
ranges, the laboratory obtained two reference samples from the Method and
Performance Evaluation Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency (M &
PE 1171). The results, listed in Table 18, show excellent reproducibility.
Table 19 is a list of the sampling stations for the field effort in
this program.
The individual data points for the field water quality sampling and
analysis effort in this study are listed in Appendix C. The averages, for
each water quality parameter at each station, are listed in Table 20. The
data are based on a stream sampling effort which was conducted in the sum-
mer of 1973, from August through early October.
In fulfillment of a contractual requirement, all of the water quality
data generated in this study, as well as a great deal of historical stream
data previously generated by the Rochester Field Office of Region II, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, was entered into the STORET system.
The averages of Table 20 include all data at each longitudinal sta-
tion, regardless of the sampling depth or of the cross-channel position.
The vertical and transverse gradients will be separately presented and
discussed.
This study was also interested in documenting the water quality of
the Buffalo water supply and of the Buffalo River Improvement Corporation
supply. The data were extracted from the "intake" sections of the many
NPDES permit applications for these industries, from Kopp and Kroner29
which summarized trace metal analyses, from DC reports,8 and from a draft
Environmental Impact Statement by the Corps of Engineers.3l This latter
reference was particularly valuable for determining the BRIC dissolved oxy-
gen content since water quality was determined in the very locality of the
BRIC intake, and since the NPDES system does not include dissolved oxygen
data.
Table 21 lists averages of these data, clearly showing that while
the city water is of excellent quality, with the intake well out in Lake
Erie, the BRIC water is of somewhat lower quality, since the BRIC intake
is quite close to the shoreline and is within the Buffalo Outer Harbor.
6.3 WATER QUALITY IN THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES TO THE BUFFALO RIVER
The water quality of the upper reaches of the three tributaries to
the Buffalo River was recently studied by the Erie and Niagara Counties'
Regional Planning Board (RPB), with attention focused upon dissolved oxy-
gen, BOD, phosphates, and bacteria.5 In brief, the conclusions reached
by RPB are as follows:
-47-
-------
Table 18. Check on Trace Metal Analytical Accuracy
' Concentrations in t^g/ liter
Parameter
Al
As
Cr
Cu
Fe.
Pb
Mn
Zn
Sample
. EPA
25
22
9.2
9.0
18
28
13
10
X
Lab
<50
<10
10
<10
<20
20
<20
7
Sample
EPA
1100
278
406
314
769
350
449
357
Y
Lab
1300
250
440
315
810
340
450
375
Limit of
Detection
50
10
10
10
20
20
20
1
-48-
-------
Totle 19. Sampling Station Locations, Reid Stream Study
Waterv/ay Station No.
Niagara River
Ship Canal
Buffalo River,
Dredged
Portion
Buffalo River,
Undredged
Portion
Buffalo Creek
Cazenovia Creek
Cayuga Creek
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
River Mile Index
NJ
Ni
NiBuSc
NIBu
NiBu
Ni8u
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBuBu
NiBuCz
NiBuCz
NiBuCy
37.70
37.76
38.83
38.20
38.70
39.44
39.65
39.81
40.20
41.40
41.53
42.16
42.33
42.47
42.54
42.62
42.69
42.87
43.06
43.53
43.73
45,65
51.X
43.53
51.40
53.10
Description of Station
Buffalo Water Intake
South Pier, Coast Guard Station
Upstream of Michigan Ave. Bridge
Downstream of Skyway Bridge
Michigan Ave. Bridge
Ohio St. Bridge
Alabama St.
Hamburg St.
Downstream of Katherfne St.
Perm Central RR Bridge
Smith St. Pier
Downstream of S. Park Ave. Bridge
Downstream of S . Park Ave . Bridge
Downstream of S. Park Ave. Bridge
S. Park Ave. Bridge
Upstream of S . Park Ave . Bridge
Upstream of S. Park Ave. Bridge
Upstream of S. Park Ave. Bridge
DL&W RR Bridge
Bailey Ave. Bridae
Seneca St. Bridge
Harlem Rd. Bridge
Transit Rd. Bridge
Bailey Ave. Bridge
Transit Rd . Bridge
Transit Rd . Bridae
-49-
-------
Table 20. Averages of Water Quality Data Measured in This Study
o
I
Station
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
25
26
Stream
Ni
Ni
NiBuSc
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu •
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBu
NiBuBu
NiBuCz
NiBuCz
NiBuCy
R.M.
Index
37.70
37.76
38.83
38.20
38.70
39.44
39.65
39.81
40.20
. 41 .40
41.53
42.16
42.33
42.47
42.54
42.62
42.69
42.87
43.06
43.53
43.73
45.65
51.30
43.53
51.40
53.10
Temp.,
"C
25.4
27.3
25.8
28.0
24.8
25.9
27.5
20.2
18.2
26.0
21.6
17.5
D.O.
mg/l
1.4
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.2
3.4
7.5
0.5
8.5
0.4
Sp.Cond.
u mhos/cm
449
477
449
427
500
570
410
PH
7.31
7.38
7.14
7.39
7.07
7.43
8.35
6.93
9.00
7.52
TSS
mg/l
0
10
19
23
50
54
45
34
78
41
28
11
17
15 .
12
10
24
8
5
38
IDS
mg/l
120
195
193
280
231
288
270
295
248
260
265
258
255
254
258
250
395
260
535
317
Chloride
mg/l
25
46
47
60
56
52
55
64
50
46
48
59
46 •
46
51
56
80
22
57 .
47
Fluoride
mg/l
0.11
0.32
' 0.34
0.54
0.46
0.48
0.47
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.35
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.30
0.50
0.25
0.29
0.64
Sulfate
ma/1
29
48
47
55
60
60
60
58
58
58
62
57
60
60
61
54
61
54
74
53
Phosphate
mg/l
0.97
0.29
0.37
0.19
0.52
0.78
0.67
0.25
0.85
0.44
0.31
0.17
0.32
0.22
0.24
0.17
2.08
0.23
0.33
2.32
NH3-N
mg/l
0
0.42
0.70
0.81
1.26
1.26
0.98
0.78
1.12
0.84
0.70
0.45
0.42
0.28
0.42
0.48
7.56
0
0
4.45
Cyanide
ug/l
0
0
0
0
0
46
52
0
46
33
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
52
Oil & Grease
mg/l
2.5
1.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
0.7
0.1
3.3
2.7
2.8
5.4
2.1
3.5
3.2
5.3
2.4
2.1
2.1
1.5
6.0
-------
Table 20. Averages of Water Quality Data Measured in This Study - continued.
ui
V
Station
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Stream
Ni
Ni
NiBuSc
NiOu
NiBu
NiBu
NiOu
NiBu
NiOu
NiOu
NiOu
Niflu
NiBu
NiOu
• NiEu
NiBu
NiEu
NiDu
NiBu
NiBu
NilJu
NiBu
NiCjBu
NiBuCz
NiCuCz
NiBuCy
R.M.
Index
37.70
37.76
33.83
33.20
33.70
39.44
39.65
39.81
40.20
. 41.40
41.53
42.16
42.33
42.47
42.54
42.62
42.69
42.87
43.06
43.53
43.73
45.65
51.30
43.53
51.40
53.10
N03-N
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.24
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.30
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.20
0.10
0.13
0.07
0.11
Phenol;
6
13
8
9
16
11
7
12
28
29
22
29
18
18
34
70
13
8
10
37
Se
Ufl/l
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
12
Ai
U3/1 i
10
20
20
0
30
30
2C
C
20
•30
20
0
10
10
10
Ba
100
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cd
ua/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cr
0
0
10
6
30
30
30
8
80
flO
70
6
30
20
20
27
7
0
0
5
Cu
ug/l
0
10
20
7
30
30
30
25
50
• 40
50
23
20
30
20
13
13
0
5
35
Fe
350
1,100
1,800
1,130
4,100
4,050
3,450
2, Ht>
5,310
3,650
2,900
1,100
1,640
1,480
1,600
850
1,090
385
180
985
Ha
ua/l
0
24
25
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ni
u a/I
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pb
ug/l
0
0
20
74
30
20
20
92
100
50
90
82
20
0
0
20
96
10
10
17
Zn
ug/l
2
27
31
26
eo
81
76
68
156
106
69
35
39
41
41
42
49
10
6
67
-------
Table 21. Water Quality of Industrial Intake Waters
Parameter
pH
Sp. Cond., umhoi/cm
Alkalinity, mg/l
BOD5, mg/l
TDS, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
NH3-N, mg/l
NO3-N, mg/l
Phosphate, mg/l
Org-N, mg/l
Sulfate, mg/l
Chloride, mg/l
Cyanide, mg/I
Fluoride, ma/I
As, mg/l
Bo, mg/l
Cd, mg/I
Co, mg/l
Cr, mg/1
Cu, mg/l
Fe, mg/l
Pb, mg/I
Mg, mg/l
Hg, mg/l
Ni, mg/l
K, mg/l
No, mg/l
Zn, mg/l
Se, mg/l
Oil 4 Grease, mg/l
Phenols, mg/l
D. O., mg/I
Temperature, °C
City
Water
8.03
316
88
0.9
207
0
o'.o
0.07
0.12
0.1
27
27
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.0
0.01
0.017
0.170
0.010
9.8
0.00
0.01
1.53
9.7
0.083
0.0
1.6
0.004
10.5
21.1
BRIC
Water
8.03
294
88
2.3
197
8
0.5
0.07
1.27
2.0
24
35
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.3
0.01
0.040
0.847
0.023
7.5
0.00
0.014
1.53
9.7
0.083
0.0
1.6
0,008
8.5
21.1
-52-
-------
Buffalo Creek is classified as a "B" stream from its
mouth (at its confluence with Cayuga Creek at River Mile
45.7) to River Mile 60.2; and as an "A" stream above River
Mile 60.2. No violations of the minimum dissolved oxygen
criteria were reported. Some high total phosphorus and
fecal coliform levels were reported; probably the result
of overland flow from agricultural lands in the upper
reaches and of municipal sewage treatment plant effluents
(Jerge-Elma and Elma Town) in the lower reaches.
The stream classification for Cazenovia Creek is "D"
from its mouth (River Mile 43.4) to one mile upstream of
its mouth, and is "B" upstream of River Mile 44.4. No
violations of the dissolved oxygen criteria were reported,
and the good water quality data reflect a relatively low
waste loading to the Cazenovia Creek watershed.
Cayuga Creek has a classification of "C" from its
mouth (at River Mile 45.7) to River Mile 54.2, and as
"B" upstream of River Mile 54.2. The water quality data
indicate low waste loadings in the upper reaches, above
River Mile 54. However, below this point, the dissolved
oxygen levels fell below the minimum 4.0 mg/1, and the
levels of BOD5, total phosphorus and fecal coliform were
all greatly increased, violating the "C" classification
for this reach.
Data for the water quality of the lower reaches of each of the
three tributaries are listed in Tables 17 and 20. For the purpose of
closer examination, these data have been summarized in Table 22. The
gross discrepancy in the poor water quality of Cayuga Creek as compared
to the good water quality of Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks is readily ap-
parent. Summarizing the Cayuga Creek parameters associated with domestic
wastes,
BOD5 9.7 mg/1
DO 2.4 mg/1
Total P 2.6 mg/1 (as POJ
NH3-N 4.5 mg/1
Fecal Coliform 2,200 MPN/100 ml
Oil and Grease 6.0 mg/1
Three municipal sewage treatment plants (all primary) discharge into
Cayuga Creek in Erie County Sanitary District No. 4:
Flow, m3/day Removal Eff., % Adequate
Design Actual BOD SS Chlorination
Depew (Village) 7,500 9,800 28.4 58.4 No
Lancaster (Town) 110 150 72.3 31.0 Yes
Lancaster (Village) 1,900 ? 5.8 24.0 No
-53-
-------
Table 22. Water Quality of Tributaries
Buffalo Ck. Cazenovia Ck. Cayuga Ck.
Flow® 70% Dur., mVday 77,080 79,770 30,343
Flow @ 99% Dur., rrT/day 11,260 12,480 1,220
Temperature, °C 17.1 21.6 17.5
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 8.2 8.8 2.4
BODr, mg/l 1.5 2.7 9.7
Totaf Phosphorus (PO^, mg/l 0.13 0.28 2.6
NH3-N, mg/l 0.2 0.1 4.5
Phenols, mg/l 0.008 0.009 0.037
Cyanide, mg/I 0.01 0.01 0.05
Oil & Grease, mg/l 2.1 1.5 6.0
pH 8.1 9.0 7.5
Fecal Coliform, MPN/100 ml. 275 500 2200
Suspended Solids, mg/l 8 5 38
Dissolved Solids, mg/l 238 535 332
Chloride, mg/l 19 57 47
Fluoride, mg/I 0.18 0.29 0.64
So I fare, mg/l 49 74 53
Nitrate, mg/I 1.6 0.1 0.1
Selenium, mg/l 0.001 0.002 0.012
Iron, mg/l 0.250 0.180 0.985
Zinc, mg/l 0.010 0.006 0.004
Copper, mg/l 0.000 0.010 0.035
Lead, mg/l 0.008 0.010 0.015
Chromium, mg/I 0.000 0.000 0.005
Mercury, mg/l 0.000 0.000 0.000
-54-
-------
The Lancaster Village STP is an Imhoff tank built in 1905; its treatment
is so ineffective that monthly reports are not even filed with the Erie
County Health Department. Erie County plans to phase out all three STP's
for dry weather flow. The plans call for incorporation of the sewage into
the Buffalo sewer system.
The water quality measurements made in this program revealed other
significant data for Cayuga Creek indicating industrial wastes:
Phenols 0.037 rag/1
Cyanide 0.050 mg/1
Selenium 0.012 mg/1
Iron 0.985 mg/1
Copper 0.035 mg/1
Lead 0.015 mg/1
Chromium 0.005 mg/1
The Buffalo Sewer Authority is presently conducting an industrial
waste survey30 to identify the following industrial discharges into the
municipal sewers in Erie County Sewer District No. 4 which may have in-
organic or toxic constituents:
Dresser Transportation Equipment Co.
Arcata Graphics
Bennett Manufacturing Co.
NL Industries
Ward Hydraulics
Industrial discharges to the municipal sewer systems are eventually dis-
charged by the municipal STP's, probably accounting for the pollution of
Cayuga Creek with the above toxic substances. The specific water quality
contraventions for Cayuga Creek, as compared to the water quality criteria
of Table 15, are for dissolved oxygen, ammonia, cyanide and iron. When
the three STP's are phased out, the above water quality problems should no
longer affect Cayuga Creek. In any event, compliance with pretreatment
standards (as they are promulgated) should be investigated by appropriate
agencies.
6.4 WATER QUALITY NEAR THE ENDS OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
The dredged portion of the Buffalo River, a heavily industrialized
area, is the principal subject of this study. The very significant os-
cillating flows of the Buffalo River, discussed in considerable detail
earlier in this report, cause two very distinct phenomena at the upper
and lower boundaries of the dredged portion of the Buffalo River. First,
the data in Tables 17 and 20 show that the water quality upstream of the
dredged portion, between River Mile 43.1 (the upstream boundary of the
dredged portion) and River Mile 45.7 (the confluence of Buffalo Creek and
Cayuga Creek to form the head of the Buffalo River), reflect to a great
extent the poor water quality in the downstream dredged portion. The
-55-
-------
terrperature data below shows that this 4.2-kilometer (2.6-mile) reach is
influenced as much or more from the downstream waters as it is from the
upstream waters:
TT . RM 45.7 - Buffalo Oc. 17.1°C
Upstream m ^^ _ Cayuga c^ 17.5oc
Mid-Reach of Rm 45.65 - Harlem Rd. 20.2°C
Buffalo River RM 43.73 - Seneca St. 27.5°C
RM 43.53 - Bailey Ave. 25.9°C
Downstream RM 42.54 - S. Park Ave. 28.0°C
Similarly, the fluctuating flow of the Buffalo River causes water
from the shoreline of Lake Erie to travel upstream for a significant lon-
gitudinal distance and mix with Buffalo River water close to the mouth of
the river.
Downstream of Ohio Street (River Mile 39.44), the water quality
changes rapidly and begins to resemble the water quality of the lakeshore.
Water quality at these downstream stations, therefore, does not character-
ize the waste load contribution of the Buffalo River to the Niagara River.
Similarly, there is evidence that the Buffalo Ship Canal is periodically
flushed out by the rising and falling lake level.
6.5 WATER QUALITY GRADIENTS IN THE DREDGED PORTION OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
The vertical and cross-channel gradients in temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and specific conductance were measured at several longitudinal
stations over a period of several weeks in the summer of 1973. The indi-
vidual data are included in Appendix C.
Figures 9 and 10 show the temperature and dissolved oxygen gradients
(respectively) in the vertical direction. At the upstream stations, RM 41
and above, both gradients are quite distinct, and with the D.O. level fall-
ing to less than one milligram per liter at depths of 3 meters (10 feet) or
greater. Further downstream, at RM 39.4 (the Ohio Street Bridge), both the
temperature and D.O. vertical gradients are much flatter, consistent with
other evidence that upstream travel of lake water affects the water quality
of the river near the mouth.
The data of Appendix C show that specific conductance (a measure of
dissolved ionic species and used here to indicate concentration gradients
for conservation species) does not exhibit the distinct profiles and gra-
dients that are characteristic of temperature and dissolved oxygen. More-
over, the data of Appendix C indicate reasonably good cross-channel homo-
geneity for all three measured parameters.
The conclusions reached are that:
. Cross-channel gradients are not large.
. The vertical gradients of temperature and dissolved
oxygen are important, especially in the upstream
-56-
-------
33 r
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
RGURE 9
VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
MID-STREAM
-57-
-------
CE
LU
LU
X
o
Q
UU
O
en
2 4 6 8 10 [2 14 16 18 20 22
0.4-
FEET
FIGURE 10
VERTICAL D.O. GRADIENT
MID-STREAM
-58-
-------
portion of the dredged channel; but that vertical
concentration gradients for conservative species
are much less significant. Hence/ a model of two-
layer flow does not appear valid. Rather, it
appears that the driving forces for mixing (con-
vection, diffusion, and the eddies of oscillating
flow) are sufficient to result in homogeneity for
conservative species, but are insufficient to re-
sult in vertically-homogeneous temperature and dis-
solved oxygen.
The earlier discussion of the hydraulics of the dredged portion of
the Buffalo River led to the conclusion that extensive longitudinal mix-
ing was probable, caused by the oscillating flow. A cursory analysis of
the data in Tables 17 and 20 leads to the empirical verification of the
longiti.idi.nal well-mixed hypothesis, from River Mile 43.06 (the upstream
boundary of the dredged portion) to River Mile 39.44 (the Ohio Street
Bridge, where fresh lake water starts to impact the water quality). As
one examines Tables 17 and 20, one parameter (column) at a time, the al-
most complete absence of any significant water quality trends with longi-
tudinal distance in this reach, is readily apparent.
These data in Tables 17 and 20 therefore provide direct experimental
support of the hypothesis of no significant longitudinal water quality gra-
dients which was based upon an independent hydraulic analysis. This hy-
pothesis was also tested (extensively discussed later in this report) by
applying both a "plug-flow" simulation model and a "well-mixed" simulation
model to the river, with the result that the latter model yielded much more
valid water quality results as compared to the experimental data.
6.6 WATER QUALITY OF THE DREDGED PORTION OF THE BUFFALO RIVER
Upon acceptance of the hypothesis of longitudinal homogeneity,
longitudinal averages of the water quality parameters may be presented
and discussed with validity. Table 23 lists these average data, which
were derived from the same new data that were used to generate Tables 17
and 20. There was some weighting applied for knowledge of whether or not
any winter data influenced reported averages. In general, the DEC and
GLL data of Table 17 and the original data of Table 20 were given cre-
dence in this weighting, because raw data was more readily available for in-
spection and critical selection than were the RPB and EPA data of Table 17.
An example of data not used was the EPA data for Ohio Street in Table 17;
the reported temperature of 15.6°C (10°C lower than the rest of the data
in this study) was actually the average of 19 measurements with a range
of 1°C to 26°C; the corresponding dissolved oxygen rate was 0.0 mg/1 to
12.0 mg/1.26
A comparison of the average concentrations in Table 23 with the
corresponding water quality criteria (also listed in Table 23) indicates
-59-
-------
Table 23. Water Quality, Dredged Portion of the Buffalo River
Concentrations In mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD-5
NH3-N
NO3-N
Cyanide
P-Total
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
Phenols
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Water
Quality
Criteria^)
3.0*
--
2.0*
4
0.1*
25
500
250
1.5
7
0.2
1.0
5.0
0.3*
0.05
0.2*
0.8
0.1
0.006
0.7
2.5
0.3*
Measured Data
No. Data Pts.
76
41
29
17
28
28
33
33
17
29
29
12
11
15
27
24
10
21
27
12
21
10
Max.
4.0
14.0
1.26
0.59
0.05
0.85
68
70
0.69
7.2
0.266
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.08
0.06
5.65
0.23
0.017
0.00
0.004
0.178
Min.
0.0
0.6
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.07-
49
46
0.44
0.1
0.008
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.001
0.024
Average
0.94
4.22
0.69
0.13
0.01
0.29
57
57
0.53
2.6
0.027
0.02
0.0
0.00
0.02
0.02
3.11
0.06
0.001
0.00
0.003
0.084
(a) Criteria Labelled * are explicit in N. Y. State Standards
Others are implied by "fish survival" criterion.
-60-
-------
two clear contraventions of water quality criteria. The average dissolved
oxygen concentration of 0.94 rog/1 is far short of the minimum for a Class
D stream, 3.0 mg/1; and the average iron concentration of 3.11 mg/1 is far
above the maximum allowable of 0.8 mg/1. All other averages were within
the criteria, but some individual data points exceeded the criteria:
Number of Data Points
Parameter Total Exceeding Criteria
Oil & Grease 29 1
Phenols 29 1
Chromium 27 4
Lead 21 5
ffercury 27 1
The single data points exceeding the criteria for oil and grease,
phenols and mercury may very well be anomalies in the data. The existence
of multiple data points exceeding the criteria for chromium and lead, how-
ever, provide some reasonable indication that occasional contraventions do
exist for these metals.
The range of 86 temperature measurements made in the dredged por-
tion of the Buffalo River was 21.5°C to 31.2°C with an overall average of
26.9°C. Hence, the average summertime temperature does not exceed the cri-
terion of 29°C. However, of the 86 points, there were 14 individual mea-
surements which did exceed this criterion, indicating occasional contra-
ventions .
6.7 SEDIMENTATION IN THE BUFFALO RIVER
The industrialized portion of the Buffalo River, and the Buffalo
Ship Canal, are periodically dredged for channel maintenance. The quantity
of sediment dredged was estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.31
The quantity of sediment dredged was estimated at 95,500 cubic
meters per year (125,000 cubic yards per year), with a spoil density of
740 kg/cu meter (1,250 Ibs/cu yard). Based upon an average (of 12 samples)
of 34.9 per cent total solids, and assuming that the daily deposition rate
is equal to the average daily dredging rate, the daily deposition rate is
68,000 kilograms (150,000 pounds) of dry solids in the dredged portion of
the Buffalo River and in the Buffalo Ship Canal.
Table 24 lists the composition (average of 12 sediment analyses,
three samples for each of four longitudinal stations) of the sediment,
based upon dry solids, and the corresponding daily quantities of each con-
stituent. The composition of the sediment was reported by Sweeney27 and
by the Corps of Engineers.3 *
The sources of the sediment include suspended solids from upstream
tributaries as well as discharges into the Buffalo River. Based upon data
of Archer and Sala, the total sediment discharged by the three tributaries
-61-
-------
Table 24. Dredged Sediment Analyses and Average Daily Quantities
Parameter
TVS
COD
BOD
C^ Demand
Oil & Grease
Fe
Dissolved PO .
4
Total PO4
NOs-N
NH4-N
Org-N
Total -N
Pb
Zn
Buffalo River (Dredged
Compostion
mg/g (D
-------
to the Buffalo River is 417,000 kkg per year (460,000 tons per year):32
Buffalo Creek 136,000 kkg/yr (150,000 tons/yr)
Cayuga Creek 100,000 kkg/yr (110,000 tons/yr)
Cazenovia Creek 181,000 kkg/yr (200,000 tons/yr)
The daily average is then 1,040,000 kilograms per day (2,520,000
pounds per day), more than enough to account for the quantity dredged from
the river.
6.8 BIOLOGICAL DATA IN THE'BUFFALO RIVER
A good historical data bank exists for biological data in the dredged
portion of the Buffalo River. The 1964 Blum study, 5 conducted before the
flow augmentation project was implemented, showed that the dredged portion
(but not the river mouth where Lake Erie water travelled upstream) was de-
void of demonstrable bottom organisms, consistent with a measured dissolved
oxygen level near zero in the same reach. There was no algal growth or
plankton growth in the industrialized reach of the river.
More recently, three studies by Sweeney21 have reported on the bi-
ology of the river bottom. The following benthic macroinvertebrates were
reported at four stations:
Species Code Class Order Family
A Oligochaeta Pleisophora
B Gastropoda Pulmonata Physidae
C Gastropoda Ctenobranchiata Valvatidae
D Pelecypoda Heterodonta Sphaeriidae
E Insecta Diptera Chironomidae
F Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae
G Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae
H Phasmidia Rhabditat
The data for the Coast Guard Station (Ni 37.66) may be regarded as
a standard for comparison, since the water quality at this station is much
closer to that of Lake Erie than it is to that of the Buffalo River.
(Table 17 shows a dissolved oxygen level of 11.4 mg/1 at this station).
Despite the water quality evidence that fresh lake water partially flushes
the river at Michigan Avenue, Table 25 shows a marked decrease in benthic
species at this station. Further upstream, in the heart of the industri-
alized reach, benthic life is very scarce indeed, consistent with the septic
nature of the river as demonstrated by water quality data and by sediment
analyses.
-63-
-------
Table 25. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Buffalo River Sources:
Data in Number Per Square AAeters (As Reported)
(27)
Station
Coast Guard
Station
Ni 37.66
Michigan
Avenue,
NiBu 38.70
N&WRR
NiBu 41 .77
DL&W RR
NiBu 43.06
Date
6/6/69
7/30/69
9/22/69
5/13/70
8/1 3/70
10/27/70
6/6/69
7/30/69
9/22/69
5/13/70
8/13/70
10/27/70
6/6/69
7/30/69
9/22/69
5/13/70
8/13/70
10/27/70
6/6/69
7/30/69
9/22/69
5/1 3/70
8/13/70
10.27.70
Species A
2,449.0
18,467.5
4,712.5
4,805.0
12,508 5
2,501.0
15.5
62.0
93.0
46.5
1,891.0
124.0
217.0
15.5
837.0
3,689.0
155.0
504.5
15.5
Species B
31.0
Species C
31.0
108.5
15.5
77.5
31.0
Species D
31.0
15.5
Species E
821.5
139.5
186.0
15.5
15.5
Species F
31.0
Species G
62.0
Species H
15.5
-------
7.0 WASTE LOADS
The discussion in this section covers both the current waste loads
into the Buffalo River, and the projected waste loads upon application of
best practicable control and treatment technology.
The Buffalo River is subjected to waste loadings from three sources
(each discussed in detail in this section):
(1) The upstream discharge, of the three tributaries
(Buffalo Creek, Cazenovia Creek and Cayuga Creek).
(2) The frequent overflows into the Buffalo River from
the combined storm/sanitary sewer- system in the
Gity of Buffalo.
(3) The industrial discharges into the Buffalo River.
7.1 UPSTREAM DISCHARGES
The water quality of the upstream tributaries was discussed in the
previous section, and summarized in Table 22. The Buffalo Creek and
Cazenovia Creek, and the upper reaches of Cayuga Creek were all found to
have acceptable water quality, according to New York State criteria. This
is consistent with low waste loadings from primarily agricultural and rural
lands. The lower reach of Cayuga Creek, however, has poor water quality
and severe water quality contraventions, attributable to the discharges
from three municipal sewage treatment plants in Erie County Sanitation Dis-
trict No. 4. Some industrial wastes, as well as domestic wastes, are in
the influent to those municipal STP's. When Erie County completes its
plan to phase out these STP's during the dry weather and incorporate the
sewage into the Buffalo sewer system, the lower reach of Cayuga Creek should
meet the water quality criteria.
The data from Table 22 were used to generate Table 26, the waste
loads into the Buffalo River attributable to the three tributaries. Also
listed in Table 26 are the projected waste loads, based upon the incor-
poration of the Cayuga Creek STP's into the Buffalo sewer system.
Table 26 lists the waste loads under two conditions of flow: the
average summertime flow, equivalent to the 70 per cent duration point; and
the minimum average seven-day critical discharge with a recurrence interval
-65-
-------
Table 26.
Waste Loads fo the Buffalo River from the Discharge of the
Upstream Tributaries
Flow, m /day
Heat Flux, kcal/day x 10"6
pH
Total Solids, kg/day
Dissolved Solids, kg/day
Suspended Solids, kg/day
NH3-N, kg/day
Organic-N, kg/day
BOD-5, kg/day
Dissolved Oxygen, kg/day
NOs-N, kg/day
Cyanide, kg/day
P-Total, kg/day
Sulfate, kg/day
Chloride, kg/day
Fluoride, kg/day
Oil 4 Grease, kg/day
Phenols, kg/day
Arsenic, kg/day
Barium, kg/day
Cadmium, kg/day
Chromium, kg/day
Copper, kg/day
Iron, kg/day
Lead, kg/day
Mercury, kg/day
Nickel, kg/day
Selenium, kg/day
Zinc, kg/day
70% Dur.
"Present"
187,200
0
8.3
73,570
71,140
2,434
205.9
46.8
692.6
1,348
131.0
3.74
132.9
11,230
7,488
59.9
505.4
2.81
0
0
0
0
2.06
70.4
1.87
0
0
0.75
1.31
99% Dur.
" Present"
22,500
0
8.3
8,840
8,550
292.5
24.8
5.63
83.3
162.0
15.8
0.45
16.0
1,350
900
7.20
60.8
0.34
0
0
0
0
0.25
8.46
0.23
0
0
0.09
0.16
70% Dur.
"Projected"
187,200
0
8.6
72,450
71,140
1,310
2S.8
46.8
393.1
1,591
131.0
1.87
37.4
11,230
7,488
44.9
337.0
1.59
0
0
0
0
1.87
40.3
1.69
0
0
0.28
1.50
99% Dur.
"Projected"
22,500
0
8.6
8,710
8,550
157.5
3.38
5.63
47.3
191.2
15.8
0.23
4.50
1,350
900
5.40
40.5
a. 19
0
0
0
0
0.23
4.84
0.20
0
0
0.03
0.18
-66-
-------
of ten years (MA7CD/10), equivalent to the 99 per cent duration point, and
specified as critical flow by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. The heat flux of the upstream discharge is defined as zero,
with the choice of a baseline temperature equivalent to the temperature of
this discharge (19.0°C in summer).
7.2 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
The City of Buffalo is served by a combined sewer system, which was
designed to collect and transport both the dry-^weather sanitary sewage and
most of the wet-weather storm flow. The system was designed to relieve
excess wet-weather flow with multiple overflow weirs and outfall sewers
into receiving waterways. Although the periodic overflows are predominantly
stormwater, raw sanitary sewage is discharged at the same time. Moreover,
accumulations of solids (from sanitary sewage) during dry-weather periods
are flushed out during subsequent rainstorms.
This combined sewer design is, of course, not applied to new con-
struction, since discharge of untreated sanitary sewage into waterways is
in direct violation of all water quality standards. The City of Buffalo
sewer system, like many other systems across the country, is quite old.
Sixty per cent of the Buffalo sewers were built prior to 1910, and 92 per
cent prior to 1940.3 5 The overflows from the combined sewer system of the
Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) discharge into three waterways, of which one
is the dredged portion of the Buffalo River. Of the approximately 70 BSA
outfall sewers, Table 27 lists the major points of discharge into the
Buffalo River.
Two recent studies were used to quantify the waste load from the
combined sewer system into the Buffalo River. One was published by Greeley
and Hansen in 196833 for Erie County; the other was published by L.S.
Wegman in 1973 for the Buffalo Sewer Authority.35
The Greeley and Hansen study emphasized that (in the 1968 time
period) no reliable estimates of overflow quantities could be derived from
the records of the Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA). Although BSA maintained
records of the number of overflows at several of the larger interceptors
and records of the maximum water height at the overflow weir; data of height
vs. time during overflows was not collected.
The estimated overflow quantities were derived in the Greeley and
Hansen study by an analysis of rainfall records, assumptions regarding
ground wetting and runoff, and an assumption regarding the hydraulic capac-
ity of the interceptors. The conclusions were that:
(1) The average number of overflow occurences was 74
per year, or approximately one every five days.
(Note: precipitation is quite evenly distributed
over the year, with an average monthly precipitation
-67-
-------
Table 27.
Major Combined Sewer Discharge Points into the Buffalo River
Hamburg Street Sewer NiBu 38.12
Main Street Sewer •, 38.35
Washington Street 38.42
Indiana Street 38.46
Illinois Street 38.52
Michigan Avenue 38.70
Mackinaw and Ohio 38.82
Ohio Street Storm 39.08
Ganson Street Sewer 39.37
Louisiana Street 39.37
Hamburg and South Streets 39.72
Smith Street 41.32
South Park and Lee Street 42.32
Maurice Street 42.52
Babcock Street 42.62
Abbott Road 42.94
Bailey Avenue 43.32
-68-
-------
of 2.69 inches, a maximum (in November) of 3.09
inches, and a minimum (in July) of 2.43 inches).8
On the average, precipitation occurred 119 times
per year; so that combined sewer overflows resulted
from 62 per cent of the storms.
(2) The total volume of the overflows in the City of
Buffalo (drainage are of 8,960 hectares) was 18.5
million cubic meters per year. On the average,
2.19 per cent of the BSA raw sewage is in the over-
flow, and the total overflow on a unit drainage area
basis is 2,070 cubic meters per year per hectare.
The drainage area served by the combined sewer in the Buffalo River
Basin is 3,610 hectares. Using the factor developed above, the estimated
total overflow into the Buffalo River is 7.45 million cubic meters per
year, or an average of 20,300 cubic meters per day. This waste load was
assumed to be evenly distributed in time for the purposes of this study,
because of the relatively uniform rainfall pattern, the relatively high
frequency of overflows, and the relatively high retention time of the
dredged portion of the Buffalo River. Moreover, because of the multiplic-
ity of overflow points and the mixing phenomena in the Buffalo River, this
waste load was assumed to be spatially distributed. The waste concentra-
tions of combined sewer overflows are extremely variable, of course. These
overflows are a combination of stormwater, street washings, raw sewage, and
sewer flushings; and the accumulated (from dry weather) solids in streets
and sewers which are flushed by stormwater make the waste loads of the over-
flows large and make these waste loads vary considerably not only from storm-
to-storm but also during any particular storm, both spatially and temporally.
Very little historical data was available for the Buffalo River Basin over-
flows; however, one such set of data (in the EPA/Rochester Field Office
records) illustrates this variability:
Table 28
Measurements of Overflows from the Combined Sewer System
Sampling Volatile Fixed Total Sus-
Date Rainfall Location Solids Solids pended Solids
July 31, 1961 Heavy Smith St. 125 mg/1 285 mg/1 410 mg/1
July 31, 1961 Heavy Commercial St. 333 mg/1 1,144 mg/1 1,477 mg/1
August 2, 1961 Moderate Smith St. 22 mg/1 28 mg/1 50 mg/1
August 2, 1961 Moderate Michigan Ave. 25 mg/1 10 mg/1 35 mg/1
These data also point out that because of street and sewer flushings, com-
bined sewer overflows cannot be assumed a simple mixture of stormwater and
average raw sewage. (The average waste concentrations for Buffalo Sewer
Authority raw sewage influent to the treatment plant in 1966 was 94 mg/1
BOD and 143 mg/1 suspended solids).
-69-
-------
Although a systematic study of combined sewer overflows was not
available for Buffalo, one such study was performed at Bucyrus, Ohio,
in the Sandusky River Basin.3" Table 29 lists the results of many over-
flow sample analyses; the average concentrations from this study were
adopted as the waste concentration for this study.
The results (for just BOD and suspended solids) were as follows for
the entire City of Buffalo:
Avg. Overflow Vol., m3/day 50,600
BOD5 mg/1 106
kg/day 5,360
SS mg/1 382
kg/day 19,300
The more recent Wegman study consisted of a similar hydraulic analy-
sis of rainfall/runoff and a similar assumption about the hydraulic ca-
pacity of the interceptors; however, the storm water flows were rigorously
calculated by more recently-developed methods, using actual storm events
over a two-year period. The Wegman finding was that the average overflow
volume attributable to City of Buffalo storm water drainage was 50,700
cubic meters per day, virtually identical to the Greeley-Hansen result of
50,600 cubic meters per day.
However, Wegman used pollutional concentrations from another (non-
Buffalo) source36 to calculate waste loads in the combined sewer overflow:
Avg. Overflow Vol., m3/day 50,700
BOD5 mg/1 74
kg/day 3,760
SS mg/1 255
kg/day 12,910
This is equivalent to an average 1.3 per cent of the BSA raw sewage
in the combined sewer overflow, a low figure (as admitted by Wegman) com-
pared to other systems. It is possible, however, using the data in the
Wegman report to independently calculate the pollutional loads of combined
sewer overflows, without use of non-Buffalo pollutional concentrations.
The sum of dry-weather flows and the calculated storm runoff flows is the
total input to the sewer system (on a time-integrated basis over two years
of study). This sum, less the measured influent flow at the BSA Sewage
Treatment Plant, must be the loss due to combined sewer overflows:
F^ow, BOD5, SS,
m /day kg/day Ig/day
Dry Weather Flow* 546,700 99,800 75,500
Storm Water Runoff* 155,000 1,100 19,700
Total Input 701,700 100,900 95,200
STP Influent* 651,000 95,200 78,000
Combined Sewer Overflow 50,700 5,700 17,200
*Independently-estimated or calculated in the Wegman Study.
-70-
-------
Table 29.
Waste Concentration of Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio
Parameter
BOD., mg/1
COD, mg/1
SS, mg/I
VSS, mg/1
TS, mg/1
NO3-N, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
Org-N, mg/1
PO4, mg/1
Total Coliform/
100ml
Fecal Coliform/
100 ml
Fecal Strep/100 ml
Median
Location I
140
394
360
180
1,260
3.2
1.1
5.6
8.8
3.6x 106
2.4 x 106
0.5x 106
Values of Multiple
Location 2
100
40
400
160
780
3.1
1.1
6.7
7.7
7.5 x 106
0.4 x 106
0.02 x 106
Samples
Location 3
78
355
385
200
830
2.4
1.8
5.9
7.5
3.6x 106
0.3 x 106
O.C4x 106
Average of
Median Values
106
396
382
180
957
2.93
1.33
6.06
8.00
4.90 x 106
l.OSx 106
0.19 x 106
-71-
-------
Table 30.
Waste Loads to the Buffalo River from Combined Sewer Overflows
Flow, m3/day 20,300
Total Solids, kg/day 19,430
Dissolved Sol ids, kg/day 11,670
Suspended Solids, kg/day 7,755
NH3-N, kg/day 27.0
Organic-N, kg/day 123,0
BOD-5, kg/day 2,152
Dissolved Oxygen, kg/day 189.8
NO3-N, kg/day 41.2
P-Total, kg/day 53.0
-72-
-------
The following table summarizes the three sets of data:
Greeley-Hansen Wegman plus Material
plus USWPC Research Balance Using
Burgess-Niple Data Wegman Data
Avg. Overflow Vol., mVday 50,600 50,700 50,700
BOD rag/1 106 74 112
kg/day 5,360 3,760 5,700
SS mg/1 382 255 339
kg/1 19,300 12,910 17,200
For the practical purposes of this program, it is concluded that the
Wegman study verifies the combined sewer overflow waste loads calculated
from the Greely and Hansen study. For use in this waste allocation pro-
gram for the Buffalo River, the above waste loads are multiplied by the
drainage area ratio of 0.402 (Buffalo River Drainage Basin of 3,610 hect-
ares and total City of Buffalo Drainage area of 8,960 hectares). The
Wegman report shed no new light on the quantification of the overflows
from each of the more than 250 BSA overflow chambers or from each of the
70 BSA overflow outfalls.
Based upon an average overflow rate into the Buffalo River of
20,300 cubic meters per day, and upon the waste concentrations from Table
29, the waste loads into the Buffalo River from the combined sewer over-
flows are presented in Table 30.
Although several recommendations for abatement of this pollution load
were made in both the Greeley and Hansen and Wegman studies, there is at
present no known approved plan for implementing any of these recommenda-
tions. Hence, for the purposes of this waste allocation study, the pro-
jected waste loads into the near future will be unchanged from the current
combined sewer overflow waste loads.
7.3 PRESENT INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS
As of July 1973, there were 32 industrial point discharges to the
dredged portion of the Buffalo River. A total of 13 different NPDES per-
mit applications (i.e., companies) were on file with Region II of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, so that many of the companies had more
than one point discharge. Table 31 lists the point discharges in the order
of River Mile, starting with the discharge furthest upstream. The "com-
pany number" in Table 31 corresponds to the NPDES application identifica-
tion number assigned by EPA. The volumetric flow rate for each discharge
is also listed in Table 31.
The waste loads for each point discharge were calculated directly
from the NPDES permit applications, and are listed in Appendix D. One
parameter, however, the dissolved oxygen content of the industrial efflu-
ents, was not included in the NPDES permit applications. Discussions with
-73-
-------
Table 31.
Industrial Discharges to the Buffalo River
Co. No.
043
482
419
482
326
482 '
326
084
482
569
191
424
271
339
056
088
114
Discharge
Name S/N
Mobil Oil 001
Allied, Buffalo Dye 01 1
Allied, ICO 001
002
003
004 .
Allied, Buffalo Dye 010
009
008
Republic Sleel 001
Allied, Buffalo Dye 007
' 006
005
004
003
Republic Steel 004
002
003
Ooimer Hanno Coke 001
Allied, Buffalo Dye 002
001
Airco ' 001
Pacific Molasses 001
U.S. Sleel 001
International Multi- 002
foods
001
American Molting 001
002
Peavey 003
002
001
Agwoy 001
General Mills 001
Bank
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
River
Mile
42.92
42.72
42.66
42.64
42.58
42.55
42.54
42.53
42.52
42.48
42.43
42.42
42.41
42.27
42.26
42.25
42.24
42.06
42.02
41.89
41.82
41.25
40.34
40.05
39.98
39.72
39.62
39.61
39.56
39.55
39.54
38.85
38.67
Flow,
m3/day
105,980
17,979
15,897
7,570
14,005
5,299
16,276
8
95
32,930
4,542
28,388
1,893
76
208
59,046
30,356
49,773
32, 135
95
114
27
2
545
23
170
265
1,893
11
64
397
19
1,476
-74-
-------
quantities of raw materials, products, and process
water use; to enable the direct use of guidance or
guideline documents in generating waste loadings.
(2) The Levels B and A guidance documents only cover
selected industries; several of the major dis-
chargers in this study were not covered.
(3) The Level I and Level II guideline documents were,
in October 1973, in a state of development and re-
view. Some industries were covered in Phase I of
Group I, with the contractors' reports published
June 30, 1973, but not all of these were then pub-
lished in the Federal Register. Other industries
were being studied in Phase II of Group I, and the
contractors' development documents were expected
by the end of FY 1973. Still other industries
were to be studied in Group II; the development
documents were not expected before the end of
FY 1974 (too late to be useful in this study).
To overcome these difficulties so that recommended waste allocations
could be made available to EPA by December 31, 1973, EPA and Versar mutually
agreed that the projected industrial discharges would be based upon full
compliance with either issued NPDES permits or with EPA Region II Permit
Summary Tables as of October 1973. By that date, only Allied SCO had been
issued a permit,and Permit Summary Tables had been prepared for Mobil Oil,
Allied ICD, and Republic Steel. In addition, the application of best
practicable control technology to the Donner-Hanna Coke plant (as then
defined by Interim Effluent Guidance documents and by the then-pending
development document for Effluent Guidelines) resulted in the following
projection:
BOD5 15.1 kg/day net (89-.1 kg/day gross)
Phenols 0.335 kg/day net (0.60 kg/day gross)
All other parameters, same as "present"
The remaining eight industrial dischargers account for only 1.5 per
cent of the total industrial discharge in the dredged portion of the
Buffalo River. For the purposes of this waste allocation program, the
volume of these eight discharges is not critically important to the results.
Their relatively small volumetric flowrate also makes their utilization of
the municipal sewer system a reasonable projection, which would be the
equivalent (for the purposes of this analysis) of a projection of complete
elimination of water-borne waste discharges into the Buffalo River. Hence,
the projection is effective elimination of these discharges. In verifi-
cation of this projection, it was learned that the Buffalo Sewer Authority
has plans to provide a sanitary sewer on Katherine Street to accomodate
Airco, Pacific Molasses, and U.S. Steel. A sanitary sewer for Kelley Is-
land (Ganson Street) is under active development, to accomodate International
Multifoods, American Malting, and Peavey.
-77-
-------
Elimination of sate of the present point discharges and waste abate-
ment in many of the others, according to the application of best practicable
control and treatment technology, resulted in the projected individual waste
loads listed in Appendix E and in the total projected industrial waste load
listed in Table 32.
7.5 COMPARISON OF WASTE LOADS
A cursory comparison of the various waste loads (at average summer
flow) is shown below, using BOD5as the parameter of comparison:
BOD5 Load, kg/day
Present Projected
Upstream Tributaries / 693 393
Combined Sewer Overflows 2,152 2,152
Industrial Point Sources 4,096 1,221
Totals 6,941 3,766
On this basis of BOD5 waste load, the combined sewer overflow con-
stitutes 31 per cent of the present waste load, a very significant frac-
tion. Upon realization of the projected reductions in the other waste
loads, however, these combined sewer overflows would constitute 59 per
cent of the total; and would thus become the predominant source of wastes
into the Buffalo River.
The data above also show, with respect to BOD5, that the application
of best practicable control technology would result in very large reduc-
tions in the waste loads from the upstream tributaries (43 per cent) and
from, the industrial point sources (70 per cent). Despite the projection
of no abatement in the near future of the combined sewer overflow wastes,
the total projected BCD5 waste loads would signify a 46 per cent reduction
from the present total.
-78-
-------
8.0 SIMULATION MODEL
The data describing the present water quality of the industri-
alized reach of the Buffalo River, and data describing the present waste
loads into this reach, have been separately presented in prior sections
of this report. The purpose of this section is to describe a simulation
model that can adequately correlate these two sets of data, i.e., to
calculate a set of water quality data (from empirical waste load data)
that matches the set of empirical water quality data. Once such a corre-
lation of present data is achieved, the model will be used to project
future water quality from projected waste loads.
8.1 CHOICE OF MODELING APPROACHES
The simulation models in general use may be categorized into
three groups: the relatively simple steady-state uniform flow stream
models which are essentially computerized versions of the Streeter-
Phelps analysis for the BOD-DO relationship; the models which have been
created to simulate water bodies significantly different from the classi-
cal one-dimensional free-flowing stream; and the models which have been
created to analyze some water quality parameters of special interest.
Many rudimentary models are being used by water quality planners
of the first type, the computerized Streeter-Phelps relationships. Among
those better known are STREM, developed by Hydroscience, Inc., for the
Delaware River Basin Commission;3 7 and BOSAG, originally developed by the
FWPCA and later modified and documented by the Texas Water Development
Board.3 8 Some of these models have been expanded to include the diurnal
photosynthetic effect upon the dissolved oxygen deficit.3 9 / "* °
Many of the models of the first type are limited in the water
quality parameters they include or are limited to the very simplest phy-
sical _ applications of point sources of wastes to a constant-temperature,
non-dispersive, free-flowing stream. The requirements of this study
dictate attention to a great many water quality parameters. Furthermore,
the investigation of the hydraulics of the Buffalo RLver provided con-
siderable evidence that a free-flowing (i.e., plug-flow) simulation would
not be appropriate.
The second type of simulation model addresses the problems of
water bodies not falling into the class of free-flowing streams. Two
specific physical situations have received attention. First are the
impoundment models describing lakes and reservoirs. The Water Resources
-79-
-------
Engineers, Inc., model,39 the Washington University model,1*1 the
demson model,1*2 the MTT model1*3 and the Wisconsin University model1*1*
fall into this category. Second are the estuary models with necessary
time-variation, typified by the Texas A & M efforts,1*5 the Water Re-
sources Engineers, Inc., efforts,39'1*8 the O'Connor and Thomann
efforts,1*6'1*7 the Tracer efforts,1*9 the Chesapeake Bay Institute
efforts,50 the MIT efforts,51 the Texas University efforts,52'53 and
EPA efforts.51*
This type of simulation model appears to be applicable to the
physical situation of the Buffalo River. Evidence for a well-mixed con-
dition has been presented, both from an analysis of the hydraulics and
from the longitudinal homogeneity of the water quality data, so that the
lake-and-reservoir modeling approach should have some applicability.
Although evidence for fluctuating flows in the Buffalo River was pre-
sented, no attempt has been made to systematically acquire time-varying
water quality data (and no persuasive evidence has been uncovered to
deem this necessary), so that estuary models would not add a useful
dimension to this study.
The third type of simulation model is aimed at a specific pollu-
tion parameter. Thermal pollution has received significant attention,1*3'
55'58 as has acid mine drainage.55'57 Clearly, this present study is too
broad in scope to concentrate on such specifics, but the techniques for
modeling thermal pollution could be utilized in this study.
Several types of existing models therefore would be adaptable to
the needs of this program, but no single computerized model was found
which had all of the desired features. Moreover, the task of abstracting
portions of computerized versions of several models and then combining
them for the purposes of this study appeared a formidable one. It was
decided, then, to abstract the mathematical techniques of several exist-
ing models, to augment these techniques as required, and to then program
the result.
Program VERW2Q was thus created as a simulation model for water
quality prediction, which extends the capabilities of other models in
the following ways:
(1) A stream may be treated either by a plug-flow approach
(no longitudinal dispersion) or by a completely-mixed
approach (complete dispersion of all constituents in-
cluding heat). The same computer program is used for
both; the desired approach is selected with an input
key word.
(2) The model and computer program may simultaneously
handle an unlimited number of water quality parameters,
-80-
-------
both conservative and non-conservative. At present,
57 parameters can be treated, including all 27 required
by the Great Lakes list of pollution parameters. Inde-
pendent flexibility for listing the output is built into
the program, to select and permute the parameters accord-
ing to the user's interests.
(3) Thermal analysis of a stream includes the heat flux from
discharges and tributaries, convection and conduction be-
tween the stream and the ambient air, and solar radiation
to the stream. Two additional program options (selected
by input key words) are to include or neglect heat transfer
and radiation, and to include or neglect heat additions
from discharges and tributaries.
(4) The reaeration coefficient is determined in each river
segment in two ways: as determined by stream velocity,
and as determined by wind velocity. The program selects
the larger of the two coefficients for each reach.
(5) The combined sewer overflows were treated as distributed
(non-point) wastes. For the plug-flow model, the Streeter-
Phelps differential equations were augmented by a distributed
waste model and re-integrated. Benthal oxygen demand was
also treated as a distributed waste load, and was treated
primarily as a function of sedimentation of combined sewer
overflow solids.
(6) The model and program have been constructed so that the
following features may be expeditiously added to the calcu-
lations:
a) Precipitation of slightly-soluble salts, to account for
in-stream reactions among ionic constituents of differ-
ent waste streams. Calculated ionic concentration pro-
ducts will then not exceed established solubility con-
stants. This effort is increasingly important as
various water quality criteria become more quantitatively
explicit with respect to small concentrations of many
chemical species.
b) Sedimentation of Suspended Solids. This effort is im-
portant to effectively simulate suspended solids and
sediiriented solids, and to provide a feedback for calcu-
lating benthic loads.
c) Bacteria die-off.
As the earlier discussion hinted, two independent and convincing
arguments exist for a completely-mixed model; the results of an analysis
of the hydraulics and the longitudinal homogeneity of water quality data.
-81-
-------
For these reasons, a completely-mixed simulation model was to be tested.
The modeling effort, however, also included the testing of a plug-flow
model (as normally applied to free-flowing streams) ; the objective was
to permit the better modeling approach to emerge on its own merits. As
the succeeding discussion shows, the completely- mixed model turned out
to be the better choice, thereby providing a third independent verifica-
tion for the assumed hydraulic character of the Buffalo River.
In the presentation of water quality data, observations were made
of transverse as well as longitudinal homogeneity, and of vertical homo-
geneity for conservative parameters. Distinct vertical gradients, how-
ever, were observed for temperature and dissolved oxygen. While the
importance of these gradients should not be discounted, the time and
budgetary constraints of this study dictated that the modeling effort
should be limited to the simulation of averaged data.
The following sections describe highlights of the VERWAQ model in
some mathematical detail. The first sections are devoted to some of the
features of the plug-flow option which makes it unique with respect to
other plug-flow simulation models. Ihe mathematical basis for completely-
mixed option is then described. Finally, the application of these models
to arrive at an adequate simulation model for the Buffalo River is
discussed.
8.2 FEATURES OF THE VERWAQ PLUG-FLOW MODEL
A. Thermal Analysis with Distributed Load and Heat Transfer.
The steady-state balance in a river at a point-source addition of either
a wastewater discharge or a tributary flow is straightforward:
Qdea
where Q = upstream river flow rate, m3/day
Q, = discharge or tributary flow rate, m3/day
6 = upstream temperature, °C
6-, = discharge or tributary temperature, °C
9, = downstream temperature, °C
The steady-state heat balance around a differential segment of the river
(between point-source additions), with inclusion of heat transfer and of
a non-point-source (distributed) waste load, is composed of the follow-
ing terms, each in Kcal/day:
-82-
-------
Upstream Heat Flux = C _ Q (9 - 9*)
Non-Point-Source Heat Flux = 0(9^ - 9*) ( — ) dx
Heat Transfer Heat Flux = W(RAD + CCNV) dx
Downstream Heat Flux = -C (Q + =- dx) (9 - 8* + d8 )
P °
where 9* = Reference Temperature, °C
= Non-Point-Source (Distributed) total flow rate, m3/day
= Lcngitudinal distance (reach) , meters, over which
is evenly distributed
x = Longitudinal distance from start of river segment, meters
W = Width of river, meters
RAD = Net daily solar radiation, kcal/m2, day
OONV = Heat transfer rate from the atmosphere to the river,
kcal/ta2, day
C - Heat capacity for water = 10 Kcal/n3 , °C
P
Setting the sum of the above four terms equal to zero (for steady-
state) and integrating over a longitudinal river distance X (meters)
yields:
= 90 + - I 10"3W(EAD + OCNV) + (9^- 9Q)
where 9, = Temperature, °C, at the downstream end of X.
The heat transfer rate from the atmosphere to the river may be
found by the following empirical relation:52
OCNV = (93.7 + 41.9 WIND) (8 - 9)
cl
where WIND = wind speed, m/sec
9 = Air temperature, °C
cl
9 = River temperature, °C
B. Waste Oxidation with a Distributed Load. The steady-state
carbonaceous BOD balance around a differential segment of the river
-83-
-------
(between point-source additions), with inclusion of a non-point-source
(distributed) waste load, is composed of the following terms, each in
Kg/day of BOD (ultimate):
Upstream waste input - C*L Q
Non-Point-Source waste input = C*L.,_ —— dx
Reaction loss = - C*K_L WH dx
Downstream Output = - C*(Q + ~- dx) (L + <3L )
0 oo
where L = Upstream carbonaceous BOD concentration, mg/1
Iv_ = Non-Point-Source carbonaceous BOD concentration, mg/1
C* = Conversion Factor = 10" 3 Kg-1/mg-m3
H = Depth of river, meters
K_ = River carbonaceous BOD removal coefficient, I/day
and where the other syirbols are as previously defined.
Setting the sum of the above four terms equal to zero (for
steady-state) and integrating over a longitudinal river distance X
(meters ) yields :
WH
Q
where L, = Carbonaceous BOD concentration, mg/1, at the
downstream end of X.
Similarly, for the nitrogenous BOD,
N, = N e - , ^ " (I - e
WH ,
-84-
-------
where N = Upstream nitrogenous BOD concentration, mg/1
N, = Downstream nitrogenous BOD concentration, mg/1
N.-- = Non-point-source nitrogenous BOD concentration, mg/1
Kj = Oxidation coefficient of nitrogenous BOD, I/day
C. Deoxygenation with a Distributed Load. The steady-state
balance around a differential segment of the river (between point-
source additions) , with inclusion of a non-point-souroa (distributed)
waste load, is:
M If
v
where D = C -C = oxygen deficit in the river, mg/1
C = Dissolved oxygen concentration, mg/1
C_ = Saturation limit for dissolved oxygen concentration
(at temperature 8) , mg/1
K-j = Oxidation coefficient of carbonaceous BOD, I/day
1C = Atmospheric reaeration coefficient, I/day
B = Benthal oxygen demand, mg/1, day
and where the other symbols are as previously defined.
The reaeration coefficient, K_ , may be calculated in two ways:
(a) Based upon stream velocity for free-flowing rivers , 3 7 ' 3 9
86'400
where D_ = molecular diffusivity of oxygen in water,
2.09 x icr9 mVsec at 20°C
U = longitudinal stream velocity, m/sec
H = depth of river, maters
(b) Based upon wind velocity for reservoirs,39
= 3.62
H (4-/WIND)
-85-
-------
where WIND = Wind velocity, m/sec.
VEFW3Q calculates both (K&)i and (K^r and chooses the larger
value as representing the controlling mechanism for reaeration. The
chosen value, K^20 is then temperature-corrected according to:37
K^ = K^20 [1.024] (6 " 20)
Substituting for L and N according to the results of the previous
section, and integrating, yields:
JA -
J X J X
fe -e > + De
D and D]_ are (respectively) , the upstream and downstream oxygen
deficits3, mg/1;
where
and where
WH .
=
0 ti>—.Q X
-------
D. Combined Sewer Overflow Waste Loads. VERWAQ treats combined
sewer overflows as a distributed waste load in the longitudinal direction.
For almost all water quality parameters, this means that at any longi-
tudinal station, the wastes associated with the incremental flow from
combined sewers becomes instantaneously mixed with the river water at
that station in both the transverse and vertical directions. However,
three facts are independently known:
(1) A large proportion of the carbonaceous BCD exerted by
combined sewer overflows is due to the volatile suspended
solids in the overflows.
(2) In deep channels with relatively low linear velocities, a
significant fraction of these suspended solids will settle
to the bottom of the channel.
(3) Analyses of channel-bottom sediments revealed significant
benthal oxygen demand.
To accommodate these facts, the carbonaceous BOD waste load from
combined sewer overflows is partitioned. Some fraction % of this BOD
waste load is exerted as a benthal oxygen demand, with the remainder
1-Wg exerted homogeneously in the river water.
Hence, in the analysis above, the non-point-souroe carbonaceous
BOD concentration L\jp actually refers to the homogeneous fraction of the
total concentration L'NP:
The benthal oxygen demand may be calculated according to the
following empirical relation:59
B = 3.14 x 10"5 ^r
_5 iZi /„ 1 D T 160 Z
H V a 1 + 160 Z
t_
where Y = grams BCD- per Kg of volatile matter in bottom deposits
Z = deposition rate of volatile solids, Kg/m2, day
T = time, days (up to 365) for accumulation of bottom
deposits
Then, since 10"3 YZ = Kg of BOD5 deposited/m2, day
1C
10~3 YZ = —
-87-
-------
and
B = 3 14 x 10~5 WBti'Np^p f5 * 16° z
a J.JA x xu „ T.WT i + leo Z
T
a
E. The Special Case of Zero Non-Point-Source Waste loads. For
the case where there is zero non-point-source waste loads, Qtp = 0, and
tiie equations of the previous sections reduce to those of other simula-
tion programs (i.e., the Streeter-Phelps solutions):
8, = 8 + TT- [ 10"3 W(RAD + OCNV) ]
0 Q
= JN
ev
n _ B ,, oJAX , JDL0 . ~R" "A"
D, = •=- (1 - e ) + •= =- (e - e
1 JA JA" JR
JM T V T V TV
ifJ-* ^•KT^ '-'•n-"' '-'-.A
L N^O ,_N^_eA) + D eA
J.- Jw v^ ° ' ' o
A N
F. Mode of Gorputer Operation. In the plug-flow optional node
of VEEWAQ, the computations are performed in a stepwise manner similar
to other simulation models. Starting at the upstream point, the river
is modeled either until a significant change in the river characteris-
tics (i.e., W, H, or the rate coefficients) justifies their alteration;
or until a point source addition (i.e., a tributary or an industrial or
domestic discharge) is made. In either case, the water quality and the
quantities of heat and the various constituents just upstream of the new
conditions become the initial state for the next river segment.
-88-
-------
The various rate coefficients are, of course, temperature-
correv.'cccl (by conventional means) in VEEWAQ.
8.3 MODEL FOR COMPLETE MIXING AND DISPERSION
In a completely-mixed body of water at steady state, the concen-
trations of the various parameters (and the temperature) are the same for
the water leaving the body as for the body of water itself. In addition,
there is no distinction by longitudinal position of the waste loads into
the water body, nor is there a distinction between point sources and non-
point sources.
A. The heat balance around such a oornpletely-mixed body of water
is composed of the following terms, each in Kcal/day:
Upstream, and Waste Load Heat Flux = C JQ. (9.- 9*)
Heat Transfer Heat Flux = WX(RAD + CCNV)
Downstream Heat Flux = - C JQ. (9 - 9*)
where the symbols are as previously defined, with the subscript i referring
to the i-th source (the upstream flow, a point source, or a non-point
source) , and the subscript e referring to both downstream and the equili-
brium in the completely-stirred body of water.
Summing the above terms and equating to zero (for steady state) ,
I Q.9. + 10~3 WX (SAD + COW)
2=1
B. For each conservative parameter (i.e., where the constituent
is neither generated, destroyed, or transferred to the water body's en-
vironment) ,
where P. . = concentration, mg/1, of the j— th constituent in the
'-1 i-th source
PS - = concentration, mg/1, of the j-th constituent in the
' J body of water and in the downstream flow
-89-
-------
The analysis for conservative parameters is the same 'whether a plug^-flow
model or a completely mixed model is used.
C. In the case of carbonaceous BOD,
Upstream, and Waste Load Input = C*^Q.L.
Downstream Output = - C*L £ Q.
Iteaction Loss = - C* K_ L V_
K e t>
vtere VB = -volume of the body of water, m3. Hence,
Le a
Similarly, for nitrogenous BOD,
I Q± \
N = ——
e r _ , ,.
yields:
D. The oxygen balance in the river then may be evaluated:
Upstream and Waste load Input = C*£ Q.C.
Downstream Output = - C*C 7 Q. = - C*(CC - D ) T Q.
S 1 ID / £ SI
Carbonaceous Deoxygenation Loss = - C*£ Q.L. + C*L £ Q.
Nitrogenous Deoxygenation Loss = - C*£ Q.N. + C* N J Q.
Benthic Oxygen Demand = - C* B V_
B
Reaeration Input = C* K- D V
Summing the above terms and equating to zero (for steady state)
D =
.+ K.V
[ BVD 4- C_ I 0- - I Q.C. + Y Q.L. - L 7 Q.
' ^ 1 S
+ y Q.N. - N y Q.
^ wl i e L wi
-90-
-------
•where LQ and 1% are evaluated from previously-developed relations, and
where
D = Oxygen deficit, mg/1 (both, equilibrium and downstream)
Cc = Saturation limit for dissolved oxygen, mg/1 (at tempera-
S'e ture 8 )
e
8.4 APPLICATION OF THE PLUG-FLOW MODEL (FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN)
The plug-flow model was applied extensively to the dredged por-
tions of the Buffalo River, using various values and combinations of
values for the constants. The "present" waste load inputs were as des-
cribed in the previous section of this report, and the upstream flow
was at the average summer value (70 per cent duration point) .
Satisfactory simulation of the empirically-determined non-
conservative water quality parameters was not achieved using the plug-
flow model. A typical attempt (Run 013) is described below. For this
particular attempt, a constant temperature of 26.9°C (the empirical
average temperature) was imposed upon the river.
The input constants for this attempt, all based upon indepen-
dent data, estimates and rationale, are as follows:
(1) Average summertime Solar Radiation Constant,
RAD = 5,500 Kcal/m2/day* This value is commonly
found in the literature. 8 ' 59 ' 6 ° ' s :
(2) Average summertime Wind Speed, WIND = 5.4 m/sec. 8
(3) Average summertime Air Temperature, 6 = 20.6°C
3.
(4) Deoxygenation and BOD removal coefficients (base e) ,
KR= KD = KN= 0.23 [1.040] (Q " 20> , days-1.37'39'45'59'63
(5) Benthic Oxygen Demand
BCD- ,fin gms BOD-
FronTableSO, Y = ^=i|§xl03 = 589-w^ .
After applying a temperature-correction factor, 3 7 the
actual waste loads, and using Ta = 365/2, the benthic
oxygen demand is
B = 0.3831 WR gigtSi H-080] (Q " 20) _
B L 0.607 + WBJ If day
-91-
-------
For this particular calculation WB was arbitrarily
chosen as 0.574 (the fraction of the carbonaceous
BOD waste load, of the combined sewer overflow,
that is exerted as a benthic oxygen demand).
B = 0.672 [1.080] (Q " 20)
This value for WB of 0.574 is reasonable, when com-
pared to a physically similar situation, i.e., a BCD
removal efficiency in primary treatment in a sewage
treatment plant.
Figure 11 shows the calculated dissolved oxygen profile for this
attempt, as well as the empirical data from Tables 17 and 20. While the
experdjnentally-determined dissolved oxygen content is uniformly low (0.0
to 1.8 mg/1) throughout this reach, the profile calculated with the
plug-flow model is distinctly different. A boundary condition of the
plug-flow model is a value of 7.2 mg/1 at River Mile 43.1 (upstream of
any significant waste load); hence, the form of the calculated profile
is dictated by this boundary condition. The calculated profile of
Figure 11 shows a very rapid drop in dissolved oxygen, from 7.2 mg/1
at Biver Mile 43.1 to 0.0 mg/1 at River Mile 40.4; and a value close to
0.0 mg/1 from this point to the river mouth. Note, however, that the
average calculated dissolved oxygen concentration in this reach,
1.4 mg/L, is not very different from the average measured value,
0.94 mg/1.
The rapid drop in the calculated dissolved oxygen is attributable
to the high value of the calculated deoxygenation coefficients, 0.30
days-1, at the river temperature of 26.9°C. Even with a high calculated
value for the reaeration coefficient at this temperature, 0.38 days"1,
the waste loads are too great in comparison to the self-purification
capability of this reach of the river.
Other calculation attempts with other sets of reasonable con-
stants for the plug-flow model yielded very similar dissolved oxygen
profiles, although the longitudinal point where the calculated dissolved
oxygen concentration became zero varied somewhat. It was concluded,
therefore, that the plug-flow simulation model is not applicable to the
Buffalo River. This result confirms the prior conclusions based upon
the river hydraulics and upon the empirical water quality data.
8.5 APPLICATICN OF THE COMPLETELY-MIXED MODEL (FOR TEMPERATURE)
The average of measured temperatures under average summertime
conditions in the dredged portion of the Buffalo River was 26.9°C
-92-
-------
EMPIRJCAL DATA;
VERSAR, INC. (THIS STUDY)
* GREAT LAKES LABORATORIES
• N. Y. STATE DEC
CALCULATED PROFILE,
PLUG-FLOW MODEL
43.0 42.5 42 O
41.5 41.0 40.5
RIVER MILE
40.0 39.5
39.0
38.5 38.0 37.5
FIGURE ||
LONGITUDINAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
-------
(Table 21). Ihe heat load from hot disctiarges into the Buffalo River,
at "present" industrial waste loads, was calculated as 4,474 x 10s
kcal/day. Ihe calculated heat flux due to convection (at an average
wind speed of 5.4 m/sec and at an average air temperature of 20.6°C) was
-1,046 x 10s kcal/day. For the calculated temperature to match the ex-
perimental average (using 19.0°C as an average temperature for the up-
stream tributaries), the solar radiation intensity must be 3,039 kcal/m2,
day instead of the value found in the literature of 5,500 kcal/m2, day.
This implies that 45 per cent of the total solar radiation is blocked
(due to shadows) from impinging upon the surface of the water. A quali-
tative inspection of the river revealed banks, piers and industrial
buildings which could be responsible for such shading.
The solar radiation constant of 3,039 kcal/m2, day was therefore
adopted, so that the calculated river temperature would be in agreement
with the measured temperature.
8.6 APPLICATION FOR THE OOMPLEHELY-MIXED MODEL (FOR DISSOLVED
OXYGEN AND FOR NON-OCNSERVaTIVE PARAMETERS)
The completely-mixed modeling option of VEH©Q was applied to
the dredged portion of the Buffalo River, from the upstream boundary of
the dredged reach at River Mile 43.06 to the Ohio Street Bridge at River
Mile 39.44 (since water quality data strongly indicated that fresh lake
water mixes significantly with river water downstream of this station).
Calculation Run 015 was made utilizing the completely-mixed model-
ing option, average sunmer upstream flow, "present" waste loads, and the
same set of input constants that were used for Run 013 (and that were
presented in the previous discussion in this report), except for the re-
vised solar radiation constant. The results of the calculations for non-
conservative species are presented below together with the averages of
empirical data (frcm Table 23):
No. of Avg. of Measured Calculated
Data Points Values, mg/1 Value, mg/1
Phenols 29 0.03 0.02
BOD5 41 4.22 4.22
NH3-N 29 0.69 0.69
Dissolved Oxygen 76 0.94 1.03
The excellent agreement between the experimentally-determined
data and the values calculated using the completely-mixed model, with
respect to both the equilibrium dissolved oxygen concentration and the
equilibrium concentrations of oxygen-demanding species, justifies the
-94-
-------
adoption of this modeling approach and confirms the hypothesis of a
well-^mxed river made previously from an hydraulic analysis and from
the homogeneity of measured water quality data.
8.7 VERIFICATION OF THE QOMPLETELY-MIXED MODEL
(FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN)
The comparison made above justified the selection of the simula-
tion model. In order to verify this selection, the completely-mixed
nodel, including the same input constants, was tested under intentionally
different conditions of river flow and temperature. Table 33 lists some
recent measured water quality data reported by the New York State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation28 for the sampling station in the
dredged portion of the Buffalo River at Ohio Street (River Mile 39.44).
The data for Table 33 were intentionally selected to be wintertime data,
and are a priori different from, the summertime data presented earlier
in Table 17.
Also listed in Table 33 are volumetric flow rates for the up-
stream tributaries, for the dates corresponding to the NYSDEC water
quality measurements at Ohio Street. Flow data were available from the
U. S. Geological Survey10 only for Buffalo Creek and Cazenovia Creek;
the flowrate for Cayuga Creek (and so the sum of the tributary flow-
rate) was estimated from the other two stream discharges, assuming the
same duration point on any given day. Figure 12 was the flowrate corre-
lation used to generate total upstream flows for Table 33. The data in
Table 33 were limited to those points whose flows were less than the
20 per cent duration point (approximately 1.5 million cubic meters per
day from all three tributaries) for two reasons. First, inappropriate
extrapolation of the correlation of Figure 12 would have been necessary.
Second, and more important, the corrpletely-mixed hydraulic model
developed for summertime conditions may no longer be appropriate at
very high upstream flows (i.e., the dredged portion of the Buffalo River
may act more like a free-flowing stream under these flow conditions).
The data selected for Table 33 were also limited to the four
months of December, January, February, and March, when wintertime water
temperatures were relatively stable (as they are in the selected summer
months used for the model development). During the spring (April and
May) and fall (October and November) months, the NYSDEC data for Buffalo
Creek28 indicate relatively rapid changes in the water temperature:
Month Average Temperature, °C
October 9
November 5
December 1
January 0
-95-
-------
Month Average Temperature, °C
February 0
March 2
.April 9
May 17
June 18
July 22
August 20
September 18
Moreover, the relatively rapid changes in upstream water tempera-
ture (and in air temperature) would be expected to result in rather steep
vertical temperature gradients in the dredged portion of the Buffalo
River. Since it is beyond the scope of this study to investigate such
non-steady-state conditions in the spring and fall, the data of Table 33
were limited to the four cold months.
The measured data in Table 33 shows that wintertime upstream
flows, as expected, are very much greater than the corresponding average
suniTErtime upstream flow of 187,200 cubic meters per day. The direct
results of very high upstream flows (lower residence time for deoxygena-
tion and greater dissolved oxygen input to the industrialized reach) and
of very much lower temperatures (higher dissolved oxygen concentrations
at saturation and lower deoxygenation reaction rates) may be observed in
the consistently high measured dissolved oxygen concentration at Ohio
Street. Even within these limited data, some effect of upstream flow
may be seen from Table 33, with the lowest value of dissolved oxygen
corresponding with the lowest flowrate.
The completely-stirred model developed for summertime conditions
was exercised under each of the flow and temperature conditions in
Table 33, and the resulting calculated dissolved oxygen concentrations
are included in Table 33 and in Figure 13 for direct comparison with the
measured values. While the calculated values are in general slightly
lower than the measured values, reasonably good agreement exists.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of the calculated dissolved oxygen to up-
stream flowrate is comparable to the sensitivity of the measured dis-
solved oxygen, as is shown in Figure 13.
This satisfactory agreement between measured and calculated
wintertime data, using a completely-mixed model based upon a different
hydraulic regime (i.e., upstream flowrates almost an order of magnitude
lower than in wintertime), is interpreted as adequate verification of
the model. After all, the intended use of the model is prediction of
summertine water quality (at varying waste loads), not extrapolation of
the model to different hydraulic regimes.
-96-
-------
Table 33
Wintertime Wafer Qualify Data
Buffalo River at Ohio Street
Date
121768
010869
021769
030469
031769
121669
020970
022570
030970
022072
Tributary Flow*
rrrvday
997,000
862,000
535,000
587,000
397,000
1,293,000
1,271,000
'1,135,000
1,341,000
861,000
Temp. ,
°C
1
1
3
4
3
3
4-
1
2
1
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l
Measured
12.0
10.8
9.2
9.2
7.4
10.4
12.0
11.8
12.2
10.6
Calculated
9.8
9.7
8.5
8.5
7.7
10.0
10.0
10.2
10.0
9.7
* Tributary Flow Calculated From USGS Data
-97-
-------
o
<
>
1.5
a
I
.
LU
UJ
or
o
3
00
en
*:
UJ
UJ
ir
o
UJ
u
tr
u_
O
1.4
1.3
1.2
I.!
1.0
_L
I
I
20 30 40 60
100
200 300400 600 1,000
BUFFALO CREEK AND CAZENOVIA CREEK, THOUSAND
CUBIC METERS PER DAY
FIGURE 12
TOTAL UPSTREAM DISCHARGE
vs.
DISCHARGE OF TWO CREEKS(7)
-98-
-------
o
<
cc
o
o
2
UJ
Q
UJ
O
en
en
12
ir
£ 10
100
200 300
600 1,000
2,000 3,000
UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY FLOW, THOUSAND CUBIC
METERS PER DAY
FIGURE 13
WINTERTIME DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
-99-
-------
8.8 APPLICATION OF THE OOMPLETELY-MIXED MDDEL
(FOR O2ISERVATIVE PARAMETERS)
Equilibrium values for the concentrations of conservative species
were calculated, using the coirpletely-mLxed simulation model, for the
"present" waste loads and at average summertime conditions (70 per cent
duration point for the flow from upstream tributaries). These data are
listed in Table 34, along with the averages of comparable measured data
(from Table 23).
For the great majority; of the parameters, the calculated values
were very close to the average of measured values and well within the
measurement precision (Table 23 lists the range of the measured data).
This close agreement validates the calculation procedure. The two ex-
ceptions, both cases where measured data were lower than calculated
data, were for fluoride and nickel.
An effort was made to evaluate the potential for precipitation
of slightly-soluble salts, whose ions may have originated from different
industrial discharges. Table 35 compares seme solubility products based
upon the calculated concentrations of ionic species in Table 34, with
actual (reference) solubility products. Apparently several species
actually do exoeed their solubilities, and precipitation of these
species would be expected.
8.9 MDDEL LIMITATIONS
Throughout this study, a number of unique characteristics were
observed in the dredged portion of the Buffalo River. Significant
vertical gradients in temperature, dissolved oxygen, and velocity have
been discussed in previous sections of this report. Stage fluctuations
and current reversals of both a periodic (due to Lake Erie seiche
activity) and a random nature were also discussed. The water quality
data near each end of the dredged portion (and upstream of the dredged
portion) provided evidence of some longitudinal gradients in these two
areas. The analysis of wintertime data (Figure 13) indicates the
emerging importance of plug flow as upstream flows become higher.
All of the above observations bring attention to the limitations
of the completely-mixed model in accurately simulating the water quality
of the Buffalo River; by seemingly indicating the need for a multi-
dimensional analysis, a time-variable analysis, and an analysis which
covers the complete spectrum of upstream flows.
While the complexities of the system are fully appreciated,
the guidelines for this study precluded the development of correspond-
ingly complex water quality simulation models. The criterion applied
-100-
-------
Table 34
Measured and Calculated Conservative Parameters
Concentrations in mg/l
NOo-N
o
Cyanide
P-Total
Sulfate.
Chloride
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Max.
0.59
0,05
0.85
68
70
0.69
7.2
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.08
0.06
5.65
0.23
0.017
0.00
0.004
0.178
Measured Data
Min.
0.0
0.0 _
0.07
49
46
0.44
0.1
. 0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.001
0.024
Average
0.13
0.01
0.29
57-
57
0.53
2.6
0.02
0.0
0.00
0,02
0.02
3.11
0.06
0.001
0.00
0.003
0.084
Calculated
Data
0,42
0.034
0.60
60.5
51.7
1.14
3.89
0.011
0.001
0.004
0.057
0.034
3.066
0.071
0.001
0.027
0.000
0.098
-101-
-------
TABLE 35 Selected Solubility Products
Compound
Ca3(P04)2
CaS04
FeP04
CaF2
AIP04
AIF3~
Ca(OH)2
Fe(OH)3
AI(OH)3
CaCOo
o
Zn(OH)2
ZnC03
Zn3(P04)2
Fb(OH)2
PbC03
Pb3(P04)2
NiF2
Ni(OH)2
NiCO,
(Note:
Calculated
Ksp
9.3E-20
5.5E-7
7.7E-10
5.2E-12
2.2E-10
8.5E-18
5.8 E-17
1.1 E-24
3.1 E-25
1.2E-6
1.3E-19
2.6E-9
9.3 E-28
2.8 E-20
5.8 E-10
1.0E-29
2.7E-15
2.9 E-20
6.0 E-10
E-XX means XlO-xx)
Actual (Reference)
Ksp
1.2E-19
2.0E-4
1.3E-22
3.4E-11
6.3 E-19
5.3 E-4
6.2E-5
1 . 1 E-36
1.1 E-15
1.0 E-8
1.8 E-14
2.0 E-ll
1.0E-32
1.0 E-9
3.3 E-14
1.7E-32
2.0E-2
1.7 E-9
6.1 E-7
Precipitation
-102-
-------
to the model in this study was the adequacy of simulating the enpirical
water quality data under summertime low-flow conditions. Tables 17
and 20, which list the empirical summertime water quality data, in fact
shew no significant longitudinal water quality gradients from River Mile
43.06 to Fiver Mile -34.44 for any of the water quality parameters in-
cluding temperature,.dissolved oxygen, and the metals. The application
of the cavpletely-rabaad' model for temperature, for dissolved oxygen/
and for the metals yielded calculated concentrations very close to
measured values. For these two reasons, then, it is concluded that the
test of adequacy is satisfied for the completely-mixed model; and that
the accuracy of model projections is reasonable within the study con-
straints and the level of sophistication of the modeling techniques
utilized.
-103-
-------
9.0 WATER QUALITY PROJECTIONS
The previous sections of this report describe efforts to quantify
the hydraulics, the water quality, and the waste loads into the Buffalo
River, and then to generate a simulation model to correlate these data.
The primary purpose of this work was to create a tool for projecting the
effects of waste load reductions upon water quality. These water quality
projections are presented in this section of the report, along with the
recommended waste load allocations needed to achieve the required water
quality. Finally, this section projects the impact of the Buffalo River
upon the Niagara River.
9.1 PROJECTED WASTE LOADS
In the Waste Load section of this report, both "present" and "pro-
jected" waste loads were quantified. The projections made, based upon
implementation of best practical control technology for industrial dis-
charges and upon implementation of control and treatment practices for
other discharges, are summarized in Table 36 for easy reference in this
section. For the waste loads fron the upstream tributaries, two columns
are included in Table 36. The first is at average summertime flow (equiv-
alent to the 70 per cent duration point). The other is at the minimum
average seven-day critical discharge with a recurrence interval of ten
years (equivalent to the 99 per cent duration point), specified by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation as critical flow for
the purpose of determining whether or not water quality contraventions
exist.
The previous section of this report outlined the development of a
simulation model, which was constructed to calculate water quality in the
Buffalo River from a set of hydraulic and waste load inputs. This model
was then exercised, utilizing the projected waste loads of Table 36, to
generate a projected water quality. The following sections document the
results of these calculations.
9.2 PROJECTED WATER QUALITY (TEMPERATURE)
The heat input from hot discharges into the Buffalo River (from
Table 36), is 4,441 x 106 kcal/day, and the heat input from solar radiation
is 1,577 x 106 kcal/day. Assuming the same summertime values as before
for wind velocity (5.4 m/sec) and air temperature (20.6°C), the heat input
to the river from convection is (166.0 x 10s)(20.6-9) kcal/day, where 0
is the river water temperature. Hence, the total heat input is (9,438-166.C
x 106 kcal/day.
-104-
-------
Table 36. Projected Waste. Loads Into The Buffalo River
Flow, m /day
Heat flux, kcal/day x 10
pH
Total Solids, kg/day
Dissolved Solids, kg/day
Suspended Solids, kg/day
NH3-N, kg/day
Organic-N, kg/day
BOD-5, kg/day
Dissolved Oxygen, kg/day
NO3-N, kg/day
Cyanide, kg/day
P-Total, kg/day
Sulfate, kg/day
Chloride, kg/day
Fluoride, kg/day
Oil & Grease, kg/day
Phenols, kg/day
Arsenic, kg/day
Barium, kg/day
Cadmium, kg/day
Chromium, kg/day
Copper, kg/day
Iron, kg/day
Lead, kg/day
Mercury, kg/day
Nickel, kg/day
Selenium, kg/day
Zinc, kg/day
Upstream T
Avg. Summer
70% Dur.
187,200
0
8.6
72,450
71,140
1,310
28.8
46.8
393.1
1,591
131.0
1.87
37.4
11,230
7,488
44.9
337.0
1.59
0
0
0
0
1.87
40.3
1.69
0
0
0.28
1.50
n butanes
MATCD/10
99% Dur.
22,500
0
8.6
8,710
8,550
157.5
3.38
5.63
47.3'
191.2
15.8
0.23
4.50
1,350
900
5.40
40.5
0.19
0
0
0
0
0.23
4.84
0.20
0
0
0.03
0.18
Industrial
419,100
4,441
—
107,990
98,050
9,937
246.4
160.4
1,798
2,953
70.6
17.31
192.8
25,480
19,550
639
1,061
12.15
6,43
0
0.67
9.37
16.97
1246.5
21.66
0.22
16.56
0
53.22
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
20,300
0
—
19,430
11,670
7,755
27.0
123.0
2,152
189.8
41.2
—
53.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
~
~
—
~
—
—
~
__
--
-105-
-------
At a total flow of Q cubic meters per day, the heat content of the
river water above the baseline temperature (i.e., upstream temperature) of
19.0°C is (Q x 103)(0-19.0) kcal/day. Equating heat input to heat content:
1. At average summertime flow,
Q = 626,600 m3/day
9 = 26.9°C
2. At critical flow,
Q = 458,500 m3/day
0 = 29.1°C
The projected temperature at average summertime flow, 26.9°C, is the
same as the measured value for present conditions, since no significant
changes in heat input from industrial discharges was projected. The pro-
jected average river water temperature at critical flow, 29.1°C, is right
at the^maximum value of the water quality criteria (within the calculation
precision) right at the maximum value previously established for the
protection of fish life.
It must be recognized that the prediction is for average temperature
while the standards relate to maximum temperatures. Under both flow condi-
tions, and especially at critical flows, the actual river temperature is
subject to the prevailing conditions (as opposed to average summer condi-
tions) of solar flux, air temperature, and wind velocity. Several instances
of excessive river temperatures (as compared to the criterion) were experi-
mentally observed, and it is reasonable to expect that adverse combinations
of prevailing weather conditions would result in occasional contraventions
of the thermal water quality standard.
One possible regulatory posture would be the monitoring of the actual
average river water temperature. In the event of excessive river temperature,
each of the discharging industries could be required to either reduce their
heat input proportionately or to compensate by increasing their discharge
flow rate at a constant heat flux. A more usual regulatory posture is to
oblige dischargers to perform these reductions year-round, which would re-
sult in compliance at the low flow proscribed by the standards.
These regulatory postures, however, are not deemed necessary as a for-
mal recommended waste allocation. The water quality criterion for thermal
pollution already contains a maximum-survival-temperature safety factor;
and the MA7CD/10 criterion already accounts for extreme low-flow conditions.
The application of both safety factors to the projections results in a
"borderline"..case, where the projected average temperature is just equal to
the maximum allowable temperature. In view of the inclusion of two safety
factors, a third to protect against extreme weather conditions would be
unjustified. Hence, there is no fundamental contravention of the thermal
water quality standard.
9.3 PROJECTED WATER QUALITY (DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND NON-CONSERVATIVE
PARAMETERS)
The completely-mixed simulation model, using the same constants as
in the matching of present water quality (in the previous section), was
utilized to project the equilibrium concentrations of dissolved oxygen,
biological oxygen demand, ammonia, and organic nitrogen consistent with
-106-
-------
the projected waste loads of Table 36. Table 37 lists the total flow rate,
the overall waste load, and the resulting calculated water quality; for
both the condition of average summertime upstream flow rate (Case 1) and
the condition of critical upstream flow rate (Case 2). At average sum-
mertime flow (70 per cent duration), the projected dissolved oxygen con-
centration is 3.8 mg/1, above the minimum standard of 3.0 mg/1. This value
is well above the "present" value of 1.0 mg/1, attesting to the effective-
ness of reducing the waste loads from the industrial discharges and from
the municipal sewage treatment plants on Cayuga Creek (i.e., the implemen-
tation of best practicable control technology currently available). The
projected dissolved oxygen concentration at critical flow (99 per cent
duration) is 3.1 mg/1, barely above the minimum standard, but still meeting
the water quality standard.
Again, as was the case with thermal pollution, the projection just
barely meets the standard. It is recognized that the projection is in
terms of average concentrations, whereas the standards are for temporal
and spatial minima (in the case of dissolved oxygen) . The same argument
applies here that applied in the thermal pollution case? i.e., that a
safety factor has already been used in formulating the standard in terms
of MA7CD/10, the critical low flow criterion, to ostensibly make the com-
parison more conservative from the viewpoint of environmental adequacy.
Another safety factor to account for transient deviations from the pro-
jected average is therefore not justified. It is therefore judged that
the implementation of best practicable control technology currently avail-
able would be sufficient to satisfy the dissolved oxygen water quality
standard.
Table 37 lists the results of three additional calculations for hy-
pothetical (not practicable) waste loads. Cases 3, 4, and 5 were all at
critical flow conditions and have been included to show the relative po-
tential benefits from any further reductions of waste loads.
Case 3 illustrates the effect of a hypothetical total elimination
of net oxygen-demanding waste loads from the industries discharging into
the Buffalo River. The "ideal" industrial discharge of Case 3 is defined
as the same discharge flow rate and thermal waste as the "projected" in-
dustrial discharge, but with zero net discharge of oxygen-demanding wastes
(i.e., the industrial discharge would simply be heated B.R.I.C. water).
As Table 37 indicates, the predicted dissolved oxygen concentration would
be 3.4 mg/1, not very much greater than the 3.1 mg/1 predicted for Case 2.
This is true because the best practicable control technology currently
available would be quite effective from the standpoint of net oxygen-
demanding waste load reduction. Also the "ideal" industrial wastes would
still be sizeable on a gross basis, the B.R.I.C. intake is in the relatively
polluted Outer Harbor rather than in the body of Lake Erie (see Table 21).
A secondary effect should be noted: as all wastes are reduced (including
those of dischargers into the Buffalo River, those industrial dischargers
south of the Buffalo River at Lackawanna, and the non-industrial dis-
charges) , the Outer Harbor should become less polluted and so the B.R.I.C.
-107-
-------
Table 37. Projected Water Quality, Non-Conservative Parameters
o
oo
Upstream Flow,
% Duration
Industrial Discharges
Combined Sewer
Overflow
Total Flow, m~/day
Total BOD5 Waste Load,
kg/day
Total Nitrogens Waste
Load, kg/day
Calculated BOD5, mg/l
Calculated NH3~N,
mg/l
Calculated Org-N,
mg/l
Calculated D. O., mg/l
Case 1
70
Projected
Projected
623,000
3,770
620
1.89
0.22
0.25
3.79
Case 2
99
Projected
Projected
459,000
3,420
550
1.73
0.21
0.23
3.06
Case 3
99
Ideal
Projected
459,000
3,160
450
1.52
0.18
0.18
3.44
Case 4
99
Projected
Absent
438,000
1,270
400
1-02
0.19
0.13
5.80
Case 5
99
Ideal
Absent
438,000
1,000
300
0.81
0.61
0.09
6.19
-------
intake should become less polluted. The quantitative evaluation cf this
effect is beyond the scope of this present study.
Case 4 illustrates the effect of a hypothetical complete elimination
of combined sewer overflows, but with the "projected" industrial and up-
stream waste loads. The predicted dissolved oxygen concentration is 5.8
mg/1, a substantial increase from the 3.1 mg/1 of Case 2. This calcula-
tion demonstrates that upon the implementation of practicable control and
treatment technology for the industrial discharges and for the Cayuga
Creek sewage plants, the predominant source of oxygen-demanding wastes is
the overflow from the combined sewer system. The larger potential for
improvement therefore lies in reducing these overflow waste loads rather
than in further reductions in other waste loads.
Case 5 is a hypothetical combination of Cases 3 and 4; i.e., the
"ideal" industrial discharge of zero net oxygen-demanding wastes, plus the
complete elimination of combined sewer overflows. The calculated dissolved
oxygen concentration is 6.2 mg/1, not very much greater than the 5.8 mg/1
value of Case 4. This comparison supports the conclusion above that the
large further potential for improvement is in the realm of combined sewer
overflows.
9.4 PROJECTED WATER QUALITY (CONSERVATIVE PARAMETERS)
Table 38 summarizes the predicted concentrations for the conservative
parameters in the industrialized reach of the Buffalo River, derived from
the completely-mixed simulation model with the "projected" waste loads of
Table 36. The predicted concentrations for both average summertime flow
and critical flow are compared in Table 38 against the water quality
criteria (which, are either explicit or implied by the fish survival criterion)
The single conservative parameter for which the predicted concentra-
tion exceeds the criterion is iron. For this metal, therefore, the reduc-
tions in waste loads associated with the implementation of best practica-
ble control and treatment technology are inadequate. The present, "Pro-
jected", and "Idealized" sources if iron are shown in Table 39 (in kg/day,
gross), where "Idealized" is equivalent to B.R.I.C. intake water.
Table 39
Sources of Iron
Present Projected Idealized
Upstream 95 5
043 - Mobil Oil 116 116 90
482 - Allied SCD 140 91 54
419 - Allied ICD 14 - 46 36
326 - Republic 1,513 965 145
084 - Donner-Hanna 32 32 27
Total 1,823 1,255 357
-109-
-------
Table 38. Projected Water Quality, Conservative Parameters
NO -N
Cyanide
P-Total
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
Phenols
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Water
Quality
Criteria'0)
4
0.1*
25
500
250
1.5
7
0.2
1.0
5.0
0.3*
0.05
0.2*
0.8
0.1
0.006
0.7
2.5
0.3*
Projected Concentrations, mg/l
Avg. Summer Flow
0.39
0.03
0.45
58.6
43.2
1.09
2.23
0.010
0.010
0.0
0.001
0.015
0.030
2.054
0.037
0.000
0.026
0.000
0.087
Critical Flow
0.28
0.038
0.55
58.6
44.6
1.40
2.40
0.013
0.014
0.0
0.001
0.020
0.037
2.729
0.048
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.116
(a) Criteria Labelled * are explicit in New York State Standards. Others are
implied by "fish survival" criterion.
-110-
-------
The total iron in the "idealized" case, 357 kg/day, is coincidentally
the precise quantity required to limit the iron concentration in the Buffalo
River to 0.8 mg/1. The reason is that B.R.I.C. intake water already has an
iron concentration of 0.85 mg/1 (compared to 0.17 mg/1 in the open lake).
The recommended waste allocations for iron, therefore, are the quantities
listed above for the Idealized case, and are in terms of maximum gross
daily discharges.
9.5 SUMMARY OF WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
The following waste load allocations are recommended as a result of
the analysis in this report:
(1) For all parameters except iron, the maximum daily
gross discharge from each industry on the Buffalo
River should be the quantities listed in Appendix
E (i.e., the "projected" industrial waste loads).
(2) For iron, the maximum daily gross discharge from
each industry should be the following:
043, Mobil Oil 90 kg/day (200 Ibs/day)
482, Allied SCO 54 kg/day (120 Ibs/day)
419, Allied ICD 36 kg/day ( 80 Ibs/day)
326, Republic Steel 145 kg/day (320 Ibs/day)
084, Donner-Hanna 27 kg/day ( 60 Ibs/day)
All others 0 kg/day ( 0 Ibs/day)
(3) There should be no dry-weather effluents from these
existing municipal sewage treatment plants into
Cayuga Creek:
Village of Depew
Town of Lancaster
Village of Lancaster
9.6 IMPACT UPON THE NIAGARA RIVER
Table 40 lists the mean monthly flow rate for the Niagara River
during the summer months;10 the average flow rate is 536,000,000 cubic
meters per day. This huge discharge is 855 times the average summertime
Buffalo River discharge of 627,000 cubic meters per day.
Table 40
Mean Monthly Flow Rates, of the Niagara River in Summertime10
Flow Rate Data in Million Cubic Meters per Day
Year July August September 3-Month Average
1968 524 509 504 509
1969 570 656 546 560
1970 531 517 517 522
1971 527 518 513 519
1972 580 567 556 568
Average 546 535 527 536
-111-
-------
Table 21 listed the water quality at the Buffalo city water intake,
which is at River Mile Ni 37.7, at the upper (southern) end of the Niagara
River where Lake Erie empties into the Niagara River. The data of Table
21 were converted to daily quantities of each chemical species (using the
above volumetric flow rate), which are listed in Table 41. Also listed
in Table 41 are the daily quantities discharged from the Buffalo River,
both for present waste load conditions and for the projected waste load
conditions (at average suimiertime flow rates), consistent with the water
quality of Tables 23, 37, and 38. Any minor discrepancies between the
present and projected waste loads from the Buffalo River are because the
former are empirically determined while the latter are the results of
modeling.
The concentration data of Table 41 show that because of the large
difference in flow rates (the Niagara discharge is three orders of magni-
tude greater than the Buffalo discharge in summertime) , there is no sig-
nificant impact of the Buffalo River upon the water quality of the Niagara
River. This statement is valid for both the present and projected condi-
tions in the Buffalo River, and is true for all parameters (thermal, non-
conservative and conservative). This statement, however, does not take
into account three factors for which quantitative evaluation is beyond
the scope of this study:
(1) The effects of any chemical species discharged from
the Buffalo River which, despite relatively small
instantaneous quantities, tend to accumulate with
time in the Niagara River or in Lake Ontario.
(2) The effects of any chemical species which are not
only discharged from the Buffalo River but which
are also discharged from other river systems trib-
utary to the Great Lakes. While the relative
quantities of such species from the Buffalo River
may be small, the spatially-cumulative effect upon
the Great Lakes may not be small.
(3) The effects of a Buffalo River plume hugging the
Niagara River bank, prior to complete mixing. This
is complicated, of course, by industrial and com-
bined sewer discharges directly into the Niagara
River and into the Black Rock Canal.
-112-
-------
Table 41. Dally Quantities of Chemical Species, Niagara and Buffalo Riven
U)
Parameter
Flow, 106mg3/day
Temperature, °C
Daily Quantity
Niagara
Present
536
21.
Heat Flux, 109kcal/day 1,126
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD5
NH3-N
Organic-N
NO3-N
P-Total
Sulfate
Chloride
Oil and Grease
Phenols
Cyanide
Fluoride
Arssnic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
5,630,000
480,000
0
54,000
38,000
16,000
14,500,000
14,500,000
860,000
2,100
0
327,000
0
0
0
5,400
9,100
91,000
5,400
0
5,400
0
44,500
Buffalo
Present
0.627
1 26.9
4.47
589
2,644
432
1
! 81
182
35,700
35, 700
},629
' 16.9
1 6.3
, 332
12.5
0
0
12.5
' 12.5
1,949
i 37.6
1 0.63
1 0
1 1.9
53
Buffalo
Projected
0.627
26.9
4.44
Total Daily
Quantity
Present
536.6
—
1,130
12,375 5,630,000 5,
[1,184
, 138
157
243
283
480,000
432
—
38,000
16,000
36,700 14,500,000 14,
27,000 14,500,000 14,
11,398
j 13.7
19.2
684
6.4
0
0.67
9.37
18.84
jl,287
1 23.35
! 0.22
16.56
0.28
54.72
860,000
2,100
6.31
327,000
12.5
0
0
5,400
9.100
93,100
5,400
0.63
5,400
1.9
44,500
Projected
536.6
—
1,130
630,000
480,000
138
54,000
33,000
16,000
500,000
500,000
860,000
2,100
19.2
328,000
6.4
0
0.67
5,400
9,100
92,400
5,400
0
5,400
0
44,500
Concentration
Niagara
Present
__
21.1
—
10.5
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.07
0.03
27
27
1.6
0.004
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.017
0.170
0.010
22 0.00
0.01
28 0.0
0.083
Total
Present
21.1
—
10.5
0.9
0.0
—
0.07
0.03
27
27
1.6
0.004
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.017
0.173
0.010
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.083
Total
Projected
_..
.21.1
—
10.5
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.07
0.03
27
27
1.6
0.004
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.017
0,172
0,010
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.083
'••— ' • "•• «•—• r— ' "• '
Note: For Chemical Species, Quantities are in kg/day, Concentrations are in mg/liter. Heat Flux is with respect to a
baseline temperature of 19.0 C.
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A, Applicable New York State Water
Quality Standards
Appendix B, Species Characterization
Appendix C, Water Qaulity Data, Individual
Measurements
Appendix D, Present Industrial Waste Loads
Appendix E, Projected Industrial Waste Loads
Appendix F, Metric Units Conversion Table
-114-
-------
APPENDIX A, APPLICABLE N.Y.S. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (10/20/74)
Section 701.4 CLASSES AND STANDARDS FOR FRESH SURFACE WATERS
The following items and specifications shall be the standards
applicable to all New York fresh waters which are assigned the
classification of AA, A, B; C,or D, in addition to the specific
standards which are found in this Part under the heading of each
such classification.
Quality Standards for Fresh Surface Waters
Items
Specifications
1. Turbidity
2. Color
3. Suspended, colloidal or
settleable solids.
4. Oil and floating
substances.
Tasta and odor'-producing
substances, toxic wastes
and deleterious substances
Thermal discharges
So increase except from natural
sources that will cause a sub-
stantial visible contrast to
natural conditions. In cases of
naturally turbid waters, the
contrast will be due to increased
turbidity.
None from man-made sources that
will be detrimental to anticipated
best usage of waters.
None from sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes which will cause
deposition or be deleterious for
any best usage determined for the
specific waters which are assigned
to each class.
No residue attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes
nor visible oil film nor globules
of grease.
None in amounts that will be
injurious to fishlife or which in
, any manner shall adversely affect the
flavor, color or odor thereof, or
impair the waters for any best usage
as determined for the specific waters
which are assigned to each class.
(See PART 704 of this Title.)
-115-
-------
APPENDIX A (Can't)
CLASS "A"
Best usage of waters. Source of water supply for drinking, culinary
or food processing purposes and any other usages.
Conditions related to best usage of waters. The waters, if subjected
to approved treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration
and disinfection, with additional treatment if necessary to reduce
naturally present impurities will meet New York State Department of
Health drinking water standards and will be considered safe and
satisfactory for drinking water purposes.
Items
1. Coliform
Quality Standards for Class "A" Waters
Specifications
The monthly median coliform value
for one hundred ml of sample shall
not exceed five thousand from a
minimum of five examinations and
provided that not more than twenty
percent of the samples shall exceed
a coliform value of twenty thousand
for one hundred ml of sample and the
monthly geometric mean fecal coliform
value for one hundred ml of sample
shall not exceed two hundred (200)
from a minimum of five examinations.
2. pH
3. Total Dissolved Solids
4. Dissolved Oxygen
5. Phenolic Compounds
Shall be between 6.5 and 8.5.
Shall be kept as low as practicable
to maintain the best usage of waters,
but in no case shall it exceed 500
milligrams per liter.
For cold waters suitable for trout
spawning, the DO concentration shall
not be less than 7.0 mg/1 from other
than natural conditions. For trout
waters, the minimum daily average
shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
At no time shall the DO concentration
be less than 5.0 mg/1. For non-trout
waters, the minimum dail^ average
shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
At no time shall the DO concentration
be less than 4.0 mg/1.
Shall not be greater than 0.005
milligrams per liter (Phenol).
-116-
-------
APPENDIX A (Can't)
6. Radioactivity
a. Gross Beta
«
b. Radium 226
c» Strontium 90
Shall not exceed 1,000 picocuries
per liter in the absence of Sr ^
and alpha emitters.
Shall not exceed 3 picocuries per
liter.
Shall not exceed 10 picocuries per
liter.
"Note 1: Refer to note 1 under Class "AA" which is also
applicable to Class "A" standards.
CLASS "3"
Best usage of waters. Primary contact recreation and any other
uses axcept as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary
or food processing purposes.
Quality Standards for Class "B" Wafers
Specifications
2. pfl
3. Total Dissolved Solids
The monthly median coliform value
for one hundred ml of sample shall
not exceed two thousand four hun-
dred from a minimum of five
examinations and provided that not
more than twenty percent of the
samples shall exceed a coliform
value of five thousand for one
hundred ml of sample and the monthly
geometric mean fecal coliforra value
for one hundred ml of sample shall
not exceed two hundred (200) from
a minimum of five examinations.
This standard shall be met during
all periods when disinfection is
practiced.
Shall be between 6.5 and 8.5
None at concentrations which will be
detrimental to the growth and
propagation of armatic life. Waters
having present levels less than
500 milligrams per liter shall be
kept below this limit.
-117-
-------
APPENDIX A (Can't)
4. Dissolved Oxygen For cold waters suitable for trout
spawning, the DO concentration shall
not be less than 7.0 rag/1 from other
than natural conditions. For trout
waters, the minimum daily average
shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
At no time shall the DO concentration'
be less than 5.0 mg/l. For non-trout
waters- the minimum daily average
shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
At no time shall the DO concentration
be less than 4.0 mg/l.
Note 1: Refer to note I under Class "AA" which is also
applicable to Class "B" standards.
CLASS "C"
Best usage of waters. Suitable for fishing and all other uses except
as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes and primary contact recreation.
Quality Standards for Class "C" Waters
Items
1. Coliform
2. pH
3. Total Dissolved Solids
4. Dissolved Oxygen
Specifications
The monthly geometric mean total
coliform value for one hundred ml
of sample shall not exceed ten
thousand and the monthly geometric
mean fecal coliform value for one
hundred ml of sample shall not
exceed two thousand from a minimum
of five examinations. This standard
shall be met during all periods
when disinfection is practiced.
Shall be between 6.5 and 8.5.
None at concentrations which will
be detrimental to the growth and
propagation of armatic life. Waters
having present levels less than
500 milligrams per liter shall be
kept below this limit.
For cold waters suitable for trout
spawning, the DO concentration shall
not be less than 7.0 mg/l from other
than natural conditions. For trout
waters, the minimum daily average
shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
At no time shall the DO concentration
be less than 5.0 mg/l. For non-trout
waters, the minimum daily average
shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
At no time shall the DO concentration
be less than 4.0 mg/l.
Note 1: Refer to note 1 under Class "AA" which is also
applicable to Class "C" standards.
-118-
-------
APPENDIX A. CCon'tL
CLASS "D"
3c3t usage of waters. These waters are suitable for secondary
contact recreation, but due to such natural conditions as inter-
mittency of flow, water conditions not conducive to propagation
of game fishery or stream bed conditions, the waters will not
support the propagation of fish.
Conditions related to best usage of waters. The waters must be
suitable for fish survival.
Quality Standards for Class "D" Waters
Items
L. pH
2. Dissolved Oxygen
Specifications
Shall be between 6.0 and 9.5.
Shall not be less than 3 milligrams
per liter at any time.
Note: Refer to note L under Class "AA" which is also
applicable to Class "D" standards.
Note 1: With reference to certain toxic substances affecting
fishlife, the establishment of any single numerical
standard for waters of New York State would be too
restrictive. There are many waters, which because of
poor buffering capacity and composition will require
special study to determine safe concentrations of toxic
substances. However, most of the non-trout waters
near industrial areas in this state will have an
alkalinity of 30 milligrams per liter or above.
Without considering increased or decreased toxicity from
possible combinations, the following may be considered
as safe stream concentrations for certain substances to
comply with the above standard for this type of water.
Waters of lower alkalinity must be specifically con-
sidered since the toxic effect of most pollutants will
be greatly increased.
Ammonia or Ammonium Compounds
Cyanide
Ferro-or Ferricyanide
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Not greater than 2.0 milligrams
per liter expressed as NH3 at
pH of 8.0 or above.
Not greater than 0.1 milligrams
per liter expressed as CN.
Not greater than 0.4 milligrams
per liter expressed as Fe(CN)6.
Hot greater than 0.2 milligrams
per liter expressed as Cu.
Not greater than 0.3 milligrams
per liter expressed as Zn.
Not greater than 0.3 milligrams
per liter expressed as Cd.
-119-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 1928-1929
MICRO PLANKTON
ISOKONTAE
Chlamydomonas
Cladophora glomerate
Closterium acerosum
Closternom aciculare
Closterium Venus
Coelastrum microporum
Cosmarium cycicum
Cosmarium reni forme
Crucigenia rectangularis
Dictyosphaerium pulchellum
Endorina elegans
Elaktothrix gelatinosa
Gonatozygon monotaenium
Kirchnierella lunaris
Kirchnierella obesa
Micracfinium pusillum
Mougeotia
Nephrocytium agardhianum
Oocystis crassa
Oocystis elliptica
Oocystis Borgei
Oocystis parva
Oocystis lacustris
Oocystis soiitaria
Pandorina morum
Pediastrum simplex
Pediastrum duplex
Pediastrum Boryanum
Quadrigula pfitzeri
Quadrigula Chodata
Quadrigula lacustris
Scenedesmus bijugatus
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Sphaerocystis Schroeteri
Spirogyra
Spirogyra tenuissima
Staurastrum longiradiatum
Stigeoclonium tenue
Tetraspora lacustris
Westella botryoides
MICROPLANKTON (continued)
HETEROKONTAE
Botryococcus Braunii
CHRYSOPHYCEAE
Dinobryon divergens
Dinobryon stipitatum
Mai lomonas
Synura uvella
BAC1LLARIALES
Asterionella formosa
Cocconeis placentula
Cymatopleura solea
Diatoma elongatum
Encyonema
Fragilaria crotonensis
Fragilaria virescens
Gyrosigma attenuatum
Melosira granulate
Navicula
Nitzxchia
Stephanodiscus niagara
Surirella ovalis
Synedra
labellaria fenestrata
Tabellaria flocculosa
DINOPHYCEAE
Ceratium hirundinella
Peridinium
MYXOPHYCEAE
Anabaena fios-aquae
Anabaena Lemmermanni
Aphanocapsa
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
Aphanothece
Coelosphaerium Naegelianum
Lyngbya aeruginea-caerulea
Merismopedia elegans
Microcystis aeruginosa
Nostoc
-120-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 1928-1929 -
, conti nued
MICROPLANKTON (continued)
PROTOZOLA
Amoeba
Difflugia
Vorticella
ROT1FERA
Anapus oval is
Anuraea aculeate
Anoraea chochlean's
Asplanchna
Asplanchnopus multiceps
Conochiius unicornis
Gastropus
Ham'ngia eopoda
Monostyla cornuta
Monostyla quadridentata
Nothoica longispina
Ploesoma truncatum
Ploesoma Hudson!
Paiyarthra platyptera
Synchaeta stylafa
Trochosphaera
AQUATIC PLANTS
EQUISETACEAE
Equisetum limosum
TYPHACEAE
Typha angustifolfa
Typha I at? folia
SPARGANIACEAE
Sparganium eurocarpum
NAJADACEAE
Potamogeton amphifolius
Potamogeton americanus
Potamogeton angustifolius
Potamogeton bupleuroides
Potamogeton compressus
AQUATIC PLANTS (continued)
NAJADACEAE- (continued)
Potamogeton filiformis
Potamogeton fol iosus
Potamogeton gramineuy
Potamogeton lueens
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton pectinatus
Potamogeton pusillus
Patamogston. vaginatus
Potamogeton Richardsonii
Najasflexilis
AL1SMACEAE
Sagirtaria heterophylla
Sagittaria latifolia
Sagittaria latifolia
HYDROCHARITACEAE
Eicdea canadensis
Vallisneria amen'cana
CYPERACEAE
Scirpus americanus
Seirpus validus
Scirpus acutus
Eleocharis patustris
Eleocharis palustris
LEMNACEAE
Lemna minor
Spirodela polyrhiza
PONTEDER1ACEAE
Pontederia cordata
Heteranthera dubia
JUNCACEAE
Juncus brachycephalus
CERATOPHYLLACEAE
Ceratophyllum demersum
-121-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 1928-1929 -
Continued
AQUATIC PLANTS (continued)
NYMPH AECEAE
Nymphozanthus advena
RANUNCULACEAE
Ranunculus longirostris
HALORAGIDACEAE
Myriophyllum exalbescens
CRUSTACEANS
COPEPODA
Achtheres amblophitis
Canthocamptus lllinoiensis
Canthocamptus staphylinoides
Canthocamptus staphylinus
Cyclops bicuspidatus
Cyclops robustus
Cyclops vulgaris
Diaptomus ash land!
Diaptomus oregonensis
Diaptomus sicilis
Epischura lacustris
Ergasilus centrarchidarum
Eucyclops agilis
Limnocalanus macrurus
Macrocyclops annulicornis
Macrocyclops signatus
Mesocyclops obsoletus
Paracyclops phateratus
Platycyclops fimbriahjs
CLADOCERA
Acroperus harpae
Alona rectangula
Bosmina longirostris
Bosmina longispina
Camptocerus rectirostris
CRUSTACEANS (continued)
CLADOCERA (continued)
Ceriodaphnia pulchella
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Chydorus gibbus
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnia longispina galeata
Daphnia longispina mendotae
Daphnia longispina typica
Daphnia pulex
Daphnia retrocurva
Eurycercus lameliatus
Holopedium gibberum
Hyacryptus sordidus
Hyocryptus spinifer
Latona setifera
Leptodora kindtii
Leydigia quadrangularis
Macrothrix latricornis
Moina rectirostris
Pleuroxus aduncus
Pleuroxus denticulatus
Pleuroxus striatus
Sida crystal Una
Simocephalus serrulatus
Simocephalus vetulus
OTHER CRUSTACEA
Mysis re 11 eta
Pantoporeia hoyi
FISHES
PETROMYZONIDAE
Ichthyomyzon concolor
Ichthyomyzon unicolor
Petromyron niarinus Linnaeus
Entosphenus appendix
-122-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 192S-1929 —
Continued
FISHES (continued) FISHES (continued)
POLYODONTIDAE AMEIUR1DAE
Polyodon spatula Ictalurus punctatus
Viliarius lacustris
ACIPENSER1DAE Ameiurus melas
Acipenser fulvescens Ameiurus nebulosus
Ameiurus natal is
CYPR1N1DAE Leptops olivaris
Cyprinus carpio Naturus flavus
Carassium auratus Schilbeodes gyrinus
Nocomis bigurtatus Schilbeodes miurus
Nocomis micropogon
Erimystax dissimilis LEPISOSTE1DAE
Erinemus storerianus Lepisosteus platostomus
Erinemus hyal inus Lepisosteus osseus
Rhinichrhys atronasus lunarus
Rhinichthys cataractae AMI1DAE
Semotilus atromaculatus atromcculatus Amia calva
Margariscus margarita
Clinostomus elongarus H1ODONT1DAE
Opsopoeodus emiiiae Hiodon tergisus
Notropis heteradon
Notropis heterolepis CLUPEiDAE
Notropis volucellus voluceilus Pomolobus chrysochlorus
Notropis deliciosus stramineus Pomolobus pseudo-harengus
Notropis dorsal is Dorosoma cepedianum
Notropis hudsonius
Notrcpis whipplii spilopterus COREGONIDAE
Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque Leucichthys artedi artedi
Notropis rubrifrons Leucichthys artedi albus
Notropis corntus chrysocephalus Coregonus ciupeaformis
Notropis cornurus front-ails
Notropis umbratilis syanocsphalus SALAAONIDAE
Notemigonus crysoleucas crysoieucas Salmo fario
Hybognathus hankinsoni Salmo irideus
Chrosomus erythrogaster Salmo irideus shasta
Hyborhynchus notatus Cristivomer namayeush namayeush
Pimephales promelas promelas Salvelinus fontinalis fontinalis
Campostama anomalum
-123-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 1928-1929-
Continued
FISHES (continued)
CATOSTOMIDAE
Megastomatobus cyprinella
Carpiodes cyprinus
Catostomus commersonnii
Catostomus catostomus
Hypentelium nigricans
Erimyzon sucetta
Minytrema melanops
. Moxostoma aureolum
Moxostoma anisurum
Moxostoma iesueurii
Moxostroma duquesnii
Placopharynx carinaftjs
UMBRiDAE
Umbra limi
ESOCIDAE
Esox americanus
Esox niger
Esox lucious
Esox masquinongy
ANGUILLIDAE
Anguilla rostrata
CYPRINODONTIDAE
Fundulus diaphanus menona
PERCOPSIDAE
Percopsis omiscomaycus
APHREDODER1DAE
Aphredoderus sayanus
SERRANIDAE
Lepibema chrysops
FISHES (continued)
PERC1DAE
Perca flavesccus
Stizostedion canadense griseum
Stizostedion glasusum
Hadropterus maculastus
Percina caprodes zebra
Rheocrypta copelandi
Imostoma shumardi
Ammocrypta pellucida
Boleosoma nigrum nigrum
Poecilichthys coeruleus coeruleus
Poecilichthys exilis
Catonotus flabellaris
Etheostroma belennioides
CENTRARCHIDAE
Micropterus dolomieu
Aplites salmoides
Chaenobryttus gulosus
Helioperca incisor
Xenotis megalotis
Eupomotis gibbosus
Ambloplites rupestris
Pomaxis annularis
Pomaxis sparoides
ATHERINIDAE
Labidesthes sicculus
SCIAENIDAE
Aplodinorus grunniens
COTTIDAE
Triglopsis thompsonii
Cottus bairdii bairdii
Cottus bairdii kumlieni
Cottus cognatus
Cottus ricei
-124-
-------
Appendix B, Species Characterization of Lake Erie-
Niagara River Watershed, 1928-1929 •
Continued
FISHES (continued)
GASTEROSTEIDAE
Eucalia inconstans
Gasterosteus aculeatus
G ADI DAE
Lota maculosa
-125-
-------
APPEM3IX C - WATER QUALITY DATA, INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS
I
M
to
I
Sample
Date <
Static
Depth,
X-Chan
Temp,
D.O.,
Sp.Con
pfl
TSS,mg
TDS,mg
Chlori
E'luori
Sulfat
P04,mg
NH3-N,
N03-N,
Oil&Gr
Cyanid
Phenol
Se,vig/
As,(jg/
Ba,pg/
Cd,pg/
Cr,ng/
CU,VKJ/
Fe,pg/
Hg,pg/
Ni,ug/
Pb,yg/
Zn/pg/
-
No.
1973)
n No.
m.
mel PC
°C
mg/l
d,|jm/c
/I
/I
de,mg/
de,mg/
e, rag/1
/I
112
822
11
" 0 "
)S. M "
28.0
4,0
m
1
1
r
mg/1 |
mg/1
ease, mg/1
e,ug/l
s,yg/l
j_
-
_ --
?- 1
i
i .
X
!___! _
i
i
i
i
—
-
,113
822
11
3.0
" M
26.5
0.5"
,.
114
822
11
6.1
" M"
23.0
0.8
"
201
82?
6
1.5
N
25.2"
0.8
450
202
,827
6
1.5
M
25.0'
0.9
440
i
_ __
203
827
6
3.0
M
25.0
0.9
460
. ..
204
827
6
4.6
M"
25.0"
0.9
450
i
1
:..;
205
. 827^
6
6.1
M
25.0
"0.9
450
. 206
827
6
1.5
S
25.0
"1.1
450
207
827.
10
1.5
N
26.7
0.4
490
..
208
_827
10
1.5
M
26.3"
'0.4"
520
. 209
827
_ 1Q
4.6
M
26.6
^Oi2
490
210
...827
10
1.5
S
"26.5"
"0!4
460
I
---,
211
827
15
1.5
N
28.8
"0.7
520
--212
_.827
_. 15.
1.5
M
28.2
0.6
450
. 213
^ 827
15
4.6
M
27.5
~0:2
460
_214
- 827.
_ 15^
1.5
S
28.2
ola
430
-2151—216.
_. 829 j_-829_
__22J 2L
_- Oi_L,.5_
Mj_ M
25.5
1.9
630
27.5
1.2
500
-------
Appendix C (oont.)
Sample
Date (]
Station
Depth,
X-Chanr
Temp, «
D.O. , n
Sp.Cond
pH
TSS,mg/
TDS, mg
Chlorid
Fluoric
Sulfate
P04, mg
NH3-N,n
Np3-N,n
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
Se,pg/l
Ba,pg/l
Cd,|,g/l
Cr,pg/l
Cu,ng/l
Fe,pg/J
Ni,ug/l
Pb,wg/i
2n,ug/l
No.._
973).-
> NQ, _j
m.
_217_
829
15
1.5
icl Pos. N
C J29.8
ig/1 1 1.3
,lim/cf
'1
» 450
/I '
e, mg/1
e, mg/1
, mg/1
/I
ig/i. .
KJ/l
ase,ma|/l
/pg/1
•nSfA
____
~r~"
i
-218L_
15
4.6
N
>8.2
0.4
460
2.1S
829
15
1.5
M
29.2
1.0
460
829
15
4.6
M
>8.0
0,4
44Q
22L
829
15
1.5
S
!9.8
1.2
430
.222 _.
15
4.6
S
27.9
0.4
221
10
1.5
N
29,4
1,3
.fl29_
10
1.5
M
^1'
440
225.
10
4.6
jq^o
0.3
460
226__
829
10
1.5
S
2ikfi
Q.9
460
3ftl
90S
22
0
N
26,8
2.8
630
L80
970
LO.l
230
302
_M5_
22
0
s
27-0
2-7
450
r.16
L80
r970
LO.l
230
303
905
15
1.5
N
31.0
0-6
390
.
304
90S
15
4.6
N
29-0
0-1
470
305
90S
15
1.5
M
JUJL-
0,4
500
LI 6
L80
970
LO.l
230
306
90S
15
3.0
M
30.0
0-1
470
307
905
15
4.6
t\
29.0
0,1
480
308
90S
15
3ftq
905
15
1.5 | 4.6
S
31.0
n.4
460
"
S
•>9.6
D.I
49ft
-
-------
Appendix C (cont.)
00
Sample
Date (1
Statior
Depth,
X-Chanr
Temp, °
D.O. , ir
Sp.Conc
P" .
TSS,mg/
TDS, mg
Chlorid
Fluorid
Sulfate
P04, mg
NO3-N,ir
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
Se/tJg/l
As,pg/l
Ba,pg/l
Cd,pg/l
Cr,pg/l
Cu,yg/l
Fe,Ug/l
Hg,yg/l
Ni^g/l
Pb,pg/l
Zn»u9/l
No
973) _
No. ,
m.
el Pos
C
g/1,
,ym/cn
1 1
/I
"905
10
1.5
. N
31.2
0.8
1490
e, mg/1
e, mg/
, mg/1
/I
'1
"
g/1
g/1
ase,ira/l
,uq/l i
/ijcj/1. i
— i
i
905
10
1.5
M
Ql.O
1.1
520
1,1 fi
1,80
970
,0.1
230
J12_
905
10
3.0
M
29,9
0.1
470
905
10
4.6
M
28.0
0.0
450
905
10
6.1
M
27.2
0.1
490
.315"
905
10
1.5
S
30.4
0.8
500
_316
905
6
1.5
N
28.4
2.7
480
905
6
4.6
N
27,8
1.9
480
_318
905
6
1.5
M
2&1
2.5
420
r.lfi
620
LO.i
230
905
6
3.0
M
27.7
2.3
470
320
905
6
4.6
M
£L2
2.1
380
905
6
1.5
S
28.2
1.9
480
322 1 401
905
910
6 20
4.6
S
27.8
1.5
420
0
N
26.9
1.0
402
910
20
0
M
27.0
1.0
450
7.3
403
910
20
1.5
M
26.3
0.7
430
7.0
404
910
20
3.0
M
23.8
0.4
400
6.9
405 1 406
910
20
1.5
S
(25.3
910
24
1.5
N
26.2
0.5 | 0.4
-
I
1
-------
Appendix C (cont.J
Sairple
Date (1
Station
Depth,
X-Chann
Temp, °
D.O.< m
Sp.Cond
TSS.mg/
TDS, mg
Chlorid
Fluorid
Sulfate
?04, mg
NH3~N,n
NO3-N,in
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
As,pg/l
Ba,Mg/l
Cd,yg/l
Cr,(jg/l
No
973)
m.
el Po£
9?0~
24
0
. M
C E7.2
g/1. ..
,VKi/a<
I
/I "
1,2
1 390
6.9
e, mg/1
e, mg/
, mg/J
/I
g/i.
g/1
1
ase,mg/l
/pg/l *
,ljQ/l.
!
Cu,pg/l
Hg,pg/l
Ni,wg/l
PbVug/1
Zn,ug/]
^910~
24
1.5
M
!6,5
0.3
420
6.9
910
24
3.0
M
3* p
0.3
420
7.0
910
24
1.5
S
6.5
0,3
15
1.5
N
>7.9
0,9
470
7.0
412A
910.
15
0
M
2iLJl_
2 0
400
7.0
A12B-
15
0.6
M
1 5
4i™
15
1.2
M
28-2
1,3
412Q-
910
15
1.8
M
2fl,2
1-0
JH2E
qin
2.4
M
0,6
_^12E
~~3.0
M
27.7
0.5
_412G
910
15
3.7
K
27 2
0.2
4121i
15
4.-
f.
2fi fl
0,1
-• -
.
412T
15
4.9
f
?fi e
0,1
41?.^ 41 2«
ginl Qin
15J 15
5.5] 6.1
J (V
?fi y •>& r
0-2
0.1
41 ?I
15
6.7
fj
?S 1
0.1
413 414
Qlft JQjn
15 1 15
1.5 !4.6
M
420
7.0
M
390
7.0
*
-------
Appendix C (cont.)
OJ
o
Sample
Date (1
Station
Depth,
X-Chann
Temp,..0
D.O., rr
Sp.Conc
PH
No.
973) J
No.
m.
415
910
15
1.5
el Pos. S
C
27.6
g/1 . | 1.0
,\m/a\
t 410
7.0
TSS,mg/l !
TDS, mg
Chloric
Fluorid
Sulfate
PO4, mg
NH3-N,ir
N03-N,rr
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
/I
e, mg/1
e, mg/
, mg/1
/I
'1
g/1 !
g/l
ase,w
/ug/i_
,i.q/i
/I
Se,pg/l
As,vig/l 1
Ba,yg/l
Cr,yg/l
Cu,pg/l
Fe,ng/l
Hg,pg/l
Ni,yg/l
Pb.ug/1
Zn,yg/l
416
r~912
19
1.5
M
26.2
0.9
8.0
265
54
0.16
60
0.04
0.42
3-4
1,26
8
2
417
912
15
1.5
M
26.0
1.1
14.0
271
55
0.42
60
0.07
75.41
2.9
L26
12
2
438
912
10
1.5
M
25.0
0.3
21
295
62
0.52
57
0.15
0.84
1 .4
L26
12
4
419
912
6
1.5
M
2J_.9
1.4
20
246
6.1,
-0,46-
48
0.12
0.70
0,7
L26
10
3
501
918
22
1.5
M
9
185
-0 68
56
5.6
.0.36
1 3
L26
11
4
10
10
1240
, LI
20
45
502
918
19
1.5
M
2
260
65
-0,28-
51
0.15
0.14
3.0
22
2
10
20
880
Ll
20
31
503
15
1.5
M
4
—255_
0 28
5.1
d!"28~
2.^2.
L26
21
3
L10
30
860
Ll
L20
27
-5QA
10
1 5
M
-^
285
3Q-
0 50
0.13
0.42
7^
L26
8
3
10
90
1220
Ll
L20
45
—5.05
9]8
6
M
268
— ea-
se
0.70
3,7
L26
12
4
L10
20
680
Ll
L20
24
.506.
-9-20
22
M
14.0
_JL1_
7,1^
6fi.
—4-75-
-J.2-2-
0.64
71
0.92
9.24
0.5
L26
16
4
-920
19
M
24.0
-1UL,
22
247
62^ -§-
-0,33-
0.11
0.42
0.9
L26
38
1
-920-
1.5
M
24.2
0-1
7.21
11
251
-0,36-
58
0.42
1.2
L26
23
1
_5Q9_
920
10
1 5
M
22.5
0-1
7-36
59
9g 1
69
0.50
57
0.19
0.56
3.3
L26
14
4
-510.
920
5
1;.5
M
21.5
O.fl
7.2?
63
270
P.P,
_£Q1_
925
22
1.5
M
15.2
7.42
19
<17 2_ _
0,59 1(1.10
59
JL.15
0.84
2.5
L26
10
4
54
-602—
925
19.
1.5
M
23.fi
-603—
925
15
1.5
M
24.8
2 00 |3 75
- 604-..
.925 .
10
1.5
M
21 8
1 50
7.15 7 18 7.1R
2
246
8
21R
4Q 7 51 .2
0.21 h.32
49 1 54
Q
120
61. R.
60 ._.
3.S6 p. 16 0.14 in.lfl
14.48 0.56 0.56 jl.12
0.10
3.8
L26
13
L10
10
920
Ll
L20
28
0.30 to. 10 '0.20
4.5
L26
18
3.6
L26
13
3.3
'L26
9
I
60
L10
760
Ll
20
43
L10
40
1310
Ll
L"2"CT]
42
10
20
1450
Ll
-~w
36
-------
Appendix C (cont.)_
- -
Sample
Date (1
Station
Depth,
X-Chann
Temp, «
D.O. , K
Sp.Cond
pll
TSS,ng/
TDS, mg
Chlorid
Fluorid
Sulfate
PO4/ mg
NHj-Njir
N03-N,ir
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
Se,Mg/l
As,ng/l
Ba,pg/l
Cd,jig/l
Cr,vg/l
Cu.pg/1
Fe,vig/l
Hg,pg/l
Ni,gg/l
No..
973) .
No.
m.
el Pos
C ""
•3/1...
,\an/a
1
A
e, mg/
e, mg/
, mg/J
A. J
605
925
6
1.5
. M
22.0
0.50
\
7.22
16
359
'161X2
'10.48
4 54
0.34
g/1 1 0.98
•3/1—
ase,mc
,ug/l
' U9/1
LO.IO
A3. 2
L26
12
1
Pb,ug/l
Zn»ug7l
10
L10
1660
LI
L20
22
606
927
L 22
1.5
M
17.0
3.0
7.52
4,
43?
90.4
0.42
60
6.16
0.09
0.9
L26
13
607
927
19
1.5
M
25^3.
1.2
7.46
li
259
50.2
0.20
52
0.84
Q.10
L26
266
608
927
15
1.5
M'
-25,4..
1.7
7.53
Ifl.
. 260
60.7
1^22
52
0.56
(LJ5.2_
0-5.
L26
74
609
927
10
1.5
M
2JLJ
1.0
7.41
1S7.7
jL.44
54
0.98
0-28
L26
15
—
610
927
6
1.5
_JL
1,0"
7.43
15
_235_
59.7
56
fl*™~
0 2
L26
L4
701
1002
22.
1.5
M
HL2_
24
__325_
58
65
0.95
10
20
U4Q
1,1
L20
_21_
702
1002
J2
1.5
M
^&-
5
0,39
59
10
20-
Ll
20
51
~~TQ1
.1QQ2.
1.5
M
"2721
59
66
JL2fl_|
20
1260..
LI
30
40
"2fl4_
J002
10
-tL
J4JL.
67-
58
57
0,5.9
2Q
5.65JL
LI
80
178
_2Q5_
10Q2
M
— 20-
261
52
56
0-28
il!L
140
2000
LI
L20
41
JZOfL
IQlM.
_26_
0
Jl
1ft 7
0-2
7 S?
63-
217
46
"o^ot"
ft.O
73
52
16
L10
— 2fL
LI
L20
4
-JQ1.
-1QQ4
23
0
M
--9-9-
ft 31
11
—264-
^
0-12
.Q-J-4-
0,13
2,4
L26
7
1
L10
r.io
480
LI
L20
13
708
1004
2S
0
M
-22^2-
8.4
8 72
9
—563-
•sn
XX^27-
74
0.23
-0^4.4
0 03
1,6
T,?fi
a
2
LJO
10
17Q
LI
20
4
801
1011
?fi
0
M
16.2
0 6
7 52
12
—336-
47
-0,56-
60
1 ,98
4 7
0-16
4,0
31
22
8
10
•SO
980
LI
30
67
809
ion
23
o
M
16.4
8,5
8 31
5
256
21
0^-26
60
0. 34
013
1.8
1,26
8
1
L10
L10
290
LI
20
7
em
1011
2^
0
M
20.9
8.5
Q 27
1
506
64
74
0.42
0 11
1.4
T.26
U
1
L10
L10
190
LI
L2Q
8
1001
10?S
1
1002
102^
4
1 ^
. M
n
1">0
25
nil
29
P,97
2-5
1,26.
6
1
10
100
L20
L10
L10
350
10
193-
47
0 ^4
47
0,37
-0-04-
2.S
- r/2fi
8
2
20
L5Q
L2Q
1Q
20
Taoo
Lli 25
L20l L20
L20 20
2l 31
-------
Appendix C (cont.)
I
M
00
I
Sample
Date (1
Station
Depth,
X-Chann
Temp, °
D.O. , re
Sp.Conc
PH ..
TSS,mg/
TDS, mg
Chlorid
Fluorid
Sulfate
PO4, mg
N03-N,ir
Oil&Gre
Cyanide
Phenols
Ba,pg/l
Cd/tig/l
Cu,pg/l
Ni!ug/l
Pbiug/l
Zn,ug/l,
No.
973).
No.
m.
1003
1025
3
1.5
el Pos. M
C
9/1 .
,\w/ai
i ....
/i " ;
e, mg/
e, mg/
, mg/1
/I . _
g/i.
g/L
ase/mc
»ug/i_
'U9/1
1
195
1 46
10.32
48
0~."2~5
0.42
0.04
Z3JL-4
L26
13
I 2
1 20
i L50
L20
L10
10
1100
1 24
"^ 20
L20
27
1
1004.
1025
7
1.5
M
50
2JL
56
0.46
60
0.52
1.26
0.06
2.1
L26
16
1
30
200
L20
30
4100~
LI
L20
30
80
_1QQ5_
_LQ25.
8
1.5
M
M.
288
52
0.48
60
0.78
1.26
0.06
0.7
46
11
1
30
L50
L20
r 30
JO
4050
10
L20
20
81
IQQp
9"
1.5
M
45
27Q
55
0.47
60
0.67
0.98
0.05
0.1
52
7
1
20
L50
L20
30
3D
3450
LI
L20
20
76
I
12
1.5
M
78
248
50
0.53
58
fO.85
1.12
0.08
2.7
46
28
3
20
L50
L20
80
50
5310
LI
L20
100
156
1Q.08 -
13
1.5
M
41
_2cQ
46
0.53
58
"0.44
0.84
0.11
r2.8
33
29
2
30
1,50
L20
80
4Q
3650
LI
L20
50
106
1
1002
1Q25.
14
1.5
M
-28_
265_
48
0.35
62
0.31
.10.10.
_1Q25
17
M
15.
46
0.25
60
0.22
6.70^0.28
0.09
5.4 ,
L26 J
22
2
20
L50
1,20
70
5Q_
2900
LI
L20
90
69
0.04
3.2
L26
18
2
10
L50
L20
20
1480
LI
L20
L20
41
1011
..1025.
16
1.5
M
__ 17.
.. 255.
46
0.25
60
0.32
-1012
. M25
18
1.5
M
. 12
51
0.24
61
0.24
0.42" 0.42
0.02
3.5
L26
18
2
10
L50
L20
30
20.
1640
17
L20
20
39
0.02
5.3
33
34
2i
10
L50
L20
20
_2fl
1600
LI
L20
L20
41
I
*
-------
APPENDIX D,
PRESENT INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS
Diichmpe (.a. ] ! Q4301 ] ' 4821 1 \
419QV
j 41902 i41903 t 419041 1482101
! 48209!
UJ
LU
1
FLQM RAIE
HEAT FLUX
ALMtlN
ACIDITY i
T-HA'IO j
T-§OL10$_
TOS
1SS J
NH3-N ,'
"BOD-S
JJUrOQL. I
ois-oxy j
CYANIDE ,
~SULFATE~!
_$L!LF|0£ 1
SULF1TE
FLUORIDE;
PHENOLS
AL
AS
CD
CA
CR
CO
cu
i_FE_
PB
MN
_HG 1
m
HI
K
_NA
SE
SN
Tl
. x^;
7525.
0.0
0.1070E 05
0.2S7SE 05,
0.2427E 05
(l_137S,
!: 6-476
, 2.120
1 52.11 _.
• Q.llhLE 05'
:_Q,Q
5113.
:• 418.1
7.148
p.o
. 2.120
0.0
3.171
0-0
0.101.0
3U*1V»
i?l • *?Q i
JQ.O J
b.2S3
115,5
3,701
0.0
0.0
: .0.0 _!'
0.0
0.0
"o.o
0,0
0.0
i 37755.
3155.
0.0
0.0
3S1b.
, 35. 1b
0.3S1b
P.,0
711.2
. lOftO. __
1.176
1.716
0.5314 ,
4L-7.5
..17. 1ft
0.0
10M3. ,
, 2.L17
1.2.13
C.6161E-01
n.o
0.0
P-fl
0.1716
0.0
D.17W-01
57S.3
o.aiflie-oi
n.u
0.1178
b.832
0.323),
0,0
O.baaa
'.0.1071Er01
0.0
n.o
0.0
341, b _..
0.0
0,0
0.0
"TiftvT ''570 ' 14005 j 5211 I lb«7b ( 7
1128bfi 40877 5321& 31713 . 74Qb1 ' 30
., 1335. T 411-b 12LO. 47U.1 .0.0 : -0.1441
IIO.O ilD.D t-p.Q .'-D.D .,.0,0 > i.O...O
I 2063. i,- 164.1 , ' 1621. b.' U8.1 t'0.0 \\ 0.0 !
• 3111. FO.23t.2E OS 3113, J'.! 1240. M b755,. | 2.332
' 37SO. I0.2332E 05 30fll. ! 1145. • 5173. ' 1.115
1 110, fl [ 30.26 , i- 112. Q j' 15.30 (3.32.55.. J i.O.lSlH . .
1 22. 2t t 10. LO jj 26. 01 '• • 4.231 if 115.3 t . 0.1S14E-03.
I 4.7U1 L 2,271 '• '1. 201 " 1,51Q -!Q.O , ! '.n.?57PEr:)13
' 30.20 [11.35 ~l - SO. 42 2.b41 '- • 48.63 O.b283 1
11,1,, 1 ' 74.14 i £20. b 30.20 ' 15?. V _P..1tbb
f 117. M 1 57.71 ' " ' 101.6 ' !!; 31.1? Si 135.6 ; . 0.5114E-01 1
' ?.36S 1-135 2.801 ' 1-325 fi.3..SftJ, ' 0.376SE-Q2'
0.3171 iO.lSm 0.2601 , 0.1510 ; l.t.26 , 0.75/06-03
f 715.4 f"'JO?.ft ;" bib. 2" i)"ilb.l jl j""i432. i "0-35S6 .
1 b.351 1 3.028 ' S.bO.2 J-l ?.1?0 t[ .Ibf2fl __J-.Pt7S?Pi-.fi£_
15.10 V.570 10.0 ' O.D Q.O 0.0
4?b.T '' 234.7 i iiQb-1 ' Ib4.3 , 3.15,3 P,3785. J
1 3.171 I 1-514 ,' 4.201 1: 1-ObO 1, j 4.683 ; O.I.207E-02
0.0 0.0 ! bSS.4 0.0 V SO-lfci • _P,P . _ . _j
0.(,3"51E-01 0.7570E-01 0.5l,02E-dl 0.212QE-01 0.310b 0.0
O.Q i o.o n,n ' o.o q.a _O,Q _ ._
20. b7 1.841 . 18.21 f, b.661 i 0.0 , O.bOSbE-03-
o.o o.p R,(I LQ.Q ' a«o_ . _i -P--P
0.1510 0.7S70E-01 0.0 O.S211E-Q1 Q.1L26 ! 0.0
f) Q 0,0 0.0 0-0 Q-0 P*P
:o.L351 0.3026 |O.Sb02 '. 0.4231 . O.LSIOE-DV 0.7S70E"-OS
" S40.S ' 21S.2 ' 5b7.2 | 212. Q •' 122.1 1 .P.£b7? . _
2.365 1 1.135 ' 2.101 ' 0,7140 0.5371 0.1S14E-04
p.O P.O 2-601 j 0.0 O.P 0.1S1HE-D3
0.0 ; 0.0 1.400 ij 0.0 0.211b .' 0.b05bE-C4
S.067 1 1.1b6 . 5.162 K I, bib _ 21.lt ' P.t434E-Q3
7.144 I 3.76S 7.002 , 2.b41 • O.bSifl 0.1514E-03
0-0 ! 0.0 ' 1P5.3 0,0 0.0 _D.?S70E-01
O.Q : 0.0 ' 1.400 0.0 , P.64b4 ; 0.1135E-03
oio o.o u.o ! o.o ~ . olo : P.O
' o.p o.o o.n . _P,O , n.o. JI.Q.... .
o.o o.o , o.o O.Q : o.p , o.o
1.110.8 . ' .m.ftH j - 140.0 ..bO.lH -301. e Q.'ia'llt-ttl
0.0 U-0 I (I.I) 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.n o.o 1 n.n o.o o.o o.o
31.71 IS. 14 0.0 ; 10. tO 0.0 D.2271E-03
0.47U1 • 0,3026. i 0.4201 '.O.U1Q. 0.0 „ _D,2120£-Q3
Flow Ratu, cubic metert per day
Heo» Flux, kkg-cal per day
Chemical Wall us, kg par iloy
-------
APPENDIX D,
PRESENT INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS (CONTINUED)
I
H
U)
I
Discharge 1.0
.HEAT FLUX
ALKALTN
ACIDITY
T-HARD
T-SOLIDS_
TOS
TSS
NH3-N
CMG-N
BOD-5
ULT-OO
D1S-UXY
N03-N
CYANIDE
SOLPATL
MJLHUG
SULFIlfc
.CHLORIDE
' FLUORIDE
_PIL±G(i
PHENOLS
I AL
S3
AS
11 A
CO
CA _ "
CR
CO
CU
PB
Mf,
MN
Hf,
HO
MT
K
NA
SE
..EN
TI
48208
.±,451
0.0
0,0
t.L.71
bb.SQ
0.2fl38
0.1324E-OT
0.0.
0.14bOE-Dl
n.,?ois
O.lbOl '
O.M73QE-02
0.0
0.3122E-P1
• 4.44b
o.a
0.0
22. Ib
0.7757E-01
1 0.0
, 0.0
;_0.0
1 0.0
, o.a
wo.o
1 0.14bDE-Q4
1 7.015
D.1812E-02
n.75b8E-03
1J3.8041E-Q2
0.1C12E-02
j 0.1411E-D2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.2838E-02
32601 •
" 32130
.1541b
' ""15 MS/
0.0
6825.
5b17. "
D.1778E 05
, 1.17b
..1.280. .
flfl.11
• i 183.7
! 2b2.2 '
2.3C1S
0.3213
3.213
Sbflfl.
O.USftb
O.D
1021.
1 171.2
O.bSflbE-01
O.Q
10.54
I.b4b
O.KSftb
0.0
Q.bSflbE-01
1211.
2.7LU
0.0
1.317
_ 171-4 _
I.fl77
230.5 •
• 0.3213E-01
0.0
0-851,2
4b.lO
0.0
l-b4U. ....
0.0
: 48207-
4542
1.4534
. 0.0
0.0
1 8121.
8130.
345.2
235.3
0.0
454. H
1740.
35.17
0.4542
0.45M2
0.2271
311.7
0.0
It, '10.
1.317
. 11.53
2.0b7
0.0
,Q.flb3Q
o.n
0.45M2E-01
0.0
0.12b3E-01.
' 0.4542 !
0. ML- 33
C.272S
131.7
0.5587
. 0.1817E-Q2
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.2631E OS
D.O
D.O . _ _
0.2271
_ S.S87. ...
48206
" ?836fl
113551
7125.
Q.O
0,0
0,1022E_Q5
317.4
32.13
3\.1.0
603.1
e|i-fl"
2. '831
bai.3
0.0
11'. 7.
lb7.S
0.5314
0.0
5.314
0.0 '
O.HbVfl
0.0 i
0.11-b
2-fl\1 __.
. 1.11,4
2.441
3. Obi,
823.1'
1.70t
0.0
n.o l
ii. n \
1703.1
0.0 \ f
0.0 \
1.411 \
48205 |
~1813
Ibl5. "
O.Q i
0.0
b3L4. !
41.22
fl.321
15.33
227.2
447.2
14. 5t, ,
0.113b
0.1813
Q.7572E-D1
75.72
1.813
b2.47
1 3027.
0.0
15.52
0.1fl'i3E-02
1.13b
0.7UI;.!
0.2272
n.ieise-oi".
J1.5b71
0.113bE-01
6.16-I3E-01
.Q.4354E-C1
1.704
1.188
0.2272
1 q . j. i(
0.7004E-01
0.3407E-02'
D.S300
0.1L01
b.058
2414.
D.O
0.1MUSE-01
0,1-350
,48204
75
1^084
0.0
0.0
31.17
38.01
2.115
0.1514
0-0
1.084
14.31
0.5411,
0.bfll3E-02
0.7570C-Q2
3.D28
0.75VQE-01
0.0
5.211
0.0
0.5211E-01
0.2271E-02
8.327
o.n
D.O
O.D
0.0
O.Q
2.115
o.n""
0.0
0.0
O.Q
O.Q
o.n
Q.D
0.0
0.0
0,0
O.Q
7.343
O.Q
0.0
0.0
D.Q
| 48203' <
24.57
0.0
0.0
73.0fl
4.580
i l.bflb
J3.0
34.18
I.b41 !
D.3bb4
0.2082E-01
0.3748E-01
1 3.123
0.2082
O.Q
\ 10.41
0.0
; 1.041
D.3125E-Da
11.24
^0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 ~
D.O
D.O
D.O ;•
D.O
0,0
0.0
o.a !
. D.O
D.Q
0.0
14. Ib.
n.o
D.O
o.a
0.0
'32604
!~ 510'lb
:__7?140b
"SQllV
0.0
, 7735.
0.12R1E 05.
5. IDS
27, 75
81.75
28b.l
312.2
2.152
0.5105
44.87
1417. :
1.181 i
O.Q
1771.
13.58
51.05
0.0
0.0
11.13
2 1S2
o.vias
0.0
0.11S1
. 2D1b. ,;
J3.0
2.71b :
53,71
1.211
1.S3S
O.S105E-Q1
o.o ;
O.fl2bb
7b.l7
708. b
O.Q
5.152
O.Q i
UNITS: Flow Rate, cubic meters per day
Heat flux, kkg-cal per day
Chemical Wastes, kg per dgy
-------
APPENDIX D,
PRESENT INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS (CONTINUED)
ui
I
Discharge 1.0.
~FLOW~RAT(F
Jlf AT .F.LUX
ALKAL1N
ACIDITY •
T-MARO •
T-SOLIOS
TOS
TSS
HH3-N ;
ORG-N
BOD-S
DIS-OXY
N03-N '
CYAItlOfc .
P-TOTn '
SULFATE •
SULFJDE '
SULFITE
FLUUR.IOE
Oil ȣB
PHENOLS
SUREACI
.' AL
SB
AS
I) A
fco~ ,
LCA
CR
CO
CU
FE
P6
Ml,
MU
HO
HI
K
SE
SlJ
TJ
in
! 32602
"" 303Sb
2003.
. 0.0
72A5.
7bl1.
, bOll.
p!303b
101.3
,.-£77,3
' 236.0
2,125
5.1U
12-11 _
t ftSO.G i
' O.L071 '
O.Q
Ib70,
j 51.30
• 10,57
2. Obi
LQ.O
| 133.7
L 1.516
0,3U3b
i 0,Q
)15Sr
0.57b6
P.O
; 1.305
' b.311
333.1
j 1.711
1 0.3Q3UE-01-
1 0.0
a.sibi
152.7
- 155.3
0.0
.i.sia
o.o
32603
11773
- 3M5b1
1161.
0.0
b371.
0.1211E OS
insi.
1115.
1.1SO
2b0.b
373.2
21.10
1211.
0.1155 !
o.a
1113.
11.11 ;
*D.1113
lb.12
0.1177
o.n
0-11SSE-01
Ifll.b.
p.o
O.AIbl
2.736
3. IAS
ra.q
60.13
bib. 8
O.Q
Q.O
08401
32135
. 711623
3213.
0.0
J11UI70E Q5_
0.10C3E 05
b?1.6
3A.5b ' '
22.11
321.3
"l6b.8
21. AS :
0.3213
1-265
1703.
0,0
0.0
3bb3.
21.12
22.17
8.031
0,0
0.0
Q.Q
0.0
Q.a
0.0
2532.
0.0
O.Q
D.fl
32.13 ,
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.Q
o.n
8.031
137.0
0.0
lb-10
0.0
.3.213 . _.
! 48202 1
~~ 11
376
1.133
0.0
0.0
16.12
15.70
0.1730
0.1612E-02
0,0
17.03
25.55
0.73
n.o
0.0
0»Q.. ..
4820V
113
13. Ob
0.0
0.0
107.1
18.15
0.2272
n.o
20.15
31. bl
0.77bl
p.ll3bE-Q),
0.1131.E-01
Q.t.aiLE-01
15.31
O.Q
11-77
Q.Q
P. I" 77
O.bfilbE-03
O.Q ;
o.q
Q.O
n.o
0.0
3.ci.e ;
o.n
n.o
o.o
U.Q
Q.O
0-0
O.Q
O.Q
0.0
n.o
n.n
21. 5A
0.0
Q.C
O.Q
i 56901 1
27,
18.5
o.n i
7.753
11.36
18.15
o.iBba
0.6110E-Q2
Q,81'!OE-P5 ''
0.6110E-01
O.llbb ,
Q.O
0.0
2.b2l '•'
0.0
O.Q
2.b7S
o.a :
Q.O :;
0.1201E-03
n.n :
o.o '
u.p '
0.0
o.g
O.Q
7.753 .:
0.2310
0.0
O.Q
0,0
O.Q
0.0
n.o
O.O 1
0.0
p.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
! 19101 '
O.Q .
p.o 'r
Q.a j ,
0.0
O.Q
O.Q
Q.O ;
fl-0 '
O.Q
fl.o
Q.Q i
O.Q
Q.O
• O.Q
o.a
'0.0
0.0 •
p.o '
o.a
D.O
0,0
Q.O
0-Q
o.a
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
n,o
o.o
n.o
o.o
fl.Q
0.0
n.n
0.0
n,n
0.0
0.0
n.o
I 424X)1
, "sis.
•_ essb
0.1151E OS
- 5. 115
0.0 •:
1351.
lib. 5
ASI.O :•
1.155
0.6011 '
S.11S ,
17.60 '
; 3.117 "•>•
b.756
a. a
2.11?
311.3 rj
O.Q t.
a. a i
10. A?
0.0 |
q.SSSOE-Ql
n.a
o.o
0,0
O.Q
Q.O
o.a
n.o ''
o.o
D,Q
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
Q.O
a.o !>
0.0 . i'
a. a
n.o
o.o
o.a
0,0
o.o
Jl.D
UNITS: flow Rote, cubic melon per day
Hoot Flux, kkg-cul per day
Cliamlcal Wastes, teg per Jay
-------
APPENDIX D,
PRESENT INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS (CONTINUED)
I
H1
00
cr\
I
discharge I.D.
~FUb"w~RA~fiF
.HEAT .FLUX
ALKAL1N ,
ACIDITY I
T-HARD 1
T- SQL IBS.
IDS
TSS ,
(4H3-N
.ORG-M
BOD- 5
ULT-00
DIS-OXY
MOT-N
CYANIDE
_P-TC)TAL..
SULFATE
SULFIOE
SULFITE
CHLORIDE
FLUOP.1DE
OJL+OR
PHENOLS •
.SURFACT.
! AL
S8
AS
DA
CD
CA
CR
CQ
CU
FC
PB
MG
KiN
HO
MI
K
SE
Tl "~
27102
22
211
2.013
i 0.0
, 0.0
13.30
3. 'ISO
0.3175'
.0-0 ....
1.3b2
3.173
I0.15S1
'0.1021
O.D
io.o •
'o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
_0..317.fl
•O.Q
0.0
.0.0
n.o
o.n
.0.0
n.o
o.o
D.O
n.o
o.o
.0,0
o.o
o.o
o.o
O.Q
.C.Q
O.D
.0.0
o.n
0,0
O.D
.O.Q
27101 !
~TI?O,
• 3.151
15.33
n.o
22.11
33.21
33.21
0.0
0.0 " •
Q.Q
0.0
P.0___ _____
0.17Q3E-01
n.o
0.31Clt,E-02
I.MPfl
0.0
o.n
1.1.31
0.0
0.0
0.0 '
n.n
n.o
o.o
n.o
o.n
O.D
n.o
CI.C
0.0
n.n
n.o
o.o
. 1-673
O.D
o.a
o.o
D.O
1.533
n.o
p.o
0.0
j 33901
L.. 1007
125. b
n.o
O.Q
1 551.2 '
b13.1
i 10.12
0.5035
0.0
381.5
^Sflb.b.
0.1505
O.Q
jo.o "
D.O -
D.O
0.0
n.o
0.0
O.Q
.0.0
0.0 l
0.0
,0.0
'o.o
o.n
n.o
n.n
o.o
o.n
o.n
o.o
o.n
:D.U
0.0
o.o
n.o
0,0
o.o
0.0
n.o
. o.rj
J33902
1613
'__ _fli:n^
170.",
o.o
3bi'.:
3b1.1
n.o
o.o
tt.Q ...
o.o
J-o __
11.71
n.o
o.n
D.O
; 11. 2e
. o.n
o.o
51. 1C
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.o
o.n
o.o
O.Q
n.o
o.n
c.o
o.o
n.n '
o.n
n.o
o.n
.?o.ea
o.o
o.o .
o.o
n.n
o.o
17.01
o.n
n.o
o.o
o.n
05603 i
i 11
53
3.b3S
0.0
o.n
ii.i?
1.11S
0.3103
o.o
2.102
l.bflb
, 0.rll?SE-6l
1 'n.lOflfiE-OsL
n.n
n.o
o.n
O.I)
2. Iflfl
0.0
7-513
D.O
o.n
o.o .
o.o '
o.o
i 0-0 ,
c.n '
n.o
D.O
' o.n
o.o
o.o
. D.O
o.o
0.0
o.n
a. a
P.CI
. O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
05602
_135
Sb.Sfl
o.n r
a. a
A 7.001
2.371
i.bsn ...
u P'O
21.13
0.5113 !
0.0 ;
0.12flb
0.0 "
o.o ;
0.0
2.7U5 :
O.Q |
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.D
0.0 ';
o.n x i
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.D
0.0
O.D
0.0
O.D
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
c.o
.0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
05601)
~ 31?
'._ .,633)
l.lflS
21.12
0.0
1173.
" 11.51 ~
0.0
33?. 3
_ 550. B_
l.Bbb
o.n
. 23.62__
o.n ;
n.o
o.o
17. 2b
o.o
21. 30. '
0.0
n.o
o.a r
0.0 '
0.0
o.n
o.o
p.n
o.o
o.a
P.O
D.O
o.o
0.0
o.o
O.Q ' •
O.Q
0.0
O.Q
0.0 _ ,
o.o i
O.Q ;
0.0 I
JJ.O
08801 i
~ia
b12
0.1D31E-01,
O.D j
D.O ;
5.311
1.110
0.3213
0.0 i
n.o ;
D.3?flQE-01
G.Sb7QE-Glj
n.iniSE-bi!
o.o !
0.0
. O.£b70
n.o
.0.0 ;
0.0
O.Q
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
, 0.0
O.D
0.0
0.0
P.D
0.0
0.0 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
O.Q
0.0 L
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0-0*
D.O
O.Q
; 1 1401 f
115.1
,c.o
O.D
1317. •
1221.
."o'.MMSfl"
7bl.b
f lQ.~fl6~
2. Ill
0.0
:QJ.,.nia_
o.o
0.0
Sb.Q^
D.O
151.U
(1.0
n.o
0.0
D.O '
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0 '
. 0.0
n.n
aob CB a o
= o o Q c o
i
1 • L
UNITS: Flow Rate, cubic meters per day
Heat Flux, kkg-cal per day
Chemical Wastes, kg per day
-------
APPENDIX E,
PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS
Discharge 1.0.
FLOW RATE"-
ALKALIN
- ACIDITY •
T-HARO
T-SOLIDS
TDS
TSS
' NH3-N
ORG-N
600-5
• ULT-OD
. OIS-OXY
N03-N
CYANIDE
P- TOTAL
SUL?ATE
. SULPIDE
SULfMTE
CHLQRIOS
FLUORIDE '
OIL'GS
PHENOLS
SURFACT
:- AL :
SB
AS
SA
CD
- CA '
CR
CO
cu
Pfl ;
HG 1
MM
HG t
MO
NI
K
SE
fl
in
.* .04301
105130
. 1153834
7S2S.
- 0.0
Q.1Q7QE OS
0.2M4AE OS
"0.24276 OS-
132. t
• 1,3.51
42.21
307.3
bSk.2
8.478
2.120
Cl.llbkE OS!
0.7411
k3S.1
418.1
21b.7
1.25=1
a. a
- 2.120
Q.O
3.171
0.0
• o.iato
' 3417.
2.QSk
Q.O
b.253
115. S
3.701
0.0
O.Q
• o.n
Q.O
5.211
0.0
~Q.O *
• o.o
' J20.73
: 48211'
37755.
31S5.
0.0
0.0
3200.
151. J,
• 13.57
O.Q
77.13
. 145.2
...1.178
1.718
0.5314
• 17.18
0.0
1043, :
• 2.b17 i
.. 28.77 _. '
O.S314
Q.Q
Q.O
0.0
0.171ft
0.0
0.1718E-01.
.-575. 3
0.41416-01
0.1178
b.&32
0.323b
a. a
O.b832
0.0
a.n
a. a
0.0 i
O.Q_
0.0
41901
15317'
1335.
2083.
3k2S.
170.1
Ib.bb
lbk.3
• 117.4
• 2.148
0.3171
k.351
15.10
. 3.171
Q.b351E-01
a.o
20. b7
0.0
0.1510
C.O
• 0.1017E-01
540.5
.0.0
Q.b3S1
...17.23 _,
0.b3S1
. 111.2
0.5087
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
~ci.a
_.a.o
31.71
.41902
" ~7S7"5
404,7.7
o.a
134.1
I72k.
iksa.
fl.OO
7.133
22.18
- 57.71
0.1514
'' 3.40k
3Q2.3
- 3.028
•7.570
• 234.7
- 1.514
. 12.11 .
0.7S70S-01
0.0
- 1.841
. J3.0 _
0.7S7CS-01
. -2.0
. -.215.2
C.870SE-01
0.0
0.3028
0.3024
Sb.77
0.2422
0.0
0.0
o.a
T.'c*
a. a
15.14
41903
*~"i4oas
o.o
1821.
3113.
3053.
141.1
14. ta
' 4.201
41.03
14k. S
101.8
2.773
0.2901
b.302
bib. 2
' S.bQ2
O.Q
4.c01
22.41
O.SbOcE-Ol
Q.O
14.21
0.0
0.0
• a.o .
Sh7.2
Q.lbll
0.0 ._ ..
0.5b02
IS. IS
. in5.o__ ._
a. a
c.a
o.o
c.c
_ 140.0
a. a
.0.0
0.0
• 41904j
5211
.3.1713
47b.1
•o.n
1203. '
• 11S5.
S.553
IS. S3
_SS.«3 L
31.17
1.041
a. is 10
iik. i
2.120
a.o
Ib4.3
- 1-OkO
8.478 _ "
Q.212QE-01
a. a
fa. 461
o.a
0.52116-01
0.0
Q.3311S-02
212.0
Q.b014E-01
0.0
a. 2120
5.744
0.2120
31.74
O.lk It,
a.D
a.o
o.o
P. a
_to .JM
C.O
Q.O
IQ.bO
• 48210 '
"lb27b
7M8k1
o.a
•Q.O
Q.O
blC3.
5173.
137.2
12.21
0.0
bl.82
IbO.Q
. 125.3
3.551
I.b23
4. Obi
1432.
Ik. 28
0.0
, 1*5.3
4.883 -
0.4883
Q.Q
Q.O
O.Q
O.lb28
O.Q
' Q.bSlOE-01 •
1221.
Q.S371
Q.Q
0. 2 lib
21. Ib
0. = 510
Q.Q
a. a
0.0
Q.O
"o.o"""
o.a
o.c
.0.0.
UNITS: Row Rate, cubic meters per day
Heat Flux, Itfcg-cai per day
Chemical Wades, !cg per day
-137-
-------
APPENDIX E,
PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADS-(CONTINUED)
Discharge 1.0.
• FLOW RATE
_HEAT FLUX
ALKALIN
AC I D I T Y
T-HARO
T SOLIDS
IDS
TSS
NH3-N
QKG-N
000-5
ULT-CO
D1S-OXY
N03-N
CYANIDE
P-TOTAL
SULFATE
SULFIPE
SULFITE
CHLORIDE
FLUORIDE
PHENOLS
SURFACT
AL
SB
AS
CO
CA
CR
CO
cu
PB
UN
HO
K
NA
S£
TI
7N
32601;
32130
1S48.
0.0
4bM3.
5b17.
3b3.S
1.17b
1.25Q
SS.11
183.7
2b2.2
2.305
0.3213
3.213
3b8fi.
0.0
1021.
10.21
1S2.8
0.b58bE-01
0.0
.- 10.54
l.bMb
O.b56b
0.0
o.bsabE-oi1
1211.
0.0
1.317
426.3
1.877
3^0.5
7.13b
0.0
Mb. 10
0.0
0.0
48206
23386
113SS1 .
7155.
. 0.0
: 0.0
~~S37M.
231.3
, 51.43 ;
22.71
121.8
381.3 j
, 221. a |i
2.631
• a. sib
bfll.3
28.31
o.o -
11A7.
S.b78
45.45
o.asib
0.0
5.314
0.0
0.0
0.113b
l.lbM
2.441
b3.02
3. CUt,
623.3
1.703
' 0.1413E-QV
0.0
0.0
0.0
1703.
0.0
0.0
1.411
3 «0bb
32604 i
•__?22'°*
• SQ11.
0.0
7735.
n.lS«16 OS-
n.in21E"QS-
s.ns
?7.7S
61.75 ;
312.2
2.152
n.sns
1417.
. 1.181
O.J I
' 1771. 1
. 13. sa !
51.05
0.0
0.3
11.13
2.152
1.5125
0.0
0.1181 J
n.a
2.71b
53.71
1.211
413.?
1.515
n.n
7b.l7
703. b
a. a
2.152
c.n
5.775
32602!
' 303Sb
2003.
• 0.0
7285.
bb48. ~
b041.
512.1
47.17 f
0.303b
101.3
377. b
236.0
2. 125
b.41b
12.14
: 8SC.O
- 0.bQ71
0.0
, lb?0.
• SI. 30
258. b
O.blSl
0.0
- 133.7
1.518
0.303b
0.0
1155. ;
o!o
1.305
25b.O
b.314
33?.. 1
1.714
0.3U3b£-Qll
0.0
O.S4b4
152.7
4SS.3
0.0
1.518
0.0
S.LMb
' 32603 '
41773
3135b1
4181.
- 0.0
b371.
0.1511E OS
10S1.
1145.
21.10
14.57
2b0.b
373.5
3.182 '»
0.4° 77
21.10
1214.
0.1155
0.0
1413.
11.11
11.55
0.1413
0.0
lb.12
2.461
0.4177
0.0
0.11SSE-01
18Ub.
0.1457
0.0
O.SHbl
2E7.3
2.738
34S.4
3.185
C.4177E.TQV
0.0
-0.1155..
60.13
... b.lb.Q
0.0
0.0
3.584
08401,
32135
3213.
0.0 : •
4411.
0.1070E OS'
0.10Q3E OS
b74.A
38. Sb
22.41
321.3
75b.S
18b.6
21. 8S J
0.3213
1.2SS
1703.
0.0
0.0
3bb3.
£4.42 ;
' 22.17
8.034
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2533.
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.13
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
9. 034
lOb.O
437.0
0.0
Ib.MO
O.Q
3.213
48201
113
1283.
13. Qb
0.0
o.o :
11. Ob
18.15
0.137b
0.8S77E-01
.0.0
0.4373
1.117
0.77bl
0.113te-01
0.113bE-01
O.baibE-01
IS. 34
0.113k
O.G
14.77
O.Q
' 0.1818
o.34oaE-oa
3b.3S
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o ;
3.«b2 ':
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.n
o.o
n.n
0.0
n.n
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
a. a
• UNITS: \ Flow Rate, cubic meters per day
Heat Flux, kkg-eal per day
Chemical Wastes, kg per day
-138-
-------
APPENDIX F
Metric Units Conversion Table
Multiply (Metric Units)
By
To Obtain (English Units)
Cubic Meters per Day
Cubic Meters per Day
Kilometers
Meters
Square Kilometers
Square Meters
Hectares
Kilograms
Meters per Second
Centimeters
Kilogram Calories
Liters
Metric Tons (kkg)
0.0002642
0.0004087
0.62137
3.2808
0.3861
10.7639
2.4710
2.2046
2.2369
0.3937
3.9685
0.2642
1.1023
Million Gallons per Day
Cubic Feet per Second
Miles
Feet
Square Miles
Square Feet
Acres
Pounds
Miles per Hour
Inches
Btu
Gallons
Short Tons
-139-
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Review of Reports
for Flood Control and Allied Purposed, Cayuga, Buffalo and Cazenovia
Creeks, New York, New York (1967).
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Flood Plain Infor-
mation, Buffalo Creek, New York, New York (April 1966).
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Flood Plain Infor-
mation, Cazenovia Creek, New York, New York (October 1966).
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Flood Plain Infor-
mation, Cayuga Creek, New York, New York (May 1967).
5. Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board. Water Qaulity
Management Study, Final Report (February 1973).
6. New York State Department of Health, Water Pollution Control Board.
The Lake Erie (East End) - Niagara River Drainage Basins (May 1953).
7. U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey, Erie-Niagara
Basin, New York, New York (1968):
ENB-2, Surface Water
ENB-3, Ground Water Resources
ENB-4, Chemical Quality of Streams
ENB-5, Sediment in Streams
8. Report to the International Joint Commission on the Pollution of Lake
Eire, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Laurence
River (1969).
9. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Annual Report to the International
Joint Commission (April 1973).
10. U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Data for New York, Part 1 - Surface Water Records (Water Years 1968-
1972).
11. U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Data for New York, Part 1 - Surface Water Records (Water Year 1973-
Unpublished Records, Subject to Revision).
12. Blum, J.L. Buffalo River Studies. University of Wisconsin -
Milwaukee, 1964.
-140-
-------
13. Communication of July 16, 1973, from Lloyd A. Wagner, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Geological Survey, Albany, New York.
14. Comnunication of May 24, 1974, from Grant W. Vaughn, U.S. Department
of Comnerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Weather Service. North Canton, Ohio.
15. Feigner, K.D., and H.S. Harris, FWOA Dynamic Estuary Model. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, July 1970.
16. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 3rd Edition, J.H. Perry, ed. McGraw-Hill,
New York, New York, p. 384, 1950.
17. Chen, C.W., and Orlob, G.T. Ecological Simulation for Aquatic Environ-
ments. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Re-
search OWRR-C-2044 (December 1972).
18. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Classes and
Standards for Fresh Surface Waters, November 1967.
19. McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf. Water Quality Criteria, 2nd edition.
California State Water Quality Control Board Publication No. 3-A (1963).
20. Water Quality Criteria Data Book - Vol. 3. Effects of Chemicals on
Aquatic Life. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Project No. 18050
GWV (May 1971).
21. Water Quality Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Appended
To Federal Register, Vo. 38, No. 206 (October 1973).
22. Guidelines for Development or Revising Water Quality Standards. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (Jan 1973, Amended April 1973).
23. A Biological Survey of the Erie-Niagara System, Supplemental to
Eighteenth Annual Report. State of New York Conservation Department.
Albany, New York (1929).
24. Preliminary Report on the Cooperative Survey of Lake Erie, Season of
1928, Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Volume XIV,
No. 3 (1929).
25. Blum, J.L. The Biota of the Buffalo River. The University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee, 1963.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to the International
Joint Commission on the Niagara River, Niagara River Quality Investi-
gations in 1971 (March 1972).
27. Sweeney, R.A. Survey of Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Analysis of
Water and Sediments from the Buffalo River. State University College
at Buffalo, Great Lakes Laboratory
Special Report No. 2 - 1969
Special Report No. '8-1970
Special Report No. 14 - 1972
-141-
-------
28. Coninunication from R.E. May lath, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany; Raw Data for Stations 01-1006 and 01-1008
(May 22, 1974).
29. Kopp, J.F., and R.C. Kroner. Trace Metals in Waters of the United
States. U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA, Cinncinnati, Ohio
(1962-1967).
30. Buffalo Sewer Authority. Industrial Waste Survey. Nebolsine,, Toth,
McPhee Associates (Jan 1973).
31. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dredging Spoil Contaminent
Site, Buffalo District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jan 1973).
32. Archer, R.J., and A.M. Sala, Jr. A Reconnaissance of Stream Sediment
in the Erie-Niagara Basin, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Basin
Planning Report ENB-5 (1968).
33. Greeley and Hansen. Comprehensive Sewerage Study, Erie County.
WPC-CS-150 (April 1968).
34. Burgess and Niple. Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined
Sewer Overflows. FWQA No. 24 FKN, November, 1969.
35. L.S. Wegman C. Comprehensive Sewerage Study, Buffalo Sewer Authority.
(December 1973).
36. U.S. Water Pollution Control Research Series. Combined Overflow
Abatement Technology, June 1970.
37. Water Quality Analysis of the Upper Delaware River, Easton to Trenton.
Delaware River Basin Conmission. Hydroscience, Inc., May 1971.
38. Simulation of Water Quality in Streams and Canals - DOSAG 1, Systems
Engineering Division, Texas Water Development Board (1970).
39. Ecological Simulation for Aquatic Environments. Office of Water
Resources Research, U.S. Department of the Interior. Water Resources
Engineers, Inc., p. 26, Dec. 1972.
40. Water Quality Simulation Model for the Upper Wabash River. Water
Resources Research Center, Purdue U., TR-34 (1973).
41. Correlated Studies of Vancourver Lake - Water Quality Prediction
Study, Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University (Seattle).
Environmental Protection Technology Series EPI. 23(2): 72-111 (1972).
42. Water Quality Predictions based on Ldimological Parameter. Clemson
Univ., Water Resources Research Institute WRRI-32 (1971).
43. A Predictive Model for Thermal Stratification and Water Quality in
Reservoirs. M.I.T. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hy-
drodynamics (1971).
44. A Diffusional Model for Green Bay. Lake Michigan, Wisconsin University
Marine Studies Center (1971).
-142-
-------
45. Mathematical Models of Water Quality Parameters for Rivers and
Estuaries. Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University Technical
Report No. 45 (1972).
46. O'Connor, D.J. An Analysis of the Dissolved Oxygen Distribution in
the East River. JWPCF 38: 11 (Nov. 1966).
47. Pence, G.D., J.M. Jeglic, and R.V. Thomann. The Development and
Application of a Time-Varying Dissolved Oxygen Model. National
Symposium on Estuarine Pollution. ASCE, Stanford University (August
1967).
48. Orlob, G.T., R.P. Shubinski, and K.D. Feigner. Mathematical Modeling
of Water Quality in Estuarial Systems. National Symposium on Estuarine
Pollution. ASCE, Stanford University (August 1967).
49. Estuarine Modeling: An Assessment. EPA Document No. 16070-DZV-02-71
(1971).
50. Pritchard, D.W. Dispersion and Flushing of Pollutants in Estuaries.
J. Hydraulics Division. ASCE 95, HYL, Proc. Paper 6344 (1969).
51. Numerical Model for the Prediction of Transient Water Quality in
Estuary Networks. MIT-SC-72-15 (1972).
52. A Short-Term Conservative Transport Model for Shallow Estuaries.
Texas Univ., Hydraulic Engineering Lab. HYD-12-7104 (1971).
53. A Slowly-Varying Conservative Transport Model for Shallow Estuaries.
Texas Univ., Hydraulic Engineering Lab. HYD-12-7103 (1971).
54. FWQA Dynamic Estuary Model. EPA-WQO-DEM-70A (1970).
55. A Thermal Fluid-Mechanical Model for Estimation of Power-Plant Impact
on a Stratified Lake. Cornell University (1971).
56. Simulation and Optimization of Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Alterna-
tives. Water Resources Engineers Inc. (1973).
57. Pyritic Systems: A Mathematical Model. Ohio State University,
EPA-14-12-589 (1972).
58. Modeling and Optimization of Thermal Pollution Control Systems.
Kansas Water Resources Research Institute (1972).
59. Fair, G.M., J.C. Geyer, and D.A. Okun. Elements of Water Supply and
Wastewater Disposal, 2nd Edition. J. Wiley and Co., New York, New
York, 1971.
60. Fritz, S. Solar Energy on Clear and Cloudy Days. Scientific Monthly,
84, 55 (1957).
61. Studies on Effects of Watershed Practices on Streams. EPA Report
13010 EGA pp. 16-21 (February 1971).
62. Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. Industrial Water Pollution Control. McGraw-
Hill, New York, New York. pp. 210-212, 1966.
-143-
-------
63. Application of Stream Water Quality Models to Alabama. Alabama
Development Office, Montgomery, Alabama. Report No. ALA-Au-X996-WRC-a
(1973).
64. Platzman, G.W., and D.B. Rao, Spectra of Lake Erie Water Levels, J.
Geophysical Research 69, 12, 2525-2535 (June 15, 1964).
65. Edinger, J.E., and J.C. Geyer, J. San. Eng. Div., A.S.C.E., 94, SA4,
611-623, Paper No. 6064, Analyzing Steam Electric Power Plant Dis-
charges (Aug. 1968).
66. Edinger, J.E., D.K. Brady, and W.L. Graves, The Variation of Water
Temperatures due to Steam Electric Cooling Operations, J. WPCF 40,
1632-1639 (Sept. 1968).
-144-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA '• RePoct No- 2<
SHEET EPA-9Q5/9-74-01Q
4. Title and Subtitle
Water Pollution Investigation: Buffalo River
7. Author(s)
Donald H. Sargent
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Versar, Inc.
General Technologies Division
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
1 2. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
3.N^ecipienc's Accession No.
'J. Report Date
February 1975
6.
8. Performing Organization Repc.
No.
10. Ptflject/Task/Wotk Unit No.
1 1. Contract /Grant No.
EPA Contract No.
68-01-1569
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered pinal Report
7/73 - 7/74
14,
15. Suoplementary Notes
Also' sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water Branch,
26 Federal Plaza, Room 847, New York, New York 10007.
16. Abstracts
The Buffalo River was the subject of a comprehensive evaluation of waste loadings
and water quality, performed as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
commitments to abate and control water pollution under the 1972 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.
The Buffalo River, as a result of adverse hydraulic conditions and high waste load-
ings from industrial discharges and from combined sewer overflowsr exhibits a
summertime dissolved oxygen concentration of less than one mg/1, a contravention of
standards for iron, and evidence of poor water quality in most of the other 24
parameters studies.
(continued on next page)
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Water pollution
Stream pollution
Water quality, mathematical models
Combined sewers, water pollution
Industrial wastes, water pollution
New York
Lake Erie
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Water Quality Data, Buffalo (New York)
Buffalo River Basin
Waste Allocation
17c- COSATI Field/Group
13B
6F
8H
18. Availability Statement
Limited supply available from U.S. EPA; thereafter,
available at charge upon order from NTIS.
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED...
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED,
21. No. of Pages
148
22. Price
rORM NTIS-35 IREV. 3-72)
THCS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-OC 149ja-P72
-------
Three independent observations confirmed that the industrialized
reach of the Buffalo River is a well-mixed body of water. A water
quality simulation model was developed, verified, and utilized to
predict water quality upon the implementation of Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available. The projected water quality
marginally came within the standards for temperature and for dis-
solved oxygen, but more stringent waste allocations were recommended
for iron. Upon implementation of BPCTCA, the oxygen-demanding waste
load of the combined sewer overflows would then become the dominant
constraint for achieving good water quality in the Buffalo River.
------- |