EPA-905/9-74-016
'•«< PR01t0
US. BWIRON^BiT^PROTKnON ACBICY
KHaQn V Dtt^WUnHil UVBKJN
GREAT LAKE INITIA11VE COKTRAQ PROGRAM
JANUARY 1975
-------
Copies of this document are available
to the public through the
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATION:
GENESEE RIVER AND ROCHESTER AREA
by
Peter E. Moffa
Cornelius B. Murphy
Dwight A. MacArthur
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
In fulfillment of
EPA Contract No. 68-01-1574
for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program
Report Number: EPA-905/9-74-016
EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar
January 1975
Envircnmcr^.-O. Protection Agency
R. 7,5. r ;•-. '/., . :'< i •> ra ry
2oO i'- •. "" ^.-'SiboTn Street
Chics £ -t-j ::;.linois 6060H
-------
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 Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A study of the lower Genesee River in Monroe County, New York was conducted to
investigate the impact of pollution sources, both point and non-point, on the water quality
of the Genesee River. It was determined that four major point-source discharges have a
significant effect on the dissolved oxygen levels present in the River: 1) Oatka Creek, 2)
Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant, 3) N.Y.S. Barge Canal, and 4) Kodak Waste-
water Treatment Plant. Three other factors of a non-point source nature affect the dissolved
oxygen levels in the River: 1) non-point source contributions from agricultural, forested,
and pasture lands in the upstream regions, 2) benthic demand in the lower region in the
vicinity of the mouth, and 3) horizontal dispersion effects in the lower region.
Under average flow conditions the level of dissolved oxygen is of sufficient magnitude to
meet the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 required for non-trout waters. However, under
minimum average seven consecutive day flow conditions (MA7CD/10 YR) the stream
standard would be contravened in the reaches downstream of the Barge Canal.
The implementation of BPCTCA to municipal and industrial discharges would result in little
improvement of the projected dissolved oxygen concentration under average flow con-
ditions. Under MA7CD/10 YR flow conditions BPCTCA would result in the River DO
meeting the stream standard in all reaches except those downstream of the Kodak Waste-
water Treatment Plant discharge.
Projections of 85, 90, 95, and 98 percent removal of carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen
demanding constituents from the municipal treatment plant will not significantly increase
the DO of the River above that obtained by the application of "municipal" secondary
treatment.
There was no measurable single constituent contributing toxic conditions to inhibit the
aquatic structure within the study area of the Genesee River. During the field investigations
conducted as part of this study, a number of samplings in the reaches below the Rochester
falls did reflect concentrations of metals, ammonia, and phenols at undesirable levels.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 68-01-1574 by O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc., under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Review Notice ii
Forward iii
Abstract iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi"
Acknowledgements x*
SECTIONS
I. Conclusions 1
II. Recommendations 4
III. Introduction 6
IV. Historical Data and Sampling Program 10
V. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the
Genesee River 14
VI. Acquatic Structure of the Genesee River 48
VII. Development of the Assimilation Capacity Model 75
VIII. Modeling Projections 82
IX. Projected Effects of BPCTCA and BATEA on the
Water Quality of the Genesee River 115
X. Impact of Genesee River on Lake Ontario 118
XI. Model Limitations and Sensitivity 120
XII. Summary 126
XIII. References 128
XIV. Appendices 134
VII
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.
1 Drainage Area, Length and Average Slope of Major
Streams in the Genesee River Basin
2. Stream Flow Records
3. Average Temperatures During Study, °C
4. Average Temperatures for First Three Samplings, °C
5. Average Temperatures of Samplings 4, 5 and 6, °C
6. Average Temperatures for Samplings 7 and 8, °C
7. Average Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
8. Average DO's For Samplings 1, 2 and 3, mg/1
9. Average DO's for Samplings 4, 5 and 6, mg/1
10. Average DO's of Samplings 7 and 8, mg/1
11. Fish Species in Lake Ontario and the Genesee River
12. Deoxygenation Coefficients at Each Station
13. Reoxygenation Coefficients at Each Station
14. Present Loadings Under Average Flow Conditions
15. Present Loadings Under MA7CD/10 Year Conditions
16. BPCTCA Under Average Conditions
17. BPCTCA Under MA7CD/10 Year Conditions
18. Input Data Common to All Treatment Applications Under
Average Conditions
19. Input Data Common to All Treatment Applications Under
MA7CD/10 Year Conditions
20. Input Data for Municipal and Industrial Discharges Under
Various Treatment Applications
21. Dissolved Oxygen Levels for Several Dispersion Coefficients
22. Dissolved Oxygen Levels for Varying Benthic Demand Rates
23. Effluent Limitations Assumed Under Application of BPCTCA
Page
7
8
16
16
17
17
18
20
20
21
67
78
79
83
84
85
85
86
86
87
111
112
116
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
No. Page
24. Projected Concentration of Constituents Within Genesee
River at a Point Prior to Discharge to Lake Ontario Under
Application of BPCTCA 117
25. Total Load to Lake Ontario from the Genesee River Measured
Over Duration of Study 119
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1. Sampling Stations on the Genesee River 12
2. Temperature vs. Distance Downstream 15
3. Dissolved Oxygen vs. Distance Downstream During Study 19
4. Org-N and NH3(N) vs. Distance Downstream During Study 22
5. NO3(N) vs. Distance Downstream During Study 23
6. pH vs Distance Downstream During Study 25
7. BODs and TOC Vs. Distance Downstream During Study 27
8. CL" and SO4= vs. Distance Downstream During Study 29
9. Phenol vs. Distance Downstream During Study 32
10 Cu and Zn vs Distance Downstream During Study 34
11. T-IP vs Distance Downstream During Study 37
12. Cr vs Distance Downstream During Study 39
13. Hg and Se vs Distance Downstream During Study 41
14. Fe and Ba vs Distance Downstream During Study 43
15. TDS and TSS vs Distance Downstream During Study 46
16. Relation Between Numbers of Species and Individuals in Samples 50
17. Plankton 1-2 August 73 52
18. Plankton 12-13 September 73 53
19. Plankton 26 September 73 54
20. Plankton 18 October 73 55
21. Species diversity - plankton community 1-2 August 73 56
22. Species diversity - plankton community 12-13 September 73 57
23. Species diversity - plankton community 26-27 September 73 58
24. Species diversity - plankton community 18-19 October 73 59
25. Benthos 18-19 July 73 61
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.)
No. Page
26. Benthos 15 August 73 62
27. Benthos 10-11 September 73 63
28. Benthos 26-27 September 73 64
29. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 19 July 73 68
30. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 2 August 73 69
31. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 16 August 73 70
32. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 10 September 73 71
33. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 13 September 73 72
34. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 24 September 73 73
35. Dissolved Oxygen Profile 18 October 73 74
36. DO Sag Curve - Present Conditions and MA7CD/10 YR Conditions 88
37. DO Sag Curve - BPCTCA Conditions 93
38. BPCTCA Under MA7CD/10 YR Conditions - Present vs Design Flows
of Treatment Plants 94
39. DO Sag Curve for 85% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges 96
40. DO Sag Curve for 90% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges 97
41. DO Sag Curve for 95% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges 99
42. DO Sag Curve for 98% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges 101
43. DO Sag Curve for 98% removal of TOD for Municipal and Industrial
Discharges 102
44. Effect of Barge Canal DO on Genesee River DO - Average Flow
Conditions 104
45. Effect of Barge Canal DO on Genesee River DO - MA7CD/10 YR
Conditions 105
46. Effect of Kodak on Genesee River 107
47. Mile-Point vs Dissolved Oxygen for Several Dispersion Coefficients 108
xn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.)
No. Page
48. Dissolved Oxygen vs Dispersion Coefficient 109
49. Mile-Point vs Dissolved Oxygen for 0.0001 < E < 1000.0 110
50. Mile-Point vs Dissolved Oxygen for Various Benthic Demand Rates 11.3
51. Dissolved Oxygen vs Benthic Coefficient at Station 11 114
52. Comparison of DO Profiles for data on September 11, 1973 120
53. Comparison of DO profiles for data on September 11, 1973 121
xm
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The chemical analyses, modeling efforts, and water quality projections were conducted by
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. in the person of the following staff members:
Peter E. Moffa, P.E. - Managing Engineer
Cornelius B. Murphy, Jr., Ph.D. - Project Manager
Edwin C. Tifft, Jr., Ph.D. - Laboratory Supervisor
Dwight A. MacArthur - Project Engineer
The stream sampling and biological aquatic structure investigations were conducted by the
Lake Ontario Environmental Laboratory (LOTEL) under subcontract to O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc. The following staff members contributed to the study:
Richard B. Moore, Ph.D. - Director
Thomas Coffey - Project Investigator
Both O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. and LOTEL wish to express their appreciation to the
staff of the Rochester USEPA Field Office and the Region II USEPA offices for their
assistance. We also wish to thank the staff of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and all other contributors in the municipal, industrial, and
private sector which provided historical information or operating data which was used in this
report.
XV
-------
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis of results obtained throughout the application of the Stream Assimilation
Capacity Model and data collected during the sampling program, the following conclusions
are made:
1. Four major point-source discharges have a significant effect on the dissolved oxygen
levels present in the Genesee River. These four discharges in the order of their location
proceeding downstream are:
a. Oatka Creek which tends to raise the River DO upon dilution.
b. Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant discharge which contributes a signifi-
cant carbonaceous and nitrogenous ultimate oxygen demand load on the River
just upstream of the point of entry of the Barge Canal waters.
c. Barge Canal which causes a significant decrease in the DO as a result of the high
flow and depressed dissolved oxygen concentration of the Canal. The influence is
particularly significant under critical low flow (MA7CD/10) conditions.
d. Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant discharge which contributes a significant carbon-
aceous and nitrogeneous ultimate oxygen demand loading on the Genesee River
just prior to its discharge to Lake Ontario.
2. Three other factors of a non-point source nature affect the dissolved oxygen levels in
the Genesee River:
a. Non-point source contributions from agricultural, forested, and pasture lands in
the upstream regions.
b. Benthic demand exerted by settlement of oxygen demanding materials in the
quiescent downstream region of the River in the vicinity of its mouth.
c. Horizontal dispersion effects occurring in the lower reaches of the Genesee River,
due to the influence of Lake Ontario.
3. A number of other largely insignificant industrial and municipal point-sources exert
only a minor effect on the level of dissolved oxygen measured in the Genesee River
within the study area.
a. Avon Sewage Treatment Plant discharge
b. Honeoye Creek
c. Scottsville Service Area Treatment Plant discharge (operated by the New York
State Thruway Authority).
d. Black Creek
-------
e. Dry weather overflows in the City of Rochester Combined Sewer System, The
negligible effects of the overflows most likely do not hold true during periods of
rainfall and spring runoff.
f. Bausch and Lomb Inc. discharge. Although no effluent data had been collected at
the time of this writing, downstream conditions measured under this study
indicate a minimal effect on the River DO from this discharge. Actual sampling
and analysis would be necessary to verify this assumption.
4. Under average flow conditions, the level of dissolved oxygen measured in the Genesee
River is of sufficient magnitude to meet the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 required for
non-trout waters. From the Village of Avon to a location just upstream of the Kodak
discharge, the DO level is maintained above 7.0 mg/1. From Kodak discharge to the
mouth of the River, the DO declines to a value slightly above 5.0 mg/1. The decrease
in DO in this lower reach is largely the result of the combined effects of the Kodak
discharge, benethic demand and dispersion factors.
5. Under Minimum Average Seven Consecutive Day flow conditions expected to recur
once in a ten-year period (MA7CD/10), the dissolved oxygen level is projected to
remain above a value of 6.0 mg/1 until confluence with the Barge Canal waters. At that
point, mixing of the Canal and River waters results in a projected drop in DO to 4.98
mg/1- - just below the minimum allowable DO value of 5.00 mg/1. Following the latter,
the dissolved oxygen concentration within the river continues to slowly decline as a
result of the minor effects of Bausch & Lomb and the dry weather overflow dis-
charges. At the point of the discharge from Eastman Kodak the DO is projected to be
4.66 mg/1 and then to decline ultimately to a minimum of 2.66 mg/1 at the Stutson
Street Bridge. From the Barge Canal to the mouth, the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 is
contravened under projected MA7CD/10 flow conditions.
6. The implementation of BPCTCA to municipal and industrial discharges would result in
little improvement of the projected River dissolved oxygen concentration under average
flow conditions. The maximum projected increase in dissolved oxygen concentration of
0.24 mg/1 in the River would occur at the Stutson Street Bridge. Under MA7CD/10
flow conditions, the implementation of BPCTCA would raise the level of dissolved
oxygen concentration above the minimum allowable for all sections from the Village of
Avon to the Kodak discharge. However, from Kodak to the mouth, the projected DO
would still not meet the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1.
7. Projections of 85, 90, 95, and 98 percent removal of carbonaceous and nitrogenous
oxygen demanding constituents from the municipal treatment will not significantly in-
crease the DO of the River above that obtained by the application of "municipal"
secondary treatment.
8. Application of 98 percent removal of carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demanding
constituents for both municipal and industrial discharges would result in a significant
increase in DO in the region downstream of the Kodak discharge. The projected DO
anticipated at Stutson Street Bridge would increase from 2.66 mg/1 under MA7CD/10
flow conditions to 4.17 mg/1 as a result of 98% removal of both carbonaeous and
nitrogenous ultimate oxygen demand. However, the River DO would still be below the
minimum allowable DO of 5.0 mg/1 in the lower reach.
- 2 -
-------
9. The Barge Canal significantly affects the DO levels predicted in the River downstream
of the Canal. This is due to the high flow volumes and associated depressed DO
concentrations characteristic of the Canal discharge in comparison to the River flow.
The flow of the Barge Canal to the Genesee River accounts for approximately 48% of
the total River flow under average flow conditions. Under MA7CD/10 conditions, the
Barge Canal represents approximately 70% of the total Genesee River flow.
10. The Benthic Oxygen Demand results in a significant reduction in the DO concentration
predicted in the River downstream of the Eastman Kodak discharge and accounts for a
reduction of approximately 0.62 mg/l of DO in that region.
11. The effect of dispersion related to the influence of Lake Ontario on that region of the
main stem downstream of the Eastman Kodak discharge, is significant. The magnitude
of the influence is of course dependent on the velocity of the river, relative lake and
river elevations and respective differences in DO.
12. There was no measureable single constituent contributing toxic conditions to inhibit
the aquatic structure within the study area of the Genesee River. This does not
preclude the presence of synergystic effects from multiple interactions within the
aquatic environment existant in isolated sections of the Genesee River. During the field
investigations conducted in the course of this study, a number of samplings below the
Eastman Kodak outfall did reflect concentrations of metals, ammonia, and phenols at
undesirable levels.
13. The most important factors affecting the water quality of the Rochester embayment
area and subsequently Lake Ontario in general, involves the high seasonal levels of
suspended material carried by the Genesee River, the level of nutrients contributing to
the Cladophora blooms in Lake Ontario and the dredging activity and subsequent
dumping of the anoxic sludge in the near shore area of Lake Ontario.
- 3 -
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the concentration of dissolved oxygen predicted in the Genesee River upstream of the
Barge Canal meets or exceeds the minimum allowable DO concentration of 5.0 mg/1 at all
times, this section does not warrant extensive evaluation from the point of view of oxygen
demand considerations. The major area of concern with regard to achieving minimum
oxygen demand conditions must center on the region from the Barge Canal to the mouth of
the River. Recommendations concerning the improvement of DO levels in the Genesee River
are as follows:
1. Improve the quality of water presently existing within the Barge Canal. This could be
done by limiting or controlling the number and quality of all discharges to Canal
waters which would ultimately find their way to the Genesee River. By insuring that
the concentration of DO within the Barge Canal is maintained above 6.0 mg/1 at all
times of the year, the present and projected DO depression which occurs after the
intrusion of the Barge Canal would be reduced. This would put an inequitable burden
on discharges to the canal.
2. Provide at least 85% removal of carbonaceous oxygen demand and 30% removal of
nitrogeneous demand as the minimum treatment for the Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage
Treatment Plant. An effort should also be made to increase the DO concentration of
the effluent to 6.0-7.0 mg/1.
3. Provide treatment of the Eastman Kodak waste to reduce the level of both carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand by 85%. An effort should also be made to
increase the DO of the treated process waste to 6.0-7.0 mg/1.
4. The benthic demand should also be reduced in the lower reaches of the Genesee River.
This may be accomplished by reducing through conservation practices the silt being
eroded from farm land, forest land, and river banks, reducing the solids being dis-
charged from the Rochester combined sewer system under both dry and wet weather
conditions, and by improving the removal of suspended solids from municipal and
industrial treatment plants.
5. A program should be undertaken to reduce the overall impact of both the wet and dry
weather flows from the Rochester Combined Sewer System.
6. A sampling and analysis program should be conducted after the implementation of the
1977 BPCTCA effluent limitations. This should be a pre-requisite in assisting the
development of 1983 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA)
effluent limitations.
7. In developing any future sampling and analysis program, due consideration should be
given to employing the capability being developed under the Earth Resources
Technology Satellite (ERTS) program.
8. The modeling effort shows that any increase in the removal of ultimate oxygen
demanding constituents over and above that defined by BPCTCA will not have a major
effect on the level of dissolved oxygen predicted within the Genesee River. The
application of anticipated BATEA could therefore not be justified from the point of
view of maintenance of a critical level of dissolved oxygen within the receiving stream.
The same conclusion is drawn regarding municipal treatment beyond the secondary
stage.
- 4 -
-------
9. Considerable efforts should be expended to reduce the level of heavy metals, toxicants,
and nutrients being discharged by industry to the Genesee River. Particular attentions
should be given to the reduction in levels of Zn, Cu, Cn", and NH3(N).
10. An effort should also be conducted to reduce the heavy metal load being discharged to
the GCO interceptor system.
- 5 -
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
As part of an overall program sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency for the investigation of "Eleven Special Attention Areas" in the Great Lakes
Region, a study of the lower Genesee River Basin was conducted under EPA Grant No.
68-01-1574 during the summer and fall of 1973.
This study investigated the impact of pollution sources, both point and non-point sources,
on water quality under three conditions:
1. Existing Conditions.
2. Secondary treatment and nutrient removal for all municipal treatment plants and best
practical control technology BPCTCA for all industrial discharges.
3. Additional treatment requirements deemed necessary to meet New York State Class A
and Class B stream water quality levels.
To determine the above conditions, further studies were necessary and included:
1. Historical stream data review.
2. Historical effluent data review.
3. Stream surveys to determine the waste assimilation capacity of the lower Genesee
River.
4. A definition of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and nitrogenous oxygen
demand (NOD) mechanisms in the river.
A biological survey was conducted simultaneously with the water quality survey to
determine biological reactions to the waste loadings. Biological samples as well as fish
counts were collected to determine the quality of aquatic life inhabiting the stream as a
result of the waste discharge effects. In short, analytical, biological and hydrological data
describing the character, volume and effects on the receiving waters were collected on the
lower Genesee River. A list of the chemical parameters measured is found in Appendix B of
this report.
BASIN DESCRIPTION
The Genesee River Basin consists of the main watercourse and its 31 tributaries. There are a
number of areas both off and on the main steam which have serious water quality
impairment problems. Seven stretches of the main stem and its tributaries have been
identified as zones suffering from significant water pollution/1)
The significant sources of the above-mentioned water quality deterioration are in the form
of:
1. Municipal Point Source Water Discharges - 27 municipalities currently discharging 13.5
MGD
- 6 -
-------
2. Industrial Point Source Discharges - 26 industries currently discharging 43.3 MGD
3. Urban Combined Sewer Overflows
4. Agricultural Non-Point Source Contributions
5. Tile Field Sanitary Leachate
6. Dredging Operations - affects the embayment area and lower reaches of the main stem.
In addition, the Lake Ontario Embayment Area receives, at the present time, 80 MGD of
primary treated waste supplying a tremendous additional loading of biochemical oxygen
demand, dissolved solids, and nutrients. Circulation in the embayment area is at times
non-existent creating severely polluted localized conditions. To compound the embayment
problems, the Army Corps of Engineers dredge the Rochester harbor on a fairly regular
basis. The dredging operations involve the lower 5 miles of the channel and the included
turning basins. The dredged material has in the past been deposited in a designated area in
the embayment some 2 miles northeast from the mouth of the Genesee River.
The effect of the dredging is to exert an extreme oxygen-demand at both the dredging and
dumping sites. The colloidal and dissolved organic matter and nutrients are discharged and
circulated in the process of conducting the dredging operations and upon dumping the
dredgings.
The main water courses and bodies of water in the study area include the Genesee River,
Black Creek, Oatka Creek and Honeoye Creek. The drainage areas, length, and average slope
of the major streams are shown in Table 1.
Table 1-Drainage Area, Length and Average Slope of Major Streams in
the Genesee River Basin
Drainage Length of Average
Area Stream Slope
Stream sq. mi. mi. ft /mi.
Genesee River-Mt.
Morris to Rochester 1400 70 0.8
Genesee River-Lower
Falls to Lake Ontario 6
Black Creek 192 56 13
Oatka Creek 215 60 20
Honeoye Creek 266 34 8
- 7 -
-------
The Barge Canal crosses the Genesee nearly at right angles south of Rochester. On either
side of the River crossing, guardlocks permit regulation of canal waters diverted from Lake
Erie. Part of the Canal water is diverted into the Genesee River and part into the eastern
sector of the Canal. Rochester Gas and Electric is entitled to divert 375 cfs of canal water
into the Genesee River and normally this amount of flow is diverted from the Canal to the
River.
On a cfs per square miles basis, the annual average flow in the Genesee River is about 1.10
cfs per square mile at Rochester and 1.25 cfs per square mile in the headwaters. The value
for Rochester is high because of the large volume of water diverted to the Genesee from the
Canal from outside the Basin. Other annual average flows per square mile include 1.12 cfs
for Genesee River at Avon, 0.83 cfs for Black Creek at Churchville, 0.85 cfs for Honeoye
Creek at Honeoye Falls, and 0.95 for Oatka Creek at Garbutt.
The mean minimum and 7 day low stream flows occurring once every ten years for
the major streams as observed at long-term gauging stations are shown in table 2.
Table 2 - Stream Flow Records
Location
Genesee River-Mt. Morris
Genesee River-Avon
Genesee River-Rochester
Years of
Record
53
9
43
Min.
Flows
cfs
12
10
MA7CD
70
75
370
Annual Mean
Flow
1600
1826
2738
Honeoye Creek-Honeoye
Falls
Oatka Creek-Garbutt
Black Creek-Churchville
18
18
18
0.1
3.3
0.3
0.3
19
0.9
167
198
102
The scope of this study includes that portion of the Genesee River extending from Avon,
New York to the mouth of the River at Lake Ontario. The main emphasis is on the main
stem of the river with some examination of the effects of tributaries on the water quality
of the Genesee River. A map of the study area is included in the form of Figure 1.
The depth of the Genesee River in the study area varies from 2 meters at Avon to a depth
of 11 meters at Stutson Street Bridge near the mouth. Until the river reaches the first series
of waterfalls in the City of Rochester, the depth is fairly uniform and averages above 4
meters from station 2 to station 7. Between sampling stations 7 and 8, three significant
river elevation changes occur, the first of which involves a drop of approximately 22 feet
just downstream from Central Avenue bridge, the second is a drop of 90 feet near the Penn
Central R.R. crossing, and the third change is a drop of 143 feet near Driving Park Avenue
Bridge over the Genesee River. These falls result in a net drop of approximately 267 feet
between stations 7 and 8.
- 8 -
-------
At station 8 the depth of the River increases to 7 meters, at station 9 to 8 meters and at
Station 11 to 11 meters. In this lower stretch from Station 8 to Station 11, the slope of
the river at the water surface is very minimal at low flows and may be as little as one foot
in 5 miles. This may result in a strong estuarine effect by Lake Ontario during periods of
low flow. The slope of the River in the upper reaches of the study area averages only about
one foot per mile and this also is conducive to making the River a sluggish, meandering
body of water.
- 9 -
-------
SECTION IV
HISTORICAL DATA AND SAMPLING PROGRAM
There are four major sources of information regarding the water quality in the main stem,
tributaries and the embayment area associated with the Genesee River Basin as described
below:
1 . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation operates a State-wide
Water Quality Surveillance Network in accordance with Section 1210 of the Public
Health Law. In the Genesee River Basin, there are nine such sampling stations, five of
these being on the main stem and one each on Honeoye Creek, Oatka Creek, Black
Creek and at the mouth of the River. Since 1965, samples have been taken on a
frequency of at least one per month. Thirty-seven physical and bacteriological param-
eters were obtained at the time of each sampling. This is one of the most complete
compilations of water quality data on the whole basin particularly in the areas of the
headwaters (outside of Monroe
2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also compiled data from 1965 to
present at a sampling station in the harbor area of the Genesee River (Stutson St.
Bridge). The sampling and analysis is currently being conducted as part of the IFYGL
program on a bi-weekly basis. In addition, EPA has obtained water quality information
relative to the assessment of the effect of the Genesee Harbor dredging operations.
Fifteen stations have been selected as sources of this information in both the harbor
and embayment areas.
3. The United States Geological Survey maintains six flow gauging stations on the
Genesee supplying the only extensive flow data. The flow information within the
Rochester city limits is obtained from the turbine operations maintained by Rochester
Gas and Electric.
4. The major source of industrial point source information was through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. This information has
been compiled over the last two years and contains minimum, maximum, and average
loading data for wastewater components anticipated under the specific industrial
classification. Although many of the discharge permits were partially incomplete and
based on isolated grab samples, the data was found to be sufficient for the evaluations
reported herein.
The Monroe County Pure Waters Agency along with other communities and sewage districts
in the basin was a source of information regarding sanitary wastewater and urban combined
sewer overflows. Data from a preliminary study by Monroe County Pure Waters,86on the
characterization and treatability of the combined sewer overflows was also incorporated in
the modeling projections discussed in Section VIII.
Other sources contacted for water quality data and flow data in the basin include:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flow data at Mt. Morris Dam.
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. for flow data at Driving Park Hydro Station.
Eastman Kodak for Kodak Park Treatment Plant and effluent data and cross-sections
of the Genesee River at the treatment plant.
- 10 -
-------
Monroe County Department of Health for flows and loadings from the 10 municipal
sewage treatment plants in Monroe County.
Professor Robert Sweeney of Buffalo State Teachers College for his study of the
benthic chemistry in a report entitled "The Use of a Hopper Dredge as an Aerator and
Classifier of Sediments".
Professor William Diement for data on the embayment area.
LOCATION OF SAMPLING STATIONS
The locations of eleven sampling stations chosen for this study were based on three factors
1) the lack of existing historical information, 2) accessibility of the sampling point, and 3)
the necessity of obtaining a complete data set for critical stretches of the river. Efforts were
also made to have some of the stations coincide with existing monitoring stations operated
by the United States Geological Survey or the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation.
Sampling stations were divided into two general categories:
1. "A" stations on which full chemical and biological analyses were performed, and
2. "B" stations on which oxygen determinations were made as well as analysis for a few
selected parameters such as nutrients and information needed for stream assimilation
capacity calculations.
The list of parameters analyzed at each type of station is found in Appendix B of this
report.
Specific justification for the selection of each sampling station is as follows (see Figure 1):
Station 1A. 2B. 3A and 4B were selected on the upper reach of the study area to
obtain sufficient background information on the upper reaches of the main stem of the
Genesee River and also the effects of its main tributaries Honeoye Creek, Oatka Creek,
and Black Creek. Station 1A (milepoint 34.0) reflects the initial background of the
Genesee River; Station 2B (milepoint 25.4) reflects the impact of Honeoye Creek;
Station 3A (milepoint 21.5) reflects the impact of Oatka Creek; Station 4B (milepoint
14.7) coincides with NYSDEC Surveillance Station 04 0020 SW and is located just
prior to the influent of Black Creek to the Genesee River.
Stations 5A and 6A are located 12.2 and 10.0 miles respectively, from the mouth of
the Genesee River and were selected to measure the impact of the Barge Canal crossing
the Genesee River. Station 6A coincides with a USGS station 01 002 located at
Elmwood Bridge. NYSDEC Surveillance Stations 04 C901 and 04 C902 are located on
the Erie Canal west and east of the crossing, respectively. Data from the latter two
surveillance stations was readily available.
Station 7B is located 9.1 miles from the mouth of the Genesee and was chosen as the
last available location prior to the point of the major combined sewer overflows in the
City of Rochester. It is also located approximately one-half mile upstream from an
impoundment to obtain a respresentative sample of the stream characteristics.
- 11 -
-------
IA
A - Stotions for chemical analytic
8- Stations for •traom curvty
-Limit of study
Figurt I. Sampling Stations on tht Gtntstt Rivtr
- 12 -
-------
Station 8A is located 4.7 miles from the Genesee River mouth and was chosen as the
first location subsequent to the major combined sewer overflows and prior to the
Eastman Kodak sewage treatment plant. This station coincides approximately with
NYSDEC Surveillance Station 04 0010 SW.
Stations 9B and 10B are located 3.4 and 2.2 miles respectively, from the mouth of the
Genesee River. Station 9B reflects the impact of the Eastman Kodak Treatment Plant
discharge and Station 10B includes some of the impact on the stream caused by US
Army Corps of Engineers' dredging activities in this area. The chemical analyses
conducted on samples obtained at Station 10B reflected only minimal static, post
dredging effects since no dredging activity occurred while the sampling program was
being conducted.
Station 11A is located at Stutson Street Bridge approximately 0.7 miles from the
mouth of the Genesee. Data collected at this point reflected intrusion of the river
waters during the sampling period.
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
A specific method of sampling collection was used at each type of sampling station. At the
"A" stations where full chemical and biological analyses were performed, the samples
consisted of one-half gallon volumes made up by compositing grab samples taken at three
different depths at a mid-stream location. The three depths chosen were at the surface,
mid-depth and near the bottom of the River in order to reflect the mainstream of the river.
At the "B" stations it was desired to make measurements of dissolved oxygen concentration
as well as to analyze for a number of oxygen demanding constituents. In order to obtain
reasonably accurate DO readings over the entire cross section of the River, a method
different from "A" was employed. Nine separate samples were collected in a grid fashion
such that individual samples were taken at the quarter-points and at three different depths.
Each individual sample was analyzed for dissolved oxygen, and the main stem DO at each
station was determined by averaging the DO values found at these nine points on the
cross-section of the River. A one-half gallon sample for chemical analysis was also collected
at the "B" stations by compositing equal portions from samples taken at the nine points in
the sampling grid.
An assortment of equipment was employed for sampling the river to assure the best results
for each parameter The concentrated plankton samples were obtained by a vertical number
20 net haul. Fish counts were obtained through the use of gill nets. The River water
samples were collected with a non-metallic Van Dorn sampling apparatus at the various
locations and depths discussed previously. Temperature and pH were measured at the time
of each sampling by lowering temperature and pH probes to the desired depth. Dissolved
oxygen determinations were made using the azide modified idometric method/4) DO
samples were fixed immediately upon collection.
All analytical measurements were conducted in accordance with those procedures outlined
in "Standard Methods" or in accordance with analytical procedures recommended by the
Water Quality Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/5^
- 13 -
-------
SECTION V
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE GENESEE RIVER
TEMPERATURE
During the course of the sampling program, temperature readings at each station were made.
For those stations denoted "A" (Chemical) stations, temperature readings were taken at the
surface, middle, and bottom of the stream. At those stations denoted "B" (Stream Survey)
stations, readings were taken at the surface, middle and bottom at (1) the center of the
stream, (2) the east side of the stream, and (3) the west side of the stream. This procedure
gave three readings at the "Chemical" stations and nine readings at the "Stream Survey"
stations. (Figure 2 shows the averages at each station for all 8 samplings. The results of the
data obtained are discussed below.)
During the first sampling period conducted July 18-19, 1973 the temperature varied from
23.0°C at Station 2 to 26.0°C at Station 10. As the distance downstream from Station 1
increased, the average river temperature at each successive station remained about the same
as shown on Table 3. However, following the Genesee Falls between stations 7 and 8, a
1.3°C increase in temperature was observed. This increase may be explained by the fact
that RG & E generating stations discharge cooling water in this reach. The temperature
continued to increase to Station 10, where a value of 26.0°C was observed. At Station 11
the recorded temperature of 24.4°C reflects the estuarine effect of Lake Ontario on the
river. The surface temperature at this station is in the same range as at the three previous
stations but the bottom temperature is significantly lower by approximately 3°C. This may
be the result of an estuarine effect or simply due to the increased depth of the water at this
station. Similar results are seen from the data for samplings 2 and 3 conducted on August
1-2 and August 15-16, respectively.
Variation of temperature with depth is nearly negligible for the first three sampling
occasions. The variations range from 0-2°C at each station indicating a good mixing action
in the stream between surface and bottom waters. For example, at Station 1 the average
surface temperature for the first three samplings was 23.3°C while the average bottom
temperature was also 23.3°C. At Station 2 the respective surface and bottom temperatures
were 24.0°C and 23.1°C. See Table 4 below.
- 14 -
-------
30
25
0.
2
UJ
15
10
TEMPERATURE RANGE DURING STUDY
and
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
Lower Range
r
i
V -W
2 3 4567 89 10 II
1 t i I 1 I till
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
Figure 2 Temperature vs. Downstream
-------
Table 3. Average Temperatures During Study. °C
Sampling Date
Sta.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ON
ob
3
23.4
23.5
23.4
23.3
23.9
24.0
25.3
25.9
26.0
24.4
t
60
23.3
23.6
23.6
24.2
23.8
25.1
24.7
26.6
24.9
25.9
22.9
NO
i
60
23.4
23.6
22.7
24.9
24.5
25.9
25.4
27.6
27.9
27.2
26.0
6
?— H
OH
on
19.3
19.2
19.6
20.5
20.5
21.1
21.2
23.1
23.5
23.5
23.2
m
CN
t
17.7
18.3
18.6
19.1
19.6
20.5
20.6
21.7
22.6
22.8
22.9
^
2
ci
18.3
17.8
18.2
18.5
18.4
19.2
—
_
—
—
—
^
NO
CM
OH
15.6
15.8
16.4
15.4
16.0
15.3
15.7
16.3
16.7
17.3
15.8
ON
ob
4— »
O
0
10.3
10.3
10.4
12.0
15.2
13.2
13.3
14.3
15.9
15.3
15.5
Table 4. Average Temperatures for First Three Samplings, °C
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Surface Temp
23.3
24.0
23.8
24.7
24.5
25.5
25.1
27.1
27.3
27.0
26.8
Bottom Temp
23.3
23.1
22.6
23.7
23.3
24.3
24.4
25.8
24.0
24.1
21.9
Difference
0.0
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.3
3.3
2.9
4.9
- 16 -
-------
In the lower reaches (Stations 8 through 11) the difference in temperature between the
surface and the bottom of the stream becomes greater due to a combination of increased
depth of the stream and the effect of Lake Ontario waters on the Genesee River.
During the week of September 10 to September 14, a concentrated sampling effort was
conducted. The temperature data gathered showed an overall average reduction in stream
temperature at each station of about 3-4°C from the preceding 3 samplings, most likely due
to the onset of colder weather in the basin.
Table 5. Average Temperatures of Samplings 4. 5. & 6 - °C
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Surface Temp
18.4
18.4
15.5
19.8
19.5
20.5
21.0
22.7
23.5
23.4
23.0
Bottom Temp
18.4
18.4
15.5
18.7
19.4
19.8
20.7
22.1
22.7
22.6
22.9
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.1
Table 6. Average Temperatures for Samplings 7 & 8, °C
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Surface
15.6
15.8
16.4
15.5
16.4
15.4
16.2
16.5
16.8
17.7
18.3
7
Bottom
15.6
15.8
16.4
15.3
15.8
15.2
15.2
16.2
16.5
17.2
12.5
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
5.8
Surface
10.3
10.4
10.5
12.1
15.2
13.2
13.4
14.3
15.9
15.5
15.6
8
Bottom
10.3
10.4
10.4
10.9
15.2
13.2
13.4
14.3
15.6
15.2
15.3
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
- 17 -
-------
Sampling number seven, conducted September 26-27, showed a drop of overall stream
temperatures of between 3 to 4°C from the September 10-14 samplings (Table 5), again
probably due to colder weather in the basin. Station 11 is the station exhibiting the greatest
difference in temperature between the surface waters and bottom waters due to the
estuarine effect of Lake Ontario.
Sampling No. 8, October 18-19, showed little or no difference in surface and bottom
temperatures at all eleven stations (See Table 6).
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
During the collection of samples, dissolved oxygen measurements were made at the eleven
sampling stations. As in the case of temperature measurements, three readings were taken at
each of the "Chemical" stations at the surface, mid-depth, and stream bottom. At the
"Stream Survey" sampling stations dissolved oxygen measurements were made in a grid
fashion with samples taken at the surface, mid-depth and stream bottom in (1) the middle
of the stream, (2) east side of the stream, and (3) the west side of the stream. Figure 3
shows a plot of the average values of DO versus distance downstream for all 8 samplings.
As can be seen from Table 7, the dissolved oxygen normally decreased in concentration as a
function of distance traveled downstream from Station 1. This can be expected since the
loading to the river increases as the river approaches the more urban areas south of
Rochester and enters the City of Rochester. On all but one sampling date, the DO increased
to its highest levels just prior to the discharge of the Gates-Chili-Ogden STP to the Genesee
River. From this point (Station 4) and continuing downstream, the DO decreases as the
river picks up both stormwater overflows and/or dry weather flow from the combined sewer
overflow network in the City of Rochester. There is also a large contribution to the organic
loading from the parks and from the Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant as well as from the
Barge Canal.
Coincidental with the increase in oxygen demand is an increase in water temperature.
Table 7. Average Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
ON ^o —•i co TJ- r- ON
T CN |X V *7 *7
-------
-61-
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
TI
co'
c
CD
CO
q
8
g_
CD
QL
O
X
(Q
CD
3
in
g
5>
O
CD
O
O
I
CD
Q)
3
CO
.-+
Q.
ro -
>
<
O
00
CO
S
TI
CO
I
O
O
-------
This causes an additional reduction on the already depressed dissolved oxygen conditions.
In the first three samplings a considerable variation in DO with respect to depth was
observed as seen in Table 8. No pattern is evident from either station to station or
sampling to sampling. In general, the greater the depth, the lower the DO at each station.
This would tend to indicate that the stream is not as well mixed as was indicated by the
temperature data. Station 8 appears to be the station most nearly well-mixed which was to
be expected since it is located after the falls. At this station the average DO of the surface
water is 7.3 mg/1 while the bottom wasters average 5.7 mg/1 for an average difference of 1.6
mg/1. At station 11 where some intrusion of Lake Ontario waters is expected, the average
DO of the surface waters was 5.8 mg/1 and the average bottom DO was 2.5 mg/1 for an
average difference of 3.3 mg/1. Between Stations 5 and 6 the DO at the river bottom is
higher with respect to the surface waters than at the previous stations. The confluence of
the Barge Canal with the Genesee River represented by Station 6 provides some mixing
action but more importantly reflects the predominant influence of the canal.
Table 8. Average DO for Samplings 1, 2 & 3, mg/1
Sta. Surface Bottom Difference Surface Bottom Difference Surface Bottom Difference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
—
13.4
13.6
13.4
14.7
10.9
10.1
8.1
6.1
5.1
8.0
—
8.8
8.6
9.6
8.9
9.3
6.1
7.2
5.0
4.0
3.2
—
4.6
5.0
3.8
5.8
1.6
4.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
4.8
9.3
10.5
10.4
10.6
12.3
7.8
9.6
6.0
6.1
4.0
4.8
9.6
7.0
7.2
7.3
6.2
6.0
7.0
4.5
0.3
2.1
2.1
-0.3
3.5
3.2
3.3
6.1
1.8
2.6
1.5
5.8
1.9
2.7
7.4
7.6
8.5
9.0
8.9
8.8
7.0
7.9
7.5
4.0
4.5
6.1
7.0
6.8
1.6
0.8
4.7
4.4
5.3
2.5
1.3
4.5
1.3
1.6
1.7
7.4
8.1
4.1
2.6
2.6
5.0
2.7
0.0
During the concentrated sampling effort, September 10-14, Table 9 the grid method of DO
measurements was used for all stations to determine the average DO of the stream. The data
from these samplings indicate that the river water was well mixed as indicated by the small
difference in DO level between surface and bottom samples.
Table 9. Average DO's for Samplings 4, 5 & 6, mg/1 _
Sta. Surface Bottom Difference Surface Bottom Difference Surface Bottom Difference
1 7.8 7.2 0.6 7.1 7.0 0.1 7.2 7.0 0.2
2 7.4 7.0 0.4 7.6 6.5 1.1 6.6 6.6 0.0
3 7.7 7.5 0.2 7.5 7.5 0.0 7.3 7.2 0.1
4 7.4 7.5 0.4 7.9 7.9 0.0 8.8 6.7 2.1
5 7.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 5.5 0.5 6.3 5.8 0.5
6 6.3 6.2 0.1 7.3 5.9 1.4 6.2 5.6 0.6
7 6.3 5.2 1.1 7.0 5.5 1.5
8 7.8 6.0 1.8 6.4 6.2 0.2
9 6.0 5.6 0.4 6.2 5.8 0.4
10 6.7 6.1 0.6 5.5 5.0 0.5
11 5.4 5.0 0.4 4.5 4.1 0.4
- 20 -
-------
Table 10 shows the DO's of surface and bottom waters for samplings 7 and 8. As in
samplings 4, 5 and 6, the data indicates that the river is well mixed with respect to DO.
In all cases the average DO's (Table 7) show that the stream is within the DO qualifications
necessary to meet the "B" stream standards set by NYSCEC at 5.0 mg/1 for non-trout
waters/6^
Table 10. Average DO's of Samplings 7 & 8. mg/1
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Surface
8.7
8.9
7.8
8.0
7.6
9.5
7.8
8.8
8.1
8.1
8.9
7
Bottom
8.7
8.8
7.7
8.1
7.5
9.0
6.5
8.8
8.0
7.8
8.4
Difference
0.0
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.5
1.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
Surface
8.0
7.7
8.1
7.5
7.5
8.6
9.5
9.3
9.5
7.1
6.4
8
Bottom
6.3
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.7
8.6
8.5
8.6
6.8
6.0
Difference
1.7
0.1
0.4
0.0
-0.3
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.4
NITROGEN COMPOUNDS
NITRATE NITROGEN
AMMONIA NITROGEN, ORGANIC NITROGEN AND
The plots of NH3N, OrgN and NOsN concentrations as a function of river mileage are
shown on Figures 4 and 5. These plots show increasing concentrations of NH3N as a
function of river mileage, fluctuating OrgN concentrations and relatively constant NO3N
concentrations.
The NHsN concentration is at a relatively low level, 0.03 ppm, at the first station and
remains nearly constant with only a slight increase to a value of 0.04 ppm at Station 3. The
Avon municipal sewage treatment plant discharges to the Genesee River approximately 0.3
miles downstream of Station 1 which would account for the increase in concentration of all
three parameters at Station 2. From Station 2 to Station 3 the OrgN concentration decreased
from a value of 0.43 ppm at Station 2 to 0.20 ppm at Station 3 as it is hydrolyzed to
NHsN. The NH3N decreased in value from 0.6 ppm to 0.04 ppm in the same reach as it is
oxidized from NHsN to NO3N. The conversion of OrgN to NH3N occurs faster than the
conversion of NH3N to NO3N, as indicated on the plot.
From Station 3 to Station 4, where significant non-point source contribution occurs from
agricultural activity, the NH3N value increased from 0.04 to 0.17 ppm. In addition, the
conversion of OrgN to NH3N contributes to this increase. The NO3N showed a very small
change in concentration, remaining at 0.15 ppm in the reach. No major point source
discharges occur in this reach so it is likely that the changes in concentration of all three
parameters is a result of non-point source contributions or the interconversion of nitrogen
from one form to another.
- 21 -
-------
-zz-
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
CO
c
CD
o
CD
i
CO
Q.
03 -
O
cn
ro
o
0)
D
0
CD
D
0
CO
l-t
CD
to
3
a
c
-1
D
CD
CO
c
a.
D
Is"
-
«J GD ~
^)
m
|8-
3^0 —
^}
A
<
"
ro _
CO
OJ -
ro
-. co
-to
-------
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
p
b
p
6
CO
c
3
01
QJ
3
O
O
O
3
8
CD
CO
O
c
2
5'
CO
c
Q.
o
O
_ro
2 °
en
> ivj
O
m _
'
m
I-
ro-
ro _
ro_
CD
w.
ro
|V
- oi
-en
09
- <0
p
6
p
KJ
Oi
>
<
o
-«»
00
z
en
i
z
o
-------
Black Creek and the Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant discharge to the river
between Stations 4 and 5. Most of the increases in concentration in nitrogen species in this
reach are due to the latter discharge. Both NHsN (0.17 ppm toO.22 ppm) and OrgN (0.1 1
ppm to 0.60 ppm) concentrations increased greatly in this reach. The concentration of
NO3N actually decreased due to the dilution effect of Black Creek while at the same time
little conversion of NH3N to NO3N was occurring.
From Station 5 to Station 6, the Erie Canal crosses the Genesee River and has a slight
dilution effect on the River waters. The concentrations of NHsN and NOsN decreased
slightly over this reach. From Station to Station 7, OrgN is converted to NH3N and the
concentration drops from 0.54 ppm to 0.40 ppm causing an increase in NH3N and raising
the value of NOsN from 0.10 to 0.1 1 ppm.
The concentrations of the nitrogen species remained relatively unchanged between Stations
7 and 8: OrgN from 0.40 to 0.30 ppm, NH3N from 0.18 to 0.34 ppm and NO3N from
0.11 to 0.12 ppm. As the OrgN concentration decreased the NH3N concentration increased.
Some contribution to the River occurs in this reach as a result of the discharge of
dry -weather and/or runoff from the Rochester stormwater overflow sewerage system. The
contribution of these overflows to the pollution load on the Genesee will be discussed later
in this report.
Immediately downstream from Station 8, in the vicinity of the Kodak Sewage Treatment
Plant the concentration of OrgN increased from 0.30 to 0.52 ppm while the NH3N
increased from 0.34 to 0.95 ppm in this reach. The Kodak discharge is high in OrgN (8.9
ppm)(85) which appears to be largely converted to NH3N in this reach, since NH3N is
converted to NO3N.
The reach from Station 9 to Station 10 showed little change in concentration of the three
parameters in that stretch although OrgN increased slightly and NH3N decreased slightly.
From Station 10 to Station 11 OrgN decreased slightly from 0.60 to 0.57 ppm while NH3N
increased from 0.86 ppm to its highest value at 1.07 ppm. Irondequoit North-St. Paul
Sewage Treatment Plant discharges to the Genesee very near Station 1 1 . This may account
for the high NH3N values at this station although the estuarine effect of Lake Ontario may
also play a role here.
pH
The pH of the Genesee River generally remained in the range of 7.0 to 8.4 throughout the
course of the sampling program. Average values of pH for the eight samplings conducted
showed that the pH did not drop below 7.0 nor exceed 8.3 during the study. The pH
showed no consistant variation from the upstream stations to the downstream stations
throughout the study. On the third sampling, the pH did rise to as high as 8.7 at Station 8
and all stations showed a somewhat higher pH than the averages compiled of all samplings.
At the time of the third sampling the pH exceeded the pH limitation of 8.5 as required by
the NYSDEC Water Quality Standards of July 1973. Over the course of the entire study,
the average pH did remain within the limitation of 6.0 - 8.5 as set by the NYSDEC. Under
most conditions the pH approached the upper limit.
As can be seen on the plot of pH versus river mileage on Figure 6, the average pH dropped
only slightly with distance downstream, the stations below the Falls exhibiting the lower
pH's.
- 24 -
-------
AVG. of 8 SAMPLINGS - pH
Ln
I
10
I
a
5
4
i
2
i
4
max pH allowed = 8.3
measured pH
-min. pH allowed =6.0
6
i
7
i
8
I
22
10 12 14 16 18 2O
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
24 26
T
28
8 9 10 II
I ' I ' h-
30 32 34
Figure 6 pH vs Distance Downstream During Study
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) remained at the same order of magnitude through-
out the sampling period at each of the eleven stations, although the BOD did fluctuate from
station to station during individual sampling runs. Average BOD values for all eight
samplings showed the BOD ranging from a minimum value of 2.0 mg/1 at the upstream
stations to a maximum average value of 3.6 mg/1 at the downstream stations. This is
consistent with the loadings to the river increasing as the river approaches and progresses
through the City of Rochester.
As can be seen from the plot of BOD on Figure 7, the concentration of BOD increases
significantly from Station 2 to Station 5. Since the major discharges in this region are the
tributaries Honeoye Creek and Oatka Creek, the increased loading is due to non-point
source contributions from the agricultrual areas adjacent to the Genesee River as well as
from municipal and industrial sources on both Honeoye Creek and Oatka Creek.
From Stations 5 to 6 the BOD remains at an average value near 3.0 mg/1. Between these
two stations the Barge Canal contributes approximately 242 million gallons per day to
maintain the river level for navigational and electrical power generation purposes. No drop
in BOD is evident at Station 6 since the diverted canal water follows the west bank of the
Genesee River for a short distance before it becomes well mixed with the river water. Thus
the effect of the canal water in diluting the BOD of the river does not appear until
measurements are taken at Station 7 where a decrease in BOD from 3.0 mg/1 to a value of
2.5 mg/1 occurs. BOD reflects suspended matter as well as dissolved matter and while the
river appears to be well-mixed with respect to DO at Station 6, an extended distance to
Station 7 is necessary for the suspended matter to be thoroughly mixed in the river and to
reflect BOD.
From Station 7 to Station 8 the BOD again increased due to the additional loading of
the combined sewer overflow system which contributes BOD in the form of wet-weather
and/or dry-weather flows. The increase in BOD continues to Station 9 as a result of the
discharge of the Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant effluent just subsequent to Station 8. Also
along this stretch of the River a considerable amount of natural non-point source BOD can
be expected from Seneca Park located along the River.
From Station 9 to Station 11 the BOD begins to decline due to the natural assimilation
capacity of the River and also due to the estuarine effect caused by the waters of Lake
Ontario. In the vicinity of Station 11, a municipal treatment plant discharge (Irondequoit
North-St. Paul STP) occurs. The BOD values at Station 11 for the 8 samplings vary at
random from 0.9 mg/1 to 6.2 mg/1. This effect may be caused by the influence of Lake
Ontario in dispersing or failing to disperse the Genesee River flow depending on local
weather conditions at the time of sampling. Also there is considerable river traffic of
freighters and recreational watercraft between the mouth of the Genesee and the Genesee
Docks which might increase the longitudinal mixing of the river resulting in an increased
dispersion of the effluent from the Irondequoit North-St. Paul Treatment Plant.
Sampling number 4 produced BOD values that were lower than the overall averages at all
stations. At no stations did the BOD exceed 1.6 mg/1 during this sampling.
Occasionally BOD "spikes" occurred for unexplained reasons. This is evidenced on July
18-19 at Station 3, September 12-13 at Stations 6 and 7, and September 13 and 14 at
Station 4.
- 26 -
-------
- LZ-T
CONCENTRATION MG/L
f\J W
00-
o o
CO
g».
o
m _
*•
o
O
C/)
H -
m
(D
Ifl
ro
o
ro
01
ro
oo
CM
ro
00
O
O
ex
-ro
-|-oo
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOD)
The concentration of Total Organic Carbon varied in much the same manner as the BOD.
From the plot of BOD and TOC concentrations as a function of river mileage (Figure 7) it
is seen that the two parameters are co-variant. As the TOC concentration increased the BOD
concentration also increased. At Stations 1 and 2 the shape of the curve remains essentially
constant. As the BOD increased from Station 2 to Station 3, the TOC curve also increased.
A similar effect is observed from Station 3 to Station 4 and along the entire sampling
network. It may be pointed out that the concentration of TOC declines sharply from
Station 8 to Station 9 although the measured BOD is not as responsive. This sharp
reduction in TOC might be explained by the sedimentation of a component of the
industrial non-degradeable TOC into the benthos in this comparatively quiescent stretch of
the river without a corresponding decline of BOD. The presence of a toxic or retarding
environment created by the industrial discharge in this reach could be a minor factor
producing this reduction of TOC.
CHLORIDES
The average chloride concentration measured at the eleven sampling stations over a period
of eight samplings was calculated to be 91 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations at
each station as a function of river mileage is shown on Figure 8. The complete data listing is
contained within Appendix B.
The values of the average concentrations of chloride measured at the various sampling
stations during the study period was quite variable exhibiting a range of 64 mg/1 to 139
mg/1. However, there is a general tendency for the chloride concentrations to decrease as a
function of river mileage, declining from a value of 139 mg/1 at Station 1 to a value of 82
mg/1 at Station 7. Subsequent to Station 7 and downstream of the falls, the chloride
average concentration levels off at a value between 64-66 mg/1 from Station 8 to Station
11.
The loading of chlorides to the River from municipal waste treatment plants is not
significant. At Avon, the chloride concentration in the Avon Municipal Treatment Plant
discharge was measured at 68.9 mg/1. The concentration of chloride in the River between
Station 1 and Station 2 was observed to drop from 139 mg/1 to 100 mg/1. However, since
the flow volume of the Avon treatment plant is only 1 MGD as compared to an average
river flow rate of 214 MGD, it is improbable that a drop of 39 mg/1 of chloride between
Stations 1 and 2 is caused by the Avon plant discharge. Although no actual measurements
were made, a more likely possibility is the diluting effect of groundwater infiltration in this
reach.
The Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewer Treatment Plant discharges to the Genesee River between
stations 4 and 5 at a flow rate of 11.9 MGD. The chloride concentration of this discharge
was measured at 122.4 mg/1. At Station 4 the chloride concentration averaged 81 mg/1 over
eight samplings while Station 5 averaged 126 mg/1, a difference of 45 mg/1. Again the
comparison of flow rate and chloride concentration of the treatment plant discharge to the
River flow rate and chloride concentration can not account for the 45 mg/1 increase
between the two sampling stations. On a strictly numerical basis, the chloride concentra-
tion of the River might be expected to increase approximately 7 per cent from 81 mg/1 to
87 mg/1 as a result of the treatment plant discharge. Groundwater exfiltration could be a
predominant factor in chloride concentration variability.
- 28 -
-------
- 6Z -
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
ro-
-------
The Oatka Creek, Honeoye Creek and Black Creek tributaries also tend to have little effect
on the chloride concentration of the Genesee River. This is expected since the flow rate of
the creeks are small in comparison to the River flow rate. In addition, data from the
NYSDEC Surveillance Network indicate that the chloride concentrations of the creeks are
low in comparison to the River, (Oatka Creek-46.4 mg/1, Honeoye Creek - 30.5 mg/1, and
Black Creek - 49.0 mg/1). Examination of the Barge Canal sampling data shows about the
same chloride concentrations as do the creeks.
As can be seen on Figure 8, the chloride concentrations tend to level off at a constant value
from Station 8 to Station 11, probably due to the diffusion effects of Lake Ontario and the
reduced loading in this lower section. The chloride concentration varies from 64-66 mg/1 in
the lower section.
SULFATES
The average concentration of sulfate measured at the six chemical stations over eight
samplings was determined to be 95 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations measured at
each sampling station as a function of river mileage is shown on Figure 8. The complete
data listing is contained in Appendix B.
As can be seen from Figure 8, the concentration of sulfate followed the same pattern as the
previously discussed chloride concentrations. Although actual measurements were not made
at the five biological stations, the data obtained at the six chemical stations exhibited the
same trend as the chloride data. Thus the values of sulfate as shown on Figure 8 at the five
biological stations was interpolated to follow the same general curve.
The range of sulfate concentrations measured at the six sampling stations varied from 122
mg/1 to 65 mg/1. The average values at each station over the eight samplings tended to
stabilize at a value of 84-88 mg/1 at Stations 8 through 11. In this lower section, the
relatively constant sulfate concentration is most probably due to the dispersion effects of
Lake Ontario and the lack of any significant additional inputs.
Examination of the data obtained by the NYSDEC Surveillance Network for the main
tributaries to the Genesee River show relatively high sulfate concentrations in Oatka Creek
(168.0 mg/1), Honeoye Creek (230.0 mg/1) and Black Creek (273.0 mg/1) while the sulfate
concentrations for the Barge Canal are relatively low (59.2 mg/1). Since flow volumes of the
creeks are minor compared to the River flow volume, the effect of the tributaries upstream
of the Barge Canal is slight. However, since the Barge Canal does contribute a major portion
of the flow volume to the River, its contribution was examined. The sulfate concentrations
at Station 5 were measured at 113 mg/1 and at Station 6, 96 mg/1, for a difference of 17
mg/1. On a strictly numerical basis, the Canal is shown to be responsible for 75 per cent of
the decrease in sulfate concentration by dilution.
FLUORIDES
The average fluoride concentration measured at the six chemical stations over a period of
eight samplings was found to be 0.05 mg/1. The complete data listing is contained in
Appendix B.
Examination of the fluoride data in Appendix B shows a high variability of fluoride
concentrations as a function of sampling frequency and station location, ranging from 0.00
mg/1 to a high of 0.70 mg/1 as measured at Station 3 on October 19, 1973. However, no
detectable level of fluoride could be measured on other sampling dates.
- 30 -
-------
These variations with respect to sampling time and location make it impractical to draw
conclusions concerning fluoride levels and effects on the River quality. Although the average
fluoride concentration of the River was found to be 0.05 mg/1 it should be pointed out that
of 35 measurements taken during the sampling program, 24 samples showed no fluoride
present in the River.
Fluoride concentrations in municipal waste treatment discharges were measured and found
to be:
Irondequoit-North St. Paul 0.49 mg/1
Gates-Chili-Ogden 0.59 mg/1
Avon 0.11 mg/1
These discharges resulted in no consistent measurable fluoride concentrations in the River
downstream of the individual discharges.
CYANIDES
The average cyanide concentration measured at the six chemical sampling stations over the
span of eight samplings was found to be 0.04 mg/1. Of the 30 samples that were analyzed
for CN during the sampling program, eighteen samples showed no cyanide present in the
River.
As was the case with fluorides, a high variability in cyanide levels was observed at each
sampling station. The highest level of cyanide was measured at Station 5 at a value of 0.30
mg/1. However, on other sampling occasions, the cyanide level at Station 5 was found to be
zero. The wide variations in cyanide levels make it impractical to draw conclusions
concerning effects of cyanide concentrations on the Genesee River.
On August 2, 1973, a fish kill was observed near Station 9. Analysis of a sample taken in
the vicinity of the kill showed a cyanide concentration of 4,30 mg/1, a concentration
severely toxic to aquatic life. On the same day, the cyanide concentration at Station 11 near
the mouth of Lake Ontario was found to be 0.10 mg/1. The fish kill appeared to be a local
effect.
PHENOLS
The average phenol concentration measured at the six chemical sampling stations over a
period of eight samplings was found to be 0.038 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations
at each station as a function of river mileage is shown on Figure 9. Of thirty-four samples
analyzed for phenols, fourteen showed zero phenols present in the sample. The values of
phenol concentrations varied from a low of 0.00 mg/1 to a one-time value of 0.550 mg/1
which occurred on October 18, 1973 as station 5. Phenol analysis at Station 6 on the same
date showed no unusually high phenol concentrations (0.050 mg/1). This indicates a localized
effect on this date.
Examination of the phenol data collected shows no consistent trend of phenol con-
centration but rather great variability at each station as well as variability with respect to
sampling station location. The average values of phenol concentrations vary from 0.015 mg/1
at Station 1 to 0.097 mg/1 at Station 5.
- 31 -
-------
- Z£ -
CO
c
-^
CD
CD
ro-
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
D P
O
O
t
- \ *
0
0
PO
_ 0
\ \
0
b
01
o
1
0
b
*
0
1
o
b
Ut
o
1
o
1
1
o
b
-j
o
1
o
b
CD
o
1
o
b
(O
o
I
p
o
o
1
CD
3
0
CD-
CO
O
r-t-
05
- N>
_J
o
CD
O
O
1
1
CD
Q)
3
0
c
5'
CD
C/)
c
Q.
0 "
cn
H -_
P
0
m 5-
o
0 __
z
C/J
H ffi^
3D
m
•^ ro -
is. o
.
B ro-
— ro
CD
to
ro _
-w
-*
- Ol
- cn
>
<
P
O
-*!
00
"0
r
z
o
If)
T)
I
m
z
O
r~
ro _
en
CD
--CD
_CO
-------
Analyses for phenol concentrations were conducted on the effluent from three municipal
treatment plants and resulted in the following:
Irondequoit-North St. Paul 0.0130 mg/1
Gates-Chili-Ogden 0.0220 mg/1
Avon 0.0009 mg/1
The effects of the discharges listed above on the River are expected to be minimal because
of the low flow volumes of the plants' discharges with respect to the River flow. Kodak
Treatment Plant data indicates an average phenolic discharge of 0.053 mg/1.
COPPER
The average concentration of copper measured at the six sampling stations over a period of
eight samplings was found to be 0.034 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 10. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
The sources of copper to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 32.10
Avon 0.39
Irondequoit 1.04/33.53
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.1 ppm = 12.4
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 0.1 ppm = 95.4
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 104.4
Bausch & Lomb 62.0
RG&E 48.8/215.2
This compares to the study average concentration of Cu measured at Station 9 of 0.031
mg/1 and an average flow over the sampling period of 768 MGD yielding an average
poundage of 215 Ibs. The mass balance between sources and measurements made within the
Genesee River balance quite well even though there are a number of anticipated sinks
within the system. Among the most significant sinks are likely to be those associated with
the adsorption and ion exchange of soluble copper to suspended clays and alumino silicates,
and their attendant settling and incorporation into the sediments. Furthermore a significant
portion of the copper may at the present time be introduced in the form of particulate
matter which is again incorporated as part of the bottom sediments.
- 33 -
-------
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
CO
c
-^
<
00
C/)
C/)
I
o
c
QO
N
-------
The toxicity of copper to aquatic life is highly variable. Concentrations from 0.01 to 20
mg/1 of copper sulfate (CuSO4) have been used to control different aquatic fauna. Con-
centrations of copper in the form of CuS,O4 at a level of 0.14 mg/1 is the highest
concentration found to be tolerated by trout (7)
The sampling station which shows the highest average level of copper within the receiving
stream is Station 11 at a level of 0.04 mg/1. This is largely due to the discharge of Eastman
Kodak, the only point source discharge between Stations 10 and 11. The effect of the
Eastman Kodak discharge is to raise the level of copper from 0.03 - 0.04 mg/1 for a net
increase of 33%.
The major problem with the copper concentrations within the Genesee River are sporadic
high levels of Cu, up to 0.09 mg/1, which was measured on a sample taken at the same time
as an observed fish kill.
ZINC
The average concentration of zinc measured at the six sampling stations over a period of
eight samplings was found to be 0.041 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 10. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
The sources of zinc to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 9.88
Avon 0.78
Irondequoit 2.17/12.83
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.2 ppm = 24.9
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 0.2 ppm = 191.0
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 116.2
Lapp Insulator .96
Worthington Turbines .35/117.51
Therefore, under conditions of dry weather flow Eastman Kodak is responsible for 89% of
the total zinc loading to the Genesee River within the Study Area. This compares to an
average concentration of zinc measured at Station 11 of 0.057 mg/1 and an average flow
over the sampling period of 768 MGD yielding an average poundage of ^ 361 Ibs/day. If the
loading prior to entry into the study area (0.03 mg/1 at 214 MGD) is subtracted, a net
average load of Zn to the study area is calculated to be approximately 307.9 Ibs/day. The
- 35 -
-------
balance of the Zn measured within the Genesee River can be attributable to the flow from
the Barge Canal. This is to a large degree supported by Zinc determinations measured within
the Genesee River between Stations 5 and 6. On the average the River concentration
increased from 0.038 to 0.046 mg/1 while the average flow increased by approximately 240
MGD from 264.1 MGD to 504.1 MGD. This amounts to 35.3 pounds of zinc being
discharged from the Barge Canal. According to the "Proposed Classifications and Standards
Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters of New York State"/6) the level of zinc
allowed in Class AA waters is 0.3 mg/1 expressed as zinc. In the process of conducting the
field sampling and analysis program the highest average concentration of zinc measured at
any sampling station was the value of 0.058 mg/1 measured at Station 11. In addition, no
value of Zn measured in the receiving waters exceeded 0.125 mg/1.
McKee & Wolf (1963)<10) indicate that the sensitivity of fish to zinc varies with species,
age and condition of the fish. While 0.3 mg/1 of zinc has been reported to be toxic to
mature fish, Schott^11) indicates that the lethal dosage to trout is 0.15 mg/1. From the
point of view of improving the aquatic structure, or at a minimum maintaining it, point
source discharges should be better controlled to keep the level of Zn below 0.05 mg/1.
TOTAL INORGANIC PHOSPHATE
The average concentration of total inorganic phosphate measured at the six sampling stations
over a period of eight samplings was found to be 0.077 mg/1. A plot of the average
concentrations as a function of river mileage is shown in Figure 11. The complete data
listing is contained within Appendix B.
The sources of total inorganic phosphate (as P) to the Genesee within the area are as
follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 387.9 (3.93 mg/1)
Avon 37.7 (4.83 mg/1)
Irondequoit 10.4/ (6.38 mg/1)
436.0
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.5 ppm - 477.2
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 4.0 ppm - 258.0
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 1579.2
Bausch & Lomb 646.5
RG & E 66.9/2292.6
Rural Non Point Sources (7) Ibs/day
Cropland 214.0
Pasture Land 25.5
Forest Land 33.2/272.7
- 36 -
-------
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
IV) —
-------
It is very interesting to note that within the study area, industrial point sources are the
leading contributors of total inorganic phosphate. From the previously outlined daily
loading estimates, it can be seen that of the % 3000 average pounds of total inorganic
phosphate discharged on a daily basis, industrial point sources represent approximately 16%
of the total load. The largest single industrial discharger is Eastman Kodak, discharging an
estimated 1579 pounds/day.
The least significant sources are the rural non-point sources such as pasture land, cropland
and forest land resulting in a total of 272 pounds/day of total inorganic phosphate. It is
surprising that the municipal point and non-point sources are as low as they are. In a
nationwide estimate, municipal point sources are responsible for 44-56% and runoff from
cultivated and feedlot land ranging from 41-54%^9^ of man's average annual contribution of
phosphorus to our nation's waters.
The average concentration of total inorganic phosphate measured at the 11 stations was 77
ug/1 which is considerably greater than the level of 50 ug/1 suggested by EPA and NYSDEC
for any stream at the point where it enters any reservoir or lake. It should be noted that
the average concentration of total inorganic phosphorus measured at sampling Station 11
was 110 ug/1, a value considerably higher than the average total stream measured concentra-
tion of 77 ug/1.
Under average conditions the flow at the last sampling station was measured to be 768
MGD. Utilizing the average concentration of total inorganic phosphorus measured at Station
11 a total loading to Lake Ontario of 408.0 Ib/day was calculated. This compares with the
value of approximately 3258 Ib/day as measured or calculated from inputs within the study
area and a background level of 458 Ib/day prior to the study area. This shows considerable
uptake by aquatic life and suspended matter via ion exchange and/or adsorption.
CHROMIUM
The average concentration of chromium measured at the six chemical sampling stations over
a period of eight samplings was found to be 0.019 mg/1. A plot of the average concentra-
tions as a function of river mileage is shown in Figure 12. The complete data listing is
contained within Appendix B.
The sources of copper to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 12.85
Avon 0.78
Irondequoit 1.03/14.66
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.02 ppm = 19.1
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 0.02 ppm = 2.5
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 20.92
RG & E Bee Bee 9.24
Lapp Insulator .05/30.21
- 38 -
-------
- ee -
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
CO
c
—I
CD
ro
p
D
Q)
D
O
CD
O
o
(D
Q)
3
D
c
2
3'
(Q
C/)
f-f
C
a
>
<
00
CO
to
I
o
-------
These loadings compare to the average concentration of Cr measured at stations 8 and 11 of
0.01 mg/1. On the basis of an average flow of 768 MGD a total of 61.44 pounds/day of Cr
was calculated for the Genesee River. Approximately one half of this measured quantity can
be attributed to areas outside of the study area and the Barge Canal.
The sampling station which shows the highest average concentration of chromium is Station
5, at a level of 0.05 mg/1. This level of Cr reflects the influence of the GCO municipal
treatment plant discharge. The 12.85 Ibs/day average contribution from the GCO plant is
equal to the quantity of Cr measured in the Genesee River prior to the point of intrusion
of the GCO discharge.
The reported level of chromium expected to be toxic toward aquatic life is dependent
upon the species, temperature, pH, valence of the chromium component and any synergistic
or antagonistic effects caused by the presence of other chemical constituents. A concentra-
tion of 5 mg/1 of hexavalent chromium has been reported to be toxic toward fish^12). The
effect of chromium toward plankton, protozoa, bacteria and other lower forms of aquatic
life are more critical.
In general, the level of chromium measured within the Genesee River is not critical
under average flow conditions. However, the impact of the GCO discharge on the stretch of
river between mile points 22.5 and 23.75 could become critical under critical low flow
conditions. It is possible that Cr concentrations could reach levels approaching 0.185
mg/1 assuming an average/critical flow volume ratio of 3.7 in this stretch.
MERCURY
The average concentration of mercury measured at the six sampling stations over a period
of eight samplings was found to be 3.5 ug/1. A plot of the average concentrations as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 13. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
The sources of mercury to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 0.166
Avon 0.001
Irondequoit 0.017
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.001 ppm = 0.12
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 0.001 ppm = 0.06
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 0.22
Worthington Turbine 0.42
The maximum average concentration of mercury measured in the Genesee River during the
sampling program was 4.5 ug/1 which was determined at Station 3. There is, however, no
- 40 -
-------
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
CO
c
(5
_Jk
CO
I
CO
Q)
3
a
co
CD
(A
0)
D
O
(0
O
O
O
O
^
Z
CO
m
D)
3
D
5'
ca 3
» cF
C to
Q.
ro -
oo -
g o -
CO
> M
o
m _
— ro
Ol
0)
CD
CO
ro
o
ro -
ro -
ro _
0)
ro -
oo
w 4- oo
o
- 10
N
o
w J_ —
O
O
O
r
a
O
O
ro
o
>
<
CD
00
CO
cn
CO
o
CO
m
-------
significant increase in the level of mercury measured within the receiving stream due to the
above mentioned sources except for that slight increase at Station 3 which is likely due to
the influence of the discharge from Worthington Turbine.
Presently, the levels of mercury measured within the Genesee River are not at unnaturally
high levels. It is not uncommon to find levels of mercury at a level of several micrograms in
a receiving stream, particularly one traversing an urban area.
The measured levels of mercury are well below reported toxic thresholds to humans, fish or
other forms of aquatic life. The lowest level of mercury as the mercuric ion for fresh water
fish found to be toxic is 4 ug/1 as reported by DoudorffX1 3) This does not mean to imply
that recently involved biological metabolic methods of concentration of organic mercury
fractions may not lead to an accumulation of mercury in certain forms of aquatic life.
SELENIUM
The average concentration of selenium measured at the six sampling stations over a period
of eight samplings was found to be 1.6 ug/1. A plot of the average concentrations as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 13. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
The only measured source of selenium to the Genesee River is the discharge of Eastman
Kodak which has been shown to account for a loading of approximately 1.39 Ibs/day. To
date the sanitary and combined sewer overflow discharges to the main stem of the Genesee
River within the study area have not been assessed.
The average concentration of Se measured in the Genesee River falls into two categories, 1
ug/1 and 2 ug/1. There appears to be no major influence except for the GCO STP. The
influence of the GCO STP is indicated by the presence of a 1 ug/1 increase in average
selenium concentration observed between Stations 3 and 4. The maximum concentration of
selenium measured during the sampling program was 4 ug/1. This would indicate that there
is neither significant concentration variation nor the approaching of any critical concentra-
tion threshold.
The levels of Se measured within the Genesee River are well below the USPHS Drinking
Water Standard^14) of 10 ug/1 and as such appear to present no significant problem.
Additionally, the median threshold effect for a 48-hour exposure for Daphnia was
determined to be 2.5 ug/l.(16)
IRON
The average concentration of iron measured at the six sampling stations over a period of
eight samplings was found to be 0.46 mg/1. A plot of the average concentrations as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 14. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
- 42 -
-------
AVG. of 8 SAMPLINGS- Fe 8 Bo
-P-
00
3
I
T
2
I
4
1
6
8
I
14
4
-h
5 6
_l |_
7
i
I
22
89 10 II
H L-H h
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
26
28 30 32 34
Figure 14 Fe and Ba vs. Distance Downstream During Study
-------
The industrial sources of iron to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 302.4
Rochester Gas and Electric
(BeeBee Station) 463.6
The average river concentration of iron starts at 0.8 mg/1 at Station 1 and declines steadily
to a value of 0.28 mg/1 at Station 5. Between Stations 5 and 6, there is a slight increase
in the river concentration which is likely due to the influence of the Barge Canal. The
measured average concentration of iron then declines between Stations 6 and 8, only to be
influenced by the Eastman Kodak discharge and consequently discharges to Lake Ontario
with an average concentration of approximately 0.54 mg/1.
According to Southgate^16), the toxicity of iron and derived iron salts largely depends upon
whether the iron is present in the ferrous or ferric state and whether it is in solution or
suspension. It appears as though in most waters, the iron is oxidized to its +3 oxidation
state and subsequently the colloidal hydrated oxide precipitate. The deposition of these
particulate forms on the gills of fish may cause an irritation and blocking of the respiratory
transport system. At lower pH's (below 5.5), the iron will remain in a soluble form and
present a more toxic environment to the aquatic life. Under these depressed pH conditions
pike, tench, trout, and carp have been found not to be able to survive at concentrations less
than 1 mg/1.
In general, however, the average river concentration of 0.46 mg/1 of Fe should not create
any major problems with regard to creating a toxic environment within the study area of
the Genesee River. The wide ranging variation in the iron concentration occurring at Station
11 of 0.15-1.12 mg/1 could create some possible problems for very sensitive species i.e.
rainbow trout, etc.
BARIUM
The average concentration of barium measured at the six sampling stations over a period of
eight samplings was found to be 0.27 mg/1. A plot of the average concentration as a
function of river mileage is shown in Figure 14. The complete data listing is contained
within Appendix B.
- 44 -
-------
The sources of barium to the Genesee River within the study area are as follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 0.988
Avon 0.078
Irondequoit 0.104
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 0.01= 1.2
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 0.01= 9.5
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 1778
The receiving stream has a fairly uniform concentration of Ba as a function of river mileage.
The concentration within the receiving stream is highest within the city limit and
upstream of Eastman Kodak. The receiving stream does not reflect the concentrations of Ba
that should be observed in light of the Eastman Kodak discharge permit reported value.
Sulfate, carbonate or other barium sinks can be quite significant. Barium readily forms
insoluble barytes, BaSO4 and witherite^ BaCOs minerals.
Soluble barium salts in the form of the chloride, acetate, fluoride and nitrates generally
exhibit no significant toxic effects on aquatic life. Lethal dosages for any of the barium
salts are well above 25 mg/1. The most toxic form is as the chloride with recorded toxic
thresholds of 29 mg/1 for Daphnia magna in Lake Erie water^17) and 50 mg/1 for young
silver salmon^18).
Additionally, the USPHS in the 1962 Drinking Water Standards established a limit on the
concentration of Ba in drinking water of 1.0 mg/1. This limit was presumably established on
the basis of possible toxic effects of barium on the heart, blood vessels, and nerves^13). The
fatal oral dose of barium for man has been reported to be 550 to 600 mg.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
The average concentration of total suspended solids measured at the six sampling stations
over a period of eight samplings was found to be 39 mg/1. A plot of the average total
suspended solids concentration as a function of river mileage is shown in Figure 15. The
complete data listing is contained within Appendix B.
- 45 -
-------
- 917 -
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
o
o
ro
O
O
O
o
o
o
Ol
o
o
0>
o
o
o
o
ro -
to
to
g o
CO
H
> wH
o
m _
o
O _
>
<
00
CO
CO _
H oo
^)
m
> M
o
CO
tt>
tf>
ro _
- 01
oo
H
O
CO
go
H
CO
CO
ro
-------
The sources of total suspended solids to the Genesee River within the study area are as
follows:
Municipal Point Sources Ibs/day
GCO 6136
Avon 347
Irondequoit 312/6795 Ibs/day
Municipal Non Point Sources (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Ibs/day
Dry Weather: 15 mgd x 100 ppm = 12,500
Wet Weather: 115 mgd x 350 ppm = 335,417
Industrial Point Sources Ibs/day
Eastman Kodak 9296
Bausch and Lomb 2490
Rochester Gas and Electric - 129,090
BeeBee Station
Pennwalt Corp. 422
Worthington Turbine 150/141,448
The average measured river concentration of total suspended solids starts at 55 mg/1 at
Station 1 and decreases fairly uniformly to a value of approximately 20 mg/1 measured at
Station 8. Slight increases in suspended solids concentrations can be seen above the general
decreasing trend at Stations 6 and 11. The increases in suspended solids at these points
likely reflect the influence of the GCO and Eastman Kodak discharges. These two sources
together with that from Bausch and Lomb represent the three significant point sources of
suspended material discharged to the Genesee River within the study area. It should be
noted that the solids represented by the Rochester Gas and Electric-BeeBee Station dis-
charge is largely the ambient level of Genesee River Suspended Solids measured within the
intake water.
Only a small fraction of the 160,743 pounds/day of suspended solids measured within the
Genesee River can be accounted for by point source discharges. At least 77% of the
suspended solids are of an inert variety which can only be attributed to errosion contribu-
tion of clays and other natural silicate based materials.
The presence of suspended solids may create a toxic effect on aquatic life by causing
excessive abrasion of the organism, clogging of the gills and respiratory passages and the
destruction of spawning grounds and resulting eggs and young by blanketing the stream
bottom.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
The average concentration of total dissolved solids measured at the six sampling stations
over a period of eight samplings was found to be 475 mg/1. A plot of the average total
dissolved solids concentration as a function of river mileage is shown in Figure 15.The
complete data listing is contained within Appendix B.
- 47 -
-------
SECTION VI
AQUATIC STRUCTURE OF THE GENESEE RIVER
PROCEDURES
Eight surveys of the Genesee River were conducted by personnel from the Lake Ontario
Environmental Laboratory (LOTEL) of the State University of New York, College at
Oswego between July 18 and October 18, 1973. Eleven stations consistent with the
chemical stations were located between Avon, New York, and the Rochester harbor mouth
(see Figure 1). During each survey, plankton and benthos samples were taken at six stations
(No. 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11). Water quality variables, such as dissolved oxygen, pH,nutrients and
BOD were determined at all of the sampling stations. Physical measurements such as
currents and temperature were also taken.
Surface and bottom water samples were taken at each station using an 8.1 liter non-metallic
VanDorn bottle. Five liters from each depth were strained through a 20-mesh plankton net,
and each combined into one composite sample. A total of three replicate composite samples
were taken at each station. The zooplankton component of each sample was narcotized
using carbonated water, then the sample was preserved with a Lugol's-ethanol solution. Both
phytoplankton and zooplankton were enumerated by counting 30 random fields of a
Sedwick-Rafter cell under 200X. Identification to genus or species was accomplished using a
1000X inverted, phase contrast microscope after UtermohK19). Phytoplankton were
identified according to Prescott^20), Palmer^21) and Tiffany and Britton.^22).
Triplicate samples for benthic organisms were obtained each month using a 6 x 6 inch
Eckman grab sampler. These samples were washed in the field using a US 30 mesh screen,
and the organisms preserved in 70% ethanol.
In the laboratory, organisms were removed from the debris, with a combination of hand
sorting, and the sucrose floatation technique of Anderson^23) Chironomidae and
Oligochaeta were mounted in permanent preparations of Turtox. CMC 10 with a small
amount of acid fuchsin stain. Larger organisms were examined in 70% ETOH under high
resolution dissecting microscopes.
All organisms were identified to species where possible. Chironomidae were identified with
the Keys of Beck and Beck<24); Chernovski<25>; Johannsen^26'27'28); Mason^20);
Roback(3°); and Thienemann^31). Oligochaeta were identified according to Brinkhurst,
Hamilton and Herrington^32); Brinkhurst^33^; Brinkhurst and Jamieson^34); Hiltunen^3 5);
and Sperbe^36). Other invertebrates were keyed with Pennak^37) and Usinger^38).
Footnotes to the tables of invertebrates give specific information concerning other identifi-
cations.
Fish were sampled once on October 18-19, 1973, with a 10 foot trawl. Tows were made
close to the bottom of the river for 10 minutes. Determinations made were species,
standard length, weight, sex, sexual maturity and stomach contents. Samples were stored at
-20°C for analysis in the laboratory.
STATISTICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The diversity index, alpha, of Fisher, Corbet and Williams^3^) was calculated for each
plankton and benthos sample. This particular index was used in preference to others
Wilhm(4°); because the theoretical distribution underlying this index seems to more closely
approximate the actual distribution of organisms in natural population, and the distribution
seems to have more basis in ecological principles^41).
- 48 -
-------
For any sample or organisms from naturally occurring populations, N (the total number of
individuals), S (the total number of species) and a (alpha, the diversity) are related as
follows in equation* * ) .
S = loge (1 +) (1)
Therefore, given N and S for sample, a can be determined. The solution for a is however,
according to Fisher, "difficult and indirect". Table 1 in Appendix C was therefore con-
structed from the relationship in Equation 2.
N = (e"oh - 1 ) (2)
S S/a
Given the logio N/S, logio N/ct can be obtained from Table 1. From logio N/a, the value
of a can be calculated. An alternative method of determining a is shown in Figure 16.
In general, the diversity index a indicates whether a biological community is stressed or
unstressed. A stressed community would be represented by a few species of organisms in
relation to the total number. An unstressed community would have a relatively large
number of species in relation to the total number of organisms.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PLANKTON - GENERAL
Plankton variety and quality are controlled by many factors, including water temperature,
carbon dioxide and dissolved oxygen concentration, intensity and duration of light and
concentration of nutrients. These factors are interrelated as well. Blooms of phytoplankton
occur when all the conditions listed above are in optimum proportion for maximum growth.
Blooms or pulses can produce cell concentrations so dense that photosynthesis is reduced to
the point that the cell cannot maintain itself and dies. A massive die-off of phytoplankton
then results in anaerobic conditions making the aquatic environment unfit for the survival
of other types of organisms.
A river or lake may be categorized as oligotrophic, mesotrophic or eutrophic based on
nutrient concentrations, growth of certain types of organisms and other factors. Oligo-
trophic waters are characterized by low nutrient concentrations and phytoplankton popula-
tions in which diatoms predominate while eutrophic waters have high nutrient concentra-
tions and a relatively high proportion of blue-green algae*42). In the latter case, numbers of
diatoms would be relatively low.
As in benthic communities, discussed later in this report, phytoplankton communities found
in oligotrophic waters usually have low numbers with a relatively large number of species
represented. Conversely, eutrophic or otherwise stressed waters may have large numbers of
phytoplankters with a relatively small number of species. This represents a phytoplankton
community in which diversity of species is low. The diversity index, alpha, is a measure of
quality of the environment in which the organisms live. When this information is coupled
with species distribution and life history of the population, a body of water can be
characterized more completely.
- 49 -
-------
300
/ I/ i / '/'
' /I ' K
Y\/. X
A '-I '•! •> -4 •; -I, •/ -tt -V
200 3f») 3001000ZOOQ MOO 5QfQ
Individuals in sampl«: §og seal® ab«we; number below
-50-
-------
A trend for succession of phytoplankton is generally related to the season of the year.
Blue-green alage such as Oscillatoria, Anabaena. Gleocystis and Microcystis are favored by
higher summer temperatures (25-30°C), while diatoms such as Navicula. Fragilaria, Melosira,
Gyrosigma and Cyclotella prefer cooler temperatures. The growth of blue-green algae is also
favored by pH 7.2 or above.
These phytoplankton may serve directly as a source of food for plankivorous fish and fish
larvae, or they may be grazed by zooplankton such as Cyclops and Diaptomus^43).
Cladocerans found in open lakes or rivers include the genera Daphnia, Bosmina.
Diaphanosoma. Chydrous. and Ceriodaphnia^3 7). These organisms may be the dominant
genera in the spring^44). Bosmina longirostrus is a common species found in flowing streams
and rivers, however, according to Schindler^45), it seldom becomes a dominant form.
Cladocerans tolerate a wide range of calcium concentrations, pH and dissolved oxygen.
Rotifers feed on detritus and bacteria and contribute to the zooplankton population
Common genera found in running water are Keritella. Svnchaeta, Polyarthra. Asplanachna,
Braschionus. Kellicotta. Trichocera. Notholco and Euchlanis^43).
Total cell number, species distribution and diversity indices were determined for phyto-
plankton and zooplankton samples from six stations in the Genesee River. Station locations
are illustrated in Figure 1.
PLANKTON - RESULTS
In general, diatoms and green algae were the dominant forms of phytoplankton at all
stations sampled during the year. Figures 17-20 show the total number of plankton
organisms and the distribution by class for August 1-2, September 12-13, September 26 and
October 19, 1973, respectively. Other collections were incomplete and could not be plotted
graphically. Results by individual species are shown in Tables 2-16 of Appendix C. The
zooplankton component was significant only in the August 1-2, 1973, samples at Stations 1,
3 and 5, although on these dates zooplankton never contributed more than about 15% of
the total population.
The trend is towards a decrease in diversity indices of plankton populations from Station 1
to Station 11. Total number of plankton, diversity index and composition of the population
usually change rather significantly between Stations 5 and 6. At a point between these
Stations the Barge Canal intersects the Genesee River and apparently contributed nutrients,
a different plankton population or growth inhibitors of stimulants which affect a selected
portion of the plankton population. As seen in Figure 21 through 24, total numbers of
plankton either remain relatively constant or increase for all sampling dates from Station 1
to Station 11.
Blue-green algae were a significant part of the phytoplankton at Stations 1 through 5 on
September 12-13, 1973. The genus Oscillatoria was the most abundant blue-green algae
followed by Anabaena and Anacystis. The growth of blue-greens are generally favored by
warmer water temperatures and eutrophic conditions. The diversity indices decrease for
samples taken on these dates in the lower river due to the reduction of the blue-greens and
increase in numbers of green algae.
- 51 -
-------
«Q
3
Q
3
O
% COMPOSITION
s
o> oo o
OOP
I I I I I I
10
oo
(O
o
CELLS/LITER
—t —t _* _*
O O O O
10 CO ft
-------
10
c
•^
(0
ro
O
% COMPOSITION
§
CELLS/LITER
§
O
O
O
ro
o
w
I I
Q
3
ro
i
OJ
3
z
-------
% COMPOSITION
CELLS/LITER
ro
o
0)
o
oo
o
o
o
o
10
o
W
\ I T I
(O
IN5
fl>
01
I
O
z
(A
01
O)
O
yj
m
m
m
03
(0
ro
8
o
m
-------
-ss-
«
ro
O
o
x-
GO
O
o
O
o-
oo
(O
o
-»
co ¥
-------
Ul
24
22
20
18
16
i14
£ 12
s«
8
6
4
SPECIES DIVERSITY
PLANKTON COMMUNITY
1/2 AUG. 1973
J I
5 6
STATIONS
I I I I
8 9 10 11
Figure 21 Species diversity-plankton community I-2 August 73
-------
01
-J
24 f-
22
20
18
16
14
DC 19
UJ If.
>
S 10
8
6
4
(NOT CALCULATED
FOR STATION 1)
I
SPECIES DIVERSITY
PLANKTON COMMUNITY
12/13 SEPT. 1973
I
I I
3 456
STATIONS
I I I i
8 9 1011
22 Sepcies diversity -plankton community I2-I3 September 73
-------
-8S-
ro
« DIVERSITY
00 O
o u £ o> 00 o
ro
10
10
O
z
CO
"0 CO
10 r- TO
O > m
^ z
ro
o
m
en
O)
w
CO Z O
.j o rn
• 2 M
a«»
co ±
H
<
oo
-------
-6S-
oo
OC DIVERSITY
> io £
CO
1
O
O
3
c
GO
i
(£>
O
o
o
cr
-------
In the September 26 sampling, the total number of plankton remained relatively constant.
Again diatoms and green algae were dominant types. The diversity indices decreased at
stations in the lower river. This was due to an increase in the green algae found at those
stations.
Samples taken on October 19 had lost almost all blue-green algae component and had a
large proportion of diatoms and green algae. These samples were taken from the river where
water temperatures ranged from 10.3°C at Station 1 to 15.5°C at Station 11. These cooler
temperatures favor the development of diatom populations.
Nutrient levels of nitrogen and phosphorus were always high enough to support good
populations of phytoplankton. Conditions which would limit phytoplankton numbers
include turbidity, zooplankton grazing, toxic substances and low temperatures. Zooplankton
populations did not appear to be sufficiently large enough to reduce phytoplankton
numbers. Water temperatures, pH and other physical factors were well within the range of
biological requirements for growth. Only turbidity would appear to limit growth of phyto-
plankton. Turbidity was not measured in this study. However, the Genesee River drains land
used for various agricultural activities which would contribute to the silt load of the river.
This added turbidity in the form of silt significantly reduces the available amount of light
for photosynthesis by phytoplankton.
The synergistic effects of heavy metals on growth of phytoplankton is not well known.
Occasionally relatively high concentrations of copper (0.14-0.16 ppm), iron, barium, and
chromium were found at Station 11. These were probably from an industrial discharge in
that portion of the river.
BENTHIC POPULATIONS
Benthos, organisms which live on or near the bottom of a lake or river, include representa-
tives of nearly every taxonomic group which occurs in freshwater^43). Benthic invertebrates
feed primarily on plankton and detritus, however some species are predaceous. They in turn
are primary constituents of some vertebrates. Besides being an important link in the food
chain, benthic organisms are good "indicators" of water quality. With the exception of the
insect larvae which hatch, most benthic organisms spend their life in the sediment or
attached to a firm substratum. Thus, they reflect the quality of the water which flows over
them. As discussed later in this section, some benthic species such as Olichaetes are able to
tolerate adverse conditions while other species cannot.
Tables 16-20 in Appendix C present the average number of organisms per square meter for
each station on each sample date. The Oligochaeta, and Chironomidae are by far the most
abundant groups. The Oligochaeta are the most consistently represented throughout the
sample period. The Chironomidae are the most abundant and the most diverse during
August and September.
The diversity was plotted for each sample period in Figures 25 through 28. Along with a
plot of the log of the total number of organisms per square meter at each station. The
bottom half of each figure indicates the percent composition of the Chironomidae,
Oligochaeta and other organisms at each station. The three parameters can be compared
simultaneously for each of the four sample periods. The relative distances of each of the
stations is indicated on the abscissa of each graph by the spacing of the station numbers.
- 60 -
-------
-19-
-------
BENTHOS 15AUG73
•MMMM
diversity
(station 1 not calculated)
Figure 26 Benthos 15 August 73
-------
«
c
ro
>i
CD
% COMPOSITION
ORGANISMS/m2
o
I
ft
•D
eS
OJ
OC DIVERSITY
-------
«o
c
3
ro
oo
GO
-------
The Chironomidae were the predominant organism at Station 3 during all four sample
periods. Station 1, the farthest upstream, yielded numbers of organisms too low to allow
definite interpretation. Stations 5, 6, 8 and 11 showed a very clear reversal with the
reduction of the Chironomidae and other organisms, and the dominance of the Oligochaeta.
The diversity values were highest at Station 3 on all of the dates. The proportions of the
three categories or organisms were the most evenly distributed at this station, a factor
which would tend to contribute to a higher diversity. The high diversity values at Station 3
should be interpreted with some caution. The combination of a low total number and high
number of species and 3 sample dates, require estimation of the index from the graph
provided on page 52, of Fisher, Corbet and Williams^39). The standard error of these
estimates tends to be rather large.
There was an increase in the number of Chironomidae, mostly Cryptochironomus at
Stations 5 and 6 during August 15. This may be explained in part by the carnivorous nature
of some Cryptochironomus which have been reported feeding on Oligochaets^46) in
polluted waters. The increased number of species of these Chironomidae (present in low
numbers) was overshadowed by the total number of Oligochaeta represented by compara-
tively few species, although the diversity did jump suddenly between Stations 5 and 6 on
this date, and also on September 10/11.
There was marked similarity for all three parameters; percent composition, total number,
and diversity for the September 10/11 and September 26/27 samples. Most of the seasonal
variation appeared to occur during the July 18/19 through August 15 period. Since the
Oligochaeta were the only group consistently represented in most of the samples, this group
was used in an analysis of variance of total number per sample for the four sample dates
and the six stations. Since numbers of invertebrates from bottom samples are generally not
normally distributed, a log (y + 1) transformation was employed to normalize the data for
Oligochaetes^47). The transformed data was entered into a 4 by 6 table with three
replications for each station and sample date.* A two way analysis of variance with
replication^48) was employed to test for significant differences in numbers of Oligochaetes
between dates and stations. The test revealed a highly significant difference between stations
(Fs = 47.6, P .01), and also between dates (Fs = 14.4, P .01). A significant interraction
variance component could also be demonstrated (Fs = 6.4, P .01), indicating considerable
relation between station and date with regard to the number of Oligochaetes present. The
number of Oligochaetes present at a particular station is, in other words, not independent
of the date of sampling. The variance component between stations, was by far the largest,
suggesting that the differences between stations are greater than the differences due to
seasonal fluctuations. There was a general increase in numbers of Oligochaetes between July
18 and 19, with the highest values occurring at Stations 5 and 11 (as indicated by the
marginal totals of the variance analysis table). These results correspond well with those
shown in Figures 25 to 28.
Except for a sudden increase at Station 8 on July 18, the overall trend of the diversity
values was a decrease between Stations 3 and 11. The decrease in diversity was especially
pronounced where the Oligochaetes reached 90% or more of the total abundance during
each sample period. At the same time the total number of organisms increased considerably.
Two replicates were taken at Stations 3 and 11, July 18/19. The value of the missing
replicate was estimated by calculating the mean of the two replicates taken.
- 65 -
-------
High diversity (large proportion of species to total number of organisms in the sample) is
generally considered an indication of a healthy, stable, clean water environment, while a low
diversity is considered a sign of artificial eutrophication, or poor water quality. An increase
in the Oligochaete fauna at the expense of other invertebrates can also be considered an
indication of water quality deterioration^49 50'5 ^.
Beginning with Station 5, according to these criteria, the water quality has deteriorated
considerably. Stations 8 through 11 are within the city of Rochester, and this result is not
unexpected for a large urban area. A general decrease in dissolved oxygen from Stations 1 to
11, indicated in Section IV of this report, supports a picture of increased nutrient and
organic waste loading, and an increasingly unfavorable environment for any organism but
the sludge worm.
FISH
Only one sample of Fish was analyzed from the Genesee River. The trawl used for
collection arrived late. After collection, fish were transported to the laboratory where
samples were frozen for later analysis. Failure of the freezing unit resulted in spoilage of the
fish which rendered them unfit for analysis.
Table 11 compares species of fish found in Lake Ontario and the Genesee River during this
survey. Alewifes were found in the lower parts of the river. Presumably they had their
origin in Lake Ontario. Carp were found only at Stations 5, 6, 8 and 11. These stations may
have high turbidity or other conditions which favor the existence of carp (Table 21,
Appendix C). Oxygen profiles at each station (Figure 29 through 35) show high dissolved
oxygen concentrations at all surface stations. These concentrations never fell below 4.0
ppm. Dissolved oxygen concentrations for samples of water close to the bottom were low
for Stations 9,10, and 11 on August 2. Samples were taken following dredging operations in
Rochester Harbor. The dredge stirred up the bottom sediment, which apparently created
anaerobic or near anaerobic conditions.
The one sampling of fish is too small to justify firm conclusions, however the distribution
of fish tends to support plankton and benthic data. All these data suggest better water
quality at Stations 1 through 5 and a decrease in quality on the lower river. A dividing
point seems to be the intersection of the Genesee River with the Erie Canal.
A general description of the types of fish observed in this survey can be found in Appendix
C.
- 66 -
-------
Table 11. Fish Species in Lake Ontario and the Genesee River
Species Lake Ontario Genesee River
Anquiilidae
Anquilla rostrata (American Eel) + —
Clupidae
Alosa pseuelohareugus (Alewife) + +
Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) + —
Osmeridae
Osmerus esperlantus (Smelt) + —
Cyprinidae
Cyprinius carpio (Carp)
Notemogonus chrysoleucas (Golden Shiner) + +
Notropis hudsonius (Spottail Shiner) + +
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersoni (White Sucker) + +
Ictaluridae
Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead) + +
Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus (Threespine + —
Stickleback)
Cottidae
Cottus bairdi (Mottled Sculpin) + —
Serranidae
Roccus americana (White Perch) + +
Centrarchidae
Micropterus dolumieui (Smallmouth Bass) + +
Ambloplites roprestris (Rock Bass) + +
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) + +
Lempomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed) + +
Percidae
Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch) + +
Etheostoma nigrum (Eastern Johnny Darter) + +
Stizostedion vitreum (Walleye) + +
- 67 -
-------
I
(D
00
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
SURFACE
••••BOTTOM
1
2
3
STATIONS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 29 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 19 July 73
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
SURFACE
••••BOTTOM
STATIONS
8 9 1011
Figure 30 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 2 August 73
-------
o
I
-------
14
12
O)
ui 10
1
5 8
CL
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
I I
SURFACE
BOTTOM
I I I !
STATIONS
5 6
8 9 10 11
Figure 32 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 10 September 73
-------
rv>
14
" 12
I
6>
u 10
i
S 8
a.
O
Q
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
SURFACE
~TOM
I L
STATIONS
5 6
8 9 1011
Figure 33 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 13 September 73
-------
OJ
14
12
ti 10
5 8
a.
a.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
SURFACE
••••BOTTOM
I I I
STATIONS
5 6
8 9 10 11
Figure 34 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 24 September 73
-------
CO
14
12
10
8
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
SURFACE
••••BOTTOM
STATIONS
56 7
8 9 10 11
Figure 35 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 18 October 73
-------
SECTION VII
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASSIMILATION CAPACITY MODEL
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In formulating a mathematical expression of the Stream Assimilation Capacity for the
Lower Genesee River Basin, a modified form of the Streeter-Phelps equation was employed.
The more common form of the Streeter-Phelps equation made no distinction between the
oxygen-demanding pollutants in the form of organic carbon (carbonaceous demand) and
oxygen-demanding pollutants in the form of reduced nitrogen species (nitrogenous demand).
Since such a distinction was desired for this study because of the high concentrations of
reduced forms of nitrogen found in the stream, a modified form of the basic equation was
necessary. In addition to the distinction between carbonaceous and nitrogenous demand, an
effort was also made to incorporate a mathematical description of both benthic demand and
estuarine induced dispersion effects due to the effect of Lake Ontario on the lower reaches
of the River. The following describes the modifications made to the Streeter-Phelps
equation.
Interactions of the mechanisms producing oxygen deficits are very complex and highly
variable at any given time and place. Affecting these mechanisms are such physical processes
as settling, scouring, oxygen stripping and dilution. Also natural biological activity such as
photosynthesis, atmospheric oxygen replenishment, algal respiration, and benthal demands
may significantly affect the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the stream. Geophysical
characteristics affecting the assimilation capacity of the stream include cross-sectional area,
depth, flow and temperature.
The more common form of the Streeter-Phelps equation is:
-K2t
KlLo ^It -K2t
D K2-Ki Le 'e
where D = oxygen deficit (mg/1)
KI = deoxygenation coefficient (I/day)
K2 - reoxygenation coefficient (I/day)
Lo = ultimate oxygen demand (1 mg/1) at t = o
DO = initial oxygen deficit (mg/1) at t = o
t = time (days)
In the above form of the equation, it is assumed that all of the oxygen deficit is due to a
total oxygen demand made up of carbonaceous and nitrogenous demands. Since the effect
on the deficit does not distinguish between the demand caused by carbonaeous material
(CBOD) and the demand caused by nitrogenous material (NOD), the Streeter-Phelps
equation was modified to the following equation:
n -
D -
K3-Lie
-e
-Kit K3t + KL -K2t -K3t
t] +D0
J
- 75 -
-------
where D = oxygen deficit (mg/1)
KI = deoxygenation coefficient due to CBOD (I/day)
K2 = deoxygenation coefficient due to NOD (I/day)
K3 = reoxygenation coefficient (I/day)
LI = oxygen demand due to CBOD (mg/1)
L2 = oxygen demand due to NOD (mg/1)
DO = initial oxygen deficient (mg/1) at t = o
t = time (days)
Since it was also desired to include an estuarine coefficient in the equation for the last
downstream stations, "j" terms were incorporated such that:
jx = KX/E
where jx = oxygenation coefficient (I/day) for estuarine effect
V = velocity of flow (mi/day)
Kx = oxygenation coefficient (I/day)
E = estuarine coefficient (mi 2/day)
The above modifications resulted in the following equation:
D = KvKi
In the upper reaches of the stream, the estuarine coefficient was not applied. In such cases
when E = O, jx = Kx.
From initial application of the data to the above equation, it was found that a significant
difference in DO level between the values computed and the values actually measured
existed in the stretch of the river downstream of the last falls. This DO difference was
assumed to be due to oxygen-demanding material in the benthos of the stream. Thus a
benthic factor was assigned to the equation to account for the deviation between computed
and measured data. Thus the final form of the equation used in this study is as follows:
£j _ i^~T7.. 16" -c -- | T ir „ __ v^ 1C -c l^r>.0->^'+ BA
- 76 -
-------
where B = benthic demand factor (mg/1/square mile)
A = area of stream bottom, (square miles)
STREAM COEFFICIENTS
The deoxygenation coefficient KI in the typical Streeter-Phelps equation is determined
under standard laboratory conditions by incubating a stream sample in a BOD bottle and
analyzing the sample for dissolved oxygen concentration after selected time intervals. This
coefficient is taken to represent the rate at which the total oxygen demand of the sample is
stabilized. In the course of this study, the deoxygenation rate was separated into two rates
that represented the carbonaceous oxygen demand rate KI, and the nitrogeneous oxygen
demand rate K2. The method employed in calculating each demand is discussed below.
The nitrogeneous materials in a stream utilize oxygen according to the following equations:
1 . Organic N +na __ NH3
hydrolysis
2. 2NH3 + 302 bacteria — -2NO2 " + 2H+ + 2H2O
3. 2N02' + 02 bacteria 2N03 -
Each pound of organic and ammonia nitrogen that proceeds through the above reactions
requires 4.5 pounds of oxygen as compared to the 1-2 pounds of oxygen required for
carbonaceous BOD. The ultimate nitrogeneous demand is therefore calculated by
multiplying the sum concentrations of organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen by 4.5 to
determine an equivalent oxygen demand. In the laboratory, ultimate BODs (BOD2g) had
been set up to determine an ultimate oxygen demand exerted on the river. By subtracting
the ultimate NOD from the total ultimate demand, the ultimate CBOD was determined. By
then applying the "Graphical Method" for determining deoxygenation coefficient as
developed by Thomas/7 3) the deoxygenation coefficients of NOD and CBOD were
determined for each reach of the study area and are listed in Table 12.
In this modeling effort, projections were made by using average stream coefficients as
computed over the eight sampling dates, rather than using coefficients derived from one
particular sampling. The use of one sampling for determining deoxygenation coefficients
can reflect anomalies not applicable to other samplings. The purpose of more sampling was
to dampen out any day-to-day anomalies and to avoid reflecting them in projections of
future conditions (See Figures 52 and 53).
The reoxygenation coefficient, designated K3 in this study, was calculated for each reach
of the River by the standard O'Connor formula and are shown on Table 13.
1 ls\
v - (DLV)
K3 - L
- 77 -
-------
K3 = reoxygenation coefficient (I/day)
DL = diffusivity of oxygen in water
8.1 x 10'5 ft2/hr @ 20°C
V = velocity of flow, (ft/hr)
H = average depth of flow, (ft)
The estuarine coefficient "E" was calculated from a formula developed by O'Conner^74)
which provided a means of calculating the concentration of a conservative parameter at a
distance downstream from the source of the parameter:
where S = concentration downstream a distance X
So = initial concentration at distance X = O
V = Velocity of flow
X = distance
E = dispersion coefficient
Rearranging the terms yields
VX
E =
log S/So
Table 12. Deoxygenation Coefficients at Each Station
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Station 10
Station 1 1
Deoxygenation Co-
efficients day'l (base
Kl
.080
.080
.080
.067
.070
.070
.070
.090
.090
.090
.085
e)
K2
.075
.075
.075
.060
.063
.063
.063
.084
.084
.084
.101
- 78 -
-------
Table 13. Reoxygenation Coefficients at Each Station
Measured Avg. Reoxygenation Co-
Location Velocity ft./hr. efficients day'l (base e)
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Station 10
Station 1 1
1840
1605
1590
1605
1560
1605
1550
1830
1615
1640
1720
.208
.208
.318
.208
.205
.208
.210
.210
.155
.120
.047
The velocities applied in this study were obtained by Gurley Meter measurements made at
the time of each sampling. The conservative parameter in this case was dye used in
time-of-travel studies by NYSDEC/75) The value of the dispersion coefficient "E" was
calculated to be approximately 10.0 sq. mi./day. This value compares favorably with a value
of 9.4 sq. mi./day as calculated by O'Connor^74) for a tidal river.
Since time did not permit an extensive sampling program to be conducted to determine the
actual benthic oxygen demand, an approximation of its value was made in the following
manner and reported in oxygen depletion per unit bottom area (mg/l/sq. mile). Knowing
the difference between observed and computed dissolved oxygen and assuming that this
difference was due to a benthic loading, the loading was calculated by dividing the
difference between observed and computed DO readings by the river bottom area to yield
mg/l/sq. mi. The area of stream bottom was determined from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
cross-section data and depth charts of the lower Genesee River. The average resulting
benthic loading was found to be 0.75 mg/l/sq. mi. When this value is converted into more
conventional units, the results for flows in the range of 300-600 MGD area as follows.
0.345 - 0.575 g/day/m2
These values are in the general range of 02 uptake rates (for a river) as determined in
previous studies listed below.
Investigator 02 Uptake g/day/m2
Martin & Bella <76) 1.9-3.4
McKeown, et. al. <77> 2.7 - 4.4
Baity <78> 1.8-5.4
Fair, et. al. (79> 1.2-4.6
Hanes& Irving <8°) 1.4 - 1.5
- 79 -
-------
One reason that the uptake rate as approximated in this study is somewhat lower than
previous studies indicated is due to the fact that the Corps of Engineers periodically
dredges the lower Genesee River causing some siltation after dredging to cover up organic
matter than would exert an oxygen demand on the overlying waters. Estuarine effects also
decrease benthic effects.
DATA SOURCES AND FORMULATION
For the Genesee River study area, the river was subdivided into reaches such that the
beginning of each reach coincided with a point-source loading. Therefore, 20 reaches were
established to include the major combined sewer overflows in the City of Rochester. The
locations of these point-source discharges are listed below:
Reach Name Mile Pt.
1 Initial 34.70
2 Avon STP 34.40
3 Honeoye Creek 26.70
4 Oatka Creek 22.40
5 Scottsville Svc. Area 20.20
6 Black Creek 14.10
7 GCO STP 13.70
8 Barge Canal 11.40
9 Brooks SW 10.70
10 Plymouth SW 10.30
11 Court SW 8.30
12 Central SW 7.55
13 Mill-Factory SW 7.15
14 Bausch & Lomb 6.95
15 Carthage SW 6.45
16 Lexington SW 5.95
17 Seth Green SW 5.45
18 Maplewood SW 4.75
19 Kodak STP 4.30
20 Iron-St. Paul STP 0.70
The values of the various parameters used as input for each of the point-source loadings
deserves some discussion. The oxygen demand parameters BOD, NH3N and Organic N for
the tributaries Honeoye, Oatka, and Black Creeks and the Barge Canal were obtained from
the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Surveillance Network
data for the years 1967 - 1970.(3^ Under average conditions the values of the above
parameters were taken from the 50% percentile while for the minimum average flow
conditions, the values were taken from the 90% percentile. The values of the dissolved
oxygen for average and minimum flow conditions were taken from the 50% percentile and
the 10% percentile, respectively.
At point-source loadings other than the tributaries (municipal and industrial discharges) the
loadings were determined from actual effluent data averaged over the period January, 1972
to May, 1973 or from industrial discharge permits prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engieers. Loadings from the Rochester Combined Sewer Overflows were estimated from
- 80 -
-------
data collected during an existing overflow sampling program being conducted by Monroe
County Pure Waters, Dissolved oxygen levels for all point-source discharges were assumed to
be 4.00 mg/1, 1.0 mg/1 less than the minimum DO value that would meet the Class "B"
stream standards for non-trout waters. This value of 4.00 mg/1 was assumed to exist under
both average and minimum flow conditions. The only exception to the above DO value was
in the case of the dry weather overflows where the DO value was assumed to be 2.00 mg/1
since most of the dry weather overflows consist of sanitary sewage.
To apply the waste loadings to the computer model, it was first necessary to determine the
BODu at each point-source location. This was done by multiplying the BODs as obtained
from the Surveillance Network data or industrial and municipal effluent data by a factor of
2.5. This 2.5 factor was obtained from BOD uptake studies of the Genesee River and was
assumed to apply to the tributaries and municipal/industrial discharges as well, because of
similarity between the high percentages of nitrogeneous oxygen demand in both the river
and point-source discharges. In addition, it was assumed that the concentrations of the
loadings were divided equally between the CBOD and the NOD for sewage treatment plant
effluents except at Kodak where good nitrogen data was available. Samples of the treatment
plant effluents at Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plants, Irondequoit-North St. Paul
Sewage Treatment Plant and the Avon Sewage Treatment Plant were collected on one
occasion and analyzed for several parameters. Nitrogen data for these discharges was later
used to determine the actual NOD and CBOD loadings at these point-source discharges.
Flows used in verifying the model were obtained from USGS flow monitoring stations on
the dates samples were collected. At the same time, velocity measurements in the Genesee
River were made with a Gurley Meter during the sampling program to assist in approxi-
mating river travel times between reaches.
- 81 -
-------
SECTION VIII
MODELING PROJECTIONS
GENERAL
The following section of this report deals with the assimilation capacity projections made
by applying the model under various conditions of point source loadings and river flows.
Cause and effect relationships for key oxygen demand initiating parameters are discussed as
well as removal efficiencies required for both municipal and industrial discharges to assure
compliance with the stream standards for the Genesee River as established by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The conditions under which the above subjects are investigated are:
Case IA: Present Loadings Under Average Flow Conditions as Observed in the Course of
Conducting the Sampling and Analysis Program
Case IB: Present Loadings Under Conditions of Critical Low Flow (MA7CD/10)
Case IIA: BPCTCA Stipulated Loadings Under Average Flow Conditions
Case IIB: BPCTCA Stipulated Loadings Under Conditions of Critical Low Flow
Resulting dissolved oxygen conditions prevailing under various degrees of treatment for both
municipal and industrial discharges are investigated as follows:
Percent Treatment
Municipal Industrial
Case III: 85 85
Case IV: 90 85
Case V: 95 85
Case VI: 98 85
Case VII: 98 98
In addition to the discharges of municipalities and industries, dry weather overflows from
the City of Rochester combined sewer stormwater overflow system are included as un-
treated wastewater discharges. In none of the conditions noted above was treatment of the
overflows considered.
- 82 -
-------
DATA INPUT
Case IA. Present Loading Under Average Flow Conditions
The present loadings from each discharge were determined from actual sewage treat-
ment plant operating data for municipal discharges and from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers discharge permits for industrial discharges. For the Bausch and Lomb
industrial discharge no effluent data was available so a loading was estimated. The
present loading from each discharge is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Present Loadings Under Average Flow Conditions
Discharge
Flow
(mgd)
DO
(mg/1)
CBOD
(mg/1)
NOD
(mg/1)
AvonSTP 1.00 4.00 87.37 32.63
Honeoye Creek 1.20 8.00 2.17 2.83
Oatka Creek 22.00 10.80 1.00 4.00
Scottsville Svc. Area 0.01 4.00 87.50 87.50
Black Creek 15.00 8.00 2.17 2.83
GCOSTP 11.90 4.00 91.30 56.70
Barge Canal 242.00 6.60 5.71 3.27
Court St. SW* 2.00 2.00 22.47 32.51
Bausch & Lomb 0.10 4.00 12.50 12.50
Seth Green SW* 2.00 2.00 164.40 35.60
MaplewoodSW* 3.00 2.00 290.00 5.50
Kodak STP 28.00 4.00 35.80 56.70
Irondequoit North-
St. Paul STP 1.25 4.00 88.45 58.05
* SW indicates dry weather overflow discharge
** Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand:
CBOD - Carbonaceous component
NOD - Nitrogenous Component
In determining the loadings, it was assumed that the ultimate biochemical oxygen
demand loading is divided equally between nitrogenous oxygen demand and carbon-
aceous oxygen demand unless sufficient data was available to make a detailed assess-
ment of the individual ultimate oxygen demand components. Loadings presented by
tributaries to the main stem of the Genesee River within the study area were
calculated using the fiftieth percentile BOD value from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Surveillance Network Data for the period of 1967 to
1970. Dissolved oxygen values for municipal and industrial discharges were set at 4.00
mg/1, 1.0 mg/1 below the point at which stream standards would be contravened.
Dissolved oxygen values for the tributaries were again obtained from Surveillance
Network Data.
- 83 -
-------
Case IB. Present Loadings Under Conditions of Critical Low Flow (MA7CD/10)
As discussed above, the CBOD, NOD, and DO loadings were determined from actual
discharge data, discharge permits, and Surveillance Network Data. The flows of the
tributaries under MA7CD/10 Yr. conditions were determined from a 1966 study
conducted by the New York State Water Resources Commission^81). Table 15 lists the
loadings and critical flows of tributaries and discharges to the Genesee River. The
oxygen demands of the tributaries were taken from the 10% percentile of the
Surveillance Network Data under MA7CD/10 Year conditions.
Table 15.
Discharge
Flow
fmgd)
DO
(me/1)
CBOD
(mg/1)
NOD
fmg/n
Avon STP 1.00 4.0 87.37 32.63
Honeoye Creek 0.18 6.20 6.30 0.95
Oatka Creek 12.20 9.50 6.92 3.07
Scottsville Svc. Area 0.01 4.00 87.50 87.50
Black Creek 0.57 6.20 3.82 6.18
GCOSTP 11.90 4.00 91.30 56.70
Barge Canal 242.00 4.60 5.68 4.32
Court St. SW 2.00 2.00 22.47 32.51
Bausch&Lomb 0.10 4.00 12.50 12.50
Seth Green SW 2.00 2.00 164.40 35.60
Maplewood SW 3.00 2.00 290.00 5.50
Kodak STP 28.00 4.00 35.80 56.70
Irondequoit North-
St. Paul STP 1.25 4.00 88.45 58.05
Case IIA. BPCTCA Stipulated Loadings Under Average Flow Conditions
The conditions of BPCTCA as established by EPA showed no significant deviation
from present loading of any industrial discharge, but secondary treatment processes
(equivalent to 85% removal of TOD) were applied to the treatment of municipal
wastewater. The loadings under BPCTCA for average conditions are tabulated in Table
16.
- 84 -
-------
Table 16. BPCTCA Under Average Conditions
Discharge
Avon STP
Honeoye Creek
Oatka Creek
Scottsville Svc. Area
Black Creek
GCO STP
Barge Canal
Court St. SW
Bausch & Lomb
Seth Green SW
Maplewood SW
Kodak STP
Irondequoit North-
St. Paul STP
Flow
(mgd)
1.00
1.20
22.00
0.01
15.00
11.90
242.00
2.00
0.10
2.00
3.00
28.00
1.25
DO
(mg/1)
4.00
8.00
10.80
4.00
8.00
4.00
6.60
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
CBOD
(mg/1)
38.75
2.17
1.00
87.50
2.17
16.70
5.71
22.47
12.50
164.40
290.00
35.80
44.30
NOD
(mg/1)
38.75
2.83
4.00
87.50
2.83
16.70
3.27
32.51
12.50
35.60
5.50
56.70
44.30
Case 1IB. BPCTCA Stipulated Loadings Under Conditions of Critical Low Flow
The BPCTCA Stipulated Loadings and MA7CD/10 Year tributary flows are tabulated
in Table 17. The derivation of the BPCTCA loadings is identical to that previously
outlined under Section IIA of this report.
Table 17. BPCTCA Under MA7CD/10 Yr. Conditions
Discharge
Avon STP
Honeoye Creek
Oatka Creek
Scottsville Svc. Area
Black Creek
GCO STP
Barge Canal
Court St. SW
Bausch & Lomb
Seth Green SW
Maplewood SW
Kodak STP
Irondequoit North-
St. Paul STP
Flow
(mgd)
1.00
0.18
12.20
0.01
0.57
11.90
242.00
2.00
0.10
2.00
3.00
28.00
1.25
DO
(mg/1)
4.00
6.20
9.50
4.00
6.20
4.00
4.60
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
CBOD
(mg/1)
38.75
6.30
6.92
87.50
3.82
16.60
5.68
22.47
12.50
164.40
290.00
35.80
44.30
NOD
(mg/1)
38.75
0.95
3.07
87.50
6.18
16.70
4.32
32.51
12.50
35.60
5.50
56.70
44.30
- 85 -
-------
Cases III.-VII.
Resulting Dissolved Oxygen Conditions Prevailing Under Various Degrees of
Treatment for Both Municipal and Industrial Discharges
For various degrees of treatment applied to municipal and industrial discharges, both
average and MA7CD/10 Year flow conditions were applied. The loadings associated
with each applied degree of treatment are tabulated in Tables 18 through 20. Table 18
shows the tributary and dry weather overflow input data common to all treatment
applications under average flow conditions. Table 19 represents the same tributary and
dry weather overflow data as shown in Table 19 except MA7CD/10 Year critical low
flow conditions are applied. Table 20 lists each municipal and industrial discharge and
the loadings associated with each degree of treatment.
Table 18. Input Data Common To All Treatment Applications
Under Average Flow Conditions
Discharge
Avon STP
Honeoye Creek
Oatka Creek
Scottsville Svc. Area
Black Creek
GCO STP
Barge Canal
Court St. SW
Bausch & Lomb
Seth Green SW
Maplewood SW
Kodak STP
Irondequoit North -
St. Paul STP
Flow
1.00
1.20
22.00
0.01
15.00
11.90
242.00
2.00
0.10
2.00
2.00
28.00
1.25
DO
4.00
8.00
10.80
4.00
8.00
4.00
6.60
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
CBOD
_
2.17
1.00
—
2.17
—
5.71
22.47
—
164.40
290.00
—
—
NOD
_
2.83
4.00
—
2.83
—
3.27
32.51
—
35.60
5.50
—
Table 19. Input Data Common To All Treatment Applications
Under MA7CD/10 Yr. Conditions
Discharge
Avon STP
Honeoye Creek
Oatka Creek
Scottsville Svc. Area
Black Creek
GCO STP
Barge Canal
Court St. SW
Bausch & Lomb
Seth Green SW
Maplewood SW
Kodak STP
Irondequoit North -
St. Paul STP
Flow
1.00
0.18
12.20
0.01
0.57
11.90
242.00
2.00
0.10
2.00
3.00
28.00
1.25
DO
4.00
6.20
9.50
4.00
6.20
4.00
4.60
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
CBOD
_
6.30
6.92
—
3.82
—
5.68
22.47
—
164.40
290.00
—
—
NOD
0.95
3.07
—
6.18
—
4.32
32.51
—
35.60
5.50
—
—
- 86 -
-------
Table 20. Input Data For Municipal And Industrial Discharges
Under Various Treatment Applications
85%
90%
CBOD NOD CBOD
Avon STP
Scottsville Svc. Area
GCO STP
Kodak STP
Irondequoit North -
St. Paul STP
38.75 38.75
— Assume
16.70 16.70
—
44.30 44.30
25.75
NOD
25.75
no additional
11.20
—
29.50
11.20
—
29.50
95%
CBOD
13.00
treatment
5.60
35.80
14.80
NOD
13.00
—
5.60
56.70
14.80
98%
CBOD
8.00
—
2.30
8.80
5.90
NOD
8.00
—
2.30
14.10
5.90
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The following discussion centers upon the effects of reducing the oxygen demand loading
from municipal and industrial sources to the Genesee River and the effect of this regulatory
activity and other factors on the resulting water quality. These other factors include the
effect of nonpoint sources and flow augmentation by the Barge Canal and other tributaries
to the Genesee River. Present and projected point source loadings are analyzed in light of
average and critical conditions:
1. Average Conditions: Average flow, loadings, and relevent receiving stream conditions
as observed during a sampling period beginning July 18, 1973 and ending October 19,
1973.
2. Critical Conditions: The flow considered under this set of conditions involves seven-
consecutive-day flow that is expected to recur once in a ten year period, as well as
other minimum measured relevent stream conditions.
In the following paragraphs the average conditions will be designated as Case A, and the
critical low flow conditions designated as Case B.
The reference line drawn on each calculated dissolved oxygen profile refers to the minimum
allowable dissolved oxygen (DO) level permitted under "Classifications and Standards
Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters of New York State." The application standard
for the portion of the Genesee River in this study reads "Dissolved Oxygen shall not be less
than 5.0 mg/1 for non-trout waters in streams . . . except that it may be between 4.0 and
5.0 mg/1 for short periods of time within any 24 hour period provided the water quality is
favorable in all other respects."^6^ The paragraphs which follow discuss the present con-
ditions of the Genesee River and projections necessary to assess future requirements for
meeting required dissolved oxygen levels in the River.
CASE IA - AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS - PRESENT LOADINGS
Figure 36 shows the dissolved oxygen profile of the Genesee River when present loadings
and average flow conditions are applied (Case IA). In Case IA the dissolved oxygen levels
would be sufficient to meet the Stream Standards at all points in the River, ranging from a
- 87 -
-------
00
00
z
UJ
£ 60
X
o
0
^ 50
O
t/1
01
Q 40
0:
*g
Si
i si s S >
0: oO > < °
> o^ ° ^£
-i "• <3 2 £
,r» ._ -r rf *~ rt
X en
< O
z d=> i
t- tt ^
13 ^ *
4
E
PLOT I
PRESENT LOADINGS
CASE IA-AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
CASE IB-MA7CD/IO FLOW CONDITIONS
-4-
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
22 23 24 25
Figure 36. DO Sag Curve-Present Conditions and MA7CD/IO YR Conditions
-------
maximum value of 7.80 mg/1 at Avon to approximately 5.0 mg/1 at the mouth of the River
at Lake Ontario. Four major point source inputs are chiefly responsible for the DO
fluctuations under average conditions. These are Oatka Creek, Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage
Treatment Plant, Barge Canal, and the Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The dissolved oxygen level at the confluence of Oatka Creek and the Genesee River is
increased because of the high DO waters of Oatka Creek, under normal conditions. It is
interesting to note that the DO profile appears to be better represented by a straight-line
rather than an exponential function in the reach from Avon to Oatka Creek. This could be
explained by the fact that the reaeration coefficient in this reach is sufficiently high to
balance the rate of oxygen utilization. Another contributing factor may well be that
nonpoint source contributions override point source contributions in this stretch of the
receiving stream.
The average velocity of the Genesee River is approximately 8.2 miles/day from Avon to
Honeoye Creek and 7.35 miles/day from Honeoye Creek to Oatka Creek; the total travel
time to Oatka Creek is about 1.56 days over a length of 14.5 miles. This does not provide
enough time for the River DO to fully recover from the loadings at Avon. Thus the D.O.
profile follows a straight-line function in consumption of dissolved oxygen.
In the reach from Oatka Creek to the Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant discharge
(GCO STP), the Genesee River does tend to recover slightly despite a loading applied at the
New York State Thruway Scottsville Service Area. At the Scottsville Service Area, effluent
from a 30,000 gpd extended aeration facility is discharged directly to the Genesee. Despite
the fact that the total oxygen demand is very high (175.00 mg/1), the effect on the Genesee
is minimal since the flow is only on the order of 10,000 gpd. Upon mixing, the effect of
the loading is negligible.
At the point where Black Creek enters the Genesee River, the DO is raised from a value of
7.93 mg/1 at Oatka Creek to a value of 7.96 mg/1. Since the DO of Black Creek is 8.00
mg/1, the net effective change in DO is again minimized upon mixing with the Genesee
River water. The total flow of the Genesee River is increased by 15.0 mgd with the
addition of the Black Creek.
At mile point 13.7 from the mouth of the Genesee River, a discharge from the Gates-Chili-
Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant enters the Genesee River at a flow of 11.9 MGD. The
carbonaceous and nitrogeneous components of ultimate oxygen demand characteristic of
this discharge exert a significant influence on the water quality of the Genesee River. The
total ultimate oxygen demand measured in the River is increased from a value of 4.51 mg/1
before mixing to a value of 10.94 mg/1 after mixing. The CBOD is increased from 2.61 mg/1
to 5.81 mg/1 and the NOD from 1.90 to 5.14 mg/1. The DO of the effluent from GCO is
estimated at 4.0 mg/1 causing a reduction in DO after mixing with River water of 0.19 mg/1.
From the Gates-Chili-Ogden discharge to the Barge Canal, a steady depletion of DO occurs
and a total drop in DO of 0.11 mg/1 results in this stretch of the River. A corresponding
reduction in oxygen demand of 0.12 mg/1 for CBOD and 0.10 mg/1 for NOD also occurs.
The travel time for this reach is only 0.3 days and a large reduction in oxygen demand not
anticipated for such a short time interval.
- 89 -
-------
At mile point 11.4, the New York State Barge Canal crosses the Genesee River. During the
warmer months (April to November) the Canal is used for navigational purposes and locks
on either side of the canal are used to regulate flow in the canal. Rochester Gas and
Electric is authorized to divert up to 375 cfs per day from the Canal to the Genesee River
depending on the use of the Canal for navigational purposes. In most instances, however,
the full allocation of 375 cfs is diverted, thus increasing the Genesee River flow by 242
MGD. The DO of the Canal water is not as high as one might expect. As the Canal flows
east from Lake Erie, it picks up considerable organic and nitrogeneous material by either
direct discharges of treated and untreated sewage as well as rural and urban wet weather
runoff. Under average conditions, the Canal is slow and sluggish with the degree of
reaeration largely dependent upon the activity of navigational traffic. Under such con-
ditions, it is not surprising that the average DO of the Canal is about 6.6 mg/1.
When the Canal water enters the Genesee River it tends to flow downstream rather than
cross to the east side of the Canal. Thus, it may be assumed that it mixes completely with
river water. Studies conducted by NYSDEC (John Pulaski) show that this is not always the
case with many other factors influencing the flow of Canal water. However, for this report
it is assumed that the Canal water mixes completely with River water.
After the point of mixing, the DO of the River declines from a premix value of 7.67 mg/1
to 7.16 mg/1. This decrease of 0.51 mg/1 of DO represents the largest point source initiated
depression of DO in the study area. The resultant CBOD and NOD loadings are affected as
follows: CBOD increases from 5.69 mg/1 to 5.70 mg/1, and NOD decreases from 5.04 mg/1
to 4.20 mg/1, reducing the total in-stream oxygen demand (TOD) from 10.74 mg/1 to 9.90
mg/1.
Between the Barge Canal and Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant, the River undergoes a
decrease in elevation of some 267 feet via a series of falls. Despite the apparent natural
reaeration created by the flow of water over the falls, the DO is not significantly increased
prior to the point of discharge by Eastman Kodak. This lack of significant reaeration may
be due to the influence of the Rochester Combined Sewer Overflows in the City of
Rochester. During dry weather periods, three major overflows discharge to the Genesee
without any prior treatment. The total dry weather overflow at these overflow points is
estimated at 7 MGD, and consists mainly of sanitary sewage at a DO of 2.0 mg/1. The three
dry weather overflows are located at Court Street, Seth Green, and Maplewood Avenue.
Their immediate effect on the River DO after mixing is minimal. However, measured River
levels of CBOD and NOD are increased significantly. The ultimate biochemical oxygen
demand at Court Street increases from 9.64 mg/1 to 9.81 mg/1; at Seth Green from 9.61 to
10.35 mg/1; and at Maplewood from 10.29 to 11.95 mg/1. These increased loadings override
the River's recovery of DO despite the falls within the reach.
At mile point 4.30, Eastman Kodak operates a sewage treatment plant which discharges 28
MGD to the Genesee River. A drastic increase in the measured CBOD and NOD concentra-
tions occurs upon mixing the Kodak treatment plant effluent with the Genesee River. The
CBOD increases from 7.69 to 9.10 mg/1 while the NOD increases from 4.21 to 6.89 mg /I,
and the Total Ultimate Oxygen Demand increases from 11.90 to 16.00 mg/1, the latter
representing a 34% increase in loading. An immediate DO reduction also occurs with a drop
in DO of 0.19 mg/1 from 6.88 to 6.69 mg/1. The Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant discharge
exerts a significant influence on the Genesee River in the lower reaches.
In the last two reaches of the Genesee River between the Kodak discharge and the mouth
at Lake Ontario, a significant oxygen demand is exerted on the overlying waters of the
River by organic and nitrogeneous material that has accumulated in the form of benthic
- 90 -
-------
deposits on the River bottom. Calculations have shown the benthic demand to be approxi-
mately 0.75 mg/1 per square mile of River bottom, or when expressed in more conventional
terms, about 0.39-0.65 g/day/m^. This value was found to be consistent with benthic
demand values determined in other studies^78-80) jt may ^e faat ^e slightly lower value
determined in this study reflects the dredging activity of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and/or dispersion effects. Visual observation during the sampling program indicated a
significant benthic demand since gas bubbles were seen to be rising to the surface of the
water. The combination of Kodak discharge, benthic demand, and dispersion effects results
in a significant DO depletion in the reaches below the falls. The DO decreases from a value
of 6.69 mg/1 just prior to the Kodak discharge to a value of 5.18 mg/1 at the Stutson
Street Bridge, mile point 0.7. At this location the total ultimate biochemical oxygen
demand has decreased to 12.12 mg/1 with individual CBOD and NOD components of 6.51
and 4.99 mg/1, respectively. The total benthic demand alone has caused an oxygen depletion
of 0.62 mg/1 across this reach.
Analysis of the dissolved oxygen concentrations determined by modeling the stream
assimilation capacity indicates that under average flow conditions the DO levels will not be
contravened in any section of the River. The DO remains above 5.0 mg/1 at all locations.
Four point-source discharges cause the major depressions of dissolved oxygen. The dis-
charges determined to have a significant impact are: Oatka Creek, Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage
Treatment Plant, Barge Canal, and the Eastman Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
benthic demand is the most significant nonpoint source factor affecting DO levels in the
lower reaches of the Genesee River.
CASE IB - MA7CD/10 CONDITIONS - PRESENT LOADINGS
Figure 36 shows the dissolved oxygen profile of the Genesee River under present average
loadings and minimum average seven consecutive day flows that are expected to recur once
in a ten year period (MA 7 CD/10). The shape of the DO profile is very similar to the
profile plotted under average flow conditions except that the immediate resulting dissolved
oxygen deficits are much more pronounced following the introduction of the point-source
discharges. Under the minimum flow conditions the slope of the DO profile is also
considerably greater between point-source discharges.
Although the level of the point-source ultimate biochemical oxygen demand loads are the
same under both the MA7CD/10 conditions and average flow conditions, their effect on the
River is intensified because of the reduced River flow volumes. Under minimum flow
conditions, the DO values at mix points are reduced and the concentrations of oxygen
demanding species increased, resulting in more oxygen-demanding material available per unit
volume. The critical inputs for DO fluctuations are 1) Oatka Creek, 2) Gates-Chili-Ogden
Sewage Treatment Plant, 3) Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant and, 4) Barge Canal. The
immediate effect of the Eastman Kodak discharge on the level of DO under MA7CD/10
conditions is less significant than under average conditions since the DO of the effluent
water is at 4.00 mg/1 and thus causes little effect when diluted with River water which is at
a DO of 4.66 mg/1. The loading of components initiating an oxygen demand are significant,
causing a NOD increase of 3.99 mg/1 and a CBOD increase of 1.97 mg/1. The TOD thus
increases 34 percent, the same percentage increase in total biochemical oxygen demand as
anticipated under average flow conditions. However, the 5.98 mg/1 TOD increase under
MA7CD/10 flow conditions will produce a more significant effect than the 4.10 mg/1 TOD
increase discharged under average flow conditions.
- 91 -
-------
The most significant tributary input under MA7CD/10 critical flow conditions is the Barge
Canal. Prior to mixing, the DO concentration of the River was 6.22 ing/1. After mixing the
Canal component with the River, the River measured DO concentration drops to a level of
4.M8 lllg/l. I'he anticipated I.J4 iug/1 dccic.ise in dtssohrd »\\t;c-ii ic-iull-, (mm iiiisiuu '-!
MOD of River water at a DO of 6.22 mg/1 with 242 MGD of Canal water at a DO of 4.60
mg/1. After mixing, the level of dissolved oxygen contravenes stream standards and remains
below the minimum value of 5.0 mg/1 to the mouth of the River. From the Barge Canal to
Kodak, the level of dissolved oxygen contravenes the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 reaching a
minimum value of 4.66 mg/1 just prior to the Kodak discharge. From Kodak to the mouth,
the DO level drops rapidly and reaches a value of 2.66 mg/1 at Stutson Street Bridge. This
latter sharp decline is due to benthic contributions, estuarine contributions and the Eastman
Kodak discharge.
In summary, the DO profile follows much the same pattern at MA7CD/10 conditions as at
average flow conditions. However, discharge of sewage treatment plant effluent at Gates-
Chili-Ogden and the influence of the Barge Canal greatly reduces the DO levels of down-
stream locations. From a point just subsequent to the Barge Canal, the DO levels are in
violation of the minimum allowable DO level of 5.0 mg/1 as established by stream standards.
CASE II-BEST PRACTICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
(BPCTCA) UNDER AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS AND MA7CD/10 CON-
DITIONS
The dissolved oxygen profile of the Genesee River as depicted on Figure 37 is that which is
projected upon implementation of best practical control technology currently available to
industrial waste treatment and secondary treatment to municipal discharges. For industrial
discharges within the study area, the application of BPCTCA will result in an ultimate
biochemical oxygen demand loading that will be essentially the same as that currently being
discharged. The figures used in this analysis are those determined by the Permits Branch of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. For municipal discharge the applica-
tion of secondary treatment should result in 85 percent removal of TOD.
By comparing the DO profile of present loadings (Case IA) with the loadings anticipated
upon application of BPCTCA (Case IIA), it can be seen that very little improvement in the
level of DO can be expected when compared to present conditions. The dissolved oxygen
level in the River between Avon and the Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge would
be predicted to increase by 0.13 mg/1 assuming average river flow. At Stutson Street Bridge
the DO is increased 0.24 mg/1. In both instances, the DO is maintained above a level of 5.0
mg/1 as required by stream standards. The results are essentially the same under MA7CD/10
low flow conditions for Case IIB as compared to Case IB.
In this study, initial input to the model for BPCTCA conditions utilized existing municipal
treatment plant discharge flow volumes as opposed to utilizing treatment plant design flows.
Realizing that the effect on the river of treatment plant discharges might be greater under
design flows, a plot of the DO sag curves was generated by inputting both present flow
volumes and design flow volumes to the model and comparing the output. As can be seen
in Figure 38 the DO profiles for each case under MA7CD/10 year conditions shows the DO
to be reduced as much as 0.3 mg/1 in the upper reaches under design flows as opposed to
present flows. This decrease in DO upstream of the Barge Canal is not critical since the DO
is well above the minimum requirement for Class B streams of 5.0 mg/1. At the confluence
of the Barge Canal and the river, the flow from the canal is nearly 75 per cent of the total
river flow under MA7CD/10 year flow conditions. This large volume contributed by the
Canal tends to minimize the effects of increasing the discharge flows of municipal plants to
design capacities. This can be expected to be the case for any future expansions of these
plants as well.
- 92 -
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MG/L
c
CD
O
O
o
(Q
O
<
CD
I
GO
-0
O
3
O
§
ex
o
0000 CD -0
I> E> en ~D r~
c/>cn 5? <~> O
mm -J H
1 ' o
J> < ^
-^ m r~
\ o ~n
-»CD
ogo
2^0
—AVON STP
-HONEOYE CREEK
-.- —OATKA CREEK
SCOTTSVILLE SVC AREA
- BLACK CREEK
-GCO STP
r ~—
-BARGE CANAL
-BROOKS OVERFLOW
-PLYMOUTH OVERFLOW
-COURT ST OVERFLOW
- CENTRAL OVERFLOW
-MILL a FACTORY OVERFLOW
-BAUSCH a LOMB
-CARTHAGE OVERFLOW
-LEXINGTON LAKE OVERFLOW
-SETH GREEN OVERFLOW
_!RON - ST PAUL STP
-------
O 70
O 40
_p
• • PRESENT FLOWS
+• + DESIGN FLOWS
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
Figure 38. BPCTCA under MAT CD/10 YR Conditions-Present vs. Design Flows
of Treatment Plants
-------
CASE III - EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT REMOVAL OF CBOD AND NOD FOR MUNICIPAL
DISCHARGES
The dissolved oxygen profile for this case is depicted on Figure 39 under both average (Case
III A) and MA7CD/10 flow conditions (Case IIIB). A comparison of the dissolved oxygen
profiles developed under Cases I and II show no significant increase in DO levels as a result
of 85% removal of oxygen demanding constituents in municipal effluents. At the Eastman
Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant, the DO level would be raised from 6.88 mg/1 to 7.07 mg/1
for a DO increase of 0.19 mg/1. At the Stutson Street Bridge location, the DO level is raised
from 5.22 mg/1 to 5.59 mg/1 for an increase of 0.37 mg/1. The major effect of providing
85% treatment for the removal of oxygen demanding constituents from upstream municipal
plants is to cause the DO level downstream of Kodak to be raised more significantly than at
other upstream locations. This effect is most desirable since the River downstream of Kodak
is the area most likely to have DO conditions which contravene stream standards.
CASE IV - NINETY PERCENT REMOVAL OF CBOD AND NOD FOR MUNICIPAL DIS-
CHARGES
The dissolved oxygen profile for this case is depicted as Figure 40 under both average (Case
IV A) and MA7CD/10 flow conditions (Case IVB). Comparison of Case IVA with Case III A,
indicates little DO related water quality improvement is attained by increasing the removal
rates from 85 to 90 percent. For example, the total increase in DO at Stutson St. Bridge
attained by increasing the degree of municipal treatment from 85 to 90 per cent is only
0.03 mg/1.
Comparison of cases IVA and IA, shows that some improvement in dissolved oxygen is
anticipated with the most significant effect occurring downstream of the Gates-Chili-Ogden
treatment plant discharge where an increase in DO of 0.13 mg/1 is predicted just prior to
confluence of the River and the Barge Canal. Improvement in dissolved oxygen is also
expected downstream of the Barge Canal where the DO is predicted to increase 0.22 mg/1 as
a result of reduced loading of residual organic and nitrogeneous components in the GCO
discharge. At Stutson Street Bridge the DO increase between present conditions and the
case of 90% removal is 0.40 mg/1, this being largely the result of decreased loading of
oxygen demanding components at upstream municipal plants.
Comparison of calculations for Cases IVB and IIIB under MA7CD/10 flow conditions show
a slight improvement in DO when comparing 90% and 85% removal of CBOD and NOD at
River locations prior to the Barge Canal. Just prior to the point of intrusion of the Barge
Canal waters, the DO of the River increases from a value of 6.57 mg/1 for the 85% removal
case to a value of 6.68 mg/1 for the 90% removal case. Upon mixing with the Canal waters,
the DO increases from a value of 5.06 mg/1 predicted for the 85% removal to a value of
5.09 mg/1 for the case of 90% removal. The effect of the large contribution of flow volume
from the Canal is evident: under MA7CD/10 flow an improvement in River water quality
upstream of the Canal is nearly negated by the addition of the Canal water having a low
DO reflecting the corresponding low flow. The DO profile for 85 and 90 percent removal of
oxygen demand constituents are nearly identical downstream of the Barge Canal with a DO
difference between the two degrees of treatment at Stutson Street Bridge being only 0.07
mg/1.
- 95 -
-------
CD
O)
PLOT III
85% REMOVAL OF BODc AND BODN FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES
CASE IIIA-AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
CASE MIB-MA7CD/IO FLOW CONDITIONS
12 13 14 15 16 17 f8 19
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
23 24 25 26
Figure 39.DO Sag Curve for 85% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges
-------
CD C3 CO CO Q. (J <_) ^f (J _J 2: i:
II III 11 II I
PLOT IV
90% REMOVAL OF BODc AND BOON FOR MUNICIPAL
CASE IVA-AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
CASE IVB- MA7CD/IO FLOW CONDITIONS
DISCHARGES
-4-
-U
-4-
-4-
-4 1—I 1-
-I—t-
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
22 23 24 25
Figure 40. DO Sag Curve for 90% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges
-------
Comparison of Cases IVB and IB shows increased DO levels predicted at all locations for
the 90% municipal treatment over present conditions. Only mild increases in DO are evident
from Avon to the Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant discharge, for the most part
less than 0.1 mg/1. However, by increasing the level of treatment at the GCO plant to 90%,
the dissolved oxygen in the reach between GCO and the Barge Canal is increased by 0.46
mg/1 just prior to the mixing of the Canal water, a most significant improvement. Because
of the large volume of flow added by the Canal, and its corresponding depressed DO, the
DO level of the River itself is significantly lowered by addition of the Canal water to the
main stem. In the case of 90% removal of CBOD and NOD loading to the Genesee River
from municipal discharges, the DO in the River under critical low flow (MA7CD/10) is
dropped from a value of 6.68 mg/1 to a value of 5.09 mg/1 simply by addition of Canal
waters. This can be reasoned by noting that 242 MGD of Canal water at a DO of 4.60 mg/1
will drastically reduce a DO of 6.68 mg/1 within the 75 MGD main stem immediately
upstream.
An important result of applying 90% removal of CBOD and NOD to municipal waste
treatment plants stems from the fact that the DO levels will remain above the minimum
allowable DO levels, 5.0 mg/1, as established by NYSDEC, stream standards in that portion
of the River above the Eastman Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge. Below the
Eastman Kodak discharge, the combination of Kodak effluent, benthic demand, and dis-
persion effects result in a DO that is in contravention of the stream standards. The
predicted DO may be as low as 3.28 mg/1 under the application of 90% municipal treatment
under MA7CD/10 low flow conditions. This compares with a value of 2.64 mg/1 projected
for existing loadings under the same critical MA7CD/10 flow conditions.
CASE V - NINETY-FIVE PERCENT REMOVAL OF CBOD AND NOD FOR MUNICIPAL
DISCHARGES
The dissolved oxygen profiles for Case V for both average flow conditions (Case VA) and
MA7CD/10 critical low flow conditions (Case VB) are depicted on Figure 41. Comparison
of the plot of Cases VA and IVA shows virtually no improvement in predicted main stem
DO levels for 95% removal of CBOD and NOD over those predicted for 90% treatment
under average flow conditions. The maximum increase in DO under these flow and
treatment constraints is predicted at Stutson Street Bridge where the DO would be
anticipated to increase from 5.62 mg/1 under 90% treatment of 5.67 mg/1 under 95%
treatment, for an increase of 0.05 mg/1. At all other locations on the Genesee River, the net
projected increase in DO is less than or equal to 0.05 mg/1.
Under MA7CD/10 flow conditions, some improvement in River DO is projected but in no
instance does the improvement exceed 0.11 mg/1 as anticipated just prior to the point of
intrusion of the Barge Canal. However, it should be noted that the projected River DO
exceeds the minimum allowable level of 5.0 mg/1 at all locations upstream of the Kodak
discharge when 95% CBOD and NOD removals are applied.
The dissolved oxygen levels anticipated to be achieved via application of 95% removal of
municipal CBOD and NOD loadings show only slight improvement compared to those
predicted for 90% removal under average flow conditions. The same comparisons hold true
for MA7CD/10 critical low flow conditions. Considering existing loadings under MA7CD/10
low flow conditions, one would project a DO of 2.66 mg/1 for the DO at the Stutson Street
Bridge as compared to DO's of 3.30 mg/1 and 3.37 mg/1 projected as a result of applying
90% and 95% CBOD and NOD removal, respectively.
- 98 -
-------
PLOT V
95% REMOVAL OF
CASE VA-AVERAGE
CASE VB-MA7CD/IO
BODc AND BOD* FOR MUNICIPAL
FLOW CONDITIONS
FLOW CONDITIONS
DISCHARGES
1 i
-t
-4—*-
i
-------
CASE VI - NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT REMOVAL OF CBOD AND NOD FOR
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES
The dissolved oxygen profiles for 98% removal of CBOD and NOD loading from municipal
discharges under average flow (Case VIA) and MA7CD/10 critical flow (Case VIB) con-
ditions are shown on Figure 42. Comparison of Case VIA and Case VA show virtually no
improvement in the predicted DO profile. The maximum increase in DO predicted at
Stutson Street Bridge when comparing 98% treatment to 95% treatment is equal to 0.03
mg/1. At all other locations on the River, the DO increase is less than the above mentioned
value of 0.03 mg/1.
For the similar comparison of 98% vs 95% treatment under MA7CD/10 flow conditions one
would project an increase in DO amounting to 0.07 mg/1, in the main stem just prior to the
point of intrusion of the Barge Canal. After the point of intrusion of the Barge Canal, the
comparison of 98% to 95% removal of CBOD and NOD shows a predicted increase in DO
within the receiving stream of only 0.02 mg/1. The implementation of 98% treatment would
not result in any significant improvement in the DO of the main stem.
Comparison of Case VI DO profiles to Cases IV and V DO profiles show only slight
improvement. At Stutson Street Bridge under critical MA7CD/10 flow conditions, the DO
predicted for 90% treatment is 3.30 mg/1; for 95% treatment, 3.37 mg/1; and for 98%
treatment, 3.42 mg/1. Under average flow conditions, the main stem DO values predicted for
the Stutson Street Bridge location are 5.62 mg/1, 5.67 mg/1, and 5.70 mg/1 respectively, for
90%, 95% and 98% treatment application. Just prior to the point of intrusion of the Barge
Canal waters, the River DO's are 7.81, 7.83, and 7.84 mg/1 for 90%, 95% and 98%
treatment, respectively under average flow conditions, and 6.68, 6.79 and 6.85 mg/1,
respectively, under MA7CD/10 flow conditions.
CASE VII - NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT REMOVAL OF CBOD AND NOD FOR BOTH
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
The dissolved oxygen profiles projected for this case under both average (Case VIIA) and
MA7CD/10 flow conditions (Case VIIB) are depicted on Figure 43. The main stem dissolved
oxygen profiles projected for 98% CBOD and NOD treatment of all municipal and industrial
discharges have been shown to be nearly identical to the DO profiles projected for Cases
VIA and VIB in the stretch of River from Avon to just above the Kodak Sewage Treatment
Plant. However, from the Eastman Kodak Treatment Plant discharge to the mouth of the
Genesee, the projected DO levels were significantly increased by applying 98% treatment of
the Kodak discharge. Just prior to the point of intrusion of the Eastman Kodak discharge,
the DO is 6.95 mg/1 under average flow conditions. This compares with a DO of 6.08 mg/1
projected at the Stutson Street Bridge. Under MA7CD/10 low flow conditions the projected
DO prior to the point of intrusion of the plant discharge is 4.97 mg/1 and gradually drops
off to a value of 4.17 mg/1 at Stutson Street Bridge. A difference of 0.38 mg/1 and 0.75
mg/1 in projected DO under average and MA7CD/10 flow conditions, respectively, is
determined to result solely from the application of 98% treatment of CBOD and NOD to
the Eastman Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge. This is arrived at by comparing
Cases VIA and VIB with Case VIIA and VIIB, that is, 98% treatment of municipal
discharges and 98% treatment of both municipal and industrial discharges.
Comparing Cases VII A & B (98% treatment of municipal and industrial discharges) with
Cases IA & B (present loadings), a marked increase is observed in DO in the section of the
- 100 -
-------
O 40--
PLOT VI
98% REMOVAL OF BODc AND BOON FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES
CASE VIA- AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
CASE VIB-MA7CD/IO FLOW CONDITIONS
-t-
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
Figure 42. DO Sag Curve for 98% removal of TOD for Municipal Discharges
-------
o
ro
O 70
5
-------
River downstream of the Eastman Kodak treatment plant discharge. At Stutson Street
Bridge, the DO is projected to be improved by 0.86 mg/1 under average flow conditions and
1.51 mg/1 at MA7CD/10 flow conditions. Under average flow conditions the projected
increase in DO at other River locations varies from 0.06 mg/1 at the GCO discharge to 0.33
mg/1 at Oatka Creek with application of 98% treatment of both municipal and industrial
discharges. For MA7CD/10 flow conditions the DO increases at River locations upstream of
the Kodak discharge vary from 0.17 mg/1 at Oatka Creek to 0.64 mg/1 just prior to entry of
the Barge Canal waters.
By applying 98% treatment practices to all municipal and industrial discharges to the
Genesee River, the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 DO would be met at all locations under
average flow conditions. Under MA7CD/1& flow conditions, the DO level of the critical
lower reaches of the river would be raised to within slightly less than 1.0 mg/1 of the
minimum allowable DO as determined by the NYSDEC stream standards.
OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS IN THE GENESEE
RIVER
In analyzing Figures 39 through 43 the dissolved oxygen profiles have demonstrated the
significant influence of the Kodak Sewage Treatment Plant, benthic demand, and the
dispersion effects on the water quality anticipated in the lower section of the Genesee
River. The stretch of major influence begins at a point before the Kodak discharge and
extends to the mouth. The effect of each of the three major contributing factors is now
discussed in greater detail so that effective steps may be considered which WOH!M improve
the level of dissolved oxygen within the receiving stream:
Case VII: Effect of Barge Canal on Genesee River
Case IX: Effect of Kodak Discharge on Genesee River
Case X: Effect of Dispersion Coefficient on Genesee River
Case XI: Effect of Benthic Demand Rates on Genesee River
CASE VIII. EFFECT OF BARGE CANAL ON GENESEE RIVER
It has been pointed out in other sections of this report that the New York State Barge
Canal exerts a considerable influence on the level of dissolved oxygen projected in the
Genesee River. This sub-section will attempt to develop how significant that influence is.
With all other point source contributions of ultimate oxygen demanding constituents held
constant, the assimilation capacity model was run with the dissolved oxygen concentration
of the Barge Canal varied in increments from 3.6 to 8.6 mg/1. Note that all other conditions
were held constant with the concentration of dissolved oxygen, the only variable. The
results are depicted on Figures 44 and 45 in the form of Plots VIIIA and VIIIB, average
flow conditions and MA7CD/10 conditions, respectively. As can be seen on Plot VIIIA,
after mixing the River DO varied from a high of 8.11 mg/1 to a low of 5.73 mg/1 for DO
values of the canal at 8.6 and 3.6 mg/1, respectively. The impact of the Canal DO at
downstream stations can also be determined from Plot VIIIA.
- 103 -
-------
o
a
PLOT VIII
EFFECT OF BARGE CANAL ON GENESEE RIVER FOR
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VALUES OF CANAL WATER
CASE VIIIA- AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
VARYING
C/J u> Y
I, I I , , I
2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
22 23 24 25
27 28 29 30
Figure 44. Effect of Barge Canal DO on Genesee River DO- Average Flow
Conditions
-------
5 8
03 IS
PLOT VIII
EFFECT OF BARGE CANAL ON GENESEE RIVER FOR VARYING
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VALUES OF CANAL WATER
CASE VIIIB- MA7CD/IO FLOW CONDITIONS
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM, miles
22 23 21 25
27 28 29 30
Figure 45. Effect of Barge Canal DO on Genesee River DO-MAT CD/10YR Conditions
-------
At the Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant, the impact of mixing the treated process
wastewater with the River water becomes less significant as the ratio of the respective DO's
ir)
-------
/Ol
(O
c
•n
CD
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MG/L
pi
O
01
pi
pi
CO
pi
b
m
CD
O
O
CL
O
0 m
5 5
8 §
CD £
z
3) CO
W
W
OJ
LAKE
N
m
o
o
-D -0
3J r
m o
co H
m
g<
o co
x o
t, 1
o
m
-------
MILE-POINT vs. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FOR SEVERAL DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
31.0
32.0 33.0 34.0
MILE POINT DOWNSTREAM
35.0
Figure 47 Mile-Point vs. Dissolved Oxygen for several
Dispersion Coefficients
-108-
-------
-60T-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L)
CO
c
CD
00
0
CO
CD
Q.
O
X
CO
CD
CO
CO
T3
CD
C/5
o'
O
o
CD
o'
CD'
ro
g
co
TI
m
co
O
o
O
m
-n
o
m
O
5
CR
CD
ro
CO
N
0
Ot
b
Ol
ro
O> 0> 0>
CD b ro
b>
f 1
ro
b
g
CO
co
o
rn
o
o
x
o
m
z
CO
g
co
u
m
co
O
8
m
o
m
-------
MILE - POINT VS DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FOR WIDE RANGE OF DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
Figure 49 Mile-Point vs. Dissolved Oxygen for 0.0001^-E^-1,000.0
110
-------
However, examination of Plot XC in Figure 49 shows that the function is not discontinuous
in this range. As the E value is allowed to decrease from its calculated value of 10.0
nu'2/day the DO tends to reach its minimum value in a much shorter distance, thus allowing
the DO in the river to recover much more quickly as evidenced by the DO profile at wliich
E=0.0001 mi^/day. As E, the degree of mixing, increases the distance required for the
organic matter in the stream to be completely assimilated is also increased. For the special
case of E=0.0, the function itself is mathematically discontinuous as can be seen from the
stream coefficient equation j=vVK/E.
Table 21. Dissolved Oxygen Levels For Several Dispersion Coefficients
Dispersion
Coefficient
0.0
1.0
3.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
Mile-Point
31.0
6.53
6.01
6.23
6.33
6.36
6.39
6.41
6.43
6.45
32.0
6.22
5.43
5.64
5.80
5.87
5.91
5.95
5.99
6.05
33.0
5.91
5.31
5.27
5.40
5.47
5.52
5.56
5.62
5.68
34.0
5.61
5.39
5.05
5.10
5.15
5.20
5.24
5.29
5.36
From Figure 47, it can be deduced that values of the dispersion coefficient, "E", in the
range of 3.0 - 20.0 mi^/day, results in a variation of projected values of dissolved oxygen in
the range of 0.22 mg/1 - 0.41 mg/1 in the stretch from mile-points 31.0 to 34.0. For this
study a dispersion coefficient of 10.0 mi^/day had been calculated and applied in the
course of developing and applying the Steam Assimilation Capacity Model. Under average
stream conditions, a dispersion coefficient of 10.0 mi^/day well describes the effect of the
estuarine influence exerted by Lake Ontario on the Genesee River. A plot of dispersion
coefficient as a function of dissolved oxygen as shown in Figure 48 indicates that a
constant slope is achieved in applying a range of dispersion coefficients ranging from 3.0 to
20.0 mi2/day. This indicates a near constant rate of change of dissolved oxygen with a
change in dispersion coefficient and that this rate of change involves a positive proportional
correlation. This is consistent with the reasoning that when dispersion coefficients are
present, one would expect a dilution of river concentrations of oxygen demanding con-
stituents exerting less demand in the receiving stream and corresponding increases in
dissolved oxygen.
CASE XI. EFFECT OF BENTHIC DEMAND RATES ON GENESEE RIVER
The influence of the benthic demand was the third factor found to significantly affect
oxygen levels predicted in the lower reaches of the Genesee River. The sensitivity of the
- Ill -
-------
Stream Assimilation Capacity Model to changing benthic demands was determined by
holding both the Kodak discharge ultimate oxygen demand loading and the dispersion
coefficient constant (E = 10.0 mi^/day). By varying the benthic demand, the sensitivity to
this variable could then be determined. Table 22 lists the predicted dissolved oxygen levels
resulting from the application of various benthic demand factors for several mile-points
within the reach.
Table 22. Dissolved Oxygen Levels for Varying Benthic
Demand Rates mg/1
Benthic Demand Mile-Point
Rate(mg/l/sq.mi.) 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0
0.00
0.18
0.37
0.62
6.50
6.47
6.43
6.34
6.20
6.11
6.03
5.91
5.98
5.84
5.70
5.52
5.82
5.63
5.45
5.20
From Figures 50 and 51, it is seen that increasing the benthic demand factor results in a
decreased dissolved oxygen content within the lower stretch of the River. A plot of the
magnitude of the benthic coefficient versus predicted dissolved oxygen concentration results
in a straight-line curve indicating a constant rate of change of dissolved oxygen with an
increasing applied benthic demand. The benthic coefficient used in this study was
determined to be 0.62 mg/l/mi^ of river bottom. The net effect of applying this benthic
rate as opposed to neglecting any benthic demand is to decrease the predicted dissolved
oxygen by nearly 0.62 mg/1 in the lower reaches of the Genesee River.
A combination of the ultimate oxygen demand presented by Kodak Sewage Treatment
Plant discharge, the dispersion coefficient, and the benthic demand results in a decrease in
the predicted dissolved oxygen within the River by 1.63 mg/1. The summation of the effect
of these factors has been verified by comparing the predicted decrease in DO under average
conditions, 1.63 mg/1, with the average difference of 1.66 mg/1 measured in the field
between the Eastman Kodak discharge and the Stutson Street Bridge.
- 112 -
-------
z
UJ
o
X
o
o
UJ
O
CO
co
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
0.18 X.
0.37
0.62
FOR
PLOT XIA
MILE-POINT VS. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VARIOUS BENTHIC DEMAND RATES
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
MILE-POINT DOWNSTREAM
Figure 50 Mile-Point vs. Dissolved Oxygen for various
Benthic Demand Rates
II 3
-------
-------
SECTION IX
PROJECTED EFFECTS OF BPCTCA AND BATEA ON THE WATER
QUALITY OF THE GENESEE RIVER
As was pointed out in Section VII, the application of BPCTCA treatment to industrial
wastewater discharges and secondary treatment to municipal discharges will increase the
concentration of dissolved oxygen projected in the critical lower reaches of the Genesee
River by 0.24 mg/1 when compared to existing conditions under Average River Flow*.
Under conditions of critical low flow (MA7CD/10), the level of dissolved oxygen is
anticipated to increase 0.37 mg/1 upon the implementation of BPCTCA to industrial
discharges and secondary treatment to municipal discharges.
The application of BPCTCA will most certainly involve reductions in more than the level of
oxygen demanding species. A complete list of required effluent values interpreted under the
application of BPCTCA to industries in the study area was not available at the time of this
study. Table 23 shows the effluent limitations assumed under the application of BPCTCA.
The effluent limitations were established from limitations generalized from a number of
draft NPDES permits as well as levels felt to be attainable under the application of
practicable treatment technology. The outlined BPCTCA was then applied to all the
industrial discharges within the study area and the reduction in loading to the Genesee
River within the study area subsequently established as listed in Table 23. It was also
assumed that all municipal discharges are upgraded to secondary treatment with phosphorus
removal to a level of 1 mg/1. The composite industrial and municipal loading reductions are
thus those listed in Table 23. Please note that reductions in heavy metals in municipal
discharges normally encountered in the course of tertiary treatment have not been con-
sidered. Additionally, no consideration has been given to the reduction of constituents being
discharged via combined sewer overflow discharges under both dry and wet weather
conditions.
A review of Table 24 shows that considerable reductions in heavy metals, suspended solids
and toxicants would be realized upon implementation of BPCTCA to industrial discharges
and secondary treatment with tertiary phosphorus removal in municipal discharges.
Average River Flow is defined as the average flow encountered in the course of
conducting the sampling program.
- 115 -
-------
Table 23. Effluent Limitations Assumed Under
of BPCTCA
Parameter
BPCTCA Effluent
Limits mg/1
Reduced Loading to Genesee R.
Ibs/day as a Result of BPCTCA
Application
PH
Temp(°C)
DO
BOD5
TOC
TKN
NHs(N)
OrgN
NO2N
NO3N
T-IP
Cl
F
SO4
Cn
Phenol
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
TS
vs
TSS
vss
TDS
YDS
6.5-8.5
N/A
N/A
85% reduction
85% reduction
85% reduction
2.0
85% reduction
N/A
N/A
1.00
N/A
0.10
N/A
0.05
0.10
0.10
90% reduction
0.05
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.05
0.50
0.05
90% reduction
0.50
N/A
N/A
25.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
N/A
442.0
N/A
N/A
1676.1
N/A
None
N/A
81.2
None
1138.7
1905.7
34.9
None
57.4
185.9
None
None
None
None
None
101,441
N/A
101,441
N/A
N/A
N/A
- 116 -
-------
Table 24. Projected Concentration of Constituents Within Genesee River
at a Point Prior to Discharge to Lake Ontario Under Application**
of BPCTCA
Parameter
PH
Temp (°C)
DO
BODs
TOC
TKN
OrgN
NO2-N
NOs-N
T-IP
Cl
F
SO4
CN
Phenol
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
TS
VS
TSS
VSS
TDS
VDS
Calculated % Reduction
in Loading
N/A
N/A
4.4%
Projected Cone, as a
Result of BPCTCA
Application*
N/A
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
50.1%
None
None
13.6
96.3
None
31.2
7.6
None
None
None
None
None
4.8
N/A
52.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.1
25.1°C
5.64
0.029
0.10
66.6
0.02
88.1
0.018
0.018
0.00
0.27
0.003
0.08
0.03
0.50
0.0034
0.70
0.00
0.002
0.056
395.3
96.3
22.6
12.6
372.6
83.5
* Concentration is measured mg/1 unless otherwise noted
** Calculations assume conservative species except for oxygen
demanding species.
- 117 -
-------
SECTION X
IMPACT OF GENESEE RIVER ON LAKE ONTARIO
The average concentrations and total loadings of constituents measured within the Genesee
River at Station 11 (Stutson Street Bridge) are shown on Table 25. The average concentra-
tions represent those measured at Station 11 on the eight sampling dates (July 18-19, Aug.
1-2, Aug. 15-16, Sept. 10-11, Sept. 12-13, Sept. 13-14, Sept. 26-27 and Oct. 18-19)
completed during the baseline survey. The Genesee River average flow figure utilized in
compiling the loadings was taken as the average flow measured at Driving Park on the eight
sampling dates plus the average discharge from the Eastman Kodak waste treatment plant
and the Irondequoit-St. Paul municipal waste treatment plant.
In reviewing the contents of Table 25, it can be seen that in the area of nutrient
contribution to Lake Ontario, the Genesee River contributed an average of 4,557 Ib/day of
ammonia nitrogen, 2,572 Ib/day of organic nitrogen. 451 Ib/day of nitrate nitrogen, and
496 Ib/day of total inorganic phosphate over the sampling period.
In the area of toxicant loading, the Genesee River contributed approximately 81 Ib/day of
phenols, 32 Ib/day of cadmium, 15 Ib/day of mercury, 252 Ib/day of Zn and 162 Ib/day of
cyanides.
Most important to the Lake Ontario basin and in particular to the Rochester Embayment
Area was the contribution of total solids, to the extent of 1,872,895 Ib/day. Of the total
solids load, the component of suspended solids amounted to nearly 192,254 Ib/day with a
dissolved solids component of nearly 1,681.544 Ib/day. The influence of the suspended
solids component can be quickly assessed by analyzing the 0.6 to 0.7 monometer spectral
channel of the multispectral imagery obtained by the NASA ERTS-1 satellite. A readily
observable plume can be observed which extended its influence eastward along the southern
shore of Lake Ontario as well as in the immediate embayment area.
The Multi Spectral Scanner also revealed intense algal activity within the immediate
embayment area as well as along the eastern southern shoreline. Lake Ontario has long
been known to be dominated by a yearly intense growth of Cladophora in the spring and
summer months (82). By far the greatest source of nutrients to Lake Ontario is contributed
by the Niagara River reflecting the nutrient-rich waters of Lake Erie^83). However the
nutrient load from the Genesee River is very significant along the southern shoreline and in
particular the embayment area.
The Genesee River has the fourth highest annual mean flow of all the tributaries to Lake
Ontario, (2,726 cfs). Those having higher flows in order of importance include Niagara
River (202,000 cfs), Oswego River (6,200 cfs) and the Black River (3,828). The Genesee
River contributes 1.3% of the total flow to Lake Ontario^84). As far as concentrations are
concerned, only the Oswego River has been reported to contribute a flow having a greater
concentration of nutrients than the Genesee River.
- 118 -
-------
Table 25. Total Load to Lake Ontario from the Genesee River
Measured over Duration of Study
Parameter Cone, mg/1 Loading Ibs/day
PH
Temp (°C)
DO
BOD5
TOC
TKN
NHsN
ORGN
NO2N
NOsN
T-IP
Cl
F
SO4
CN
Phenol
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
TS
vs
TSS
vss
TDS
YDS
8.1
25.1
5.4
3.2
9.0
1.58
1.01
0.57
0.029
0.10
0.11
66.6
0.02
88.1
0.036
0.018
0.00
0.31
0.007
0.08
0.043
0.54
0.0034
0.07
0.0
0.002
0.056
415.3
96.3
42.6
12.6
372.6
83.5
__
24,370
14,443
40,621
7,130
4,558
2,572
120
451
496
300,566
90
398,244
162
81
0
1,399
32
361
185
2,437
15
316
0
9
252
1,872,895
430,602
192,254
56,864
1,681,544
376,935
Note: Loadings are based on an average Genesee River flow
of 543.81 MGD.
- 119 -
-------
ro
O
50
_
O
c/5
(/)
Q 40 -
£
o
ll
o £
•*: >
3 o
- _j^> K
: _ig a
j ~<
-------
9.CK
5
cT
•o
a>
.2 6.0 1
DO measured on Sept. 26
ro
SOt-
4 Ot
3.0t
2 Of
I Ol-
15 20
•Distance Downstream, Miles
25
30
35
Figure 53. Comparison of DO Profiles for Data on September 11,1973
-------
SECTION XI
MODEL LIMITATIONS AND SENSITIVITY
TRIBUTARY QUALITY OF BARGE CANAL WATERS
Water quality data for the Barge Canal waters was obtained from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Surveillance Network publica-
tions.*^ Values of parameters serving as input to the model, i.e. BOD, NH3N, Org-N for the
loading of the Barge Canal to the Genesee River under average flow conditions were taken
from the 50 percentile figures. The concentrations utilized for critical low flow conditions
were taken from the 90 percentile readings. Values of dissolved oxygen for average and
minimum flow conditions were taken from the 50% percentile and the 10% percentile
readings,respectively.
Flow figures representing the Barge Canal contribution to the Genesee were obtained from
the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation who are responsible for daily regulation of the
Canal level to provide a minimum flow of 375 cfs from the Canal to the River for power
generation purposes. However, at times when the locks are opened to accommodate
navigational traffic, the flow of the Canal may deviate from the 375 cfs level. During the
summer of 1973 a study was conducted by NYSDEC in an attempt to determine the
mixing patterns created by the discharge of Canal waters to the river at the point of
intrusion. However, these patterns were found to be so variable that no definite conclusions
could be reached. For these reasons and for the purpose of this study, the model assumes
an instantaneous complex mix of Canal and river waters at the point of confluence and
continuous flow contribution of 375 cfs from the Barge Canal. Use of other data would
require an in-depth study of the navigational traffic patterns of the area, flow variations and
mixing patterns at the point of discharge. Thus the projected DO sag curve may not be
truly representative of that section of river immediately upstream or downstream of the
Canal.
VERTICAL STRATIFICATION DOWNSTREAM OF ROCHESTER FALLS
A general analysis of the analytical data acquired in the course of conducting the sampling
and analysis program has not indicated any strong stratification in the vertical plane at any
point on the river. From analyses of the temperature and DO data as discussed previously in
Section IV, there existed little temperature differential as a function of depth at each
sampling station although substantial temperature differences were observed between lake
and river waters. DO values were significant in some instances, particularly samplings 1, 2
and 3 where DO differentials from top to bottom in the river were as high as 5.8 mg/1
(Station 9). However, the DO differentials were generally less than 1.0 mg/1. Since the
measured temperature differential as a function of depth was minimal, stratification in the
river was not a significant influence on the two-dimensional modeling performed under this
study.
REAERATION RATES IN THE ROCHESTER FALLS AREA
Due to the limited sampling program established for this study and the limited accessibility
in the vicinity of the Rochester falls, no effort was made to establish a sampling station in
this region. Reaeration rates in the reach were estimated to approximate those in the
- 122 -
-------
reaches just prior and just subsequent to the falls area. Obviously the cascading of water
over a falls will result in higher oxygen levels measured in the receiving stream since the
surface area for the water-to-air interface is greatly increased. However, the driving
mechanism for oxygen transfer is the relative concentrations of DO in the water as
compared to saturation DO levels. Since the DO concentration measured under this study,
immediately upstream of the falls was already relatively high (80% of saturation DO) the
reaeration rate was found to be an insignificant influence on the critical DO levels in the
river.
In Figure 52, four DO sag curves are depicted to illustrate the effects of changing the
deoxygenation coefficients in the reaches downstream of the Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage
Treatment Plant discharge and the reoxygenation coefficients in the reach between Stations
7 and 8 to simulate reaeration of the river water as it passes over the falls. Kn and Kd were
first calculated based on stream survey data collected on one day, September 11, 1973. A
reaeration coefficient, K3 was then estimated for the falls reach. With this data then applied
to the model, the resulting DO sag curve labeled "Kn and Kj based on September 11 data
(non-forced)" shows the dissolved oxygen to be 8.03 mg/1 at Station 8 as compared to the
DO measured on that date of 6.80 mg/1. This amounts to a difference of 1.23 mg/1 in this
reach. Since the projected DO for this case was significantly higher than the observed DO,
the deoxygenation coefficient in the reach just below the GCO STP was increased nearly
fourfold from 0.109/day to a value of 0.450/day in an attempt to force the projected DO
sag curve to more closely match observed data. The resulting curve is labeled "Kn and Kd
based on September 11 data (forced)". The forced DO curve more nearly matches observed
data in the reaches between GCO and the Kodak discharge. However, below Kodak the sag
curves of both the forced and non-forced conditions were much higher than observed data -
in the order of 0.75 mg/1.
Also depicted in Figure 52 is the DO sag curve projected by applying oxygenation
coefficients calculated from data averaged over the entire eight samplings. Although this DO
profile does not closely match the observed data of September 11 in the reach from GCO
to Kodak, it does closely match observed data downstream of Kodak. The latter reach is
the most critical in that it is the section of river that will most likely be in violation of the
stream standards.
Although an attempt was made to determine what effects a high dam reaeration would have
on the River, it is important to note that the value of the reaeration coefficient in that
reach was arbitrary. The actual reaeration coefficient could only be determined through a
complete, comprehensive detailed study of all the factors involved in oxygen transfer in the
reach. Such a study was outside the scope of the straight forward modeling originally
requested under this study. By assuming the reaeration rate to be lower than is reality it
may be, the DO levels are calculated on the conservative side for the section of river
immediately influenced by the reaeration caused by the falls.
Figure 53 illustrates the effect of verifying the model from the input data of September 26,
1973. Anomolies at Stations 6 and 11 are evident when comparing measured data to the
modeled DO results. Verification of the model based on data from a one-day sampling was
not considered to be generally representative of what was occurring in the stream. Since any
one sampling can reflect anomolies not applicable to another, projections made from the
"average" K's resulted in matching the field data in the critical downstream reach more
closely than did force-fitting the K rates derived from one sampling. The original purpose of
more frequent sampling was to dampen out any day-to-day anomolies and to avoid
reflecting them in projections of future conditions.
- 123 -
-------
LAKE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
In projecting the DO profile for the lower reaches of the Genesee River, Lake Ontario was
considered to be an infinite sink for the organic load carried by the river. This assumption
becomes significant when including horizontal estuarine effects. From Water Quality
Surveillance Data, 1967-1970, station number 03-L002, located in the embayment area, it is
seen that the BODs level for the waters of Lake Ontario is less than 1.0 mg/1 fifty percent
of the time and less than 1.5 mg/1 90% of the time. The DO level measured in the lake in
this study was 9.2 mg/1 50% of the time. As observed in Figure 36, the combination of
oxygen demand loading and benthic demand of the river depressed the DO level in the
lower reaches under average conditions to a value of approximately 5.2 mg/1.
By considering Lake Ontario an infinite sink, the assumption is that the lake waters upon
dispersion contribute no organic loading but at the same time contribute no dissolved
oxygen to the river. However, the assumption that DO is not contributed by the lake is
somewhat compensated for by the use of actual existing DO data in calculating the
deoxygenation and reoxygenation coefficients in the lower reaches. By setting boundary
conditions such that BOD=0.0 mg/1 and DO=0.0 mg/1, the lower reaches have been modeled
slightly on the conservative side. Other boundary conditions applied at the lake/river
interface may slightly increase the DO projections.
ESTIMATION OF DRY WEATHER OVERFLOWS IN ROCHESTER
At the present time a study of the combined sewer overflow system in the City of
Rochester is being undertaken by the Monroe County Division of Pure Waters. The project
was established to determine both the volume and constituents characteristic of the
combined sewer overflows to the Genesee River. Some of the data gathered to date by this
project was used as input to the model in the reaches where dry-weather overflows
currently exist. The complete information relative to the volumes and strength of con-
stituents occurring in the overflows as a result of stromwater runoff were not available at
the time the modeling of the Genesee River was undertaken, therefore, no attempt was
made to project a DO sag curve under wet weather conditions.
However, a rough estimate of the effects of the stormwater overflow problem in Rochester
was made. Results of a preliminary data-gathering phase indicated that for an average
rainfall of three hours duration at an intensity of 0.09 inches per hour, a total of
approximately 250 million gallons of stormwater overflow at a BODf level of 100 mg/1 is
discharged directly to the Genesee River. This is equivalent to approximately 210,000
Ibs/day of BOD5. It is expected that such a loading of BOD5 alone (not including
nitrogenous material) would significantly depress the DO in the river to levels well below
5.0 mg/1 during storm periods. Further study of the overflow problem to be conducted
under the Monroe County program will further define this effect.
At present there are three overflow locations in the City of Rochester which discharge to
the Genesee continuously during periods of dry-weather. However, the total volume of these
three overflows is estimated at 7.0 mgd or approximately 1.4% of the total river volume.
Even though they contribute a high organic loading (11,800 Ib/day), upon dilution, the
effect is to decrease the DO a total of 0.07 mg/1. Although the effect of dry-weather
overflows on the DO sag curve is minimal, other factors such as the presence of pathogenic
bacteria and virus in the discharges make it desirable to control their discharge to the
Genesee River.
- 124 -
-------
PHOTOSYNTHETIC EFFECTS ON THE RIVER AND EMBAYMENT AREAS
The effects of photosynthesis on the dissolved oxygen sag curve were not measured under
this study. Photosynthetic production of oxygen occurs during the daylight hours while
during the nighttime hours oxygen is consumed (respiration). In general, photosynthetic
production rates and respiration rates fall within an approximate range of 10-25 grams per
square meter per day. In streams of approximately 10 feet in depth the photosynthetic
production rates fall below 5 g/m^/day and become small by contrast to other factors in
the oxygen balance and generally may be discounted by assuming it is balanced by the net
respiration. During the critical DO periods of August and September, daylight hours and
hours of darkness are roughly the same and again respiration may result in little or no
oxygen contribution to the stream by photosynthetic oxygen production/74)
In the Genesee River occasional algal blooms occur but the locations of the blooms are
spotty and of varying size. It was not the intent of the model to predict the DO sag curve
in such detail as a significantly larger sampling effort and model verification procedure
would be necessary. It is felt that such occasional photosynthetic activity as may occur will
not significantly affect the DO levels in the river.
- 125 -
-------
SECTION XII
SUMMARY
This study of the Genesee River, conducted as part of the "Investigation of Eleven Special
Attention Areas in the Great Lakes Region" revealed a river of tremendous potential and
equal problems. Both chemical analyses of the receiving stream and biological studies of the
aquatic structure indicate a deterioration in the water quality as one proceeds from the
upstream reaches to the Rochester Harbor. The most significant change in water quality
appears to occur after the intersection of the Barge Canal and the Genesee River.
The water quality of the Genesee River is most significantly affected by the following
factors:
1. Severe soil erosion occurring in the upper reaches of the river resulting in extreme
variations in turbidity
2. Deteriorated water quality from the Barge Canal, particularly at times of low flow
conditions
3. Dredging activity in the Rochester harbor area
4. Combined sewer overflows from the City of Rochester
5. Industrial and municipal discharges of nutrients, heavy metals, and oxygen demanding
constituents
6. Benthic demand exerted in the lower 6 miles of the Genesee River
7. Horizontal estuarine effect at the mouth of the Genesee River
8. Non-point source nutrient and oxygen demand contribution from cultivated and
forested components of the drainage basin
The results of the assimilation capacity modeling indicates that the projected level of
dissolved oxygen within the Genesee River will not be significantly improved if the degree
of required treatment is extended beyond secondary treatment for municipal discharges and
BPCTCA for industrial discharges. However, it is acknowledged that industrial and municipal
treatment plants within the study area should have restrictions on the levels of heavy metals
(particularly Zn and Cu) as well as nutrients largely in the form of NH3(N) and total
inorganic phosphate.
Another area recognized as required attention involves the problem of combined sewer
overflows discharging to the Genesee River within the urban environment of Rochester.
There are estimated to be approximately 30 system overflows discharging directly to the
Genesee River under wet weather conditions. These wet weather discharges contribute heavy
loads of total suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, grease and oils and oxygen
demanding constituents to the Genesee River. The suspended matter discharged to the
receiving stream is believed to account to a large measure for the benthic oxygen demanding
deposits observed in the lower reaches of the River.
- 126 -
-------
It is very difficult to describe the present status of the Genesee River in qualitative terms.
However, in comparing the study measured concentrations of the Genesee River prior to its
intrusion into Lake Ontario, we find that the levels of most pollutants are about 2-3 times
higher than the corresponding levels in the Lake measured at a point just west of the
embayment area. Further pollution control capital expenditures are required, although these
must be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis, particularly in light of the energy and material
resource demands associated with the operation of such facilities.
- 127 -
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERFNCES
1. "Water Pollution Problems: Improvement Needs - Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River
Basins", FWPCA and NYSDH, DPW, June 1968
2. "Periodic Report of the Water Quality Surveillance Network 1965 Through 1967 Water
Years", New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
3. Unpublished Data, 1968-1973, Water Quality Surveillance Network, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Mr. R.E. Maylath, P.E., Chief of Water
Quality Surveillance.
4. Standard Methods, Twelfth Edition, APR, AWWA, WPCF, 406, 1965.
5. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water And Wastes", Analytical Quality Control
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1961.
6. "Proposed Classifications and Standards Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters of
New York State", Parts 700, 701, 702 and 704, Title 6, Official Compilation of Codes,
Rules and Regulations, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
July, 1973.
7. McKee & Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, Publication 3-A, California State Water
Resources Control Board, 173 (1963).
8. Data was derived from the following sources:
a. Land use estimates
Genesee River Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources,
Volume V, p. 30, June, 1966
Prepared by:
New York State Water Resources Commission
Division of Water Resources, Conservation Department
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Forests and Waters
b. Unpublished data, "Occurrence and Transport of Nutrients and Hazardous
Polluting Substances, "Progress Report, April 1972-August, 1973, Environmental
Quality Research Unit, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion, Albany, New York.
9. F.A. Ferguson, "A Nonmyoptic Approach to the Problem of Excess Algal Growths",
Env. Sci. and Tech., 2, 188 (1968).
10. McKee & Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, California State Water Resources Control Board,
295 (1963).
11. Schott, W., "Sensitivity of Trout to Zinc", Dtsch. Lebensmitt Rdsch. 48, 62 (1952);
Water Pollution Abs. 26:7 (1953).
- 128 -
-------
12. Feller, G. and Newman, J., "Industrial Waste Treatment", Ind. and Power. June
(1951).
13. Doudoroff, P., "Water Quality Requirements of Fishes and Effects of Toxic Sub-
stances", Chapt. 9, in M.E. Brown, Vol. 2 (Behavior), The Physiology of Fishes, 403
(1957).
14. Anon., "Drinking Water Sandards" Title 42-Public Health; Chapter 1-Public Health
Service, Dept. of Health, Educ. and Welfare; Part 72-Interstate Quarantine Federal
Register 2152 (Mar. 6, 1962).
15. Bringmann, G. and Kuhn, R., "The Toxic Effects of Wastewater on Aquatic Bacteria,
Algae, and Small Crustaceans" Gesundheits-Ing. 80, 115 (1959).
16. Southgate, B.A., "Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Waste Waters", Dept. of
Scientific and Ind. Res., H.M. Stationery Office, London (1948).
17. Anderson, B.C. "The Apparent Thresholds of Toxicity of Daphnia Magna for Chlorides
of Various Metals When added to Lake Erie Water" Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 78, 96
(1948).
18. Anon., "Toxic Effects of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants on Young Salmon and
Trout", State of Washington, Dept. of Fisheries Res. Bull. No. 5 (Sept. 1969).
19. Utermohl, 1931.
20. Prescott, G.W., 1962. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area. Brown Publ.,Dubuque,
Iowa. 965 p.
21. Palmer, C.M. 1962. Algae in Water Supplies, U.S. Dept. of Health, Ed. and Welfare,
Public Health service. R.A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
22. Tiffany, L.H., M.E. Britton. 1971. Algae of Illinois. Hafner Publishing Co., N.Y. 407
pp.
23. Anderson, R.O. 1959. Modified flotation technique for sorting bottom fauna samples.
Limnology and Oceanography, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 223-225.
24. Beck, William M., Jr. and E.R. Beck 1966. Chironomidae (Diptera) of Florida. I.
Pentaneurini (Tanypodinae). Bull. Fla. St. Mus. 10 (8): 305-379.
25. Chemovski, A.A. 1949. Identification of larvae of the midge family Lendipedidae.
Translated by Dr. E. Lees. Ed., K.E. Marshall (Fresh Water Biological Association).
National Lending Library for Science and Technology. Boston Spa, Yorkshire.
26. Johannsen, O.A. 1934. Aquatic Diptera. Part I Nemocera, Exclusive of Chironomidae
and Ceratopogonidae. N.Y. (Cornell) Agr. Expt. Sta. Mem. 1964: 1-71.
27. Johannsen, O.A. 1937. Aquatic Diptera. Part III. Chironomidae: Subfamilies
Tanypodinae, Diamesinae, jmd Orthocladiinae. N.Y. (Cornell) Agr. Expt. Sta. Mem.
1965: 1-84.
- 129 -
-------
28. Johannsen, O.A. 1937 b. Aquatic Diptera. Part IV and V. N.Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp.
Sta. Mem. 210: 1-80.
29. Mason, W.T. Jr. 1973. An Introduction to the Identification of the Chironomid Larvae.
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. January, 1973.
30. Robak, S.S. 1957. The Immature Tendipedids of the Philadelphia Area (Diptera:
Tendipedidae). Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Monog. 9: 1-148.
31. Thienemann, A. 1944. Bestimmungstabellen fur die bis jetzt bekannten larven und
Puppen der Orthocladiinen (Diptera, Chironomidae). Arch. Hydrobiol. 30: 551-664.
32. Brinkhurst, R.O.; Hamilton, A.L., and Herrington, H.B. 1968. Components of the
Bottom Fauna of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes. Great Lakes Institute Univ. of
Toronto, March 1968. 50 pp.
33. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1970. A Guide for the Identification of British Aquatic Oligochaeta.
Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 22. Second Edition
revised. 55 pp.
34. Brinkhurst, R.O., and B.S.M. Jamieson 1971. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the World. Oliger
and Boyd, Edinburg, 860 pp.
35. Hiltunen, Jarl K. 1973. A Laboratory Guide: Keys to the Tubificida and Naidid
Oligochaeta of the Great Lakes Region. 2nd ed. April 1, 1973. Great Lakes Fishery
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan, unpublished.
36. Sperber, C. 1950. A Guide for the determination of European Naididae. Zoologiska
Bidrag Fran Uppsala. Band 29. 45-81.
37. Pennak, R.W. Ph.D. 1953. Fresh water invertebrates of the United States, The Ronald
Press, New York: 769.
38. Usinger, R.L. ed. 1971. Aquatic Insects of California, with Keys to N. American
Genera and California Species. 508 pp. Berkley California.
39. Fisher, R.A.; A.S. Corbet; C.B. Williams 1943. The relation between the number of
individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J. Anim. Ecol. 12: 42-58.
40. Wilhm, J.L. 1970. Range of diversity index in benthic macroinvertebrate populations.
May 1970, Part 2, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington D.C.
20016.
41. Williams, C.B. 1964. Patterns in the Balance of Nature. Academic Press, London, N.Y.
1964.
42. Rawson, D.S. 1965. Algal indicators of lake types. Limnol. Oceanog. 1: 18-24.
43. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The econogy of running waters, University of Toronto Press.
- 130 -
-------
44. Goulden, C.E. 1971. Environmental control of the abundance and distribution of the
chydorid Cladocera. Limol., Oceanog. 16: 320-331.
45. Schindler, D.W., and Bengt Noven. 1971. Vertical distribution on seasonal abundance
of zooplankton in two shallow lakes of the experimental lakes area, Northwestern
Ontario. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 28: 245-256.
46. Loden, 1974.
47. Elliot, J.M. 1971. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic
invertebrates. Sci. Publ. Freshwater Biol. Assoc. 25: 144 p.
48. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Co. 776 pp.
49. Brinkhurst, R.O. (1965) The biology of the Tubificidae with special reference to
pollution. In: Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Third Seminar. U.S. Dept.
Health, Ed. and Welfare, Public Health Service Divison of W.S. & P.C., Cincinnati,
Ohio.
50. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1966. Detection and Assessment of Water Pollution using Oligochaeta
Worms. Water and Sewage Works, 113: 398-401 and 438-441.
51. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1972. The role of sludge worms in eutrophication. Office of Research
and Monitoring. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,
52. Graham, J.T., 1956. Observations on the alewife, Pomolobus pseudoharengus (Wilson).
in fresh water. Univ. Toronto.
53. Threinen, C.W., 1958. Life history, ecology and management of the alewife. Wis.
Conserv. Dept. Publ. 223: 1-7.
54. Norden, C.R. 1967. Age, Growth and Fecundity of the Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus
(Wilson), in Lake Michigan. Trnas. Amer. Fish. Soc. 96(4): 387-393.
55. Rounsefell, G.A. and L.D. Stringer, 1945. Restoration and management of the New
England alewife fisheries with special reference to Maine. Trnas, Amer. Fish. Soc. 73:
394-424.
56. Odell, T.T., 1934. The life history and ecological relationships of the alewife
Pomolobus pseudoharengus (Wilson) in Seneca Lake, N.Y. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 64:
118-24.
57. Smith, S.H. 1968. The alewife. Limnos 1(2): 12-20.
58. Smith, S.H. 1968. Species succession and fishery exploitation in the Great Lakes. J.
Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 25(4): 667-693.
59. Ferguson, R.G., 1958 The preferred temperature of fish and their mid-summer distribu-
tion in temperate lakes and streams. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can., 15(4): 607-624.
60. Hubbs, C.L. and K.F. Lagler 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
- 131 -
-------
61. Bassett, H.J., 1957. Further life history studies of two species of suckers in Shadow
Mountain Reservoir, Grand County, Colorado. MS thesis Colorado St. Univ. 112 p.
62. Siclbrt, R.E. First food of Larval Yellow Perch, White Sucker, Bulegill, FmeniUI
Shiner, and Rainbow Smelt. Trnas. Am. Fish. Soc. 101(2): 219-225.
63. Wirtz, C.B. and C.E. Renn, 1965. The Johns Hopkins Univ. cooling water studies for
Edison Electric Institute. Edison Electric Institute, N.Y. 99p.
64. Harlan, J.R. and E.B. Speaker, 1969, Iowa fish and fishing, 4th ed. State Conservation
Commission. Des Moines, Iowa. 365p.
65. Williams, W., 1970. Summer foods of juvenile black bullheads of Mitchell Lake,
Wexford County, Michigan Trnas. Amer. Fish. Soc., 99(3): 597-598.
66. Trembley, 1960.
67. Herald, 1968.
68. Keast, A., 1968. Feeding of some Great Lakes fishes at low temperatures. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Can., 25: 1202, 1205-08.
69. Raney, E., 1965. Some pan fishes of N.Y. - - Yellow perch, white perch, white bass
and freshwater drum. Conservationist, 19(5): 22-28.
70. Raney, E., 1965. Some pan fishes of N.Y. - rock bass, crappies and other sunfishes.
Conservationist, 19(6): 21-28.
71. Meldrim, J.W. and J.J. Gift, 1971. Temperature preference, avoidance, and shock
experiments and estuarine fishes. Icthyol. Associates Xull. (7). Middletown, Del.
72. Wagner, W., 1972. Utilization of alewives by inshore piscivious fishes in Lake Michigan.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 101(1): 55-63.
73. Thomas, Jr., H.A., "Pollution Load Capacity of Streams", Water and Sewage Works,
95, 409, 1948.
74. O'Connor, D.J. "Stream and Estuarine Analysis", Manhattan College, New York.
75. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, "Time-of-Travel Studies-
Genesee River Basin", April 1966.
76. Martin & Bella.
77. McKeown, et.al.
78. Baity.
79. Fair, et.al.
80. Hanes & Irving.
- 132 -
-------
81. Genesee River Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources, New
York State Water Resources Commission Division of Water Resources, Volume V, June
30, 1966.
82. Neil, John H., and Owen, Glen E., "Distribution, Environmental Requirements and
Significance of Cladophora in the Great Lakes", Proceedings, Seventh Conference on
Great Lakes Research, University of Michigan, 1964.
83. "Water Pollution Problems and Improvement Needs", Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence
River Basins, U.S. Dept. of the Interior and N.Y.S. Dept. of Health, June, 1968.
84. "Water Levels of the Great Lakes, Report on Lake Regulation" Appendix A,
Hydraulics and Hydrology, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, Corps of
Engineers, Chicago, December, 1965.
85. Unpublished Data, 1973, Kodak Industrial Waste Treatment Plant, W.W. Cook, Vice
President and Assistant General Manager.
86. Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program - Rochester, New York, Monroe
County Pure Waters Agency, Rochester Pure Waters District, EPA Grant No. Y005141
- 133 -
-------
SECTION XIV
APPENDICES
A. Computer Program and Selected Model Run
B. Chemical and Physical Measurements Conducted on the
Genesee River 163
C. Biological Assays Conducted on the Genesee River 184
- 134 -
-------
APPENDIX A - COMPUTER PROGRAM AND SELECTED MODEL RUN
- 135 -
-------
i.c I ?/4/74
PAi
// JOB
A
LOG DKIVE CAKT SPEC^ CAKT AVAIL PHY DRIVE
0000 "" 0010 " "0010 0001
O 002D 0002
| 0050 0005
- •- - - 051D " 0006
O 052D 0007
C55D OOOA
O ' V2 Mil ACTUAL 16K CONFIG IftK
// FOR
O *LIST ALL
*ONE WORD INTEGERS _ _
j " " >IOCS~A»"S VERSION "OF DEF'lCir
O
O
o
O £
O
Q
w*
^
-------
PAGI 12 2/4/74 ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH EP /VERSION OF DEFICIT EQUASIOY
)
C-ERRS...STNO.C FORTRAN SOURCE STATEMENTS IDENTFCN **COMPILE« MESSAGES**
c ~ ~ "~ " "• "" ' ' "
DIMENSION IOPTI4), ITIT(29), KARD(SO), LCAKD(f)O), XIN113), XK(40,3
1), E(40), NAME(40,14), D(40), V(40), T(40), F(40), 00(40), ODC(40) __
2, OONI40), TTCtO), IHAVEI40I ," VARS(6) , B(4UI, A(40I
C
_ DATA LCA^O/aO*1^'/ _ _ _
C"" " " """ — - -- - - — ----- - —
DEFINE FILE 11 32000,13,U,I 1>
C_
"~HRITEl 1,1) "" -- - - - - - - -
1 FOKMATl•ASIM5 BEGINNING1)
I "~ YTOP ="28.0
i IFKS1 = I
i C
C READ DATE CARD
C
READ<2,12) NMO, NOAY, MYR
12 FURMAT(3I2I
C—-"HEAD AN OPTION CARD
C
80 READI2.2) ITYP, XSIZE, YSIZE, REFL, YMIN, YHAX, YlNT, XINT, IDPT,
1 CINT, PINT, IREPT, ITIT
2 FORMAT! II, 7f-5.0,411,2Ft>. 0,11, 29A1) " " ~
IFI ITYP - 9)90,880,800
90 KGO = IOPTI1)
ALBM = 1.E3C
N = 0
LINF = 100
ML IMC = 51
IPAGE =1
NHCM = 0
XMirj = o.o
YYMIN = ALBN
~YYMAX = -ALBN
IKEPT = IKEPT
c
c -- -
j C READ INITIAL CONDITION CAKD
._ . C
| READ(2,3I OOSAfi' 00,'VO, "TO*, Foi 60C,~ODCO", ODNO, XK10, XK20,
> I 1 XK30, EO, BO, AO
i 3 FORMATUOX.14F5.0)
IF(TO)100,100,110
> 100 TO = DO / VO
110 IF(DC)120,120,130
T 120 DO = TO * VO " --------
) : 130 IF(VO)140,140,200
, 140 VO = DO / 10
c " "
i C READ REACH CARDS
C
f 200 READ(2,4) KAKD — -- - - .
I ! - - •-- -
-------
O • PA \ 3 2/1/74 ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH f ^\S VERSION OF DEFICIT EOUASIOM ~\
3 C-ERRS...STNO.C FORTRAN SOURCE STATEMENTS IDENTFCN **COMPILER MESSAGES**
IF INCOMPtKAKD,1,80,LCAKD,1)1210,400,210
210 IMIS = 0
N = 0_
"""00 230 I =1,3
O XIN(I) = GETSIKARD, 16 + 5*1 I-l ) ,20 + 5*1 I-l) ,ALBOJ,ALBN)
IFIXINII) - ALBN)230,220,220 _
i " " "220 IMIS = I
D , N = N + 1
i _ 230 CONTINUE
IF1N - 1)240,260,250
O 240 (F( ( ABS(XIN(2) * XINI3) - XINUJ) / XIN(l)) - 0.01)300,300,250
250 PAUSfc 1111 _
GO TO 200 " " "
J> i ?60 GO T0(270,200,290), IMIS
i _ 270 XINtl) = X1NI2) * XIN13)
GO TO 300
/} 280 XINI 2) = XINI 1) / XIMI3)
GO TO 300
"290 XIN(3) = X INI 1 )"/ XINI2)
O 300 DC 310 I = 4,7
, XINI I) = GETSIKAKO,16 + 5*(I-1 I ,20*5*(I-11,0.0,ALBN)
IFIXINII) - ALRN)310,250,25~0
0 310 CONTINUE
CO 340 I = 8,10 ___
' " " XIN(I) = GETSIKARD,16 + 5*1t-1),20+5*1I-l),ALBN,ALBN)
O — IF(XINU) - ALBN)3<,0, 320,320
^ _ 320 mNRCH)250,250, no _ ___
I „ , 33° XINI I) = XKINRCH,1-7) " " " "
; 3: ' 340 CONT INUE:
: 5- XIN(ll) = GETSIKARD,66,70,ALBN,ALBN)
IFtXlN(ll) - ALP.N) 380,350,350
O 350 IF(NRCII) 360,360,370
L 360 XINI 11) = 0.0 . _
GO TO 380""
O 370 XINI 11 ) = EINRCH)
380 XINI 12) = GhTS(KARt),71,75,0.,0. )
• " XINI13) = GETSIKAKD,76,80,0.,0.I ~"
3 c
I C UPDATE DATA ARRAYS
"c -
O NRCH = NRCH + I
DO 390 I = 2,15
!~ "390 NAMEINKCH, I-l ) =~KA~RDm
O O(NRCH) = XINII)
i _ _ _ _ VINRCH) = XINI2) _ _
T(NRCH) = XINI3)
0 FINRCH1 = XIN141
OO(NRCH) = XIN(5) __ _ ._ __
"""ODC(MRCH) = XIN16) "*
O OON(MKCH) = XPM7)
' XK(NRCH,2) = XIM9)
O XKtNRCH,3) = XI^(10)
EINRCH) = XINIII)
ni.'JRCH) ^ XlNIl?)
• ' A(NKCH) = XIM(13)
-------
PA I ft 2/4/74 ASIMi - bAMt AS HOI.
C-ERRS...STNO.C ..... FORTRAN SOURCE STATEMENTS ........ IDENTFCN **CDMPIlER MESSAGES**
GO tO~2GO ~ " " " "" " ...... " ~
C
C ----- CALCULATE STARTING TJ^IE FOR EACH REACH __ ___ _ __ _
C -------- - .....
400 ICO = IOPT13)
GO T0(410,420), IGJ)^ __ ______ _ ____ ___________ ______ ___ _ ___
410 TTU) = DO / VO
GO TO 43C
420 TT( 1 ) = TO _ _______ __ ______ _ _ _____ _ _
430 DO 440 I = 2.NRCH " " .....
TTI I ) = TT( 1-1) 4- T( 1-1)
_ 440 CONTINUE _ __ ___ _____ _ __ _______ __ .
TorrM = TTINRCH") + ~TINRC'HI
C
____ C-- --- PKtNT INPUT _ _ _ _ _ _
"
KKITEI5.13) IPAGE, ITIT
13 FORMAT! • 1' i20X, 'STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY* ,23X, 'PAGE
li2U,29Al, /, 'OINPUT CONDI TUNS' ,/,'0' ,16X, 'REACH' , 16X, 'START' , SIX,
3'tfSTU. HF.NFH. BOTTOM', /r' KEACH NAME LKNSTH VELOC. T I HE TIM
3E FLOW D.O. CCD NOD Kl K2 K3 CONST DEMAND
4 AKEA',/,' 'tl4( '-• ),14( • — — -•)) ..... "
WKITF('j,8) DO. VO, TO, FO, 000, OOCC, ODNO , XKIO, XK20, XKJO, CO,
I BO, AO _
8 FO^MATt' ', 14X, 3F7.2, 7X , 4F 7, 2, 4F 7. 3, 2F l.2\ --- -
WRITC(5,U) OObAT
14 FORMATf 'OOXYGEN SATUKATION LEVEL = ',F^.2,/j _ __ __
- - ..... ------ ..... _.
WRITE(5,9) (NAMEU.J), J = 1,14), 0(1), VII), T(I), TT(I), FIIJ,
1 DO(I), ODC(I), OOM(I), (XK(I.J), J = 1,3), t- ( I ) , B(l),
2 All) .
9 FORMAT!' • , 14A 1 , 8F 7 . 2, 4F7. 3, 2F7. 2 )
CONTINUE
C ----- INITIALIZE
C
DO 446 I = l.NKCH
446 IHAVEf 11=0
02 = 000
02DCO = OOCO "~~
02DrjO = OO.NO
02DRO = BO __
020C = UOCO
U2DN = ODNO
C2DH = 0.0
XK1 = XKIO
XK2 = XK20
XK3 = XK^O
"
000
'
EUSE =
VUSF. =
OUSE =
AUSE =
PR'JT =
DIST =
TIME =
TIMEO
to
VO
DOSAT -
AO
0.0
C.O
0.0
= 0.0
-------
2/4/74
ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH I
IS VERSIOM OF DEFICIT EDUASIO-J
o
o !
0
1
0 i
i_
0
0 '"
o
o
o
,_ — 1_.
O £
o
G 1
< f •«
* 5 „
0
o
o
o
1
o !
o
0
C-ERRS...STNO.
450
460
C
C
465
470
C
C..... FORTKAN SOURCE STATEMENTS • IDENTFCN **COMPILER MESSAGES**
NEW = 2
NOW = 2
N = 0
GO rO(450,460», IGO
CI = CINT / VO
PI = PINT / VO
FACT = CINT / DO
GO TO 465
CI = CINT
PI = PINI
FACT = CINT * VO / DO
DO 510 I = 1,NKCH
IF(ABS(TT(I) - TIME) - C I /2. ) 470, 470, 5 10
IFt IHAVEt I ) 1480, 480, MO
C CALCULATE NEW INITIAL CONDITIONS
C
480 TIMED = TT( I)
-
48L
482
483
490
C_— —
500
NEW = 1
NOW = 1
IHAVEt I) = I
bUSE = E( )
VUSF = V( )
AUSE = At 1
KRCH = I
XK1 = XKt ,1)
XK.2 = XK( ,21
XK3 = XKt ,3)
02DH = 0.0
GO T0(46l,462), IGO
CI = CINT / V(I)
PI = PINT / V(I)
FACT = CIMT / Oil)
CO TO 481
CI = CPJT
PI = PINT
FACT = CINT * V( I) / 0( I)
JGO = IOr>T(4)
GO T01490.500), JGQ
ooo = tro * 02 + FID * ooim / IFO + Fim
U2DCO * (FO * 02UC + F1I) * ODC(I)) / (FO <• F(I» .... „ .
02UNO = (FO * 020M + Ft I) * OON(IJ) / (FO + Fill)
02DBO =0(1)
FO = FO «• Fill ....._._..
GO TO 515
DOO = 8.34 * 02 * FO «• DD( I ) __ ....... • . - -
02DCO = 8.34 * 0?OC * FO + ODC ( I I
02DNO = R.34 * 02D'| * FO + OON(I)
FO = FO * F( I ) . . . . _
DOO = DOO / (8.34
Fol
-------
PAGE 6 2/4/74 ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH EPA'S VERSION OF DEFICIT EQUASIOM
1>ERRS...STNO.C.~.;.^Fr 0I R T~R~A~N S~0 tTlTC Ei ~S" T~A T E~ K E "~N~T S"~~. . . .r^.V^IDENrFCM >*COMPILlR~MeSSAGESV*-
02DNO_* 02DNO _/ <8.34 * FOi
02DBO = Bill / (8.34 * FO)
515 DUSE = DOSAT - 000
GO TO 520
510 CONTINUE
C
C-——CALCULATE CURRENT^ CONCENTRATION LEVELS
C
C
C-- ESTUARIAN FACTOR _
C
520 IFCEUSE)530.530.540
530 XJl = XK1
XJ2 = XK2
XJ3 = XK3
GO TO 550
540 XJl = VUSE*SQRT(X(Cl/EUSE)
XJ2 = VUSE*SQRTUK2/EUSE)
XJ3 = VUSE*SQRT(XK3/EUSE)
550 TUSE = TIME - TIMED
C CARBONACEOUS OXYGEN DEMAMD
02DC = 02DCO * bXP(-XJl«TUSE>
"IF(02DC)5550,5551,5551
5550 020C = 0.0
j; NITROGENEOUS OXYGEN CEMAND I
5551 02DN = 02DNO * EXP(-XJ2*TUSE» ' a
IF(02DN)5552,5553,5553 ' J
5552 02UN = 0.0 I , ~»
C BENTHIC OXYGEN DEMAND
5553 02DB = 02DB + 020BO * FACT * AUSE
_C TOTAL OXYGEN DEMAND ; I
02DT = 02DC + 02DN * 02DB
C OXYGEN DEFICIT
DEF = 1(XK1*02DCO)/(XK3-XK1))*(EXP(-XJ1*TUSE»-EXP(-XJ3*TUSE)) *
1 I(XK2*02DNO)/(XK3-XK2))*(EXPI-XJ2*tUSEJ-EXP(-XJ3*TUSL)J «•
2 DUSE*EXP(-XJ3*TUSE) «•
3 02DB
IF(DEF)5554,5555,5555
5554 DEF = 0.0
Q DISSOLVED OXYGEN
5555 02 = DOSAT - DEF
IF(02»5556,5557,5557
5556 02 = 0.0
C
C WRITE TO FILE, CHECK FOR MAXIMUHS AND MINIHUMS
_C .
5557 GO TO(551,552,553,554,555J, KGO
551 YTRY = DOSAT - DEF
GO TO 556
552 YTKY = DEF
GO TO 556
_551_YrRV = D2DC * 02DN
GO TO 556
554 YTRY = 02DC
_ GO TO 556
-------
PA
2/4/74
ASIH5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH I
IS VERSION OF DEFICIT EOUASIO'I
L
o
f-
o
r
O
o
i
O
O I
1
c «
< fj *
* r
O
L-
Mt'MG/L
ML./L
M
591
10
C
c-
c
LINE = LINt f 1
PKNT = PRNT * PI ____
GO TU(591,600) , NEW
HRITCfj.lO) (NAME(KRCH.J),
FORMAT! 'f ' , 104X.14U)
NEW = 2
INCREMENT TIME
600 IFITIME - TnTTM)610,620,620
610 TIME = TIME + CI
DIST = DIST + CI * VUSt"
GO TU 465
C
C CHECK FUR PLOTTING
C
620 IF!XSIZE)880,880,630
630 IFlYSIZf 1880,880,640
-------
"\
8 2/4/74 ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH r 5 VERSION OF DEFICIT EQUASIOV
C-ERRS...STNO.C FORTRAN SOURCE STATEMENTS IDtMTFCN **COHPIL£R MESSAGES**
650 XMAX ~=~D 1ST
GO TO 670
660 XMAX = TIME _ .. . _ ..
670 GO TCI671,676), IREPT " " ~"
671 GO T0(67?,673), IFRST
672 IFRST = ? _________ _. - - ... —-
XLAST = o.o
YLAST = -1.0
YAM = 0.0 . .... _
XbIG = 0.0
CALL SCALFI 1., 1..0..0.)
CALL FPLOT(l,2.,-3l.) _ ....... .._
CALL SCALFI 1.,1..0..0- "f~
CALL FPLOrl1,0.,1.)
_673 CALL SCALFI 1., l.,0.,0. I _. _
IFIIYAM t- YLAST +• YSIZE + l.~6)~ - YTOP) 674,674,675
674 CALL FPLOri1,0.,1.0+YLAST)
YAM = YAM * YLAST + i.o _ ._.
GO TO 676 " "
675 CALL FPLOTI 1, I . 0 + Xc. IG ,-YAM )
XBIT, = C.O _ . __ ....
YAM = 0.0 " " " ~
C
C SCALE
C"
676 XRANG = XMAX - XMIN
IHXINT 1680,680,690 .
680 XINT = XPANG ~ " "
690 INTX = 0
695 INTX = INTX + 1
IFUXMIN «• XINT <• FLOAT! INTX) )~ -~XVAXI695,700,700
700 XMAX = XMIN + XINT * FLOATUNTX)
__ XRANG = XMAX - XMIN _ _
I FtYMAX(710,710,720 " -- -- — - _. - .
710 YMAX - YYMAX
720 IF( YKII.1730,730,740
730 YMIN = C.O
740 YRANG = YMAX - YMIN
IF(Yir.T)750,750,76'J ___
750 YINT = YMANG
760 INTY = 0
76S INTY = INTY +1 .
IFUYMIN + YIMT * FLOAT I I NTY) V - YMAXJ 765 , 770 , 770
770 YMAX - YMIN f YINT * FLOAT.INTY)
YRANG = YMAX - YM1N_
XI = XSI7E / X.UNG
Yl = YSI7.E / YKANG
CALL SCALFIXI,Yl,XMIN,YMIN)
c'
GO TOt 771,7721. IKLPT
771 CALL FGK 101 C,XMI-J, YMIN,XINT, INTX)
CALL FGKIDI1,XMAX,YMIN,YINT,INTY)
CALL FPLOTI2,XMIN,YMAX)
CALL FGKIOI3,XMIN,YMAX,YINT,INTY)
C
C PLOT POINTS
-------
ASIH5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT HCTH t
S VERSION OF DEFICIT EQUASIO'4
C-ERRS...STNO.C.
FORTRAN SOURCE
STATEMENTS
IOENTFCN
**COMPILER
I
O
O -
O
O
O
O !
O
O
O?
5,
O
O
O
L
0
^ !
O
L_ _
772
800
810
020
821
822
823
824
825
830
831
832
833
834
840
850
860
870
871
872
873
KGO
00 870 I = 1,N
REAO(l'I) VAHS, NEW
GO T018C0.810), 100 "
X = VA.tS(2)
GO TO H20 __
X = VAftSJ 1 )
GO TUl82l,022,823,d24,e25)
Y = DOSAT - VARS(b) _
GO TO 030
Y = VARSI6)
GO TO 830
Y = VARSIJI +~VARS(4) +"VAKS<5)
GO TO 030
Y = VAKSI3)
GO TO 830
Y = VAKS(4)
IF(Y - YMAXISS?,831,831
Y = YMAX
IFIY - YMIN)833,834,834
Y = YMIN
IF( I - 1)840,840,850
CALL FPLOTIl,X,Y)
CALL FPLOT(2,X,Y)
CALL FPLOTIO.X.Y)
GO TOIB60.8/0), NEW
CALL POPJT(O)
CONTINUE
IFIREFL - YMlrj)872,872,871
CALL FPLDTI1,XMAX,KEFL)
CALL FP"LfH(2,XMIN,REFL)
CALL FPLOI I l.XMIN,YM1N)
XLAST = XSIZC
YLAST = YSIZE?
1FIXLAST - XRIG160,80,873
XCIC = XLAST
GO TO 80
-PROGRAM COMPLETE
880 WRITE!1,7)
7 FORMAT('ASIM5
CALL EXI1
END
COMPLETED1)
VARIABLE /
XINIR
FIR
BIR
YMINIR
ALBNIR
VO(R
XK101R
TOTTMIR
02DN( R
VUSE ! H
r I u - /> I r»
ALLOCATIONS
=021E-0206 XK(R
= 049E-0'+50 DO(R
= 063A-0'jEC AU
=0694 YMAXIK
=06AO XMIMlR
=06AC TO(K
=Q6H8 XK20IR
=06C4 02IR
= 0600 0?OB(l<
= C6DC C'USEIR
_ ri L L o r 1 I o
=030E-0220 E{R
= 04GC-04AO ODCU
= 068A-063C YTOPK
=0696 'YINTU
--06A2 YYMINlt
=06AE FOIR
=G6BA XK30(^
=06C6 U2DCO(R
=0602 XKIl^
= 060E AUblilR
- n/ L' n D r / j
=035E-0310 D{R
= 053E-04FO OD.NIR
=068C XSIZEIR
=0690 XIMTIR
=06A4 YYMAXIR
=06BO 000 (R
= 06t!C tO(t<
= U6C8 02D'IO(R
-C6D4 XK2I4
=06CO PRMTIR
-/•i/.-r itArr/^
=03AE-0360 VCR
=058C-0540 TTIR
= 063E YSIZhIR
= 06 M C INf ( R
=C6A6 DOSA1 ( R
= 06i?2 ODCOI^
= U6iifc UOIK
= 06.,A 02DHO(R
= 06l;6 XK3I R
= 06t;2 oisrik
= MAl- _ X 1 J 1 ^
= 03FE-0380 ' T(H --044E-0400
=05DE-0590 V4RSI* -05EA-ObtO
=0690 REFLI* 0692
= 06 )C PINT! R =069[-
= C6A8 DO(R "joAA
= 06114 . OONOC-* -06B6
= OoCO AC ( •< :06C 2
= CoCC 020CM :06CE
= 0o'!8 EJSL ( -t 36DA
= 06r 4 TI Mt ( r( )6b6
= r>^rf) x.i?f^ ^ifif-7
-------
PA
10
ASIM5 - SAME AS ASIM4 EXCEPT WITH £
S VERSION OF DEFICIT EUUASIOSI
XLt;T(R
K L •< 0 ( I
-II I
K I
=06F4 TUSE(R
=0700 YLASTIR
= 070C YKR
=079E-074F 1CAPD( I
=OA49 NDAYI I
= OA4F LINE! I
= OA55 If.OI I
=OA5B IMTXI I
)=06F6 Q2DT1R
=0702 YAMlk
=070K X(R
= C7EF.-079F NAME (I
=OA50 NLINHI
=OA56 J(I
= CA5C INTYI I
=06F8 DF/FIR
=0704 XBIG(K
=0710 Y(R
=OA1G-07EF IHAVCII
=OA4B ITYPII
=OA51 IPAGFtI
= OA57 NEiVl I
= OA5D
= 06FA YTRYfK
=0706 XrtANGlf
=0712 IDPTt
= OA46-OAIF IK
= OA4C IRIIPT!
= OAb2 NKCH{
=OAi8 >JU»M
I
t
=06FC X4AX(R »=06FE
=0708 YRANGta ) =070A
= 0731-072E ITIMI )=074f>0732
= OA47 IF-tSTlI )=OA48
= OA4D ICGQI I )=OA4F
= OA53 IM IS( I 1 =OA54
=OAb9 K^CHI I )=OA5A
STATEMENT ALLOCATIONS
l=OA9A
o=OCll
I '. j=OCFO
3:j=OOA2
L "0=OFOF
^"•0=1000
SiJ= 1 1E8
5'o7=12C3
5!., 0=1 322
tiO=143F
tt 3 = 14D8
7:5=1526
c24=15C4
£70=1606
12=OAA4
10=OCIC
210=uCFF
310=0005
410=OF1H
480=1096
540=UF6
551=l2tC
560=1343
650=1447
690=14DC
770=1538
825=15CC
871=1616
2=OAA7
7=OC?2
220=OD JA
320=OLll
420=OF25
481=10CO
550=1210
552=121-4
570=1351
660=1440
695=14CO
771=155F
830=1502
872=1620
3=OAB2
80=OC5A
230=0044
330=OC15
430=OF2B
482=1105
5550=1236
553=12FA
" 500=1357
670=1451
700=14F2
772 = 157-)
831=1509
873=1634
4=OA06
9G=OC/F
240 = 01)55
340=OK27
440=CF41
4B3=1 1 IA
5551=123*
554=1302
590=1370
671=1457
710=1506
800= 15oG
B32=l5Dn
880=1 63A
13=CA39
100=OCD4
250=OD6F
350=0644
445=OF01
490=1126
5552=1240
555r t30b
591=1401
672=1450
720=15>)A
610=15')3
833=15f:4
«=OB44
110=OCDA
260=0073
360=OE48
446=OFUE
500=HHl
5553=1251
556= 130C
600 = 14 IE
673=143D
730=150F
B20=1599
834=15C8
14=CB51
12.=OCDF
27,; = 007A
37o=OC50
45i =104C
51t>=l 102
555'. = 121)0
55/=l3l3
6lL'= 14/5
6 7 'i = 1 4 A 0
740=1513
821=15A2
84j= 15EE
9=OH63
130=GCE5
280 = 01588
380=OE5B
460=1060
510 = UDA
5555=1204
558=1317
620=1435
6/5=l4B5
750=151E
822=15AC
850=15F8
5=OHoC
140=OCEA
290=0096
390=OE/2
465=1070
520=11C3
5556=12UH
55C)=131F
630=143A
676=14CD
760=1522
823=153%
860=16U3
FEAT. RES SUPPORTED
ONF «ORD INTEGERS
ST.")3AHD PRECISION
t iSK
!»o3 PRINTER
f'PEWRITER
CAL.iO SUBPROGRAMS
NCC-P GETS
FL!, FOIVX
SC_-P SFIU
SLC ,M SDAF
REAL CONSTANTS
.^JOOOOE 0?=OA6E
.5:OOOOC-02=OA7A
ABS
LD
IOAI
OF
FSCRT
FLDX
SIOAF
SDI
FEXP
FSTU
" SIOFX
SCALF
FSTOX
SIQIX
FPLOT
FSBR
SIOF
FGRID
FOVR
SIOI
POINT
FDVRX
SuBSC
FAOD
FLOAT
PRNZ
FAODX
WRTYZ
" PAUSE
FSUB
CARDZ
~ SNR
FSUBX FHPY FMPYX
WCHAI SREO SWHT
SOFIO SD^ED SOHRT
.100000E 31=OA70
.500000E 00=OA7C
.OOOOOOE 00=OA72
.100000F 01=OA7E
,100000r.-01 =
,3100001: 02 = OA80
.200000L Ol=OA76
.834000E Ol=OA78
INT?:ER CONSTANTS
l=OA82 2=OA83 9=CA84 0=OAB5 10C=CA86
?0 = OA8C llll = OA8D 4 = OA8E 7 = OA6F " 8=OA'JO
76=OA96 15=OA97 14=OA08 4369=OA)9
51=OAH7
80=OA88
66=OA92
3=OA89
70=OA93
16=OA8A
7l=OA94
CORE REQUIKEMENTS FOR - ASIM5
COKMON- 0, VARIABLES AMD TEMPORARIES-
END OF SUCCESSFUL COMPILATION
// IXIP
*n ricrc A <; I M S
2160,
CCJJSTAMTS AND PROGRAM- 3026
-------
', P 11 2/4/74
CART ID 0010 ' DB ADDR 421E OB CNT OODB
^
"STOKE WS UA ASIM>
I "" " CART rD OOID OB ADOK "4330 DB CNT OOOB
O ;
L .
*OELETE ASIM4
CART ID OOID DB ADOR 421E DB" CNV OODB
O "
o
o
o
o
o
1
C M
o
o
o
Q
O
o
o
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.CONO
PAGE
c
c
o
c
' O
\ °
' o
o
, o
I
£ o
~J
1 C
c
o
INPUT CONDITIONS
REACH
REACH NAME LENGTH VELOC.
0.00
8.20
TIME
0.00
START
TIME
FLOW
214.00
o.o.
7.80
COO
3.24
NOD
1.76
Kl
0.081
K2
0.076
K3
0.209
ESTU. BENTH. BOTTOM
CONST DEMAND ARtA
0.000
0.00
0.00
OXYGEN SATURATION LEVEL = 9.20
NO INFLOW
AVON STP
HONEOYE CREEK
OATKA CREEK
SCOTTSVILLE
BLACK CREEK
CCO STP
BARGE CANAL
BROOKS SW
PLYMOUTH SW
COURT SW
CENTRAL SW
HILL-FACTORY
BAUSCH C LOMB
CARTHAGE SW
LEXINGTON SW
SETH GREEN SW
MAPLEWOOD SH
KODAK STP
IRON-ST PAUL
0.30
7.70
4.30
2.20
6.00
0.50
2.30
0.70
0.40
2.00
0.75
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.45
3.60
0.70
8.20
8.20
7.35
7.35
7.22
7.40
7.40
7.17
7.35
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
8.15
7.55
7.92
0.03
0.93
0.58
0.29
0.82
0.06
0.31
0.09
0.05
0.26
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.47
0.08
0.00
0.03
0.97
1.56
1.85
2.68
2.75
3.06
3.16
3.22
3.48
3.58
3.63
3.66
3.72
3.79
3.85
3.94
4.00
4.48
0.00
1.00
1.20
22.00
0.00
15.00
11.90
242.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
28.00
1.25
0.00
4.00
8.00
10.80
4.00
8.00
4.00
6.60
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
60.00
2.17
1.00
87.50
2.17
74.00
5.71
0.00
0.00
22.47
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00
164.40
290.00
35.80
73.25
0.00
60.00
2.8?
4.00
87.50
2.83
74.00
3.27
0.00
0.00
32.51
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00
35.60
5.50
56.70
73.25
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.067
0.067
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.090
0.090
0.085
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.07S
0.060
0.060
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.084
0.084
0.101
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.318
0.318
0.208
0.208
0.205
0.208
0.208
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.155
0.120
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
10.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.74
G
-------
Ul
o
ae
a.
o
z
a
i-
1/1
z
o
t- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(X 2 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O O O ft.»«»*t»»»»««»*i«*»»»«*»»t»«t*»»«»»«*»**»»«"«»»«»»
tf ^(^(N^(CN o
Z UJ X
UJ —I
X H-
O V '• '• "• "• ""• ^f '• ""• "• ^i '• "• '• "*• '•"*%'•'•'•"•'•"•"• • "• "• •"•"•"• « • \ • • • • • • • • • • • • _• • • •
\ s*
I O
>fi ^"*'"*c3*J"'m*^iX^>of~eoo>o-o-J(Nmm^iX^i^f^«
> -10.
— § * '
< u
< ij o J\t£#^\n£tA\n\n\nJ(£ttu(&\nin\n^in\nin^-^^^^tnir\\r*\r\inir*inif**r*inin*P'V\*n
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
a z
u §
Q — 0.
in j z 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000509
< ouj^ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
^ 2ffl*^ ••••••••••••••ff«»«»«»««**t****************'*****v*
X 3f < 45 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
« UJ *. X
UJ IO UJ
a: uj o
>- ee
V) a. z in
UJ C
a uj &
z
UJ
u
O -I
oc •*
I- O
z
I !..«• • 1 ...••••• _l J • • ^ J J ^* * .^ J
in D
3 2
a D
UJ O
u a.
z
o
QC*^ ••••••••••••••• ••»..»-. """""""^T"--^-!-^.^..^,-;—\ rn &^ n't if* m t*"\ m fi 1*1 w tft Ifl
U Z
OOOOOOOOOO
O
|
looooooo^^"^^^*™* ^^ ^***»*f^ryfyfNjfNjfMf\jfMojfop'*f^forp*mf^f^«f'j''^>f*r*f'tf^'Tu^ "^ "^ t^ in IA tfi i^ >o
2 •••ft«fftt«»i«»«*«»affB*****<********>**>'>********9*
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
. _-. . - - -T
- 148 - '
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.COND
PAGE 3
REPORT PRINTED 2/ 4/74
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
_ ..
c
c
c
o
c
v_
c
c
c
c
TIME
0.62
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.79
0.80
0.81
0.82
0.84
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.12
.13
.15
.16
.17
.19
.20
.21
.23
.24
.25
DIST.
5.05
5.15
5.25
5.35
5.45
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.05
6.15
6.25
6.35
6.45
6.55
6.65
6.75
6.85
6.95
7.05
7.15
7.25
7.35
7.45
7.55
7.65
7.75
7.85
7.95
8.05
8.15
8.25
8.35
8.45
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.05
9.15
9.25
9.35
9.45
9.55
9.65
9.75
9.85
9.95
10.05
CARBONACEOUS
HG/L POUNDS
3.34
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.30
3.7)
3.: )
3 29
3 29
3 29
3 28
3 28
3 2B
3 27
3 27
3. 27
3 26
3 2f>
3 2<>
3. 2'-
3. 25
3. 20
3. 24
3. 24
3. 23
3.23
3.23
3.22
3.22
3.2?
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.20
3.20
3.19
3.19
3.19
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.17
3.17
3.17
3.16
5981.
5976.
5970.
5964.
5958.
5952.
5946.
5940.
5934.
5928.
5923.
5917.
5911.
5905.
5899.
5893.
5888.
5882.
5876.
5870.
5864.
5859.
5853.
5847.
5841.
5836.
5830.
5824.
5818.
5B13.
5831.
5825.
5818.
5812,
5805.
5799.
5793.
5786.
5760.
5773.
5767.
5761.
5754.
5748.
5742.
5735.
5729.
5723.
5716.
5710.
5704.
UXTbtH UtPIANU
NITROGENEOUS BENTH1C
MG/L POUNDS MG/L POUNDS
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.91
1.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.90
.90
.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
.89
.89
.89
.88
.88
.88
1.88
1.88
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.85
3478.
3475.
3471.
3468.
3465.
3462.
3458.
3455.
3452.
3449.
3446.
3443.
3439.
3436.
3433.
3430.
3427.
3423.
3420.
3417.
3414.
3411.
3408.
3404.
3401.
3398.
3395.
3392.
3389.
3386.
3412.
3409.
3405.
3402.
3398.
3395.
3391.
3387.
3384.
3381.
3377.
3374.
3370.
3367.
3363.
3360.
3356.
3353.
3349.
3346.
3342.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
UXYGfcN
TOTAL DEFICIT LEVEL
MG/L POUNDS MG/L MG/L
5.28
5.27
5.27
5.26
5.25
5.25
5.24
5.24
5.23
5.23
5.22
5.22
5.21
5.21
5.20
5.20
5.19
5.19
5.18
5.18
5.17
5.17
5.16
5.16
5.15
5.15
5.14
5.14
5.13
5.13
5.13
5.12
5.12
5.11
5.10
5.10
5.09
5.09
5.08
5.08
5.07
5.07
5.06
5.05
5.05
5.04
5.04
5.03
5.03
5.02
5.02
9459.
9450.
9441.
9432.
9423.
9414.
9405.
9395.
9386.
9377.
9368.
9359.
9350.
9341.
9332.
9323.
9314.
9305.
9296.
9287.
9278.
9269.
9260.
9251.
9243.
9234.
9225.
9216.
9207.
9198.
9243.
9233.
9223.
9213.
9203.
9193.
9184.
9174.
9164.
9154.
9144.
9134.
9124.
9115.
9105.
9095.
9085.
9075.
9066.
9056.
9046.
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.54
1.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
. 54
.54
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
7.66
FLOW
MGD
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
215.00
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216^20
HONEOVE CREEK
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.COND
PAGE
REPORT PRINTED 2/
c
C
c
c
c
o
o
I
- C
o
o
j
I
; o
c
i O
c
c
TIME
1.27
1.28
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.46
1.47
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.57
1.58
1.59
1.61
1.62
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.69
1.70
1.72
1.73
1.74
1.76
1.77
1.79
1.80
1.81
1.83
1.84
1.85
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.91
1.92
1.94
1.95
D1ST.
10.15
10.25
10.35
10.45
10.55
10.65
10.75
10.85
10.95
11.05
11.15
11.25
11.35
11.45
11.55
11.65
11.75
11.85
11.95
12.05
12.15
12.25
12.35
12.45
12.55
12.65
12.75
12.85
12.95
13.05
13.15
13.25
13.35
13.45
13.55
13.65
13.75
13.85
13.95
14.05
14.15
14.25
14.35
14.45
14.55
14.65
14,75
14.85
14.95
15.05
15.15
CARBONACEOUS
MG/L POUNDS
3.16
3.16
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.12
3.12
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.09
3.09
3.09
2.89
2.89
2.89
2.88
2.88
2.88
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.84
2.84
2.84
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.81
2.81
2.81
5698.
5691.
5685.
5679.
5673.
5666.
5660.
5654.
5648.
5641.
5635.
5629.
5623.
5617.
5610.
5604.
5598.
5592.
5586.
5580.
5573.
5567.
5748.
5741.
5735.
5729.
5722.
5716.
5710.
5703.
5697.
5691.
5685.
5678.
5672.
5666.
5660.
5653.
5647.
5641.
5635.
5628.
5622.
5616.
5613.
5607.
5600.
5594.
5588.
5582.
5575.
IJATOtN U
NITROGENEOUS
MC/L POUNDS
1.85
1.85
1.85
.85
.84
.84
.84
.84
.84
.83
.83
.B3
.83
.83
1.83
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.81
1.81
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
3339.
3335.
3332.
3328.
3325.
3322.
3318.
3315.
3311.
3308.
3304.
3301.
3298.
3294.
3291.
3287.
3284.
3281.
3277.
3274.
3270.
3267.
3999.
3995.
3991.
3987.
3982.
3978.
3974.
3970.
3966.
3962.
3958.
3954.
3950.
3946.
3941.
3937.
3933.
3929.
3925.
3921.
3917.
3913.
3911.
3907.
3903.
3899.
3895.
3891.
3886.
BENTHIC
MG/L POUNDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL DEFICIT LEVEL
MG/L POUNDS MG/L MG/L
5.01
5.01
5.00
5.00
4.99
4.98
4.98
4.97
4.97
4.96
4.96
4.95
4.95
4.94
4.94
4.93
4.93
4.92
4.92
4.91
4.90
4.90
4.91
4.90
4.90
4.89
4.89
4.88
4.87
4.87
4.86
4.86
4.85
4.85
4.84
4.84
4.83
4.83
4.82
4.82
4.81
4.81
4.80
4.80
4.79
4.79
4.78
4.78
4.77
4.77
4.76
9036.
9027.
9017.
9007.
8998.
8988.
8978.
8969.
8959.
8949.
8940.
8930.
8920.
8911.
8901.
8892.
8882.
8873.
8863.
8853.
8844.
8834.
9747.
9736.
9726.
9715.
9705.
9694.
9684.
9674.
9663.
9653.
9642.
9632.
9622.
9611.
9601.
9591.
9580.
9570.
9560.
9550.
9539.
9529.
9524.
9514.
9503.
9493.
9482.
9472.
9462.
1.54
1.55
1.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
1.55
1.55
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
.27
.27
.27
.27
.27
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
7.66
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.65
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.64
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.93
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
FLOW
MGD
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
216.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
QATKA CREEK
SCOTTSVILLE
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.COND
PAGE 5
REPORT PRINTED 2/ 4/74
r
w
c
o
c
c
c
C'
c
c
c
o
o
0
c
o
c
c
c
c
TIME
1.96
1.98
1.99
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.09
2.10
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.20
2.21
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.27
2.28
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.34
2.35
2.36
2.38
2.39
2.41
2.42
2.43
2.45
2.46
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.52
2.53
2.54
2.56
2.57
2.59
2.60
2.61
2.63
2.64
2.66
DIST.
15.25
15.35
15.45
15.55
15.65
15.75
15. B5
15.95
16.05
16.15
16.25
16.35
16.45
16.55
16.65
16.75
16.85
16.95
17.05
17.15
17.25
17.35
17.45
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.05
18.15
18.25
18.35
18.45
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.05
19.15
19.25
19.35
19.45
19.55
19.65
19.75
19.85
19.45
20.05
20.15
20.25
CARBONACEOUS
MG/L POUNDS
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2.79
2.79
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.77
2.77
2.77
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.73
2.73
2.73
2.72
2.72
2.72
2.71
2.71
2.71
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.7)
2 .6 »
2, 69
2 69
2. 68
2, 68
2. 68
2.67
2. 67
2. 67
2.67
2. 66
2.66
2.66
2.65
2.65
5569.
5563..
5557.
5550.
5544.
5538.
5532.
5526.
5519.
5513.
5507.
5501.
5495.
5489.
5482.
5476.
5470.
5464.
5458.
5452.
5446.
5440.
5434.
5427.
5421.
5415.
5409.
5403.
5397.
5391.
5385.
5379.
5373.
5367.
5361.
5355.
5349.
5343.
5337.
5331.
5325.
5319.
5313.
5307.
5301.
5295.
5289.
5283.
5278.
5272.
5266.
NITROGENEOUS BENTHIC
MG/L POUNDS MG/L POUNDS
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89 .
1.88
1.B8
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.85
3882.
3878.
3874.
3870.
3866.
3862.
3858.
3854.
3850.
3846.
3842.
3838.
3834.
3830.
3826.
3822.
3818.
3814.
3810.
3806.
3802.
3798.
3794.
3790.
3786.
3782.
3778.
3774.
3770.
3766.
3762.
3758.
3754.
3750.
3746.
3742.
3738.
3734.
3730.
3726.
3722.
3719.
3715.
3711.
3707.
3703.
3699.
3695.
3691.
3687.
3684.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL DEFICIT LEVEL
MG/L POUNDS MG/L MG/L
4.76
4.75
4.75
4.74
4.74
4.73
4.73
4.72
4.72
4.71
4.71
4.70
4.70
4.69
4.69
4.68
4.68
4.67
4.67
4.66
4.65
4.65
4.64
4.64
4.63
4.63
4.62
4.62
4.61
4.61
4.60
4.60
4.59
4.59
4.58
4.58
4.57
4.57
4.56
4.56
4.55
4.55
4.54
4.54
4.53
4.53
4.52
A. 52
4.51
4.51
4.50
9451. 1.26 7.94
9441. 1.26 7.94
9431.
9421.
9410.
9400.
9390.
9379.
9369.
9359.
9349.
9339.
9328.
9318.
9308.
9298.
9288.
9278.
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
.26 7.94
9268. 1.26 7.94
9257. 1.25 7.95
9247. 1.25 7.95
9237. 1.25 7.95
9227. 1.25 7.95
9217. 1.25 7.95
9207. 1.25 7.95
9197. 1.25 7.95
9187.
1.25 7.95
9177. 1.25 7.95
9167.
1.25 7.95
9157. 1.25 7.95
9147.
9137.
9127.
9117.
9107.
1.25 7.95
L.25 7.95
L.25 7.95
L.25 7.95
1.25 7.95
9097. 1.25 7.95
9087.
1.25 7.95
9077. 1.25 7.95
9067. 1.25 7.95
9057. 1.25 7.95
9048. 1.24 7.96
9038.
9028.
9018.
9008.
8998.
8988.
8979.
8969.
8959.
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
.24 7.96
8949. 1.24 7.96
FLOW
MOD
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
238.20
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.COND
PAGE 6
REPORT PRINTED 2/ 4/74
i °
io
j
! /~*.
I
| o
i
c
o
o
o
o
c
TIME
2.67
2.68
2.70
2.71
2.72
2.74
2.75
2.76
2.78
2.79
2.80
2.82
2.83
2.85
2.86
2.87
2.89
2.90
2.91
2.93
2.94
2.95
2.97
2.98
2.99
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.05
3.06
3.08
3.09
3.10
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.16
3.17
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.35
CARBONACEOUS
DIST. MG/L POUNDS
20.35 2.65 5260.
20.45 2.64 5254.
20.55 2.62 5523.
20.65 2.61 5518.
20.75 2.61 5513.
20.85 2.61 5508.
20.95 2.61 5503.
21.05 5.81 12841.
21.15 5.80 12830.
21.25 5.80 12818.
21.35 5.79 12807.
21.45 5-79 12795.
21.55 5 78 12783.
21.65
>.78 12772.
21.75 5.77 12760.
21.85 5.77 12749.
21.95
22.05
22.15
22.25
22.35
22.45
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.05
23.15
23.25
23.35
23.45
23.55
.76 12737.
.76 12726.
.75 12714.
.75 12703.
.74 12691.
. H 126BO.
.73 12668.
. f? 12657.
. T2 12645.
. ri 12634.
.ri 12622.
.70 12611.
.70 12600.
. ->9 12588.
. TO 24101.
.69 24077.
>.69 24053.
23.65 5.68 24029.
23,75 5.68 24005.
23.85 5.67 23982.
23.95 5.66 23958.
24.05 5.66 23946.
24.15 5.66 23923.
24.25 5.65 23900.
24.35 5.65 23877.
24.45 5.64 23866.
24.55 5.64 23644.
24.65 5.63 23822.
24.75 5.63 23799.
24.85 5.62 23777.
24.95 5.62 23755.
25.05 5.61 23733.
25.15 5.61 23711.
25.2$ 5.60 23689.
25.35 5.60 23667.
UATUtN U
NITROGENEOUS
MG/L POUNDS
1.85
1.85
1.91
1.91
1.90
1.90
1.90
5.14
5.13
5.13
5.12
5.12
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.10
5.10
5.09
5.09
5.09
5.08
5.08
5.07
5.07
5.06
5.06
5.06
5.05
5.05
5.04
4.20
4.20
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.18
4.18
4.17
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.15
4.15
4.15
4.14
4.14
4.14
4.13
3680.
3676.
4028.
4025.
4022.
4018.
4015.
11354.
11345.
11336.
11326.
11317.
11308.
11298.
11289.
11280.
11271.
11261.
11252.
11243.
11233.
11224.
11215.
11206.
11196.
11187.
11178.
11169.
11160.
11150.
17763.
17747.
17731.
17715.
17699.
17683.
17668.
17660.
17645.
17629.
17614.
17607.
17592.
17577.
17562.
17547.
17533.
17518.
17503.
17489.
17474.
tPmrou — — -
BENTHIC
MG/L POUNDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
• UATOtN
TOTAL DEFICIT LEVEL
MG/L POUNDS MG/L MG/L
4.50
4.50
4.52
4.52
4.52
4.51
4.51
10.94
10.93
10.92
10.92
10.91
10.90
10.89
10.88
10.87
10.86
10.85
10.84
10.83
10. B2
10.81
10.80
10.79
10.78
10.77
10.76
10.76
10.75
10.74
9.90
9.89
9.88
9.87
9.86
9.85
9.84
9.84
9.83
9.82
9.81
9.81
9.80
9.79
9.78
9.77
9.76
9.75
9.75
9.74
9.73
8940.
8930.
9551.
9543.
9534.
9526.
9518.
24196.
24175.
24154.
24133.
24112.
24091.
24070.
24049.
24029.
24008.
23987.
23966.
23945.
23925.
23904.
23883.
23862.
23842.
23821.
23800.
23780.
23759.
23739.
41863.
41823.
41784.
41744.
41705.
41665.
41626.
41606.
41568.
41529.
41491.
41473.
41436.
41399.
41362.
41325.
41288.
41251.
41214.
41177.
41140.
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.42
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.45
1.46
1.46
1.47
1.47
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.49
1.50
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.52
1.52
1.53
1.53
2.04
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.C6
2.06
2.06
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.09
2.09
2.09
2.09
2.10
2.10
2.10
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.78
7.78
7.77
7.77
7.76
7.75
7.75
7.74
7.74
7.73
7.73
7.72
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.68
7.68
7.67
7.67
7.16
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.14
7.14
7.14
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.11
7.11
7.11
7.11
7.10
7.10
7.10
FLOW
MGO
238.20
238.20
253.20
253.20
253.20
253.20
253.20
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
265.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
BLACK CREEK
GCO STP
BARGE CANAL
BROOKS SH
PLYMOUTH SW
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS - AVG.CONO
PACE 7
REPORT PRINTED U 4/74
O
o
o
1 O
1 o
c
o
o
. o
.! o
1
>
o
I
; o
f
, c,
f
' O
Jo
0
1 o
TIME
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.40
3.41
3.42
3.44
3.45
3.46
3.48
3.49
3.50
3.5?
3.53
3.54
3.56
3.57
3.58
3.59
3.61
3.62
3.63
3.65
3.66
3.67
3.69
3.70
3.71
3.73
3.74
3.75
3.77
3.78
3.79
3.80
3.82
3.83
3.84
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.90
3.91
3.92
3.94
3.95
3.96
3.97
3.99
4.00
4.01
OIST.
25.45
25.55
25.65
25.75
P5.85
25.95
26.05
26.15
26.25
26.35
26.45
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.05
27.15
27.25
27.35
27.45
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.05
28.15
?8.25
28.35
28.45
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.05
29.15
29.25
29.35
29.45
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95 0.0
30.05
30.15
30.25
30.35
30.45 a*
CARBONACEOUS
MG/L POUNDS
5.59
5.59
5.58
5.58
5.57
5.56
5.56
5.55
5.55
5.54
5.61
5.60
5.60
5.59
5.59
5.58
5.58
5.57
5.57
5.56
5.56
5.56
5.55
5.55
5.54
5.54
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.52
5.52
5.51
5.51
5.50
5.50
5.49
5.' 9
5.' 8
6.)0
6.1 0
6.( 9
6.( 8
6.1 8
6.( 7
6.( 7
l.'.Z
7.T I
7.10
7.'tO
7.<9
9.10
23644.
23622. •
23600.
23578.
23556.
23534.
23512.
23491.
23469.
23447.
23811.
23788.
23766.
23744.
23722.
23700.
23678.
23667.
23645.
23623.
23601.
23590.
23568.
23567.
23545.
23523.
23501.
23480.
23469.
23447.
23425.
23403.
23381.
23371.
23349.
23327.
23305.
23283.
26015.
25991.
25967.
25942.
25918.
25894.
25870.
33114.
33077.
33040.
33003.
32966.
41133.
NITROGENEOUS BENTHIC
KG/L POUNDS MG/L POUNDS
4.13
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.11
4.11
4.11
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.21
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.19
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.18
4.17
4.17
4.17
4.17
4.16
4. 16
4.16
4.15
4.15
4.15
4.15
4.14
4.14
4.14
4.13
4.13
4.13
4.12
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.22
4.23
4.22
4.22
4.22
4.21
6.89
17459.
17444.
17430.
17415.
17401.
173R6.
17371.
17357.
17342.
17328.
17862.
17847.
17832.
17817.
17802.
17787.
17772.
17765.
17750.
17735.
17720.
17713.
17698.
17701.
17686.
17671.
17657.
17642.
17634.
17620.
17605.
17590.
17575.
17568.
17553.
17538.
17524.
17509.
18095.
18080.
18065.
18050.
18035.
18019.
18004.
18135.
18116.
18097.
18078.
18059.
31198.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
78.
— u*rij
THTAL DEFICIT
MG/L POUNDS MG/L
9.72
9.71
9.70
9.69
9.68
9.68
9.67
9.66
9.65
9.64
9.81
9.R1
9.80
9.79
9.78
9.77
9.76
9.76
9.75
9.74
9.73
9.73
9.72
9.72
9.71
9.70
9.69
9.68
9.68
9.67
9.66
9.65
9.64
9.64
9.63
9.62
9.61
9.61
10.35
10.34
10.33
10.32
10.31
10.30
10.29
11.95
11.94
11.92
11.91
11.90
16.00
41104.
41067.
41030.
40994.
40957.
40920.
40884.
40847.
40811.
40774.
41673.
41636.
41599.
41561.
41524.
41487.
41450.
41432.
41395.
41358.
41321.
41303.
41266.
41268.
41232.
41195.
41158.
41121.
41103.
41066.
41030.
40993.
40956.
40938.
40902.
40865.
40829.
40792.
44110.
44071.
44031.
43992.
43953.
43913.
43874.
51248.
51192.
51137.
51081.
51025.
72369.
2.11
2.11
2.11
2.11
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.15
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
?.18
2.18
2.18
2.18
2.18
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.22
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.29
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.51
LEVEL
MG/L
7.09
7.09
7.09
7.09
7.08
7.08
7.08
7.07
7.07
7.07
7.05
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.03
7.03
7.03
7.03
7.02
7.02
7.02
7.02
7.02
7.01
7.01
7.01
7.01
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.99
6.99
6.99
6.99
6.99
6.98
6.96
6.96
6.96
6.95
6.95
6.95
6.95
6.91
6.91
6.90
6.89
6.88
6.69
FLOW
MGD
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
507.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509. 10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.10
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
509.20
511.20
511.20
511.20
511.20
511.20
511.20
511.20
514.20
514.20
514.20
514.20
514.20
542.20
COURT SW
CENTRAL SW
MILL-FACTORY
BAUSCH t LOMB
CARTHAGE SW
LEXINGTON SW
SETH GREEN SW
MAPLEWOOD SW
KODAK STP
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
o
o
1
o
,
o
i o
i
: o
G
f-
o
: o
o
i
o
i
o
f
• ^
o
" 0
•
TIME
; 4.02
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.08
: 4.09
4.10
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.40
4.41
4.42
4.44
4.45
4.46
4.47
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.53
4.54
4.55
4.56
4.58
CARBONACEOUS
DIST. HG/L POUNDS
30.55
30.65
30.75
30.85
30.95 1.6
31.05
31.15
31.25
31.35
31.45 i
31.55
31.65
31.75
31.85
31.95 •
32.05
32.15
32.25
32.35 ,
32.45 2 "
32.55
32.65
32.75
32.85
32.95 ">
33.05
33.15
33.25
33.35
33.45 '''
33.55
33.65
33.75
33.85
33.95 f'°
34.05
34.15
34.25
34.35
34.45 it
34.55
34.65
34.75
9.01
8.92
8.84
8.76
8.67
8.59
8.51
8.43
8.35
8.27
8.19
8.11
8.0'
7.' 6
7.1 8
7.1 1
7. 3
7.1 6
7.' 9
7.' 2
7.- 4
7.: 7
7.: o
7.; 3
7.1 7
7. 0
7.( 3
6.' 6
6.' 0
6.1 3
6." 7
6." 0
6. (4
6.58
6.M
6.64
6.58
6.52
6.46
6.40
6.34
6.28
6.22
40742.
40355.
39972.
39593.
39217.
38845.
38476.
38111.
37749.
37390.
37035.
36684.
36336.
35991.
35649.
35310.
34975.
34643.
34314.
33989.
33666.
33346.
33030.
32716.
32406.
32098.
31793.
31491.
31192.
30896.
30603.
30312.
30025.
29740.
29457.
30084.
29806.
29531.
29258.
28988.
28721.
28456.
28193.
NITROGE
MG/L
6.83
6.76
6.70
6.64
6.58
6.52
6.46
6.40
6.34
6.28
6.23
6.17
6.11
6.06
6.00
5.95
5.89
5.84
5.78
5.73
5.68
5.63
5.57
5.52
5.47
5.42
5.37
5.32
5.27
5.23
5.18
5.13
5.08
5.04
4.99
5.12
5.07
5.02
4.97
4.92
4.87
4.82
4.77
PRE
OXYGEN D
NEOUS
POUNDS
30872.
30589.
30308.
30030.
29754.
29481.
29211.
28943.
28677.
28414.
28153.
27895.
27639.
27385.
27134.
26885.
26638.
26394.
26151.
25911.
25674.
25438.
25205.
24973.
24744.
24517.
24292.
24069.
23848.
23629.
23413.
23198.
22985.
22774.
22565.
23213.
22980.
22749.
22521.
22294.
22070.
21848.
21629.
SENT LOADINGS -
BENTHIC
MG/L POUNDS
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.17
0. 19
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.43
0.45
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.11
156.
234.
312.
389.
467.
545.
623.
701.
779.
857.
935.
1012.
1090.
1168.
1246.
1324.
1402.
1480.
1558.
1635.
1713.
1791.
1869.
1947.
2025.
2103.
2181.
2258.
2336.
2414.
2492.
2570.
2648.
2726.
2804.
62.
125.
187.
249.
311.
374.
436.
498.
AVG.COND
n v tsr>
TOTAL DEFICIT
MG/L POUNDS MG/L
15.87
15.74
15.61
15.48
15.36
15.23
15.11
14.98
14.86
14.74
14.62
14.51
14.39
14.27
14.16
14.05
13.94
13.83
13.72
13.61
13.50
13.40
13.29
13.19
13.09
12.99
12.89
12.79
12.69
12.59
12.50
12.40
12.31
12.22
12.12
11.77
11.67
11.58
11.48
11.38
11.29
11.20
11.10
71770.
71178.
70592.
70012.
69439.
68871.
68310.
67754.
67205.
66661.
66123.
65591.
65065.
64544.
64029.
63519.
63015.
62517.
62023.
61535.
61053.
60576.
60103.
59636.
59174.
58718.
58266.
57819.
57377.
56940.
56508.
56080.
55657.
55239.
54826.
53359.
52911.
52467.
52028.
51594.
51165.
50740.
50320.
2.56
2.62
2.67
2.73
2.78
2.83
2.89
2.94
2.99
3.03
3.08
3.13
3.17
3.22
3.26
3.31
3.35
3.39
3.43
3.47
3.51
3.55
3.59
3.62
3.66
3.70
3.73
3.76
3.flO
3.83
3.86
3.89
3.92
3.95
3.98
4.02
4.07
4.12
4.17
4.22
4.26
4.31
4.36
EN
LEVEL
MG/L
6.64
6.58
6.53
6.47
6.42
6.37
6.31
6.26
6.21
6.17
6.12
6.07
6.03
5.98
5.94
5.89
5.85
5.81
5.77
5.73
5.69
5.65
5.61
5.58
5.54
5.50
5.47
5.44
5.40
5.37
5.34
5.31
5.28
5.25
5.22
5.18
5.13
5.08
5.03
4.98
4.94
4.89
4.84
REPORT
FLOW
KGO
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
542.20
543.45
543.45
543.45
543.45
543.45
543.45
543.45
543.45
C
c
c
IRON-ST PAUL
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS MATCD/10
PAGE
INPUT CONDITIONS
REACH
REACH NAME LENGTH VELOC.
o.oc
~ OXYGEN SATURATION LEVEL
,_"
^
/~\
/~^
^-
C
1
_ c
, c
0
o
c
c
c
c
NO INFLOW
AVON STP
HONEOYE CREEK
OATKA CREEK
SCOTTSVILLE
BLACK CREEK
GCO STP
BARGE CANAL
BROOKS SW
PLYMOUTH SW
COURT SW
CENTRAL SW
MILL-FACTORY
BAUSCH C LCMB
CARTHAGE SW
LEXINGTON SW
SETH GREEN SW
MAPLEWOOD SH
KODAK STP
IRON-ST PAUL
-
0.30
7.70
4.30
2.20
6.00
0.50
2.30
0.70
0.40
2.00
0.75
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.45
3.60
0.70
7.00
= 8.
7.00
7.00
7.17
7.00
7.00
7.10
7.10
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.55
7.55
7.55
7.55
7.55
7.22
7.50
TIME
0.00
20
0.04
I. 10
0.59
0.31
0.85
0.07
0.32
0.09
0.05
0.27
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.49
0.09
START
TIME
0.00
0.04
1.14
1.74
2.05
2.91
2.98
3.30
3.40
3.45
3.73
3.83
3.88
3.91
3.98
4.04
4.11
4.20
4.26
4.76
FLOW
48.50
0.00
1.00
0.18
12.20
0.00
0.57
11.90
242.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
28.00
1.25
0.0.
7.80
0.00
4.00
6.20
9.50
4.00
6.20
4.00
4.60
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
COD
3.03
0.00
60.00
6.30
6.92
87.50
3.82
74.00
5.68
0.00
0.00
22.47
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00
164.40
290.00
35.80
73.25
NOD
2.21
0.00
60.00
0.95
3.07
87.50
6.18
74.00
4.32
0.00
0.00
32.51
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00
35.60
5.50
56.70
73.25
Kl
0.081
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.067
0.067
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.090
0.090
0.085
K2
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.060
0.060
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.084
0.084
0.101
K3
0.209
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.318
0.318
0.208
0.208
0.205
0.208
0.208
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.155
0.120
0.047
ESTU.
CONST
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
c.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
10.000
BENTH. BOTTOM
DEMAND AREA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.74
-------
I
- 9SI -
ocoooooocoooocooooooc
"tipm i; "
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUllflUI'JIiniflU'imuiO
i *
I O
CD I
O I
O
c
w 1 O*H
(
XT)
W I r*
^*4O«-*PMr-> I
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO
vi
; §
on
O >
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
* r* »-i o
I -< x
I O
I p- rn
( x rr> z
I C)<
I f" t" I
tOOOOOOOOOl
too
OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O
a
z
rn
o
;:'
-------
L
- z.si -
ooooooooooooooooooo
1 !'
I • i
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
JW
ooooooooooooooooooo<
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>NN
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OJ
oaoooBCDcooDaDOoaiCDCOooaiooajajooajoiooajaDOooooooooooooo
v/i
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
•o n
CO
zc
O trt
z
O-4
I"" Q
o
•o m o
c c •<
z (/» o
m vi m
o >
i-mo
Z
x
g
i
o
c
z
o
o
m
r- -^ a
o
f m
: m z
Or"
x
o
S
o
n
•a
o
M
ei
m
-------
I - 8SI -
o o o o o r o o <* o o o o o o o o o o o c
wi*-'o->t*---'-'i
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O O OO O I
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
•4 ^ -J -J -J •
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt
l-^--4~4~J-4--J-J-J
a
z
>
•o o
a m
c o
z c
o
z
3 "
Cl -H
I- O
•o m o
o a x
c c -<
2 l/> C!
O m
o m 30
m
x x
o >
^ (P Z
f m o
z
•o r-
o
c
z
o
c/t m
m >
O t/i
> »>
O 3
o o
o >
"
v n
r- — o
H X
•<
O
r m
o r-
o o
ts>
o
o
o
>
-4
It
m
m
TJ
O
X
m
o
Tl
M >
V CT
-------
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS MATCD/10
PAGE 5
REPORT PRINTED Z/ 4/74
C
o
o
C
C
C
C
o
o
r
C
C
C:
C
TIME
2.17
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.23
2.24
2.26
2.27
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.33
2. 34
2.36
2.37
2.39
2.40
2.41
2.43
2.44
2.46
2.47
2.49
2.50
2.51
2.53
2.54
2.56
2.57
2.59
2.60
2.61
2.63
2.64
2.66
2.67
2.69
2.70
2.71
2.73
2.74
2.76
2.77
2.79
2.80
2.81
2.83
2.84
2.86
2.67
2.89
DIST.
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
CA BONACEOUS
MG L POUNDS
4 16
4 L>
4 l!i
4 1'j
4 14
4 14
4 I 1
4 1 1
4 12
4 12
4.11
4.11
4.11
4.10
4.10
4.09
4.09
4.08
4.08
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.06
4.05
4.05
4.04
4.04
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.01
4.00
4.00
3.99
3.99
3.98
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.94
3.94
3.93
3.93
2149.
2146.
2144.
2141.
2139.
2136.
2134.
2131.
2129.
2126.
2124.
2121.
2119.
2117.
2114.
2112.
2109.
2107.
2104.
2102.
2099.
2097.
2095.
2092.
2090.
2087.
2085.
2083.
2080.
2078.
2075.
2073.
2071.
2068.
2066.
2063.
2061.
2059.
2056.
2054.
2051.
2049.
2047.
2044.
2042.
2040.
2037.
2035.
2033.
2030.
2028.
UXriitN UtHANU — -
NITROGENEOUS BENTHIC
MG/L POUNDS MG/L POUNDS
2.90
2.90
2.89
2.89
2.89
2.88
2.88
2.88
2.88
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.84
2.84
2.84
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.81
2.81
2.81
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2.79
2.79
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.77
2.77
2.77
2.77
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.75
2.75
2.75
1497.
1495.
1494.
1492.
1491.
1489.
1487.
1486.
1484.
1482.
1481.
1479.
1478.
1476.
1474.
1473.
1471.
1470.
1468.
1466.
1465.
1463.
1462.
1460.
1459.
1457.
1455.
1454.
1452.
1451.
1449.
1447.
1446.
1444.
1443.
1441.
1440.
1438.
1437.
1435.
1433.
1432.
1430.
1429.
1427.
1426.
1424.
1423.
1421.
1419.
1418.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
OXYGEN
TOTAL DEFICIT LEVEL
MG/L POUNDS MG/L MC/L
7.06
7.06
7.05
7.04
7.03
7.02
7.02
7.01
7.00
6.99
6.98
6.98
6.97
6.96
6.95
6.94
6.94
6.93
6.92
6.91
6.91
6.90
6.89
6.88
6.87
6.87
6.86
6.85
6.84
6.84
6.83
6.82
6.81
6.80
6.80
6.79
6.78
6.77
6.77
6.76
6.75
6.74
6.74
6.73
6.72
6.71
6.71
6.70
6.69
6.68
6.68
3646.
3642.
3637.
3633.
3629.
3625.
3621.
3617.
3613.
3609.
3605.
3601.
3597.
3593.
3589.
3585.
3580.
3576.
3572.
3568.
3564.
3560.
3556.
3552.
3548.
3544.
3540.
3536.
3532.
3528.
3524.
3520.
3516.
3512.
3509.
3505.
3501.
3497.
3493.
3489.
3485.
3481.
3477.
3473.
3469.
3465.
3461.
3457.
3454.
3450.
3446.
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.98
7.41
7.40
7.40
7.39
7.39
7.38
7.38
7.38
7.37
7.37
7.36
7.36
7.36
7.35
7.35
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.33
7.33
7.33
7.32
7.32
7.31
7.31
7.31
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.29
7.29
7.28
7.28
7.28
7.27
7.27
7.27
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.24
7.24
7.24
7.23
7.23
7.23
7.23
7.22
FLOW
MGO
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
61.89
-------
1.
- 091 -
o o o r o o <"
CGCOOOCOC r.
3
m
o
Ul
-4
oooooooo5So535o533ob'b5S535oob5bo6booo6bbboobooodbbb
x o
>.s
r- OD
_ _ _ ^ °
•o o
o m
c o
2 C
O I/)
t/»
Z
3 -i
o
m vt m
_ I m •*
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaoooooopo ff) > 2
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo p~mo >
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Z( f" t/1
S« ox
n •- —
c z r
z o »
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o t/* ^
» z
H
roMfvjrjfsifvfs* _ 3K o n
•X -D
a on
~< "
•> -H
•or- -t
z
o
U1
o
m
X -n
___^ ___ -M<
I . . - ^^
m ;:
j ••••••••• ••••••••••••«.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••••
a
50
O
O
3*
O9
>
5
S
s
Z
H
m
-------
- 191 -
O O c o o r r
o O c r:
o
iNjfsjN)fsjrsjM(\)N)rvjrsj(\>rsjNirofvjfvjrsjfvj
000600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I
X O
>- yo
r- a)
a
z
- - - -.__ — ..._., — ......._.-.-..^NMr\jiNjNifNjrsjrN>Nrx«isjN»rvjNN>Nfvji>jNii\fNiiN*fsjr\jr\j -o o
»2£^^. ^^!^^!^!^^^^^^?5°?9POOOOOPPP.PPPPOOPPOPPOPOOOOOOOP am
z c
a trt
l/>
z
•« —
O -4
o
m
o m
C/l Z -9 Vt
• Q m x
j m u* m
j OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O > Z Z
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo r-mo >
V>*t—OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
o
SS S 2
C Z r-
z o >
>IO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O
t<1
X O
I . > Z
o o
o >
•» -o
^- >
< ^
a
o
m
Tl
o
r- m
x m z
r- r- I
I
73
or- T>
i •••••••••••••••••••••••tlft*««t««««*«»»»at«t*«««««» OO O
' ^J»^.^^Jt^^.f>^^.^^.^.^±*^*^.r>^^.f>^.E«Jk.lt^.^t*lL&JUJl*lllJuiL^lLULUl*jL*il^ljJL4JlA>LkJLkJk*lLlit*j LU L^) (
o
o
o
50
z
ID
(-1
>
7)
-(
I
IB
>
c
o
X
o
o
c
o
z
a
->.
•w
^ ~1
-------
o
Q
O
ON
O
O
c
c
c
STREAM ASSIMILATION CAPACITY
PRESENT LOADINGS KATCO/10
PAGE
REPORT PRINTED 2/ 4,
TIME
4.29
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.35
4.36
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.42
4.43
4.45
4.46
4.47
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.53
4.54
4.56
4.57
4.58
4.60
4.61
4.63
4.64
4.65
4.67
4.68
4.69
4.71
4.72
4.74
4.75
4.76
4.78
4.79
4.80
4.82
4.83
4.84
4.B6
DIST.
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
CARBONACEOUS
MG/L POUNDS
12.73
12.61
12.49
12.37
12.26
12.14
12.02
11.91
11.80
11.69
11.57
11. '6
11. ,6
11.25
11.14
11.04
1C. 93
1C .83
1C. 72
1C. 62
1C. 52
1C. 42
1C. 32
1C. 22
1C. 13
1C. 03
-------
APPENDIX B - CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
CONDUCTED ON THE GENESEE RIVER
- 163 -
-------
101802851?
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
:- GENESEE RIVER STUDY,—
SMNO STA MILE CORP TYPE
SAMP
DATE
-TIME -PH TEMPC DO -BODS TOC TKN NH3N ORGN N02N N03N T-IP
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
- 1
' 1
£ I
*• 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1C
It
1
2
3
4
5
X
7
8
9
1C
11
i ni
i
2
- 3 -
4
5
- 6
7
8
9
1C
347
254
215
147
1 "5 ")
1 fid
109
91
47
34
22
347
254
215
147
122
1 f>Q
91
47
34
22
7
"\t*
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
1
2
1
2
I
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
*
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
- 1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
10
- 0
0
0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
0
0
--- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
— -0
0
0
— 0
0
0
- 0
0
9400
-9409
9410
9407
QA no
9406
9405
9401
9402
9403
Q&n i*
9419
9420
9421
9418
9417
QA 1 A
9415
9411
9412
9413
9414
Q3 A1
9432
9431
9430
9429
9428
9427
9426
9425
-9424
9423
7/19/73
-7/19/73
7/19/73
7/19/73
7 / 1 Q 77^4
7/19/73
7/19/73
7/18/73
7/18/73
7/18/73
- 7/lfl/71
8/ 2/73
8/ 2/73
-8/ 2/73
8/ 1/73
8/ 1/73
Q / \ a~x\
8/ r/73
3/ 1/73
8/ 2/73
8/ 2/73
8/ 1/73
A / 7/7^
8/16/73
8/16/73
-8/16/73
8/15/73
8/16/73
- 8/16/73
8/15/73
8/16/73
- 8/15/73
3/15/73
1600
1515
1545
1140
1 5 i n
1040
1017
1320
1345
1415
1 ^H P
1113
1159
1243
1542
1511
1 AA'*
1420
1015
1045
1113
1143
i nin
1045
1115
1140
1720
1655
1630
1545
1220
-1245
1310
-8.1 -
8.1
8.2
89
8.2
8.3
8.2 —
8.5
7.9
81
8.2 -.
6.1
8.1 —
8.1
8.2
fl 1
8.3
8.3
7.1 -
7.5
8.4
- .
8.4
8.3
-8.4 —
8.2
8.2
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.3
8.2
23.4
23.4
23.4
t~\ a
23.9
24.0
25.3
25.9
26.0
5
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PACE
1-2
SKNO
1
I
1
1
l
I
1
. 1
I
' 1
§1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
.3
3
3
o
STA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
1
2
- 3
4
5
— - 6
7
8
q
1C
11
101
1
2
3
4
5
- 6
7
a
-------
1018028517 REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 1-3
SMNO
1
1
1
, 1
_ I
- -GN 1
ON
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
- 3
3
3
3
3
STA
1
2
3
4
-- 5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
1
2
3
4
5
-6
7
8
9
1C
11
10 1
1
2
— 3
5
6
7
8
9
1C
MILE
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
7
34
347
254
-215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
CORP
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
I
I
2
1
2
1
-1
2
1
y
2
1
-- I
1
2
1
2
1
- 1
2
1
2
2
TYPE
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
Q
0
0
— - 0
0
0
— 0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
_ — 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- - 0
0
SAMP -PB
9400
9409
9410 0.0
9407
9408 0.0
9406 0.0
9405
9401 0.7
9402
9403 0.6
- 9404 0.0
9419 0.0
9420
9421 0.0
9418
9417 0.2
9416 0.0
9415
9411 0.0
QA 19 - .. .
9413
9414 0.0
9383 0.0
9432 0.0
9431
9430 0.0
9429
9428 0.0
9427 0.0
9426
9425 0.0
Q U ? 4 - — - -
9423
-- SE -
0.000 -
---
0.001
0.002 -
0.003
0.003 -
0.002
0.002
: T
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
--IH
0.038
-0.048
0.088
0.036
0.098
O.Q51
0.051
0.061
0.046
0.051
0.046
0.091
0.000
0.015
0.025
0.030
0.095
— TS
264.0
392.0
492.0
-536.0
244.0
734.0
—648.0
887.0
— 569.0
423.0
443.0
— 513.0-
805.0
695.0
775.0
-467.0 -
470.0
- VS
136.0
110.0
100.0
320.0
100.0
123.0
130.0
273.0
-86.0
74.0
95.0
115.0
85.0
81.0
125.0
-82.0
147.0
--TSS
28.0
96.0
72.0
- - 88.0
- 48.0
67.0
—69.0
33.0
— 27.0
11.0
108.0
184.0
84.0
-143.0
11.4
130.0
46.0
— vss
28.0
64.0
52.0
44.0
32.0
3.0
-1.0
3.0
12.0
5.0
12.0
68.0
30.0
43.0
5.7
56.0
30.0
IDS
236.0
— 296.0
420.0
- 448.0
•- 196.0
667.0
-579.0
854.0
— 542.0
412.0
335.0
— 329.0
721.0
752 0
763.6
337.0
424.0
VOS - - _ - -
108. 0
46.0
48.0
276.0
68.0
120.0
129.0 -
270.0
.74.0 -.
69.0
83.0
47.0
55.0
38.0
119.3
-26.0
117.0
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 2-2
-- SKNO
3
4
A
A
4
A
' A
e*- A
oo ^
A
A
A
5
_-. 5
5
5
. 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
STA
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
1
. 2
3
A
- 5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
1
2
3
A
5
.... 6
7
MILE
7
3A7
25A
215
1A7
122
1C9
91
A7
3A
22
7
3A7
25A
215
1A7
122
109
91
A7
3A
22
7
3A7
25A
215
1A7
122
109
91
CORP
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
I
1
2
I
2
2
1
I
2
I
2
1
. i
2
TYPE
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ - 0
0
0
o
0
0
. .. o
0
0
0
0
0
_ -0
10
SAMP
9A22
9AAA
9AA3
9442
9441
9440
9439
9438
9437
9436
9435
9434
9455
-9454
9453
9452
9451
9450
9449
9448
9447
9446
9445
9466
9465
9464
9463
9462
9461
13213
CL
66.
A7.
AA.
A3.
A2.
A8.
37.
-38.
46.
52.
- 59.
63.
54.
51.
46.
AA.
--47.
38.
38.
42.
A7.
A7.
52.
56.
55.
50.
44.
52.
43.
.__ F SOA
0.00 76.
0.00 A6.
0.00 96.
0.00 76.
0.00 71.
-58.
0.00 51.
0.01 83.
78.
111.
8A.
81.
_ „ . 64.
88.
: 58.
— 121.
124.
- 99.
«* b» l_ ~ 1^ & V k.O W • W f • Tf M— _. _- •;•"•"• ' ^ -
__CN —PHENOL — --AS - BA
0.03 0.020 0.00 0.0
INTER O.flO 0 Q
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.4
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.4
0.01 v 0.000 0.00 0.4
0.00 0.060 0.00 0.0
0.00 : 0.020 0.00 0.0
0.7
; ;P 0.4
1 „..";.._.. 0.0
0.0
0.7
-.--'. j ---••- -- ---"=.--- - - . QiO
'•'*, o.o
: .. _ 0.7
0.4
n. 7
..CD
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-CR
0.00
OnA
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
O.OA
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.04
0.00
CU
0.05
On&
0.03
0.06
0.03
O.OA
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.0?
O.OA
0.02
O.OA
0.02
FE
0.38
1«*7
0.26
0.29
0.37
0.14
0.23
1.91
0.64
0.57
O.A8
0.11
0-34
1.26
0.86
0.26
057
HG NI
0.0036 O.I
Onn t ft An
• UU1? U.U - •
o.oooa 0.2
0.0009 0.0
0.0062 0.0
0.0053 0.0
0.0035 0.3
0-0
0.0
0.0
0.0
On
On
0.0
- 0.2
0.0
01
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
2-3
SPNO
3
4
4
4
4
4
• 4
•-- 4
Ox .
^o 4
, 4
- 4
4
5
•-- 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
- - 5
6
6
6
6
6
6
STA
11
1
2
3
it
5
6
... 7
8
9
- 1C
11
1
- 2
3
4
- - 5
6
7
8
9
1C
i
2
3
4
5
- 6
•ILE
7
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
. 7
347
254
215
147
122
109
CORP
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
I
1
2
I
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
i
1
2
1
2
1
1
TYPE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
-—0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
- 0
SAMP
9422
9444
9443
9442
9441
9440
9439
9438
9437
9436
9435
9434
9455
9454
9453
9452
9451
9450
9449
9448
9447
9446
-9445
9466
9465
9464
9463
9462
9461
-PB -SE —
0.0 0.004
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0
0.0
0.7 -'-
0.0
n . o
On . . v .
0.0
o.o — - —
0.0
o.n
— ZN
0.050
0.000
0.015
0.025
0.010
0.000
0.025
0.030
0.030
0.035
0.030
On*n
On-ap
0.025
0.025
0.030
n.n^o
TS
317.0
-368.0
417.0
427.0
425.0
343.0
447.0
350.0
433.0
-510.0
332.0
•\T) n
440 n
668.0
--604.0
512.0
4£>n_n
— vs
53.0
47.0
72.0
100.0
157.0
35.0
r 42.0
60.0
105.0
-158.0
40.0
AC n
An n
316.0
192.0
99.0
144. n
-TSS
36.0
—70.0
35.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
' 19.0
42.0
22.0
--- 64.0
16.0
6rt
on
30.0
-18.0
9.0
?.n
— vss
18.4
11. 0
2.0
5.0
6.0
3.0
7.0
8.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
9 n
i n
12.0
11.0
6.0
i -n
IDS
281.0
298.0
382.0
410.0
408.0
328.0
428.0
308.0
411.0
446.0
316.0
^AA n
A^fl n
638.0
586.0
503.0
A«;n.n
vos
34.6
t
36.0 -
70.0
95.0
151.0
32.0
35.0
52.0
101. 0
153.0 - —
35.0
£ \
TO A
304.0
181.0
93.0
i Ai.n . . .
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 3-1
SMNQ
6
6
6
6
7
, 7
— 7
._->j . 7
7
7
7
7
7
-- 7
7
8
8
8
8
-- 8
8
8
- 8
8
8
— 8
STA
8
9
1C
11
I
2
3
5
6
- 7
8
1C
11
1
2
3
4
— 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MILE
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
1C9
91
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
109
91
47
34
22
7
CORP
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
I
1
2
1
2
2
1
TYPE
10
--10
10
10
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
— -o
0
0
- o
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
o
-SAMP
13212
132 11
13210
13209
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9472
9471
9467
9468
9469
9470
9486
9487
9485
9488
9484
9483
9482
9478
9479
9480
9481
— DATE —
9/14/73
7/ !*»/ 1 3
9/14/73
9/14/73
-9/27/73
9/27/73
9/27/73
-9727/73
9/27/73
9/26/73
— 9/26/73
9/26/73
9/26/73
9/26/73
9/26/73
10/19/73
10/19/73
10/19/73
10/19/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/18/73
toCI
TIME
1200
1 €. U U
1200
1200
1030
1100
1135
1205
1230
1830
1810
1430
1515
1540
1615
1015
1035
945
1120
-1800
1720
1700
1315
1400
1440
1515
Neacc
-PH
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
-7.9
8.1
8.0
-8.1
7.9
7.9
7.6
t\ i vcn
TEMPC
— 15.6
15.8
16.4
-15.4
16.0
15.3
—15.7
16.3
16.7
- 17.3
15.8
10.3
-10.3
10.4
12.0
-15.2
13.2
13.3
—14.3
15.9
15.2
- 15.5
J 1 UUI .
DO
-8.7
8.4
7.8
-8. I
7.5
9.3
—7.4
8.8
8.0
8.1
8.7
7.3
-7.2
7.9
7.6
-7.8
8.3
8.9
— 8.9
8.9
6.8
— 6.2
BOD5
2.2
2.2
2.4
—2.0
2.2
2.4
-2.8
2.2
2.8
-2.6
2.8
0.7
2.8
1.1
2.5
— 2.0
0.9
2.0
-2.1
1.5
2.6
- 2.7
TOC
10.
.14.
11.
-10.
17.
14.
-10.
15.
10.
12.
13.
6.
5.
7.
9.
3.
9.
- 7.
~ O •
1.
5.
-3.
TKN
0.2
0.5
0.1
-0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.9
1.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.3
-0.4
2.1
1.5
- 2.6
NH3N
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.25
0.24
0.40
0.17
0.49
0.57
0.68
0.13
0.11
0.18
0.06
0.42
0.43
0.28
0.36
1.68
1.17
1.85
ORGN
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
- 0.0
0.2
0.3
0.8
N02N
0.011
0.011
0.014
0.014
0.019
0.017
0.018
0.023
0.025
0.028
0.028
0.017
0.017
0.022
0.011
0.011
0.022
0.022
0.034
O.OP9
0.034
0.042
N03N
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.17
0.16
0.26
0.09
0.16
0.22
0.10
0.26
0.18
0.23
0.29
T-IP
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.15
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.12
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/19/73 PACE
3-2
- SKNO
6
6
6
6
7
1?
-^j 7
"~ 7
' 7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
3
8
8
8
8
8
.. 8
STA
8
g
1C
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
- 1C
11
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
MILE
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
1C9
91
47
34
22
7
347
254
215
147
. 122
109
91
47
34
22
7
CORP
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
. 2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
. i
1
2
i
2
2
- 1
TYPE
10
10
10
10
__. 0
0
0
n
0
0
o
0
0
- 0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAMP
13212
13211
13210
13209
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9472
9471
9467
9468
9469
9470
9486
9487
9485
9488
9404
9483
9482
9478
9479
9480
-9481
— CL
-92.
97.
111.
104.
60.
103.
- 169.
59.
60.
57.
47.
250.
250.
229.
169.
188.
105.
83.
96.
104.
95.
133.
f
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0. 12
0.60
0.00
-0.00
— S04
-61.
78.
107.
115.
109.
ica.
99.
137.
138.
79.
• A4.
-101.
- CN
'
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
o.co
" 0.00
— 0.05
PHENOL
___.o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.550
0.050
0.030
-__0.000
AS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
-_ BA
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.7
l.Q
0.7
1.4
-1.0
CO
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.02
002
0.00
0.01
0.02
-CR
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
004
0.00
0.00
-0.00
-CU
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.16
FE
0.18
0.62
0.66
0.15
0.40
0.15
0.43
0.29
014
0.29
0.09
1.00
HC
0.0028
0.0128
0.0110
0.0026
0.0036
0.0020
0.0040
0.0032
00046
0.0050
0.0016
0.0058
— NI
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
On
0.0
On
0.0 --
-------
1018028517 REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 3-3
SMNO
6
6
6
.
— 7
-J 7
^ 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
- 8
8
8
8
8
8
-- - 8
8
8
a
STA 1
8
1C
11
2
3
- • 4
5
6
8
9
t r*
1C
11
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 8
9
1C
• 1
MILE (
47
"*A
22
7
347
254
215
147
122
109
t\ i
S I
47
34
o o
a
7
347
254
215
147
122
1C9
91
47
34
22
"»
;ORP
l
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
<
TYPE
10
i n
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f\
SAMP
13212
1 T? 1 1
13210
13209
VH 13
9474
9475
*»*» to
9477
9472
QL.7 1
9467
9468
QA AQ
9470
9486
9487
9485
9488
9484
9483
9482
- 9478
9479
9480
at. a \
-PB
Oft
• u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
0.0
.0
n n
-SE -
Onni
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.000
O.OOL
• 003
n nm
— ZN -
OAA.0 . - . -
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
1-2
STA SKNl KILE CORP
J 2
2
— 2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
: 254
2 254
: 254
254
5 254
t 254
* 254
f 254
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
A
4
147
147
147
147
RP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
t
2
2
f
2
2
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
-TYPE
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
. .. 0
0
0
0
0
0
... . o
0
0
_. -0
0
0
.... 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAMP
9400
- 9419
9432
9444
9455
9466
9473
-9466
9409
9420
9431
9443
9454
9465
9474
9487
9410
9421
9430
9442
9453
9464
9475
9485
9407
9416
9429
9441
ICL
-194.-
280.
47.
- 54.
56.
92.
250.
44.
51.
— 55.
97.
250.
-207.
143.
236.
— 43.
46.
50.
111.
229.
42.
- F
0.02
0.00
0.00
,
0.00
-0.00
: .
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
- 0.00
.0.70
_ .
-— S04
22.
89.
46.
——78.
58.
61.
—99.
•"" =V_. :
- •" •' -r
-": "t T^_ -
96.
72.
167.
— 96.
111.
: 121.
78.
137.
— .
. _ -CN --PHENOL-
0.20 0.020
0.00 0.040
. .-- . INTER
. -„
0.00 0.000
0.05 ___0.000
v .-.:.':/—;'' - -'_.' _-_•-••
- .
' ". -•' '-.": - . -' .. ' -''•'-
i:__.i_l_:L. o.ocio
0.30 0.110
0.10 0.030
-0.00 -^—0.000
0.00 -- 0*000
0.00 0.000
— _ — _
-!AS
o.oo
0.00
0.00
.
0.00
- 0.00
-
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
- BA
0.5
0.0
0.0
- 0.7
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.7
_- .
CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
- 0.00
0.00
0.04
-0.00
• . •
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
- CR
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.02
- CU
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.12
•"
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.10
- FE
0. 74
0.32
1.57
1.91
1.26
0.18
0.43
0.79
0.43
0.35
0.26
0.64
0.86
0. 62
0.29
_
HG
0.0006
0.0037
0.0015
0.0028
0.0040
0.0000
0.0000
0.0098
0.0008
O.nijA
0.0032
NI
0.1
0.0
0.0
, _ _
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
On
0.0
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
1 - 3
GENESEE RIVER STUDY —
STA SHNC MILE CORP TYPE
SAMP PB
SE — ZN TS VS —TSS VSS
TDS
VDS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
^ 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
- 3
3
3
- 3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
- 3
A
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
- A
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
A
- 5
6
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
147
147
147
147
147
147
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
9AOO
9419
9432
9444
9455
9466
9473
9486
9409
9A20
— 9A31
9443
9454
9465
9474
94R7
9410
9421
9430
9442
9453
9464
9475
9485
9407
9418
9429
9441
9452
9463
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.004
0.0 0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.000
--
- ' '
0.0 —
0.0 0.002
0.0 0.002
0.0 0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.001
.. . . —
._
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.025
0.065
0.024
- : - - --
.
0.038
0.051
0.015
0.015
0.030
0.025
0.050
0.014
- -734.0
805.0
368.0
--350.0
668.0
328.0
— 864.0
= ;'
- 264.0
648.0
895.0
-417.0
433.0
604.0
- 404.0
1035.0
.-_. . .
123.0 -67.0
85.0 84.0
47.0 70.0
-60.0 42.0
316.0 30.0
176.0 18.0
-107.0 —56.0
..," - .::
-.
••-
136.0 -28.0
130.0 69.0
81.0 143.0
-72.0 - 35.0
105.0 22.0
192.0 18.0
184.0 --47.4
291.0 28.0
_ - ,_
—3.0 -667.0 120.0 -- - -
30.0 721.0 55.0
11.0 298.0 36.0
8.0 308.0 52.0 -
12.0 638.0 304.0
6.0 310.0 170.0
14.0 — 808.0 93.0 — - _
28.0-236.0- 108.0 — -
1.0 579.0 129.0
43.0 752.0 38.0
2.0—382.0 70.0 —
4.0 411.0 101.0
11.0 586.0 181.0
11.3—356.6 172.7 -
12.0 1007.0 279.0
. . _ _. _
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 2-1
-GENESEE RIVER STUDY
STA
SMNO
CORP TYPE
SAMP
DATE —TIME PH TEMPC
DO
BODS TOC TKN NH3N QRGN N02N N03N T-IP -
4
4
5
5
5
' 5
~ 5
<_/> - 5
• 5
5
6 - -
6
6
6
6
6
- 6
6
7
7
7
7
- 7
7
7
7
7
e
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
147
147
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
109
109
109
109
109
109
IC9
109
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
2
2
1
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
_
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
9476
9488
9408
9417
9428
9440
9451
9462
9477
9484
9406
9416
9427
9439
9450
9461
9472
9483
9405
9415
9426
9438
9449
13213
9471
9482
9/27/73
10/19/73
7/19/73
8/ 1/73
-8/16/73
9/11/73
9/12/73
-9/14/73
9/27/73
10/lfl/73
7/19/73
8/ 1/73
8/16/73
— 9/11/73
9/12/73
9/14/73
- 9/26/73
10/18/73
7/19/73
8/ 1/73
8/15/73
9/11/73
-9/12/73
9/14/73
9/26/73
10/18/73
1205
1120
1210
1511
1655
1715
1420
1000
1230
1800
1040
1443
1630
1135
1530
1130
1830
1720
1017
1420
1545
1110
1600
1200
1810
1700
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.9
8.2
8.1
8.6
-8.1
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.1
8.3
-8.3
8.6
8.1
8.1
7.9
8.0
15.4
-12.0
23.3
23.8
24.5
20.5
19.6
18.4
16.0
15.2
-23.9
25.1
25*9
-21.1
20.5
19.2
15.3
13.2
-24.0
24.7
25.4
21.2
-20.6
15.7
13.3
8.1
-7.6
12.1
8.3
-3.7
6.2
5.5
- 6.1
7.5
7.8
10.3
6.9
7.2
-6.2
6.4
5.8
- 9.3
8.3
8.3
-8.5
7.5
5.9
-6.1
7.4
-8.9
2.0
-2.5
4.4
4.3
-7.2
1.0
l.l
— 2.4
2.2
2.0
— 9.0
3.4
3.2
-1.3
22.0
1.5
2.4
0.9
2.4
-3.1
3.1
1.6
11.0
2.8
- 2.0
10.
.... Q..
f 9
15.
12.
8.
5.
14. -
17.
3.
11.
15.
--8. -
4.
11.
14.
9.
- _ _ —
25.
15.
— 1. -
10.
7.
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
3.1
0.7
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
2.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.38
1.00
0.00
0.12
0.46
0.25
0.42
0.21
0.27
0.13
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.24
0.43
. .
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.28
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
O.I
2.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.2
...
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.014
0.011
0.021
0.035
0.010
0.022
0.027
0.024
0.019
0.011
0.021
0.025
0.010
0.022
0.025
0.024
0.017
0.022
. -
0.022
0.022
0.018
0.022
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.15
0.15
O.lt
0.22
.....
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.33
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.15
0.03
0.11
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.06
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAG. 2-2
GENESEE RIVER STUDY~
STA SMNC MILE CORP TYPE SAMP CL
F —-S04--CN- -PHENOL AS -~ BA CO --CR CU FE
NI
4
5
5
5
1 5
~ 5
Q\ 5
• 5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
...„ 6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
147
147
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
109
109
109
109
1C9
109
109
109
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
2 0
2 0
0
0
- 0
0
0
o
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
... 0
0
2 0
2n
2 0
2 0
2 - 0
2 10
2 0
•> o
9476
9488
9408
9417
9428
9440
9451
9462
9477
9484
9406
9416
9427
9439
9450
9461
9472
9483
9405
9415
9426
9438
9449
13213
9471
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 2-3
-GENESEE RIVER STUDY
STA SMf.'C HILE CORP TYPE -SAMP —PB -SE — ZN TS VS
-TSS —VSS TDS
VDS -
V
A
5
5
5
5
_ 5
~j - 5
^ 5
5
6
6
6
6
— — . 6
6
7
- - 7
7
7
7
7
7
. . .7
•7
I
1
2
^
*
t
*
i
t
2
2
4
t
i
T
i
A
«
J
l
t
i
^
*
147
147
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
IflQ
109
109
1 no
109
109
109
109
91
Q«
91
91
- 41
91
91
01
2
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
- 9
0
n
0
0
.. -0
0
0
__ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- - 0
0
0
0
0
10
0
n
9476
Q4ftfl
9408
9417
9428
9440
9451
9462
9477
9484
Q& DA
9416
9427
0410
9450
9461
9472
9483
9405
441 S
9426
9438
9444
13213
9471
Q4A9
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
olo
0.0
0.0
ft n
0.0
0.0
On
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'..'"•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.003
.003
.000
.003
.000
.003
.003
.non
.003
.001
. ;.
0.04R
0.061
0.025
0.025
0.035
0 .030
0.060
0.024
On a a
0.046
0.030
Oni o
0.030
0.030
0.090
0.024
392.0
887.0
-775.0
427.0
510.0
• - 512.0
308.0
811.0
442 0
569.0
467.0
Ape n
332.0
460.0
-396.0
628.0
• \ _•_--'-
••• - - - •
110.0
273.0
-125.0
100.0
158.0
99.0 -
120.0
140.0
i
i no o
86.0
82.0
1S7 n
40.0
144.0
144.0
124.0
• ..
•
~
96.0
33.0
,-11.4
17.0
64.0
9.0
23.3
26.0
72 0
27.0
130.0
1 7 O
16.0
2.0
44.7
32.0
64.0
3.0
-5.7 - -
5.0
5.0
.-6.0
2.7
14.0
KJ n
12.0
56.0
A Q
5.0 .
1.0
4.0 -
14.0
296.0
854.0
763.6
410.0
446.0
503.0
284.7
785.0
420 0
542.0
337.0
40fl 0
316.0
458.0
351.3
596.0
46.0
270.0
119.3 1 :
95.0
153.0
93*0
117.3
126.0
48 0
74.0
26.0
1510
35.0
143.0
140.0 -- •--
110. 0
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
3 - i
, —GENESEE RIVER STUDY
SM SMNO MILE CORP TYPE SAMP — DATE — TIME - PH TEMPC
DO
B005 TOC - TKN NH3N ORGN N02N N03N T-IP
8
8
8
8
8
8
_
do '
, 9
9
Q
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
— 10
11
11
11
11
11
11
2
3
4
5
7
8
2
3
- 4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
*
O
7
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
5*1
34
34
- 34
34
34
34
34
22
22
22
22
12
22
22
22
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
I
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
-0
0
10
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
10
0
- 0
0
0
- o
0
0
10
0
9411
9425
9437
9448
3212
9467
9478
OAH9
9412
9424
9436
9447
132U
9468
9479
9403
9413
9423
9435
9446
13210
9469
9480
9404
9414
9422
9434
9445
13209
9470
8/ 1/73
8/16/73
9/10/73
9/13/73
O / 1 A / 71
**/ I**/ ID
9/26/73
10/18/73
TV 1 A/ 7"*
8/ 2/73
8/15/73
9/10/73
9/13/73
9/14/73
- 9/26/73
10/18/73
7/18/73
8/ 2/73
8/15/73
9/10/73
- 9/13/73
9/14/73
9/26/73
10/18/73
7/18/73
8/ 1/73
8/16/73
9/10/73
9/13/73
f\ 1 \ / / T *1
- y / i M * ' j
9/26/73
1015
1220
1345
1040
1430
1315
1 D ^ J
1045
1245
1435
1100
1200
1515
1400
1415
1113
1310
1505
1145
1200
1540
1440
1502
1143
1331
1540
1200
1615
8.3
8.7 -
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8C
7.1
8.3
8.0 —
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.5 -
8.2
8.1
8.2 —
8.0 .
7.9 -
8.1
8.4
8.1 —
8.2
8.3
8.0
26.6
27.6
23.1
21.7
16.3
14.3
7*\ Q
24.9
27.9
23.5
22.6
16.7
15.9
26.0
25.9
27.2
23.5
22.8
17.3
15.2
24.4
22.9
26.0
23.2
22.9
15.8
5.5
-6.3
6.8
6.2
8.8
8.9
*» A
4.9
7.2
— 5.9
6.0
8.0
8.9
5.0
-4.5
3.4
5.4
— 5.3
8.1
--6.8
: '- 6.0
3.9
- 4.3
5.1
4.1
8.7
5.7
-6.2
: i.o
0.3
2.2
2.1
•s n
5.0
8.9
-0.8
3.5
- 2.8
1.5
4.9
-4.1
6.0
1.1
—2.2
2.6
—2.6
5.0
3.2
-6.2
1.6
0.9
2.8
I.
39.
15.
14.
15.
6.
12.
- 8.
15.
10.
1.
._.
3.
10.
-15.
12.
— 5.
1.
16.
7.
16.
13.
0.8
1.9
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.9
— 1.4
1.5
-0.5
2.1
_ .
1.0
0.9
- 2.0
1.9
— 1.5
0.9
1.2
1.9
0.7
2.6
1.2
0.22
0.86
0.18
0.06
0.17
0.36
0.81
0.51
1.07
0.49
1.88
1.03
0.33
1.22
0.57
1.17
0.80
0.96
0.68
0.00
2.15
0.68
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.3
0.3
O.I
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.030
0.020
0.022
0.028
0.023
0.034
0.022
0.028
0.025
0.029
..
0.024
0.028
0.028
0.034
0.037
0.023
-0.020
0.030
0.029
0.028
0.27
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.10
0.26
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.18
0.05
0.12
0.13
0.23
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.16
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.22
0.11
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.31
0.11
0.05
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PACE
3-2
GENESEE-RIVER STUDY —
STA SMNO MILE CORP TYPE SAMP - CL
—S04 -CN - PHENOL AS —BA
-CD
CR
CU
FE
HC
NI
B
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
i i
2
a
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
A
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
-0
0
0
i n
0
0
0
0
0
10
Q
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
i n
9411
.9425
9437
9448
I •»? i •)
9467
9478
o&n?
9412
9424
57. 0.12
--99. -0.00
46. 0.00
42.
59. 0.00
96. 0.00
•57.
47.
60 " "
104.
4 . /-
59.
L.1
57.
OR
42. 0.00
63. 0.12
66. 0.00
63. 0.01
52.
171. 0.00
--92. -0.00
51. 0.00
64.
109. 0.00
64. 0.00
i--. '..'-. .. "•_
- • "C
.- . -• -
115.
46. 0.10
76. 0.03
83. 0.00
88.
0.150 0.00 0.0 0.03
0.020 -0.00 0.0 -0.00
0.060 0.00 0.0 0.00
0.7 0.00
0.000 0.00 0.0 0.00
0.030 0.00 1.4 0.01
— - :
.-.-_. '-^ .. -'-.
'.., - ~i "i-ir^- ""- -" - ---"-. - '
--v-1- ; "--""'- .
0.050 0.00 0.5 0.00
0.020 0.00 0.0 0.00
--- 0.020 0.00 0.0 0.00
0.020 0.00 0.0 0.00
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.12__
- -.1^ -
• -ol
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.31
0.48
0.14
0.11
0.40
0.09
-
1.12
0.59
0.38
0.23
0.34
0.0000- 0.0
0.0056 0.0
0.0053 0.0
0.0
0.0036 0.0
0.0036 0.0
•
0.0
0.0022 0.1
0.0036 0.1
0.0035 0.3
0.0
-------
1018028517
REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE
3-3
STA
8
8
8
8
8
8
X o
3 ^
9
9
9
9
9
10
i n
iu
10
10
i n
10
10
1 f\
IU
11
11
11
11
11
11
SHNC
2
3
4
5
7
8
I
2
3
5
6
7
8
1
3
A
6
7
1
2
3
A
5
7
NILE
47
47
47
47
f. f
47
47
•» A
34
34
•» A
34
34
•14
34
22
9 3
22
22
99
' 22
22
o o
£.£.
1
7
7
7
7
7
CORP
I
-I
1
1
1
1
2
2
y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
TYPE
0
0
0
0
i n
0
0
0
0
n
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
I n
- - - 10
0
SAMP
9411
9425
9437
9448
1191?
9467
9478
QAH?
9412
9424
QAIA
9447
13211
Q&AR
9479
9403
a& i i
9423
9435
Q&4 f\
13210
9469
Q L. RH
9404
9414
9422
9434
9445
1 izW
9470
-PB SE
0.0 0.002
-0.0 0.002
0.0 0.000
0.0
0.0 0.001
0.0 0.003
0.6
o.o :
0.0 0.002
0.0 0.004
0.0 0.000
0.0
0.0 0.004
-ZN
0.051
0.095
0.000
0.030
0.095
0.024
7
-.y
0.098
0.046
0.050
0.025
0.038
0.125
TS
423.
-470.
343.
372.
388.
600.
;••'.;•'.
244.
443.
— 317.
447.
440.
304.
VS -
0 74.0
0 147.0
0 35.0
0 45.0
0 200.0
0 144.0
vr -: •
~- ;.
-. ' '- :- - " • ~
0 100.0
0 95.0
0 -- 53.0
0 42.0
0 80.0
0 188.0
— TSS
11.0
—46.0
15.0
6.0
42.7
56.0
v
;"_-
48.0
108.0
36.0
19.0
2.0
25.4
VSS
5.0
30.0
3.0
2.0
8.0
16.0
- --
32.0
12.0
18.4
7.0
1.0
3.3
TDS
412.0
424.0
328.0
366.0
345.3
544.0
196.0
335.0
281.0
428.0
438.0
278.6
VOS -
69.0
117.0 -
32.0
4.3
192.0
128.0
68.0
83.0
34.6
35.0
79.0
184.7
-------
1018028517 REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 4-1
~GENESEE 'RIVER STUDY -j-'r : _._,.- .- — ---
STA SMNC MILE CORP TYPE SAMP —DATE TIME -PH -TEMPO -DO BODS TOO TKN NH3N ORGN N02N N03N T-IP
II 8 7 I 0 9481 10/18/73 1515 7.6 15.5 6.2 2.7 3. 2.6 1.85 0.8 0.042 0.29 0.12
101 2 34 1 0 9383 —8/ 2/73 -1030 16.0 -I. 2.2 1.05 1.2 0.071 0.64 0.05
oo
-------
1018028517 REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 4-2
-GENESEE RIVER STUDY, —: = -----
STA SMNC MILE CORP TYPE SAMP -CL - - -F --SO* - CN -- PHENOL —AS — BA CO - CR CU FE HG Ml
11 8 7 1 0 9481 133. 0.00 101. 0.05 0.000 0.00 1.0 0.02 0.00 0.16 1.00 0.0058 0.0
. .1
oo
101 2 34 10 9383 -57. 0.20 -33. 4.30 0.080 O.CO 0.5 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.53 0.0150 0.0
-------
1018028517 REPORT PRINTED 12/13/73 PAGE 4-3
GENESEE RIVER STUDY, „—: ..
STA SMNC MILE CORP TYPE SAMP -PB SE - ZN — TS VS -TSS - -VSS -TOS VDS — -
11 8 7 1 0 9481 0.0 0.001 0.014 712.0 116.0 60.0 14.0 652.0 102.0
1CI 2 34 10 9383 0.0 0.091 -513.0 115.0 184.0 68.0 -329.0 47.0 —
oo
-------
APPENDIX C - BIOLOGICAL ASSAYS CONDUCTED ON THE GENESEE RIVER
- 184 -
-------
DESCRIPTION OF FISH IN GENESEE RIVER
CLUPIDAE
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
In Lake Ontario, the alewife spawns at night in late May to early July or may begin in April
with a peak in mid-June to early July (52). The temperature range for spawning appears to
be 13 to 16°C (55.4 to 60.8°F)^53^. The adults migrate to spawn in streams or shallow
water areas along the shore, spawning on sand or gravel bottoms, often in areas with some
vegetation. The female lays anywhere from 11,000 to 22,400 eggs^54\ The incubation
period ranges from 48 to 96 hours at 22°C (71.6°F) to six days at 15.5°C (59.9OF)(55>.
The fry are positively phototrophic and pelagic^56) and during the fall and winter after
hatching, move to the mid-depths of the lake where they remain until about their third
summer, at which time they move to the bottom^57'58).
After one year's growth, they measure 138.6 mm in total length.
Alewife males usually mature at the age of two and the females at the age of three^53). As
adults, alewives feed mainly on the larger plankton (copepods and cladocerans), and young
alewives have been observed feeding on alewife eggs during the spawning period.
In mid-winter, the adults are densely concentrated on the bottom in the deepest areas of a
lake, where they may be seeking the warmest waters^57'58), as the preferred temperature
range at this period is 4.4 to 8.8°C (39.9 to 47.8°F)(59). As spring approaches, they begin
moving closer to shore. The average life span is about four years with death occurring
shortly after spawning.
At the time of spawning, temperature preferendum is about 20°C (68°F) but this declines
after spawning to 16 to 17°C (60.8 to 62.6°F). After spawning, the alewives generally
move offshore and disperse from the surface to deeper depths.
CATOSTOMIDAE
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
The white sucker migrates from lakes and large rivers to swift streams of relatively small
size in April to May for spawning^60). The female will lay approximately 67,000 to more
than 100,000 eggs. The incubation period is variable with temperature. Bassett/61\ found
the incubation period to be five days at 18°C (64.4°F), seven days at 15.5 to 16.1°C (49.9
to 61.0°F) and 11 days at 13.6°C (56.5°F).
Most major zooplankton groups present form food for the larvae fish (rotifers, copepods,
etc.). Cladocerans increase in the diet after fish reach 1.4 cm in total length^62). The
post larval fish occur most abundantly over the terrigenous shoals of lakes, schooling off the
bottom, in shallow water near the beach^60).
At the end of the first growing season, total length will average 10.2 to 17.7 cm. They
slowly move off the terrigenous shoals into the shallow shoreward vegetation, schooling
closer to the bottom feeding on bottom detritus. Young suckers also utilize entomostracans,
small insects, rotifers, and algae.
- 185 -
-------
Adults prefer amphipods, fingernail clams, snails, detritus, chiromonids, and entomostracans.
They are almost strictly benthic dwellers. It is very rare to catch a sucker in a not sot near
the surface, as opposed to a bottom net.
White suckers vary greatly in the time it takes to reach maturity, taking from three to seven
years depending on the locality and conditions.
The white sucker prefers a temperature range from 14.1°C to 21.6°C (57.3° to
64.9°F)(63,59)
The LD is 30°C (86°F) and 31.1°C (88°F) when acclimated to 7.2°C (45°F) and 10.0°C
(50°F) respectively^63).
Numbers in the area along the shore of Lake Ontario have always been low and they have
comprised only a few percent of total gill net catches.
ICTALURIDAE
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
The brown bullhead spawns early in the spring, late April or May. A fanned-out depression
in mud serves as a nest into which 2,000 to 10,000 or more eggs are deposited. The parents
guard the nest during the incubation period, which is usually from five to eight days. After
hatching, they are herded about in schools for some weeks^64). Juvenile bullheads feed
mainly on ostracods and copepods, with tendipides larva also a factor^65). At the end of
the first year, they reach a length of about 6.3 to 10.2 cm.
Brown bullheads mature in about three years. At this stage in the adult life, the main foods
are crustaceans, snails, small crayfish, worms and small clams. Traveling in schools and
feeding off the bottom, they will feed eagerly on nearly anything available, living or dead.
Bullheads can grow in weight to about two pounds (900 grams), but most will average from
eight to ten in. and weigh less than one pound (450 grams)(64).
Adults, when acclimated to 7.2°C (45°F) and 11.1°C (52°F), have relatively high LDs of
33.9°C (93°F) and 36.1°C (97°F), respectively^63). They have been observed swimming in
37 to 38°C (98.6 to 100.4°F) water and would enter 40°C (104°F) water for worms^66).
At the winter temperature of 4.0°C (49.2°F) or below, very little feeding occurs, but at
6.5°C (43.7°F) feeding again begins^67). Brown bullheads can bury themselves in mud
under adverse conditions, (e.g., toxicity) and emerge later when conditions are more
favorable.
SERRANIDAE
White perch (Roccus americana)
The white perch spawns over a period of several days in late May, June and July. Sometime
at night, the female lays about 40,000 eggs in long strips over sand or gravel bars^68). The
- 186 -
-------
eggs sink to the bottom and stick firmly to any substrate. At 17.2°C (63.0°F) the eggs
hatch, in about 48 hours, forming larval fry 2.6 mm long. These newly hatched fry feed on
plankton and are usually found along the shore in quiet areas. By the end of the first
summer they range from 6.4 to 10.2 cm in length and average 8.9 cm at the end of the
first year. These young are found in large numbers in weedy areas along the shore of lakes
and rivers, and in clear waters of lakes at depths of about 2.5 to four meters over mud
bottoms in July^69-70).
The adults are generally found in three to six meters of water in lakes and move inshore at
night to feed. They generally feed on insect larvae (mayfly, midge), amphipods, insects and
smaller fish. The major constituent, however, is Gammarus, the freshwater scud(69>7°).
Alewives and spottail shiners comprise just under half the food supply in the spring. By
July, alewives supply over three quarters of the food utilized. In August, over 80 percent of
the food consists of Gammarus gradually reverting in the fall to alewives and Gammarus as
the two major sources.
The white perch seems to do best in water at 23.9°C (75°F), or somewhat higher^71).
The maximum age is about 15 years in New York State, reaching 1360 to 2000 grams in
uncrowded lake conditions.
CENTRARCHIDAE
The family Centrarchidae have four major representatives in the inshore ichthyofauna of
Lake Ontario. Of these the smallmouth bass is the most important (for sport fisher), while
the bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish are the most numerous of the panfish. Rock bass are
also present but have not been taken or seen in large numbers.
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui)
Smallmouth bass reproduce during the first ten days or two weeks in May. Migration up
small tributary streams to spawn is very common. The actual spawning activities commence
when the water temperature reaches 15.6°C to 18.3°C (60 to 65°F). The males construct
nests on gravel, coarse sand, or rock by fanning out shallow depressions.
The number of eggs varies greatly, from 200 to several thousand, depending on how many
females have used one nest. Respawning (in both sexes) and renesting is a common
occurrence. There is no evidence of spawning along the lake shore.
The eggs hatch in three to five days. After six to 15 days, they leave the nest and begin
feeding on crustaceans^64^. At 23.9°C (75°F), the mean incubation period was about two
and one-quarter days^63). By the end of the first fall, they reach a length of 7.6 to 10.2 cm
total length^64).
Smallmouth bass mature in the second or third year of life. They can reach a size of 2200
to 2700 grams, but the maximum for the average fish is 1300 to 1800 grams. Food for the
adult consists of alewives, small fish, and crayfish. Wagner^72) found Gammarus, sculpin
and alewife eggs to be major foods, while crayfish and alewives were a lesser food.
- 187 -
-------
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
Rock bass spawn in lute April to mid June when the water temperature reaches 20.6 to
21.1°C (69 to 70°FJ. The male forms a nest, guarding and fanning the 3000 to 8500 eggs
the female
By the end of the first growing season, the young are between 3.8 to 5.1 cm long. The
young rock bass eat insects and crayfish^70).
The adult rock bass feeds primarily on crayfish, with small fish and large insects supplying
the bulk of the rest of their diet. The maximum length usually attained is 16.5 cm. The
rock bass matures as early as the fourth year of life or as late as the seventh year(7°).
The rock bass will begin to feed in the spring of the year when the water temperature
reaches 9.5°C (49.1°F) according to KeastX67). The preferred temperature range is between
14.7°C and 21.3°C (58.4°F to 70.3°F). When acclimated to 7.2°C (45°F) and 23.9°C
(75°F), the LDs are 29.4°C (85°F) and 37.5°C (99.5°F) respectively^ 6 3 > .
In the spring, rock bass are migrating along the shore of the lake. They appear to settle
down in one area during the summer but actively migrate in the fall and winter.
PERCIDAE
Yellow perch (perca flavescens)
Yellow perch spawn in April and early May, approximately when the temperature reaches a
range of 6.7 to 12.2°C (44 to 54°F). The eggs are deposited in accordion-like gelatinous
ribbons on sand, gravel, or sometimes on vegetation in near shore areas five to ten ft. deep.
The number of eggs laid by one female ranges from 24,000 to 48,000, depending mainly
upon the size of the female. The eggs hatch in 48 hours at 17.2°C (63°F) and average 5.8
mm in total length at this time^70). Generally, if the incubation water temperature in
somewhat raised, the incubation period shortens. Thus, in the previously mentioned
spawning temperature range, the incubation period probably is slightly longer.
At the initiation of feeding, yellow perch favor Copepod nauplia and rotifers. As they grow
eight to eleven cm, cyclopoid copepods dominate, with cladocera gradually becoming the
main food after
After one year's growth, yellow perch reach a size of about 70 mm and their diet expands
to include various crustaceans, insects and small fish. These fingerlings seem to prefer a
23.9°C (75°F) water temperature. In the second year of life and onward, the preferred
temperature drops to 21.1°C (70°F)(70>. When acclimated to 8.0°C (46.4°F), they prefer a
mean temperature of 18.6°C (65.4°F). When the acclimation temperature rises to 10.0°C
(50°F), the preferred temperature is 20.4°C (68.7°F)(63>. The LD was found to be 29.7°C
(85.5°F) when acclimated to 25.0°C (77°F).
Yellow perch may live for eight to nine years, reaching a size of 30.5 cm and weighing 460
grams. These larger fish in Lake Ontario eat Gammarus, sculpins, darters, alewives and their
roe, and the spottail minnows. The same should be true of populations in the Genesee
River. The major food depends on the availability of each food, which is either seasonal or
related to population cycles.
Netting studies have shown that yellow perch come into shore areas to feed at night,
probably moving back to about six to seven meter depth during the daytime.
- 188 -
-------
In the food chain, yellow perch serve as a large portion of the food of walleyes, smallmouth
bass, northern pike, and crappies.
- 189 -
-------
TABLE
f. Table
log,0N/S o
0-4
«'f
0-4
»'7
c.$
O'f
ro
1-1
1-2
1-3
1'4
J'5
1-6
1-7
1-8
'"9
:-o
2-1
1-2
2'3
2-4
2'5
2-6
2'7
2'8
2-9
3-0
j-j .
3'3
3'4
3'5
o-bim
O'7\!7(«u
c.x>7;,o
«''255-i
1-2754(1 •
t -4 19^0
i'5SSio
1-69314
1-82501
1-95426
2-08130
2-20644
2-5=994
2-4520:
2-572^2 .
2-69252
2-81121
2-92901
3'046co
3-16225
3-39280
3-50719
3-62106
3'73-:-45
3'8t739
3'9i90l
4-07203
4- 18379
4-29520
4-40629'
4-51707 .
of log,0
i
63084
S|J20
•JS3S6
l.'220
29008
43329
S7177
70646 '
83805
96706
0^389
21886
34S2I
46414
.58.584'
704-13
82303
94075
Oj/66
17384
28936
40426
uS6o
6324 =
74577 '
85866
97114
CS J*2,i
'9494
30632
4«7jS
52814
N/« In
S =
2
6.S02.1
"S.'ft/l
';')'i73
15X13
30465
44733
58539
71975
85106
terms of
= * loge
3
669.19
8500.1
1 01579
17331
311)1 6
461.13
59898
73301
86404
log,o
n+a
4
6X832
80717
o.< 1 74
*X772
33361
475^8
61254
74623
87700
97984 99259 2-00532
10647
23126
35440
47617
59684
71633
83484
95247
06931
18542 •
30087
4157*
53001
643/8
75707
86992 '
98236
09441
20610 .
31744 ;
42847 .
53920 •
1 1 902
=4365
36670 '
4f.5t.j8
6o£t>4
7^S22
84664
•96419
08095
19699
31238
42717
S4I4I
6>;i3
76838
88119
99353 4
10560
21725
32856
43956
55025
13156
25602
37S93
500.18
6:083
74011
85843
97590
09259
2OSi(>
523^9
43S62
552SO
6C6.fS
77968
89244
00480
11678
22839
33967
45064
56131
N/S, for
), given
5
70701
SX.,r7
04759 '
2on6
34«oi
-!S9'9
62605
75943
88994
01804
14409
26838 '
39I'4
51256
63280
' 75 '98
87022
98760
10422
22O12
33539
45006
56419
.6778^ .
70^97
' 90370 -.
01602
; 12795 •
23954
35079
46172
57236
solving
the equation
SandN
6
7255 1
90105
06.1.15
2 1 '•„•; t
36234
50305
63954
77261
90285
03073
i ^6:9
28072
40334 •
51464
64476
76385
88199
. 99930
11584
23168
34688 •
46150
•57558
68915
80227
9U95 •
02723
13913
25068
36189 •
47280
58340
7
743«* -
91779
07002
23110
37«'.'63
5168$
65299
78575
9'574
04340
16908
29305 .
41553
65672
77570
89376
3.02099
12745
243=3. .
47293
58696
70048
8iJ55
92619
03843
15030
26181
37300
48387
59445
8
76195
9.1442
09 ;6o
2J'"O2
3'>oS7
53066
66640
79886
92800 '
05605
58155
30536
42770 .'
54*75
• 66866 .
78/55
90552
02267
13906
*5 177
' 3*035
48436 •
59833
71181
82484
93743
' 04964,
16147
27295
38410
49494
60549
v
77990
1/5092
1 IOIO
2*6077
40506
54440
67979
81195
94144
06809
19400
31766
43986
56079
68059
79939
91727
OJ434
15066
26630
3Si33
49578
60970
72313
83611
94867
06084
17163
28408
35520
50601
61653
-------
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Fragilaria
Synedra
; • Melosira
Cyclotella
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Blue-greens:
Oscillatoria
Green:
Pediastrum
•Scenedesmus
Mougeotia
Actinastrum
Other:
Cryptomonas
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Keratella
Brachionus
Polyarthra
TABLE 2
Gene see River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
July 18-19, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
No Sample No Sample
5
9408-S
52
52
52
52
464
413
206
52
103
8
.^
No Sample No Sample 9404-S
52
52
J64
310
258
52
_
52
2219
258
52
103
, __
155
^'1
52
NJ
°°
-------
TABLE 2
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
July 18-19, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
Station 1 35 6 8 11
Sample Number No Sample No Sample 9408-S No Sample Np Sample 9404-S
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella |*
Fragilaria 52
Synedra 4°4
Melosira 52 310
£ Cyclotella 52 258
^ Navicula 5Z
Gyrosigma 52
Blue-greens:
Oscillatoria 5Z **•
Green: o^m
Pediastrum 464 ZZ19
Scenedesmus 413 258
Mougeotia '
Actinastrum 206
Other:
Cryptomonas 52
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
N)
CO
Keratella 103 155
Brachionus
Polyarthra
-------
TABLE 2
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Protozons:
Norticella
Nauplii
Cladocera:
Bosmiana
1 3
No Sample No Sample
5 6.8 11
94-8-S No Sample NO Sample 9404-S
103
52
52
Total number/liter
1446
4905
-------
TABLE 3
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
July 18-19, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
Station 1 3 5 6 8 11
Sample Number No Sample No Sample 9408-B No Sample No Sample 9404-B
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella 52 ,
Fragilaria . 52 . 155
Synedra . 103 52
— ' Melosira 155
* Cyclotella , 52
Navicula 155
Blue-greens:
Anabaena 52
Oscillatoria 103 103
Green:
Pediastrum 155 1858
Staurastrum 52 103
Scenedesmus 52
Coelastrum ' 52
Mougeotia 258
Closteriopsig • 103
Actinastrum • 52
Zooplankton ,
Rotifers:
Keratella . 258
Brachionus ' 103 •' 103
-------
TABLE
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Copepods:
Cydopiod
Nauplii
Cladocerans
Cladocerans:
Bosmina
Daphnia
Protozoans:
Difflugia
- Vorticella
<-" Eudorina
No Sample No Sample
5
9408-B
52
52
6 8
No Sample No Sample
11
9404-B
52
52
103
52
206
Tfctal Number/liter
776
3976
-------
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
Synedra
Melosira
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Surirella
Meridion
ON
Blue-greens:
Oscillatoria
Merismopedia
Gloeocapsa
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum
Scenedesmus
Cosmarium
Euderina
Schroederia
Mougeotia
Closteriopsis
TABLE 4
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
August 1-2, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
1
9419-S
3
9421-S
103
155
103
103
52
103
52
52
5
9417-S
6
9416-S
8
9411-S
11
9414-S
52
413
155
155
155
52
103
52
206
52
40
408
81
204
81
408
1909
412
.11042
52
774
206
619
103
619
310'
516
52
204
90
258
163
122
489
81
52
52
52
3560
774
722
103
258
52
258
2322
103
464
52
52
1496
774
-------
TABLE 4
vO
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Green, Con't.
Pleodorina
Microspora
Closterium
Cladaphora
Characiopsis
Actinastrum
Pyrrhophyta:
Ceratium
Other:
Phacus
Dinobyron
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Kellicotia
Keratlla
Polyarthra
Pleosoma
Brachionus
Cope pods :
Nauplii
Total number/liter
1 35 6
9419-S 9421-S 9417-S 9416-S
309
40
52
52
52 103 206
1342
52 206
51
40
52 155
206
40
52 52
8
9411-S
1187
155
103
52
103
361
155
11
9414-S
774
52
464
826
103
52
413
361
103
52
1654
931
2751
21463
6863
52
7225
-------
00
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
^ Synedra
Melosira
Cyclotella
Navicula
, Gyrosigma
Pleurosigma
Meridion
Diploneis-
Blue-greens:
'Anabaena
Anacystis
Spirulina
Oscillatoria
Gloeocapsa
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum
Scenedesmus .
TABLE 5
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
August 1-2,. 197
Number of organisms'
1
9419-B
3
9421-B
No Sample
6
9416-B
8
9411-B
11
9414-B
103
310
464
361
103
52
206
361
52
206
816
408
204
408
408
204
4896
408
52
2528
256
8049
1449
103
258
52
52
408
408
3264
204
2448
103
361
52
3096
567
671
206
2374
155
155
722
670
464
671
52
52
361
2219
!55 w
258 c/i
-------
TABLE 5
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Green, Con*t.
Schroederia
Mcugeotia
Microspora
Closterium
Characiopsis
Actinastrum
Pyrrhophyta:
Ceratium
Other:
Phacus
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Kellicottia
Keratella
Polyarthra
Brachionus
Protozoans:
^ Oocticella
Difflugia j
Copepods:
Cyclopoid
Nauplii
1
9419-B
52
155
206
40
3 56
9421-B No Sample 9416-B
1632 155
408 . 516
1632
52
206
929
«
206
258
103
258
8
9411-B
I
258
103
361
52
413
52
103
258
52
206
11
9414-B
155
103
722
103
258
52
52
52
52
103
206
Total number/liter
2671
18208
18522
6352
7378
-------
K)
O
o
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Gyrosigma
Green:
Pediastrum
Scenedesmus
Closterium
Characiopsis
Pyrrhophyta:
Ceratium
Other:
Phacus
Zooplankton
TABLE 6
Gene see River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
August 15-16, 19.73
ms/l
...
Number of organisms/liter
No Sample
No Sample
5
9428-S
1449
14448
50568
1032
2683
1449
619
No Sample
8 11
No Sample No Sample
Total number/liter
72248
-------
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Synedra
Navicula
Green:
Pediastrum
Scenedesmus
Closterium
Characiopsis
Actinastrum
Zooplankton
TABLE 7
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
August 15-16., 1973
Number of organisms/liter
No Sample No Sample
5
9428-B
6605
3302
48163
102374
2477
2477
3302
6 8
No Sample ' No Sample
11
No Sample
Total number/liter
168700
CO
-------
TABLE 7
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
to ' Synedra
^ Melosira
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Blue-greens:
Oscillatoria
Green:
Pediastrum
•Staurastrum
Scenedesmus
Mougeotia '
Zooplankton
1
9444-S
52
52
52
103
52
52
103
155
September 10-11,
Number of organisms
/i!l3er
3 5 6 8 11
9442-S 9440-S No Sample No Sample No Sample
408
816
408
2448
408
816
408
4896
t
103
258
103
52
52
929
Total number/liter
621
10608
1497
04
-------
IJ
o
Ui
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
Synedra
Melosira
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Blue-greens:
Anabaena
Oscillatoria
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum
Gonium
Mougeotia
Characiopsis
Zooplankton
TABLE 8
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
Number of organisms/lit:
1
9444-B
3
9442-B
408
1224
er
9440-B
(partial)
52
52
52
52
408
816
816
408
408
204
408
408
204
103
, 52
774
42
52
52
408
52
8
No Sample No Sample
11
No Sample
Total number/liter
208
6120
1137
-------
41
CO
I
in
H oo
oo 10
co ro
vo \o
O rH
T oo
m
VD
o
'Si'
oo
0)
e
fd
vo
CO
I
o
en
vo
H
in
in
in
m
ro
o
r-4
CM
in
C
O
•H
•p
•H Mr4
CO "CD
II
n u p^n
'O V"
co
CN ro r«4
in o m
H
ro
o
ro
o
H
in
m
o
TABLE
0)
0)
M
a)
C
0>
o
0)
3
O
(0
•rH
i rd
W Q) O rH
C fd O rH
cu xi M -H
QJ id O U
H C -rH tn
0)
3
rH
ffl
M -p
-p tn
en rd
td M
to
E
tn
o>
G
O
•P
O
•rH
C
0)
0)
o
0) -P
(X CO
i
CO 33
-------
TABLE
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Green, Con't.
Schroederia
Kcugeotia
Closteriopsis
Microspora
Ciosterium
Cladaphora
Characiopsis
Other:
Phacus
Zooplankton
Rotifers:.
Keratella
Brachionus
1
9455-S
52
3
9453-S
40
481
81
40
5
9451-S
6
9450-S
8
No Sample
877
103
52
722
155
52
103
361
52
11
9445-S
1469
40
285
40
Total Number/liter
415
728
1755
3200
3257
to
-------
o
ON
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms :
Asterionella
Fragilaria
Synedra
Melosira
Cyclotella
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Blue-greens :
Oscillatoria
Gloeocapsa
Green :
Pediastrum
Staurastrum
Scenedesmus
Gonium
Mougeotia
Closteriopsis
Microspora
Characiopsis
TABLE 10
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
September 12-13, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
1
9455-B
52
103
52
52
52
52
309
3
9453-B
41
204
41
163
41
41
368
•
5
9451-B
82
652
245
1102
816
857
82
41
163
2446
82
775
6 8 11
9450-B No Sample 9445-B
52
258 103
103
361
103
155
103 774
103
258 . 1238
361
206
Other:
Phacus
52
-------
TABLE 10
Station
Sample' Number
Organism
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Keratella
Brachionus
Polyarthra
Peotozoans:
Paramecium
Total Number/liter
1
9455-B
3
9453-B
5
9451-B
6
9450-B
8 11
No Sample 9445-B
724
858
7343
52
155
103
52
3869
-------
TABLE 11
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
September 13-14, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
Station 1 3 5 6 8 11
Sample Number 9466-S No Sample No Sample No Sample No Sample No Sample
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella 258
Fragilaria 52
Synedra 155
Navicula 155
Gyrosigma 103
Blue-greens: -
Oscillatoria 103
»
Green:
Pediastrum 155
Staurastrum 52
Mougeotia 774
Netrium 52
Characiopsis 52
Zooplankton
Protozoans:
Chrysopyxis 52
j
Total Number/liter 1705
/ tn
-------
to
o
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Synedra
Navicula
Gyrosigma
Green:
Mougeotia
TABLE 12
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
September 13-14, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
1
9466-B
8
No Sample No Sample No Sample 'No Sample
11
No Sample
706
103
206
103
885
Total Number/liter
2003
o\
-------
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytopiankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
Synedra
Melosira
Cyclotella
Navicula
Blue-greens:
Anacystis
Spirulina
Oscillatoria
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum i
Spirogyra
Chaetophora
Sphaeroplea
Trochiscia
Mougeotia
Closteriopsis
Netrium
TABLE 13
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
Number of organisms/liter
1
9473-S
3
9475-S
5
9477-S
6
7472-S
8
7467-S
11
9470-S
103
516
52
52
310
206
52
206
258
155
52
208
52
52
153
52
52
412
208
103
103
464
103
,
103
206
52
155 •
52
1651
206
52
52
52
516
52
52
52
206
258
155
1083
52
155
52
155
52
877
155
258
310
52
52,
155
619
52
52
929
103
155
, 310
155
-------
TABLE 13
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Green, Con't.
Characiopsis
Actinastrum
Pyrrhophyta
Ceratium
Peridinium
Other:
Phacus
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Kellicottia
Keratella
Polyarthra
Protozoans
Chrysacoccus
Difflugia
Total Number/liter
1 3
9473-S 9475-S
52
52
52
1911
52
52
1603
5
9477-S
155
52
103
52
52
1600
6
9472-S
52
52
52
3357
8
9467-S
52
103
52
11
9470-S
155
52
52
3563
2841
00
-------
TABLE 14
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
September 26-27, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
Station 1 3 5 6 8 11
Sample Number 9477-B 9475-B 9473-B 9472-B 9467-B 9470-B
Organism
Phytoplankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella 155'
Tabellaria 103 103 • ' 52
Fragilaria 52 310 103 619 1909 1754
ro Synedra 103 52 258 52 52
w Melosira 103 52 103 516
Navicula . 52 361 . 52
Gyrosigma 52
Meridion 52
Blue-greens:
Anacystis 52 • 52
Oscillatoria 205 155 155 155 52
Green:
Pediastrum 361 206 155 206 309 412
Staurastrum 52 103 52 103
Coelastrum 52
Spirogyra ' . 52
Chaetophora 103 ' 155
Mougeotia 155 206 206 103 258
Closteriopsis 412 361 361 103 516 ' 52
Characiopsis 103 52 52
Actinastrum . 52
-------
TABLE 14
Ui
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Pyrrhophyta:
Ceratium
Other:
Phacus
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
. Keratella
Polyarthra
Protozoans:
Difflugia
Total Number/liter
1 35 6
9477-B 9475-B 9473-B 9472-B
52
103 155 103 52
52
1496 2271 1342 2065
8
9467-B
258
52
52
52
4026
11
9470-B
52
2943
en
O
-------
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytopiankton
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
Synedra
— Melosira
Cyclotella
Navicula
Stephanodiscus
Blue-greens:
Oscillatoria
TABLE 15
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
October 18-19, 1973
Number of organisms/liter
1
9486-S
3
9485-S
5
9484-S
6
9483-S
8
9478-S
11
9481-S
103
52
103
52
103
52
52
103
103
52
206
52
103
593
122
1020
40
40
408
412
52
464
103
206,
155.
516
103
155
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum
Scenedesmus
Cosmarium
Spirogyra
Chaetophora
Schroederia
Mougeotia
Closteriopsis
155
155
52
52
361
206
52
52
155
52
206
52
52
52
103
857
122
40
244
774
103
206
155
464
103
206
206
-------
TABLE 15
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Other:
Dinobyron
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Keratella
Polyarthra
Protozoans:
Vorticella
Total Number/liter
1
9486-S
3
9485-S
1343
672
5
9484-S
52
930
6
9483-S
40
3526
8
9478-S
52
103
2424
11
9481-S
52
2166
o
ts
-------
TABLE 16
Genesee River
Plankton Abundance and Composition
October 18-19, 1974
Number of organisms/liter
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Phytoplankton-
Diatoms:
Asterionella
Tabellaria
Fragilaria
~ Synedra
f • Melosira
Mavicula
Stephanodiscus
, Nitzschia
Blue-greens:
Anabaena
Oscillatoria
Green:
Pediastrum
Staurastrum *
Scenedesmus
Schroederia
Chaetophora
Pandorina
Mougeotia
Closteriopsis
Microspora
Closterium
No Sample
3
9485-B
5
9484-B
6
9483-B
8
9478-B
11
9481-B
448
163
734
81
40
40
897
448
122
40
204
81
122
155
52
258
103
52
155
155
258
734
286
2856
163
41
82
41
856
41
204
41
82
82
367
82
244
775
619'
258
361
103
52
52
41
244
612
122
367
567
567
52
310
206
52
-------
TABLE 16
Station
Sample Number
Organism
Green, Con't.
Zygnema
Characiopsis
Pyrrhophyta:
Ceratium
Zooplankton
Rotifers:
Keratella
Polyarthra
Protozoans:
Vorticella
Copepods:
Camplus
Cladocerans:
Bosmina
Diaphanosoma .
Total Number/liter
1 3
No Sample 9485-B
40
40
40
3540
5
9484-B
52
52
6
9483-B
41
163
40
1292
40
40
6282
8
9478-B
81
81
2567
11
9481-B
52
3251
tn
-------
Station
Date
TABLE 17
Genesee River Data
Benthic Samples
N7m2
I 3
7-18 7-19
5
7-19
6
7-19
8
7-18
11
7-18
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculidae
cf. Lumbriculus
variegatus Miiller
oo
Naididae
Aulophorus pectinatus Stephenson1
Aulophoras sp.
Dero sp. f?)
Nais variabilis Piquet
Unidentifiable Naididae
Tubi ficidae
Aulodrilus piqueti Kowalewski
Tlyodrilus tempeltoni (Southern)
Limnodrilus cervix Brinkhurst2
Limnodrilus claparedeianus Ratzel2
LimnocIrTlus hoffmeisteri Claparede
Limnodrilus udekcmianus Claparede
with caps.3
without caps
c ap s
192.57
44.44
44.44
44.44
59.25
66.66
266.64
103.69
74.07 111.10
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Acari (unidentifiable)
Eucrustacea
Malacostraca
Isopoda
Asellidae
Asellus millitaris Hay
tubificidae
ttibif icidae
immature with
immature without caps
14.81
44.44 1,585.03 133.32 88.88 488.84
14.81
o\
OJ
-------
TABLE 17,Continued
Station 135 6 8 11
Date 7-18 7-19 7-19 7-19 7-18 7-18
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Gammarus sp. 74.07 22.22
Unidentifiable Gammaridae (immature) 29.63
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia sp.
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
Odonata (Anisoptera)
Gomphidae
Dromogomphus sp.
f Unidentifiable Gomphidae (poor specimen)
3 Trichoptera
Leptoceridae
Unidentifiable immature Leptoceridae
,Coleoptera
Elmidae (larvae) 88.88 14.81
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae (larvae)
Chironomidae
Chironominae
Chironomus sp. 22.22 444.40
Chironomus sp. pupae
Cladotanytarsus sp.5
Cryptochironomus sp. A6
Cryptochironomus sp. B 22.22
Cryptochironoinus cf. armenicus
Cryptochironomus cf. burganadzea
Cryptochironomus cf. conjugens
Cryptochironomus cf. defectus <*
Cryptochironomus cf. fuscimanus ^
Cryptochironoinus cf. vulneratus
-------
TABLE 17,Continued
K)
10
O
Station
Date
Unidentifiable Cryptochironomus sp.
Cryptocladopelma sp. I
Cryptocladopelma sp. 2
Dicrotendipes cf. modestus
Einfeldia sp.
Par achironomus sp.
Polype'diium sp.
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Stenochironomus sp.
Tanytarsus(Group A) sp.5
Tanytarsus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Unidentifiable Chironominae specimens
Unidentifiable Tanytarsini specimens
Unidentifiable Chironomidae specimens
Unidentifiable Chironominae pupa7
Unidentifiable Chironomidae pupa
Orthocladiinae
Psectrocladius sp.
Tanypodinae
Larsia sp. (Pentaneurini)
Macropelopiini (Psilotanypus +
Procladius)
Macropelopiini sp. 2
Procladius sp7
Culicidae
Chaoborinae
Chaoborus sp.
Culicidae pupae
Culicidae larvae (unidentifiable)
1
7-18
3
7-19
5
7-19
6 ]
7-19
8
7-18
162.95
22.22
14.81
14.81
29.63
44.44
11
7-18
22.22
44.44
[22.22]
66.66
Cn
-------
TABLE 17,Continued
Station
Date
»
MOLLUSCA
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium sp. (immature)
1
7-18
3
7-19
5
7-19
6
7-19
8
7-18
11
7-18
to
to
Examined by Dr. David G. Cook, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Tentative identification.
2These included a series of possible intermediates or hybirds.
3=Unidentifiable Tubificidae with/without capilliform chaetae.
**U.I. w. caps = Unidentifiable immatures with capilliform chaetae.
U.I. wo. caps = Unidentifiable immatures without capilliform chaetae.
According to Roback, 1957.
6Cryptoch irqnomus cf. digitatus. All other Cryptochironomus identified with larval key of Chernovski,
1949.
7Pupa not included in totals.
o\
-------
TABLE 18
Genesee River Data
Benthic Samples
N/m2
Station
Date
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
I.umbriculidae
cf. Lumbriculus yariegatua Mxiller
Naididae
Aulophorus pectinatus Stephenson1
Juilophoras sp.
bero sp. (?)
Nal.3 variabil is Piquet
^ Unidentl.Yfable Naididae
^ Tubificidae
7'.ulodrilu£ pigueti Kowalewski
llyo^rrTus tompeltoni (Southern)
Limnoclr_ilni£ cervix Brinkhurst2
I..\mnodrilus claparedeianus Ratzel2
LiT.iinodri 1 us hof frneisteri Claparede
Lin'npdrilus udeko.inianus Claparede
tlniclcntifiable tubificidae with caps.8
Unidentifiable tubificidae without caps.
Unidentifiable immature with caps. **
Unidentifiable immature without caps.
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Acari (unidentifiable)
Eucrustacea
Malacostraca
Isopoda
Asellidae
Asellus millitaris Hay
1
8-15
3
8-15
5
8-15
6
8-15
8
8-15
11
8-15
103.69
14.81
370.23
14.81
29.63
14.81
14.81 44.44
622.16
74.07 103.69
59.25
14.81
14.81
548.09
88.88
14.81
44.44 770.29
1,984.99 429.59 562.91
o\
-------
TABLE 18, Continued
Station ' 135 6 8 11
. Date 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Gammarus sp.
Unidentifiable Gammaridae (immature)
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia sp.
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
Odonata (Anisoptera) /•
Gomphidae
Drpmoqomphus sp. 14.87
*-> Unidentifiable Gomphidae (poor specimen)
w Trichoptera
Leptoceridae
Unidentifiable immature Leptoceridae
Coleoptera
Elmidae (larvae) 44.44 14.81
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae (larvae)
Chircnomidae
Chironominae
Chironomus sp. 207.39 651.79 711.04 251.83
Chironoinus sp. pupae [29.63]
Cl'adot any tarsus sp.5 14.81
Cryp'tochironomus sp. A6 . 14.81 148.13 88.88 . 14.81
Cryptochironcmus sp. B 14.81
Cryptochironomus cf. armenicus ' 14.81
Cryptochironcmus cf. burganadzea 29.63
Cryptochironoinus cf. conjugens . 162.95 29.63
Cryptochironomus cf. defectus 44.44
Crvptochironomus cf. fuscimanus 14.81
Cryptochironomus cf. vulneratus
oo
-------
to
to
TABLE 18, Continued
Station 135 6 8 11
Date 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15
Unidentifiable Cryptochironomus sp. 14.81
Cryptocladopelma sp. I . 118.51 '
Cryptocladopelma sp. 2 14.81
Dicrotendipes cf. modestus
Einfeldia sp. 59.25
Parachironorpus sp. 14.81
Polypodilum sp. 59.25 148.13 548.09 59.25
P.hooi:onytarsus sp. • .
StGnochironomus sp. 14.81
TanyLarsus(Group A) sp.5 14.81
Tanytarsus sp. 29.63
Xenocn:fronomus sp. 14.81
Unidentifiable Chironominae specimens 29.63
Unidentifiable Tanytarsini specimens 14.81
Unidentifiable Chironomidae specimens 74.07 44.44
Unidentifiable Chironominae pupa7 [29.63] [14.81]
Unidentifiable Chironomidae pupa [14.81] [14.81]
Orthocladiinae
Psectrocladius sp.
Tanypouinae
Larsia sp. (Pentaneurini)
Macropelopiini (Psilotanypus +
Procladius) ' 14.81 414.77
Macropelopiini sp. 2 29.63
Procladius~"sp7 355.52 222.20 355.52
Culicidae
Chaoborinae
Chaoborus sp. 14.81
Culicidae pupae
Culicidae larvae (unidentifiable) <*
-------
TABLE 18, Continued
Station
Date
MOLLUSCA
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium sp. (immature)
135 6 8 11
8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-15
14.81
to
to
l/l
Examined by Dr. David G.. Cook, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Tentative identification.
2These included a series of possible intermediates or hybirds. /
3=Unidentifiable Tubificidae with/without capilliform chaetae.
**U.I. w. caps = Unidentifiable immatures with capilliform chaetae.
U.I. wo. caps = Unidentifiable immatures without capilliform chaetae.
'According to Roback, 1957.
6Cryptochironomus cf. digitatus. All other Cryptochironomus identified with larval kev of Chernovski,
1949.
7Pupa not included in totals.
-------
TABLE 19
Genesee River Data
Benthic Samples
N/m2
Station 135 6 8 11
Date 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-10 9-10
4
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Lumbri culidae
cf. Lumbriculus variegatus Miiller
Naididae
Aulophorus pectinatus Stephenson1
Aulophoras sp. 14.81 /
Doro sp. (?) 14.81 14.81
to N^ais variabilis Piquet
CT? ' Unidentifiable Naididae
Tubificidae
Aulodrilus piqueti Kov/alewski 14.81
Ilyorlrilujs tempeltoni (Southern)
Limnodril'us cervix Brinkhurst2
Linmodrilus claparedeianus Ratzel2 29.63 103.69 281.45 222.20 533.2
Limnodrilus hoft'meisteri Claparede ' 118.51 192.57 237.0
Lininodrilus udckcmianus Claparede
Unidentifiable tubificidae with caps.3
Unidentifiable tubificidae without caps. 59.2
Unidentifiable immature with caps.1*
Unidentifiable immature without caps. 207.39 44.44 1,273.95 1,007.31 488.84 1,318.3
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Acari (unidentifiable) 14.81
Eucrustacea
Malacostraca
Isopoda
Asellidae . |
Asellus millitaris Hay
-------
TABLE 19, Continued
Station
Date
1 3
9-11 9-11
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Gammarus
sp,
Unidentifiable
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Epheireridae
Hexagenia sp.
Gammaridae (immature)
14.81
Caenidae
Caenis
sp
Odonata (Anisoptera)
Gomphidae
Dromogoiinphus sp.
Unidentifiable Gomphidae (poor specimen)
Trichoptera
Leptoceridae
Unidentifiable immature Leptoceridae
Coleoptera
Elmidae (larvae)
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae (larvae)
Chironomidae
Chironoininae
Chironomus sp.
Chironomus sp. pupae
Cladotanytarsus sp.s
Cryotochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus cf.
Crvntochironomus cf.
Crvptochironomus cf.
Cryptochironomus cf.
Cryptochironomus cf.
Crvptochironornus cf.
A6
B
armenicus
burganadzea
conjugens
defectus"
fuscimanus
vulneratus
29.63
5
9-11
6
9-11
8
9-10
11
9-10
14.81
14.81
59.25
14.81 14.81
207.33 14.81 29.63
29.63
14.81
14.81
ts)
-------
TABLE19, Continued
Station 135 6 8 11
Date 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-10 9-10
Unidentifiable Cryptochironomus sp.
Cryptocladopelma sp. I
Cryptocladopelma sp. 2
Dicrotendipes cf. modestus
Einfeldia spT
Parachironomus sp. 14.81
Polype-oil urn sp. 14.81
P.hootany tarsus sp. .
Stenochironomus sp.
TanytarsusTGroup A) sp.5 14.81
Tanytarsus sp. '
XenochTronomus sp.
Unidcntif ia~bTe~ Chironominae specimens 44.44 14.81
Unidentifiable Tanytarsini specimens
Unidentifiable Chironomidae specimens
Unidentifiable Chironominae pupa7
Unidentifiable Chironomidae pupa [14.81] [29.63J
Orthocladiinae
Psectrocladius sp.
Tanypoclinae
Larsia sp. (Pentaneurini)
Macrooelopiini (Psilotanypus + q __
Procladius) by>^
Macropelopiini sp. 2 44 44
Procladius sp. 14.81 59.
-------
TABLE 19 t Continued
Station
Date
MOLLUSCA
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium sp. (immature)
1
9-11
3
9-11
5
9-11
6
9-11
8
9-10
11
9-10
1Examined by Dr. David G. Cook, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Tentative identification.
2These included a series of possible intermediates or hybirds.
, 3=Unidentifiable Tubificidae with/without capilliform chaetae.
ro
''
U.I. w. caps = Unidentifiable immatures with capilliform chaetae.
U.I. wo. caps = Unidentifiable immatures without capilliform chaetae.
5According to Roback, 1957.
6Cryptochironomus cf . digitatus. All other Cryptochironomus identified with larval key of Chernovski,
1949.
7Pupa not included in totals.
-------
TABLE 20
Genesee River Data
Benthic Samples
N/m2
OJ
o
Station
Date
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculidae
cf. Lumbriculus .variegatus Miiller
Naididae
Aulophorus pectinatus Stephenson1
Aulophoras sp.
Dero sp. (?)
FlnTF variabilis Piquet
I'nidentiflaBle Naididae
Tubificidae
?.ulodrilus^ pigueti Kowalewski
I'lyo'dri'lus tempeltoni (Southern)
L:mnodFi 1us ceryix Brinkhurst2
Li.mnodr-tlus claparedeianus Ratzel2
I^ifTinodril'js hotfmeisteri Claparede
Ili.T.noqrilus udekemianus Claparede
IJni/lenti f J able tubificidae with caps.3
Unidentifiable tubificidae without caps.
Unidentifiable immature with caps.1*
Unidentifiable immature without caps.
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Acari (unidentifiable)
Eucrustacea
Malacostraca
Isopoda
Asellidae
Asellus millitaris Hay
1
9-27
3
9-27
5
9-27
6
9-26
8
9-26
11
9-26
74.07
14.81
74.07
14.81
162.95
14.81
29.63
133.32
29.63
29.63
148.13
14.81
14.81
370.33
118.51
59.25
814.73
488.84
59.25
14.81
459.21 14.81 636.97
1,496.15 1,007.31 1,733.16
in
-------
TABLE 20, Continued
Station 135 6 8 11
, Date 9-27 9-27 9-27 9-26 9-26 9-26
* Amphipoda
Gamroaridae
Gammarus sp.
Unidentifiable Gammaridae (immature) 14.81
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae
Ilexagenia sp. 29.63
Caenidae
Cnenis sp. 14.81
Odonata (Anisoptera) . '
Gcinphidae
Dromogomphus sp.
KJ Unidentifiable Gomphidae (poor specimen) 14.81
— Trichoptera
Leptoceridae
Unidentifiable immature Leptoceridae 14.81
Coleoptera
Elmidae (larvae)
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae (larvae)
ChironoTtiidae
Chironominae
Chironomus sp. 29.63 44.44 177.76
Chironomus sp. pupae
cTadotanytarsus sp.5
Cryptochironomus sp. A6 29.63
Cry p to c h i ronom u s sp. B
Cryptochi ronomus cf. armenicus
Cryptochironomus cf. burqanadzea 29.63
Crvptochironomus cf. conjugens
Cryptochi ronomus cf. defectus-"
Cryptochi ronomus cf. f uscimaiTus
Crvotochironomus cf. vulneratus
-------
TABLE20, Continued
Station 135 6 8 11
Date 9-27 9-27 9-27 9-26 9-26 9-26
Unidentifiable Cryptochironomus sp.
Cryptocladopelma sp. I
Cryptocladopelma sp. 2
Dicrotendipes cf. modestus 88.88
ETnfeldia sp.
Parachironomus sp.
Polypedilum sp~. 14.81
Rheotanytarsus sp. , 14.81
Stenochironomus sp.
Tany tarsus fGroup A) sp.5
Tanytarsus sp. . '
Xenochironomus sp.
Unidentifiable Chironominae specimens 14.81 14.81 29.63
' Unidentifiable Tanytarsini specimens
Unidentifiable Chironomidae specimens 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81
. Unidentifiable Chironominae pupa7 [14.81] [14.81] [14.81]
Unidentifiable Chironomidae pupa [14.81]
Orchocladiinae
PsGctrocladius sp.
Tanypoclinae
Larsia sp. (Pentaneurini)
Macropelopiini (Psilotanypus +
Procladius)
Macropelopiini sp. 2
Procladius sp.
Culicidae
Chaoborinae
Chaoborus sp.
Culicidae pupae 74 0?
Culicidae larvae (unidentifiable) 14-81 /4'u/
-------
TABLE 20, Continued
Station
Date
MOLLUSCA
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium sp. (immature)
1
9-27
3
9-27
5
9-27
6
9-26
8
9-26
11
9-26
Examined by Dr. David G. Cook, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, .Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Tentative identification.
2These included a series of possible intermediates or hybirds.
1 3=Unidentif iable Tubificidae with/without capilliform chaetae.
U>
**U.I. w. caps = Unidentifiable immatures with capilliform chaetae.
U.I. wo. caps = Unidentifiable immatures wihtout capilliform chaetae.
5According to Roback, 1957.
6Cryptochironomus cf . digitatus. All other Cryptochironomus identified with larval key of Chernovski,
rptocn
1949.
7Pupa not included in totals.
00
-------
> *
U)
TABLE 21
Distribution of Fish in the Genesee River
October 18-19, 1973
STATION
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye
Golden Shiner
Rock Bass
Bullheads
White Perch
Alewifes
Suckers
Carp
TOTAL NUMBER
11
3 1
2 1
8 12 32
5-12 1
2 4
6
2 10 6 8
__4 _3 _2
10 19 24 22 49
3
2
13
4
_2
24
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA !• Report No. 2.
SHEET EPA-905/9-74-016
4. 1 itle and Subtitle-
Water Pollution Investigation:
Genesee River and Rochester Area
7. Author(s)
P. E. Moffa, C. B. Murphy, and D. A. MacArthur
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
1304 Buckley Road
Syracuse, New York 13201
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
3.NJecipient's Accession No.
"5. Report Date
January 1975
6.
8- Performing Organization Repi
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA Contract No.
68-01 -1 574
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary 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
A study of the lower Genesse River in Monroe County, New York was conducted to
investigate the impact of pollution sources, both point and non-point, on the
water quality of the Genesee River. It was determined that four major point-
source discharges have a significant effect on the dissolved oxygen levels present
in the River: 1) Oatka Creek, 2) Gates-Chili-Ogden Sewage Treatment Plant, 3)
N.Y.S. Barge Canal, and 4) Kodak Wastewater Treatment Plant. Three other factors
of a non-point source nature affect the dissolved oxygen levels in the River:
1) non-point source contributions from agricultural, forested, and pasture lands
in the upstream regions, 2) benthic demand in the lower region in the vicinity of
the mouth, and 3) horizontal dispersion effects in the lower region.
(continued on next page)
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Water Quality, Aquatic Biology, Water Pollution
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Genesee River, Lake Ontario, Great Lakes, Chemical Parameters,
Biological Parameters
l/c.
tield/Uroup
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security ("lass (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Pric
FORM N"HS-35 IREVn 3-72)
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC M9S2-P71
-------
Under average flow conditions the level of dissolved oxygen is of
sufficient magnitude to meet the stream standard of 5.0 mg/1 required
for non-trout waters. However, under minimum average seven consecutive
day flow conditions (MA7CD/10 YR) the stream standard would be contra-
vened in the reaches downstream of the Barge Canal.
The implementation of BPCTCA to municipal and industrial discharges
would result in little improvement of the projected dissolved oxygen
concentration under average flow conditions. Under MA7CD/10 YR flow
conditions BPCTCA would result in the River DO meeting the stream
standard in all reaches except those downstream of the Kodak Waste-
water Treatment Plant discharge.
Projections of 85, 90, 95, and 98 percent removal of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous oxygen demanding constituents from the municipal treatment
plant will not significantly increase the DO of the River above that
obtained by the application of "municipal" secondary treatment.
There was no measurable single constitutent contributing toxic condi-
tions to inhibit the aquatic structure within the study area of the
Genesee River. During the field investigations conducted as part of
this study, a number of samplings in the reaches below the Rochester
falls did reflect concentrations of metals, ammonia, and phenols at
undesirable levels.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 68-01-1574
by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
------- |