&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905-R94-005
May 1994
Assessment and
Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
MODEL DATA REQUIREMENTS
AND MASS LOADING ESTIMATES
FOR THE BUFFALO RIVER
MASS BALANCE STUDY
United States Areas of Concern
ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
-------
Data Requirements and
Mass Loading Estimates for the Buffalo River
Mass Balance Study
Final Report - March, 1994
prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Marc L. Tuchman, Project Officer
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
prepared by
Joseph F. Atkinson, Tricia Bajak, Michael Morgante,
Stephen Marshall and Joseph V. DePinto
Great Lakes Program
Department of Civil Engineering
207 Jarvis Hall
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260
U $ Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. X995915-01-0 to the
University at Buffalo. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administration review, and it
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
Summary
The Buffalo River (Buffalo, New York) is one of 43 Areas of Concern identified by the
International Joint Commission in the Great Lakes basin. It was chosen for study under EPA's
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program, Risk Assessment and
Modeling (RAM) subgroup, and data were collected to estimate the loading sources and annual
loading amounts for 11 different contaminants. Although present loadings are significantly
reduced from historic levels, the sediments contain high concentrations of some materials and
there is a concern for potential releases resulting from resuspension events. The contaminants of
interest include total PCBs, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, lead and copper. Total suspended solids loading
is also calculated. Possible sources of contamination considered include upstream flows,
industrial discharges, groundwater leaching, combined sewer overflows and resuspension of in-
place contaminated sediments.
The river is known to act as a relatively efficient sediment trap, so that any contaminants
adsorbed to particles transported into the river from upstream are likely to remain there. In fact,
the major source for all the contaminants of interest was found to be the upstream tributary flows.
Of course, loading to the water column from sediment resuspension is still unknown - estimates of
the potential strength of that source will be evaluated after development of sediment transport and
water quality models for the river. Estimates of export quantities from the system are also
included, though these calculations have much greater uncertainty than the upstream values, due
to the smaller data set available.
In addition to annual loading estimates, this report includes a calculation of several
parameters needed to develop and apply general water quality and contaminant transport models
to the river. These include primarily distribution (partition) coefficients for each of the
contaminants of interest, as well as data for a number of conventional parameters. Annual and
-------
monthly average flows are presented and data are provided for specifying upstream and
downstream boundary conditions. The report is meant to provide a compilation of data useful for
further modeling work on the Buffalo River conducted within the ARCS/RAM program, or for
any other modeling application contemplated in the future.
-------
Table of Contents
Summary i
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Nomenclature vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Project overview 1
1.2. Parameters of interest, data sources 4
2. Conclusions 8
2.1. Comment on data completeness, uncertainty in loading estimates ..9
3. Model data requirements 11
3.1. Flows 12
3.2. Water quality 16
3.2.1. Downstream boundary conditions 16
3.3. Partition coefficients 29
3.4. Spatial variability of sediment characteristics 41
4. Loading estimates 45
4.1. Upstream loading estimates 45
4.1.1. Suspended solids 45
4.1.2. Contaminants 65
4.2. Point sources 74
4.2.1. Industrial discharges 74
4.2.2. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) 76
4.3. Sediment resuspension potential and contamination risk 88
4.4. Non-point sources (inactive hazardous waste sites) 90
4.5. Export from system 93
4.6. Summary 94
4.6.1. "Typical" year 94
5. References 97
6. Appendices 99
Appendix A. Buffalo River flowrates A
Appendix B. Water quality data B
Appendix C. Partition coefficients C
Appendix D. Sediment concentrations D
iii
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location map for study area, 2
Figure 2. Schematic of general mass balance approach, 4
Figure 3. Water column sampling locations, 6
Figure 4. Average daily flows (arithmetic mean), 13
Figure 5. Average daily flows (geometric mean), 14
Figure 6. Average suspended solids concentration (1987 - 1990), downstream boundary, 18
Figure 7. Average monthly surface temperature, Lake Erie at Buffalo, 20
Figure 8. Average monthly DO concentration, downstream boundary, 21
Figure 9. Chloride concentration, downstream boundary, 25
Figure 10. Hardness data, downstream boundary, 26
Figure 11. Alkalinity data, downstream boundary, 27
Figure 12. Average monthly pH, downstream boundary, 28
Figure 13. Longitudinal variation of TSS, fall 1990, 32
Figure 14. Longitudinal variation of TSS, spring 1992,33
Figure 15. Longitudinal variation of TSS, overall data, 34
Figure 16. Relationship between log K'oc and log K'ow, 40
Figure 17. Sampling sites for sediment quality survey, 43
Figure 18. Relationship between observed and predicted TSS value, 50
Figure 19. TSS vs. Q, for Cazenovia Creek, 53
Figure 20. TSS vs. Q, for upstream Buffalo River, 54
Figure 21. Frequency distribution of high flow regression residuals, 57
Figure 22. Frequency distribution of high flow regression residuals, 58
Figure 23. Comparison of predicted and measured TSS, Cazenovia Creek, 60
Figure 24. Comparison of predicted and measured TSS, upstream Buffalo River, 61
Figure 25. Upstream TSS loading, fall 1990,62
Figure 26. Upstream TSS loading, April 1991,63
Figure 27. Upstream TSS loading, spring 1992,64
Figure 28. Sample plot of relationship between paniculate concentration and TSS, 69
Figure 29. CSO outfall locations along Buffalo River AOC, 77
Figure 30. Example of CSO loading calculation as a function of storm precipitation, 86
Figure 31. Sampling data for dry fraction of wet weight upper sediment layer, 89
Figure 32. Inactive hazardous waste sites, from NYSDEC (19&9), 91
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Parameters of interest for mass balance study, 5
Table 2. Data summary - Buffalo River mass balance study, 7
Table 3. Sampling station locations, 8
Table 4. Chemical properties of targeted pollutants, 11
Table 5. Monthly average flows, 15
Table 6. Pollutant concentrations, downstream boundary, 17
Table 7. Dissolved oxygen data, downstream boundary., 22
Table 8. Conductivity data, downstream boundary, 23
Table 9. Chloride, hardness and alkalinity, downstream boundary, 23
Table 10. pH data, downstream boundary, 24
Table 11. Calculation of solids concentrations based on organic, 35
Table 12. Summary calculations for log K'oc and K'd, 38
Table 13. Stream-wide average values for fp, 41
Table 14. Contaminant mass in sediments., 44
Table 15. Data availability for TSS, 45
Table 16. Upstream total sediment load, from Colby (1957) relation, 47
Table 17. Watershed and seasonal variation in Ki (eq. 7), 48
Table 18. Values for correction factor in (9), 49
Table 19. Availability of coupled sediment and water column data, 65
Table 20. Upstream non-metal paniculate concentrations, 66
Table 21. Measured non-metal paniculate pollutant loading rates, 66
Table 22. Summary of coupled suspended sediment and water column, 72
Table 23. Upstream metals concentrations and loading rates, 73
Table 24. Summary of industrial discharges, 75
Table 25. CSO sampling dates and locations (from C&S, 1988), 78
Table 26. Metals data for CSOs (from C&S, 1988), 79
Table 27. PAHS and pesticides in CSOs of South Buffalo, 80
Table 28. PCB concentrations in CSOs in South Buffalo Sewer Districts, 81
Table 29. Additional PCB data for CSOs, 81
Table 30. Site characteristics for CSO data (from Jordan, 1984), 82
Table 31. Concentrations of parameters for sites of Table 27,83
Table 32. CSO loadings for typical year (1990), 84
Table 33. Parameters for estimating CSO loadings, 87
Table 34. Summary of targeted pollutants associated with inactive waste sites, 92
Table 35. Maximum (steady-state) loading rates from non-point sources, 93
Table 36. Estimates for mass export from system, 94
Table 37. Summary of annual loading estimates, 95
-------
Nomenclature
C suspended sediment concentration in area of concern
C(j dissolved concentration
Cj suspended sediment concentration in upstream tributary (indexed by i)
paniculate concentration
correction factor for Parsons et al. (1963) relation
fraction dissolved
foc fraction organic carbon
fraction paniculate
precipitation
measured partition (distribution) coefficient for dry weight solids (used for metals)
KJ credibility constant for tributary i
K'oc measured partition (distribution) coefficient, based on organic carbon (used for organics)
KQW octanol-water partition coefficient
[POC] concentration of paniculate organic carbon
QJ flowrate in tributary i
Q total flowrate in area of concern
S slope of relation used to calculate CSO loadings
W load due to CSO discharge
u
{f
VI
-------
1. Introduction
1.1. Project overview
The Buffalo River is fed from three main tributaries, Buffalo Creek, Cazenovia Creek and
Cayuga Creek (Figure 1). From the confluence of Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks the river
meanders about 5.5 miles towards the west before discharging into Lake Erie, near the head of
the Niagara River. The Buffalo River has played an important role in the industrial development
of the city of Buffalo. These industries included grain mills, chemical and oil refineries and coke
and steel mills, many of which are no longer operating. Unfortunately, the water and sediment
quality of the river has suffered as a result of years of contaminant loading. In addition to
industrial discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and leaching from inactive hazardous
waste sites remain as potential sources for river contamination. Thirty-eight CSOs discharge to
the river or lower Cazenovia Creek during storm conditions and these represent potential sources
of organic and inorganic toxic contamination as well as BOD. There are currently 19 listed
inactive hazardous waste disposal sites located within or adjacent to the river (NYSDEC, 1989).
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and
cyanides have been detected in 12 of these sites and the potential for off-site migration has been
confirmed or indicated at 4 of these sites.
In recent years there has been a desire to develop the river and its banks for greater
public access and other uses. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), for example, has recently upgraded the river's class "D" designation to class MC",
meaning that the river waters are now believed to be suitable for fish propagation. Although
present point source loadings have been reduced significantly from historic levels, possible
contamination of the water column from resuspended bottom sediments represents a serious
potential obstacle for further development and use of the river. This problem is exacerbated by a
regular program of navigational dredging carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). This prevents a natural armoring effect from taking place and may also help to stir
up contaminants on a periodic basis.
-------
Cayuga Creek
Buffalo River
Area of Concern
Figure 1. Location map for study area.
-------
Because of the concern for in-place contaminants, the lower Buffalo River was listed by
the International Joint Commission as one of 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) around the Great
Lakes basin and it was chosen as a study site for EPA's ARCS program (GLNPO, 1991). This
study has involved an intense data collection and water quality analysis effort. Sediment cores
and water samples were taken for analyses for a number of constituents of interest (see section
1.2.).
The raw data collected during these surveys, as well as results of chemical analyses of the
samples, have been collected and catalogued by EPA. The purpose of the present report is to
summarize these data and, along with other information (described below), develop estimates for
mass loading rates of various constituents of interest. These estimates may be used to evaluate
the relative strength of various sources for pollutants of interest in the river, as indicated
schematically in Figure 2. Upstream loadings are calculated on the basis of average daily flows
and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations, along with measured contaminant
concentrations. Groundwater and combined sewer overflow (CSO) loadings are estimated on
the basis of separate model calculations and industrial loadings are taken from the Buffalo River
Remedial Action Plan prepared by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC, 1989). Primarily, results are presented for use in water quality mass balance models
which may be used to simulate the time history of toxics concentrations in the water column,
sediments and biota of the river as a function of source inputs. This will be useful in evaluating
system response to various remedial and/or regulatory actions that might be applied. Ultimately,
it is desired to develop and apply an "integrated exposure-risk model" to estimate the risk to
humans and wildlife via exposure to these concentrations. This model will include the following
submodels.
1. loading submodel, to compute the spatial and temporal distribution of external inputs of
contaminants to the river from both point and non-point sources;
2. hydrodynamic transport submodel:
3. sediment transport submodel:
-------
4. physical-chemical toxics submodel, to incorporate the transport and sediment submodels into
a framework that includes those processes affecting contaminant fluxes and reactions in the
water column and sediments;
5. food chain bioaccumulation submodel, to calculate body burdens in various trophic levels of
the food chain; and
6. risk analysis submodel for humans and key biota in the system.
Information in the present report will be useful mostly for the first four submodels. Available
data are summarized in Chapter 3 and loading calculations are presented in Chapter 4, which
concludes with a section outlining loading estimates for a "typical" year.
upstream
loadings
CSOS
1
groundwater
1
industrial
discharges
J^
Buffalo River AOC
- water column concentrations
- sediment concentrations
CP
sediment interactions
mass
export
Figure 2. Schematic of general mass balance approach.
1.2. Parameters of interest, data sources
Primary parameters of interest are listed in Table 1. Field data were collected and
analyzed for most of the contaminants by researchers at Buffalo State College. Other sources of
information include the USACOE, NYSDEC, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
-------
Administration (NOAA), Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) and Canada Centre for Inland Waters
(CCIW). A summary of available data is shown in Table 2.
Water column data for most of the conventional parameters were collected by researchers
from NYSDEC (in a separate project) and from Buffalo State College. The DEC data were
collected mostly during the summers of 1988 and 1990, with other metals and TSS data
collected in December 1991 and spring 1992. Water column profiles were measured at about 10
different stations along the river. The Buffalo State data include water column profiles measured
at the six ARCS sites (see below), with an intensive sampling effort over late spring to early fall,
1991. Because the main focus of the present report concerns pollutant loadings and mass
balance modeling, the data reported here focuses primarily on the pollutants of interest, listed in
Table 1. The main exception to this is in Section 3.2.1., which lists downstream boundary
conditions (concentrations) for most of the conventional parameters of interest. These data are
included here because they are not as readily available as the water column data.
Table 1. Parameters of interest for mass balance study.
Pollutants
CAHs:
PAHs:
Metals:
Total PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDT
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
Iron
Conventional
Sulfides
Chlorides
Alkalinity
Hardness
Suspended solids
TOC and DOC
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Conductivity
PH
Fluorescence
Velocity
-------
Note: Abbreviations used in the above table (and elsewhere in this report) are as follows: CAH -
chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl, PAH • polychlorinated
aromatic hydrocarbon; TOC - total organic carbon; DOC - dissolved organic carbon.
Data were collected for pollutant analyses as part of the ARCS project during two
primary sampling periods each covering about a week during the fall of 1990 and spring of 1992.
Specific sampling dates were October 18, 22, 27, 31, November 5, 9, 13, 1990, and April 4, 18
and 22, 1992. For the 1990 period samples were taken from 6 shes along the lower part of the
river, as shown in Figure 3. Only sites 1, 3 and 6 were sampled during the 1992 period.
Distances for each site relative to the river mouth are listed in Table 3.
Buffalo River
Figure 3. Water column sampling locations.
-------
Table 2. Data summary - Buffalo River mass balance study.
Parameters
Gage data
Hourly precipitation
Monthly precipitation
Hourly surface observations
Daily mean discharge
Conductivity, TSS, Temperature,
Depth, DO, pH, Press., Fluor.
PCBs, Pesticides, %Lipids
PAHs, Pesticides, PCBs
Water quality data, metals
PAHs, Pesticides, PCBs, metals,
TSS, Water quality data
BOD
Current velocity
Overflow volume
Event sampling
Metals, TSS
Industrial discharges
(Buf Color, PVS Chem.)
Total discharge, Water surface
elevations
Cross sections
Wind direction/speed
Current rating table
Soundings
USACOE dredging samples
Location or matrix
Dates*
Buffalo Harbor, 3 tributaries, 6/1/88-2/29/92
water column
Buffalo Airport
7 stations, South Buffalo
Buffalo Airport
3 tributaries, water column
Buffalo River water column
6/1/88-5/31/91
1985-1991
6/1/88-9/30/90
10/1/87-10/20/91
assorted, '89-'92
Carp stomachs
Sediment
Sediment
Buffalo River water column
Buffalo River water column
Buffalo River water column
CSOs
Buffalo River water column
Buffalo River and tributaries
Buffalo River water column
7/24/91
8/1/90-9/30/90
8/1/90-9/30/92
Fall '90, Spring '92
1991
10/16/90-11/12/90
7/9/90-9/26/91
3/91
12/91, spring'92
6/1/88-7/31/91
Buffalo River water column 10/1/90-11/30/92
Buffalo River water column various dates
Buffalo Airport
3 tributaries, water column
Buffalo River water column
Water Column
1/1/77-5/31/88
7/1/91-7/31/91,
5/1/92-5/31/92
Summer '92
* A range of dates over which data were collected is reported; specific values may not be
available for every day within the range.
-------
Table 3. Sampling station locations.
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
Distance upstream from river mouth
(ft)
27,840
22,590
18,100
9,400
3,900
1,960
(km)
8.4
6.8
5.5
2.9
1.2
0.6
2. Conclusions
The annual loading calculations, summarized in Section 4.6 (Table 37), indicate relatively
small loadings for most of the contaminants of interest. These estimates are based primarily on
data obtained in the ARCS surveys, with the exception of metals loading. It was found that the
upstream loading calculations for metals, based on the ARCS data, resulted in unreasonably high
values when compared with data from other sources. The estimates reported here rely instead on
data obtained by the NYSDEC (Litten and Anderson, 1992). For all contaminants of interest the
dominant source was due to upstream flows draining the watershed. The major upstream
loading was for metals. Upstream loading for lead (359 kg/yr) may be explained by atmospheric
deposition and runoff from the upstream watershed, but the source for copper loading (933
kg/yr) is unknown. Compared with loadings due to industrial discharges and combined sewer
overflows (330 and 110 kg/yr, respectively), this represents a major source. Loadings of PCBs
and PAHs (from all sources) are between 1-4 kg/yr and insecticide loadings are less than 0.1
kg/yr. It is hypothesized that a possible source for upstream loadings is due to deposition which
occurred as a result of the many years of steel and heavy industry operations conducted within
and adjacent to the watershed for the Buffalo River AOC. Potential loading due to sediment
-------
resuspension into the water column is unknown at this time, though some information is
presented to estimate the total mass of each contaminant in the sediments. Metals and PAHs
appear to be the predominant problem there (see Table 14). Estimates for export fluxes are
included, though there is greater uncertainty in these values due to the small number of data
available.
2.1. Comment on data completeness, uncertainty in loading estimates
A large amount of data has been collected for the Buffalo River for purposes of
evaluating water quality conditions and potential contamination risks and also to provide
information for developing water quality models that may be used to further analyze
contamination problems in the river. While some aspects of this data set are based on long
records, many of the values reported here were developed from limited sources. For example,
the flowrates are available from more than 45 years of record, but water column pollutant
concentration data presented in Appendix B were obtained from two relatively short sampling
periods. These data are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions regarding annual variations or
even average values for the parameters of interest. There was a significant variation in values for
some of these constituents during each of the sampling periods, and there is little consistency
between corresponding values for the two periods (see Figures Bl and B13, for example). It is
interesting to note that many of the parameters show higher water column concentrations for the
1992 data than for the 1990 data. This is particularly true for the PAHs. The only correlation
indicated by the data appears to be with the higher flows, and corresponding higher suspended
solids concentrations (see Table 20, for example). However, the relatively small data base
precludes a firm conclusion at this point (e.g., there may be an inherent seasonal variation,
concentrations may be a function of flowrate, industrial activities may change seasonally, etc.).
This implies a certain variability in calculations for partition coefficients, though averaged values
appear to be reasonable (Section 3.3). Data for downstream conditions were also scarce for
-------
some of the parameters, as noted in Section 3.2.1, and export estimates are based on only about
10 data points.
Uncertainties in adsorption characteristics in groundwater flows imply corresponding
uncertainties in loading estimates from non-point sources (inactive hazardous waste sites). This
is particularly true for metals loading. PAH loadings from the Buffalo Color site are believed to
be reasonable. Groundwater loadings of PCBs and pesticides appear to be insignificant. Some
refinement in these estimates may be possible when more data become available. Loadings from
CSOs are based on model results and assumed concentrations for the various pollutants, so there
is some inherent uncertainty in those loading estimates. Other point sources (industrial
discharges) are well-documented (Table 24).
One other area of uncertainty, at least regarding mass loading estimates, concerns the
potential for resuspension of contaminated sediments. Although sediment quality was analyzed
at a number of locations along the river (Section 3.4), it is difficult to assess the erosion
characteristics at different points. An attempt was made to predict areas more susceptible to
erosion based on physical characteristics of the sediment (Section 4.3), but this showed an almost
equal erosion potential along the entire AOC. Therefore, contamination risk from resuspended
sediments will be analyzed only after a sediment transport model, which can account for
variations in bottom shear stress, is applied to the river. A model of this type is currently being
developed.
10
-------
3. Model data requirements
In this section, raw and derived data are presented for developing water quality models of
the river. These data are then used to develop loading estimates for the pollutants of interest in
Section 4. Data available from the fall 1990 and spring 1992 surveys include the following
parameters:
• conventional
• water column profiles
• discharges
• dissolved and paniculate metals
• dissolved and paniculate organics
Representative values of chemical properties for the targeted pollutants, obtained from various
standard sources, are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Chemical properties of targeted pollutants.
Chemical
PCBs
Total
Pesticides
Chlordane
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDT
PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Water solubility (ug/1)
0.46 - 7,000
56
186
3.1
44
3.8
14
1-10*
6
Henry's constant
(atm-m^/mole)
9e-6 - 2.5e-4
4.79e-5
5.84e-5
3.89e-5
8.42e-8
4.90e-7
1.19e-5
5.45e-6
1.05e-6
logKoW
4.33 - 7.13
6.0
5.32
6.13
5.62
6.52
6.26
6.52
6.09
* exact value is not available from common sources, but is estimated on the basis of values for
similar compounds
11
-------
3.1. Flows
The Buffalo River drainage basin comprises an area of approximately 408.6 square miles
at the upstream study boundary. Included within this area are Buffalo Creek (146.2 square
miles), Cayuga Creek (124.4 square miles), Cazenovia Creek (135.4 square miles) and 2.6 square
miles of unsewered area between the junction of Buffalo Creek and Cayuga Creek and the
junction of the Buffalo River and Cazenovia Creek.
A detailed study of available daily flow records for the Buffalo River basin was
conducted by Meredith and Rumer (1987). In their study, average daily inflows to the Buffalo
River at its confluence with Cazenovia Creek were synthesized from three United States
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages within the basin: Buffalo Creek at Gardenville, NY;
Cayuga Creek near Lancaster, NY; and, Cazenovia Creek at Ebenezer, NY. The period of
analysis was October 1940 through September 1985. Their report includes daily flow duration
curves for the Buffalo River project area by month and discharge frequency curves for annual
flow.
A typical year of average daily inflows to the study area was developed from the data
compiled by Meredith and Rumer (1987). Average daily flows for each day of the year for the
45 years of record were first examined in terms of distribution of flow values. In order to
provide an indication of the variability of flows throughout the year, average daily flow values for
twelve randomly selected days of the year are shown in Appendix A, Figures Al - A12. From
these figures it can be seen that the flow values are not normally distributed, but are positively
skewed. For this type of distribution, the arithmetic mean of the average daily values does not
adequately represent the true central tendancy and the geometric mean provides better estimates
for average conditions. Both means were calculated and shown in Figures 4 and 5 for
comparison. The geometric mean (Figure 5) gives somewhat lower values since the weighting
for extreme, but rare events is relatively small.
12
-------
o
2500
2000 --
1500
2 1000
500
0
1 38 75112149186223260297334
Day
Figure 4. Average daily flows (arithmetic mean).
13
-------
38 75 112 149 186 223 260 297 334
Day
Figure 5. Average daily flows (geometric mean).
14
-------
It should be noted that these flow values have been adjusted to account for the extra
drainage areas located between the three gages and the AOC. According to a study by
NYSDEC (Simon Litton, personal communication), an average adjustment is obtained by
multiplying the sum of the three gage values by 1.19. Recently, a more detailed analysis by LTI
which is based on flow areas determined from a geographic information system data base
(Limno-Tech, Inc., personal communication) shows that the flows for each of the three
tributaries should be multiplied by the following factors to adjust the gage data: Buffalo Creek -
1.05; Cayuga Creek - 1.33; Cazenovia Creek - 1.02 (see also eqns. 10 - 18). Meredith and
Rumer (1987) adjusted the flows using a similar procedure, though the factors had slightly
different values. The sum of the three adjusted flows is then the flowrate for the AOC. Monthly
average (geometric mean) flows for each tributary are shown in Table 5, along with the adjusted
total for the AOC. The LTI adjustment factors are used for calculating the total flows since it is
believed that their values for contributing watershed areas are more accurate.
Table 5. Monthly average (geometric mean) flows.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
flowrate (cfs)
Buffalo Ck.
135
157
310
250
113
52
26
20
23
36
98
161
Cazenovia Ck.
160
178
351
283
130
55
26
22
25
40
120
202
Cayuga Ck.
75
97
208
154
57
21
7
6
7
15
48
92
Adjusted total
405
475
960
756
327
139
63
51
59
99
289
497
15
-------
3.2. Water quality
Water samples were analyzed at Buffalo State College and detailed descriptions of
analytical techniques and results are presented in a report currently under preparation by
researchers at Buffalo State College. These data are summarized in the plots of Appendix B,
which show measured concentrations for both sampling periods for each of the parameters of
interest (Table 1). Iron concentrations are not shown since it was decided that iron was not a
major concern in the river (some of the data for iron is included in other sections of this report).
3.2.1. Downstream boundary conditions
Downstream boundary condition data for the Buffalo River modeling project were
obtained from the following sources:
• Niagara River Monitoring Reports - pollutant and suspended solids concentrations;
• STAR File, Ontario Ministry of the Environment - conventional constituents: hardness,
alkalinity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and chlorides;
• ARCS database - conductivity; and,
• Huang (1987)- temperature.
The data available from these sources are described below.
a) Priority Pollutants.
The available data on downstream boundary pollutant concentrations consist of four
years of sampling data on the Niagara River at Fort Erie, 1986-87 through 1989-90. Table 6
summarizes the available data from these reports for both the dissolved fraction and suspended
solids fraction for the priority pollutants of interest (CAHs and PAHs) and the total water
concentration values for the metals of interest. Note that "non-detect" values are not included in
the averages listed. The annual values were statistically derived from several samples taken
during the indicated years. The data set has several gaps, especially in the water column data.
Average values (arithmetic mean) over the period of record were computed because time trends
could not be established from the relatively small data base.
16
-------
Table 6. Pollutant concentrations, downstream boundary.
CAHs|nf/L]
Total PCSc
g-Chlordane
•Chlordane
Dieldrin
pj>'-DDT
PAHsfnt/Lf
B(a)anthracene
BOOfluonntneiK
BQOfluoranthene
B(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Metals: |me/Ll
Lead
Iron
Copper
Water Cohmm Fraction
1986/87
2.90
_
_
0.319
_
0.186
_
—
—
0.382
1987/88
_
_
_
0.319
_
0.126
_
_
—
—
Whole Water
1986/87
0.0014
0.460
0.0016
1987/88
0.00119
0.359
0.00126
1988/89 1989/90 Avf
— — 2.9
_ — . _
_ — —
0.289 0.286 0.3
— — _
0.262 - 0.2
_ — —
_ — —
_ — —
0.304 0.266 0.3
1988/89 1989/90 Avt
0.00176 0.00060 0.00
S 8 1
0.985 0.251 0.5
0.00174 0.00138 0.0
3 2
Suspended Sottdi Fraction
1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 Avf
1.00 0.489 0.674 0.426 0.6
— _ _ _ —
_ _ _ _ _
0.0197 0.0317 0.0325 0.0331 0.03
0.171 0.0989 0.0463 0.102 0.1
1.50 1.24 2.37 1.02 1.5
— 5.58 — 0.578 3.1
_ 4.4i _ 0.837 2.6
— — — 0397 0.4
2.23 2.30 — 1.00 1.8
b) Conventional.
Suspended solids concentration data were available for the Niagara River at Fort Erie for
approximately 45-50 sampling days from four years of record, 1986-87 through 1989-90.
Approximately 3-5 concentration values were available for each month for each year of sampling.
An average value of suspended solids concentration was computed for each month during each
year and plots were made in order to examine annual seasonal trends for each year of record.
These plots are shown in Appendix B, Figures B25 - B28. In general, suspended solids
concentrations are highest during the period October through January, with lower concentrations
typically observed the rest of the year. All suspended solids data values available for each month
of the four year period of record were averaged and shown in Figure 6.
17
-------
I
Apr
Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb
Month
Figure 6. Average suspended solids concentration (1987 -1990),
downstream boundary.
18
-------
Temperatures (mean monthly water surface) for the eastern basin of Lake Erie are
available from Huang (1987). In that report, four earlier studies of long term surface water
temperature trends in the eastern Lake Erie basin were examined and compared to temperature
data available from the Buffalo Water Authority's intake pipe (period of record: 1946-1981).
The final modified average monthly water surface temperatures for Lake Erie from that report
are presented in Figure 7.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) data were available from the STAR database file, obtained from
CCIW, and also from measurements obtained by NYSDEC. The available data from the STAR
database are limited and generally consist of a few values collected during the months of April
through November during the 1960's and early 1970's. The NYSDEC data were measured in the
summer months of 1988. These data are summarized in Table 7. Mean DO concentrations for
each month were computed from these data and are shown in Figure 8. However, it should be
noted that these data were probably not collected at exactly the same location.
Conductivity. Conductivity values were measured by NYSDEC during the summer of
1988. These data are summarized in Table 8.
Alkalinity. Hardness. Chlorides. pH — Very limited data were available for these
conventionals from the STAR File. The data available for chloride, hardness and alkalinity are
summarized in Table 9. Data for pH are shown in Table 10. Mean monthly values were
calculated for each of these parameters where possible and are presented in Figures 9-12.
Some conventional water quality data are also available from EPA's STORET file, but
these are not included here because they are easily available directly from that data base.
19
-------
25
O
820 4
£
o>
.£ 15 +
Jan
Mar May Jul
Month
Sep
Figure 7. Average monthly surface temperature, Lake Erie at Buffalo.
20
-------
16
O
O
0)
O)
> 8 I
O
V)
Q 6
I
Jan Mar
May Jul
Month
Sep Nov
note: no data for January, March or December
Figure 8. Average monthly DO concentration, downstream boundary.
21
-------
Table 7. Dissolved oxygen data, downstream boundary.
Month
FEE
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUO
SEP
OCT
NOV
Date
2-6-69
4-12-73
4-12-73
5-30-67
5-17-68
5-30-69
5-6-70
6-20-60
6-19-61
6-29-67
6-15-68
6-2-70
6-14-88*
6-15-88*
6-28-88*
7-25-60
7-21-61
7-10-67
7-31-67
7-29-68
7-5-71
7-25-73
7-25-73
7-12-88*
7-26-88*
8-15-60
8-24-61
8-14-66
8-21-67
8-1-70
8-17-71
8-22-84
8-29-88*
8-30-88*
9-27-60
9-11-67
9-28-68
9-23-70
9-28-72
10-25-60
10-2-61
10-2-67
10-30-67
10-15-69
11-15-60
11-5-68
11-23-71
11-14-72
11-7-73
11-7-73
(<5m)
DO Cone
[mg/Ll
14.6
13.2
13.4
12.5
11.6
12.1
13.7
7.63
5.67
9.64
10.9
12.0
_
—
_
8.38
9.04
9.72
9.2
8.97
9.27
9.14
9.79
—
_
6.90
8.77
8.47
8.46
9.63
9.04
8.64
_
—
7.85
9.39
9.09
9.09
9.1
6.58
10.5
9.64
10.4
9.60
8.40
10.5
10.9
10.9
10.6
11.1
C*5m)
DO Cone
fmg/L]
13.7
13.2
12.7
12.6
11.5
12.0
13.8
7.63
4.56
9.68
10.9
11.3
_
—
—
8.64
9.64
8.68
9.2
8.95
9.17
9.26
9.74
—
—
6.95
9.05
8.39
8.46
9.59
8.88
8.70
—
—
7.95
8.87
8.99
9.11
9.15
8.68
9.57
9.39
11.23
9.57
8.24
10.5
10.8
11.0
10.7
11.3
Avg
14.2
13.2
13.0
12.5
11.5
12.1
13.7
7.63
5.12
9.66
10.9
11.6
9.73
9.82
9.18
8.51
9.34
9.2
9.2
8.%
9.22
9.20
9.77
8.34
834
6.93
8.91
8.43
8.46
9.61
8.96
8.67
7.06
7.81
7.90
9.13
9.04
9.10
9.13
7.63
10.1
9.52
10.8
9.59
832
10.5
10.8
10.9
10.7
11.2
Moo. Avg
14.2
13.1
12.5
9.21
9.01
832
8.86
9.52
10.4
SUMMARY
Month DO Cone
Ims/lA
February 14.2
April 13.1
May 12.5
June 9.21
July 9.01
August 8.32
September 8.86
October 9.52
November 10.4
December —
* Data from ARCS database, NYSDEC (Lake Erie green buoy) and Coastguard Station; all other data from STAR
file.
22
-------
Table 8. Conductivity data, downstream boundary.
Month
June
July
August
Date
6-14-88
6-15-88
6-28-88
7-11-88
7-12-88
7-26-88
8-29-88
8-30-88
Average
Average Conductivity
(uS/cm)
288
289
289
295
288
286.6
317.9
285.9
292.4
Table 9. Chloride, hardness and alkalinity, downstream boundary.
Chloride, Filtered
Month
August
September
November
Date
8-1-70
8-17-71
9-23-70
11-23-71
(<5m)
mg/LCl
24.7
24.2
24.9
26.0
(>5m)
mg/LCl
24.2
24.1
24.1
26.0
Avg
24.5
24.2
24.5
26.0
Mon. Avg
243
24.5
26.0
SUMMARY
Month
July
August
Scpcuibcf
October
November
mg/LCl
—
24.3
24.5
—
26.0
Hardness, Total Filtered
Month
May
June
July
August
September
October
Date
5-30-67
6-29-67
7-31-67
7-29-68
8-14-66
8-21-67
9-11-67
9-28-68
10-2-67
10-30-67
10-15-69
(<10m)
(mg/L
125.0
127.8
126.2
133.2
131.0
130.9
132.8
135.7
129.8
129.8
133.0
(>10m)
uCaCOS)
_
tlff
130.7
132.0
—
—
135.7
_
—
132.0
Avg
125.0
127.8
It*) 1
126.2
132.0
131.5
130.9
132.8
135.7
129.8
129.8
132.5
MonAvg
125.0
127.8
130.3
131.2
134.3
130.7
SUMMARY
Month
January
February
1Uf*r*4t
April
May
June
Jury
August
September
October
November
December
mg/L
_
—
_
125.
127.8
130.3
131.2
134.3
130.7
—
—
23
-------
Alkalinity, Total Titrometric
Month
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Date
6-29-67
7-10-67
7-31-67
7-29-69
8-21-67
9-11-67
10-2-67
10-30-67
dm)
(mgas
92.3
92.7
97.6
94.8
91.4
91.9
93.7
94.7
(8-9m)
CaC03)
_
—
—
93.6
—
—
Avg
92.3
92.7
97.6
94.2
91.4
91.9
93.7
94.7
MonAvg
92.3
94.8
91.4
94.2
SUMMARY
Month
June
July
August
Sepember
October
November
1/CUeUlUCl
mg
92.3
94.8
91.4
93.1
94.2
Table 10. pH data, downstream boundary.
Month
April
June
July
August
September
November
Date
4-12-73
4-12-73
6-14-88*
6-15-88*
6-28-88*
7-5-71
7-25-73
7-25-73
7-12-88*
7-26-88*
8-17-71
8-13-84
8-14-84
8-22-84
8-29-88*
8-30-88*
9-28-72
11-23-71
11-7-73
11-7-73
(1m)
PH
7.88
7.95
—
8.45
8.79
8.88
—
—
8.73
8.53
8.5
8.63
—
—
8.65
8.37
7.51
8.03
(4-5 m)
pH
7.87
7.94
—
—
—
8.51
8.8
8.88
—
—
8.73
_
—
—
_
—
8.63
8.38
7.74
8.05
(8-10m)
pH
7.73
7.9
—
—
—
8.52
8.79
8.88
_
_
8.64
_
—
_
_
_
8.62
8.39
7.78
8.06
Avg
7.82
7.93
8.29
8.21
8.33
8.43
8.79
8.88
8.31
8.38
8.70
8.53
8.5
8.63
7.84
8.09
8.63
8.38
7.67
8.04
MonAvg
7.87
8.27
8.57
8.38
8.63
8.03
SUMMARY
Month
Apr
Jim
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
pH
7.9
8.3
8.6
8.4
8.6
8.0
* Data from ARCS Database, Lake Erie green buoy and Coastguard Station, all other data from STAR File.
24
-------
26
25.5 -
O
CO
CO
25 »
24.5 -
24
Jul
Limited data available
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 9. Chloride concentration, downstream boundary.
25
-------
§136
o
0134
CO
o>
£.130 -
^128
to"
$1261
JS124
H h
Jan Mar
Limited data available
May Jul
Month
Sep Nov
Figure 10. Hardness data, downstream boundary.
26
-------
_ 95
0 94.5 -•
s
t/> 93.5 -
CO
|> 93 -
£92.5 -
ii 92 -
| 91.5-
<
91
Jun Jul
Limited data available
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 11. Alkalinity data, downstream boundary.
27
-------
8.6 T
8.5 •
8.4 -
8.3
8.2 -
8.1 •
8
7.9
Jan Mar
Limited data available
May Jul
Month
Sep Nov
Figure 12. Average monthly pH, downstream boundary.
28
-------
3.3. Partition coefficients
The water column data include concentrations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC),
paniculate organic carbon (POC) and total suspended solids (TSS) for each sample. The
paniculate (Cp) and dissolved (Cj) concentrations of total PCBs, 5 PAHs, 3 metals, and 4
pesticides were recorded for each sample as well. Most of the concentrations for the pesticides
were below the detection limit. Total water column concentrations for all the parameters of
interest are shown in the plots of Appendix B, as noted above. TSS concentrations are shown in
Figures 13 - 15 for the fall sampling, spring sampling and overall data, respectively. In these
figures, individual data points are shown as stars for each measurement location and average
values are indicated as solid rectangles. These data allowed us to compute observed distribution
coefficients for the above contaminants. These estimates approximate partition coefficients only
if local equilibrium is assumed. This neglects possible kinetic interactions, but is the most
reasonable approach, given the data available.
The fraction organic carbon (foc) was found by dividing the concentration of POC by the
total suspended solids,
L = &f , 0)
where [POC] = concentration of POC (mg organic carbon/L) and C = TSS concentration (mg
dry weight solid/L). The field-observed partition coefficient for dry weight solids (K'j) (L/kg
d.w.) was calculated as follows:
K'd values were computed for the metals. For the rest of the hydrophobic organic chemicals, the
field-observed partition coefficient was computed on an organic carbon basis (K'oc) (L/kg
org.carbon),
29
-------
*" - <* (3)
~~~T
Joe
Calculations for the solids concentrations with respect to organic carbon content are summarized
in Table 11 for PCBs, PAHs and pesticides of interest. The spatial variations of log K'oc (log
K'd for metals) are shown in Appendix C, Figures Cl - C12.
Table 12 contains calculated values for the mean of the (log K^) or Oog K'd) values for
overall, spring '92, fall '90, and each of the 6 sampling sites. Standard deviations for the samples
are also computed for overall, fall '90, and spring '92. Copies of spreadsheet calculations used to
compute these values are included in Appendix C. It should be noted, however, that there are
several computed values for foc which are greater than 1. This is an unrealistic value and
appears to be a result of a problem with the raw data. These values are associated with times
where the TSS is very low, and a small measurement error in TSS may be the source of the
problem. These values were not used in subsequent calculations.
It was desired to determine the extent to which values of K'oc could be predicted from
the values of the octanol-water partition coefficient KQW. This was done by first computing Oog
K'oc) and comparing with values of Oog KQW) obtained from literature sources (Endicott et al.,
1991; Hydroqual, 1984). These data are plotted in Figure 16. The straight line on this figure
results from a linear regression analysis between (log K'oc) m& Oog KOW) and is written as
lo&Kec=U2(lo&Kj-0.694 , (4)
with r^ = 0.703 (p < 0.01). This result is significant in that the slope of the regression is nearly
equal to 1, while the intercept is reasonably close to 0, which suggests that Oog K'^) may be
predicted from the value of Oog KOW).
The fraction paniculate (fp) and fraction dissolved (fd) values were also calculated, using
CK*
f - ' (for metals) (5a)
30
-------
or
and
/, = !-/, (6)
Values for fp are also included in Appendix C, Figures C13 - C24. Stream-wide average values
are listed in Table 13.
31
-------
O
CO
O
'C\J
o
o
o
CO
o
CO
W ^ • V^y
75K /I • A/Jlv
-CD ^
-c\]
(xxidd) SSJL
Figure 13. Longitudinal variation of TSS, fall 1990.
32
-------
21
(«'
3
I.
§
2,
H
on
C/J
w
1.
K>
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
a
•s
3
t—»
in
i
g.
I.
I
2,
H
C/5
oo
I
^ ^v
S
160
140
120-
100
80-I
(7)
60
40
34567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
Table 11. Calculation of solids concentrations based on organic carbon content
BUFFALO RIVER (CF#320)
PCBs IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
SAMPLE NUMBER
320-1
320-2
320-3
320-4
320-5
320-6
320-7
320-8
320-9
320-10
320-11
320-12
320-13
320-14
320-15
320-16
320-17
320-18
320-19
320-20
320-21
320-22
320-23
320-24
320-25
320-26
320-27
320-28
320-29
320-30
320-31
320-32
320-33
320-34
320-35
SPONSOR ID
BR30201C10
BR30301C10
BR30402C10
BR30601C10
BR30603C10
BR30801C10
BR30801C10
BR30901C10
BR31302C10
BR31402C20
BR31601CC1
BR31903C10
BR31903C10
BR32003C10
BR32102C10
BR32102C10
BR32301C10
BR32501C10
BR332702C1
BR 32801C10
BR31301C10
BR33002C10
BR33102C10
BR33202C10
BR33201C20
BR33201C20
BR33402C10
BR33402C10
BR33501C10
BR33501C10
BR33702C10
BR33702C10
BR3381C101
BR3381C104
BR3410C101
tal pcbs
3/9 d.w.)
79.03
2595.31
3364.77
1057.22
138.38
14830.50
49935.16
233.72
1124.29
649.32
316.49
179.25
8411.02
10035.56
137.85
5135.21
315.36
767.77
386.73
601.71
415.74
6341.76
1961.20
1700.59
178.95
43.90
115.75
1778.42
525.84
24486.84
161.97
181.48
136.60
2436.20
219.17
Foe
%drywt.
0.27
2.3
2.7
1.8
0.74
4
5.4
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.2
2
4.2
5.2
2.3
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
2
1.8
5
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.5
2.7
1.9
7.1
2.3
1
2
2.8
2
Foe
0.0027
0.023
0.027
0.018
0.0074
0.04
0.054
0.023
0.021
0.023
0.022
0.02
0.042
0.052
0.023
0.03
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.02
0.018
0.05
0.019
0.022
0.019
0.021
0.025
0.027
0.019
0.071
0.023
0.01
0.02
0.028
0.02
total pcbs
(ug/g o.c.)
29.27
112.84
124.62
58.73
18.70
370.76
924.73
10.16
53.54
28.23
14.39
8.96
200.26
192.99
5.99
171.17
18.55
45.16
22.75
30.09
23.10
126.84
103.22
77.30
9.42
2.09
4.63
65.87
27.68
344.89
7.04
18.15
6.83
87.01
10.96
35
-------
Table 11 (continued)
GREAT LAKES (OF *320)
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT
BUFFALO RIVER
MSLCod*
320-1
320-2
3204
3204
3204
320-6
320-7
320-8
320-8
320-10
32O-11
320-12
320-13
320-14
320-19
320-18
320-17
320-18
320-19
320-20
32O-21
320-22
320-23
320-24
32045
320-28
320-27
320-28
320-29
320-30
320-31
320-32
320-33
320-34
320-35
<
Sponsor LO. /
BR30201C101
BR30301C101
BR30402C101
BR30801C101
BB30903C101
BR30601C101
BR30801C104
BR30901C101
BR31302C101
BR31402C201
BR31601C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C103
BR32301C101
BR32501C101
BR32702C101
BR32601C101
BR31301C101
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33202C101
BR33201C201
BFO3201C203
BR33402C101
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C103
BR33702C101
BR33702C103
BR3381C101
BR3381C104
BR3410C101
uoncennoon
Mhneene
74
1558
2282
1154
806
1963
4847
358
2507
504
374
471
3826
14949
262
34660
438
488
4891
824
714
5901
412
2602
301
103
360
5349
472
8263
580
1537
401
21267
553
sm ufyKgoiy'
Chiyesns
117
1715
2817
1349
888
2530
6222
541
2776
688
549
549
4032
14177
403
28509
562
828
4632
1134
886
6472
517
3087
441
106
930
5306
871
7732
681
1796
673
17897
730
m-i
Benzo(b)
FMOfetntneNW
87
1324
1542
1138
489
1700
2487
508
1701
818
685
451
2556
11921
379
20623
487
SOB
3772
1046
805
3381
340
1242
391
59
522
3414
747
4826
586
1333
987
14855
735
Foe
BeraoM BerooM Hdrywt
Foe
BeraoW
Fbomnthene Fyrane Anthracene
73
1007
1245
897
385
1050
1662
386
1486
449
447
376
2380
10721
294
20894
389
413
3564
795
670
2836
275
882
294
98
417
3038
530
2819
495
1150
441
8766
588
76
1318
1531
1123
552
1522
2185
412
1812
049
527
438
2688
13842
324
24977
446
496
4450
982
794
3683
328
1265
318
62
433
3786
824
4191
702
1817
474
13599
840
027
2.3
2.7
14
0.74
4
5.4
24
2.1
Z3
22
2
42
52
2.3
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
2
14
6
1.9
22
1.9
2.1
2.5
2.7
14
7.1
2.3
1
2
24
2
0.0027
0.023
0.027
0.018
0.0074
0.04
0.054
0.023
0.021
0.023
0.022
0.02
0.042
0.092
0.023
0.03
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.02
0.016
0.05
0.019
0.022
0.019
0.021
0.025
0.027
0.019
0.071
0.023
0.01
0.02
0.028
0.02
27959
8/721
84934
84096
108902
49082
88064
15581
118386
21893
17016
23552
83482
287478
11405
1155986
29829
27427
285385
46190
30684
118012
21873
118288
19669
4892
14397
188107
24817
88208
WXM
153743
20086
759541
27871
Chrytene 1
43399
74571
88928
74830
119763
63298
119225
23506
132207
29022
24956
27454
85297
272641
17520
890302
33080
36948
272900
58693
48135
129438
27193
138400
23185
5141
21202
189896
35314
108898
29614
179616
28637
637752
36517
"/
Berao(b)
luoramhene
35917
57571
57123
ffyjff?
ff^Qjft
42482
49890
22000
80887
26886
28581
22588
60852
228253
16475
667429
28833
29713
221879
52309
44899
87210
17889
86440
20670
2795
20664
128432
38309
87666
25994
133272
28336
•130549
36754
Beroolk)
Fkjoranlhene
27120
43802
46101
49841
53379
26254
30694
16784
66646
19518
20324
18691
58682
206169
12784
696481
22682
24309
209637
39758
37207
52719
14470
43735
15483
1831
18888
112440
27905
39997
21505
114990
22037
313874
26424
Benzo
-------
Table 11 (continued)
PESTICIDES IN BUFFALO RIVER
IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(CF#320)
03/26/93
(Concentrations in us/kg dry weight)
(Concentration* in ug/kg org. carbon)
Foe
Foe
SAMPLE NUMBER SPONSOR ID A-CHLOHOAN G-CHLORDAN DIELDRIN 4.4'DDT
320-1
320-2
320-3
320-4
3204
3204
320-7
3204
3204
320-10
320-11
320-12
320-13
320-14
320-15
320-16
320-17
320-18
320-19
320-20
320-21
320-22
320-23
320-24
320-25
320-26
320-27
320-28
320-29
32040
32041
320-32
32043
32044
32045
BR30201C101
BR30301C101
BR30402C101
BR30601C101
BR30603C101
BR30B01C101
BR30601C104
BR30901C101
BR31302C101
BR31402C201
BR31601C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C103
BR32301C101
BR32S01C101
BR32702C101
BR32801C101
BR31301C101
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33202C101
BR33201C201
BR33201C203
BR33402C101
BR33402C103
BR33S01C101
BR33501C103
BR33702C101
BR33702C103
BR3381C101
BR3381C104
BR3410C101
2
2
2
10
2
2
200
2
2
2
2
2
10
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
200
2
2
2
10
2
2
40
40
20
10
100
200
20
20
10
20
20
2
10
10
2
20
2
20
10
20
100
2
10
10
2
10
2
2
200
2
20
20
2
10
2
2
2
2
2
100
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
2
10
2
20
1000
10
10
2
10
10
100
2
10
100
10
10
2
2
2
100
10
20
10
2
10
10
10
1000
10
10
10
2
10
027
2J
2.7
1.8
0.74
4
5.4
Z3
£1
2.3
22
2
42
52
£3
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
2
1.8
9
1.9
22
1.9
2.1
Z5
2.7
1.9
7.1
2.3
1
2
2.8
2
A-CHLOROAN G-CHLORDAN DIELDRIN 4,4'DDT
0.0027
0.023
0.027
0.018
0.0074
0.04
0.054
0.023
0.021
0.023
0.022
0.02
0.042
0.052
0.023
0.03
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.02
0.018
0.05
0.019
0.022
0.019
0.021
0.025
0.027
0.019
0.071
0.023
0.01
0.02
0.028
0.02
0.0054
0.046
0.054
0.18
0.0148
0.08
10.8
0.046
0.042
0.046
0.044
0.04
0.42
1.04
0.046
0.06
0.034
0.034
0.034 ,
0.04
0.036
5
0.038
0.044
0.038
0.042
0.05
0.054
0.036
142
0.046
0.02
0.04
028
0.04
0.0054
0.92
1.08
0.36
0.074
4
10.8
0.46
0.42
0.23
0.44
0.4
0.084
0.52
023
0.06
0.34
0.034
0.34
02
0.36
5
0.038
0.22
0.19
0.042
0.25
0.054
0.036
14.2
0.046
02
0.4
0.056
0.2
0.0054
0.040
0.054
0.036
0.0148
4
10.8
0.046
0.042
0.046
0.044
0.04
0.084
0.52
0.046
0.06
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.04
0.036
5
0.19
0.22
0.038
0.042
0.05
0.054
0.038
14.2
0.046
0.02
0.04
0.056
0.04
aoa
a:
o.ot
0.
0.01-
c
t
OJ
o.:
0.0-
0.:
c
4
0.11
o.:
0.
0.
0.0.
O.i
o.a
0.
0.-
0.1
0.0-
o.:
o.:
0.
•
o.;
o
c
0.0
c
37
-------
Table 12. Summary calculations for log K'oc and
METALS
OVERALL
s.d
Spring 92
s.d
Fall 90
s.d
Site"!
Site 2
Site3
Site 4
SiteS
Site 6
PCBs
OVERALL
s.d
Spring 92
s.d
Fall 90
s.d
Sitel
Site 2
SiteS
Site 4
SiteS
Site 6
n
56
12
44
12
8
12
7
7
10
n
56
12
44
12
8
12
7
7
10
LEAD
AVG TSS K'd
(mg/l) (I/kg)
21.29 8.62E+05
46.94 1.44E+05
14.30 1.39E+06
31.58 1.09E+06
14 4.21 E+06
22.25 1.73E+06
21.43 2.15E+06
15.71 1.96E+06
17.43 3.13E+05
AVG TSS
(mg/l)
21.29
46.94
14.30
31.58
14
22.25
21.43
15.71
17.43
LEAD
log K'd
5.27
0.78
5.25
0.66
5.58
0.72
5.04
5.62
5.90
5.76
5.77
5.24
COPPER
K'd
(I/kg)
1.84E+06
6.39E+04
2.58E+06
2.85E+06
4.55E+05
9.71 E+06
7.17E+06
1.91 E+06
1.49E+05
Koc
(I/kg)
1.91E+07
4.22E+06
2.39E+07
3.37E+06
2.28E+06
5.65E+06
4.20E+07
6.93E+07
2.04E+06
COPPER IRON
log K'd K'd
(I/kg)
5.31 2.32E+05
0.96
4.59 9.12E+04
0.49
5.47 2.40E+05
0.96
5.32 2.18E+05
5.42 2.53E+05
5.94 2.78E+06
5.81 2.44E+05
5.25 1.80E+05
4.89 1.07E+05
log Koc
6.44
1.00
6.15
0.70
6.53
1.07
5.79
5.44
6.40
7.34
7.36
6.25
IRON
log K'd
5.08
0.54
4.91
0.23
5.09
0.60
5.08
5.11
6.00
5.05
4.99
5.00
38
-------
Table 12 (continued)
PAHs
OVERALL
Spring 92
Fall 00
t.d.
Slt«1
Site 2
Sit* 3
Site 4
SiteS
Site 6
Pesticides
OVERALL
s.d
Spring 92
s.d
Fall 90
s.d
Sitel
Site 2
Site3
Site 4
SiteS
Site 6
n
56
12
44
12
e
12
7
7
10
n
56
12
44
12
6
12
7
7
10
AVG TSS
(mg/l)
21.29
46.94
14.30
31.56
14
22.25
21.43
15.71
17.43
AVG TSS
(mg/l)
21.29
46.94
14.30
31.58
14
22.25
21.43
15.71
17.43
B[a]a
Koc
(I/kg)
1.7E+06
1.3E+06
1.8E+06
2.2E+06
1.3E+06
8.9E+05
2.7E+06
2.2E+06
4.1E+05
G-CHL
Koc
(I/kg)
9.22E+05
1.58E+06
6.67E+05
4.99E+05
1.02E+05
1.10E+06'
7.20E+05
1.28E+06
1.64E+06
B[a]a
log Koc
5.66
0.61
5.96
0.43
5.84
0.63
5.99
5.58
5.69
5.97
6.18
5.5
G-CHL
log Koc
5.65
0.57
5.90
0.65
5.55
0.51
5.64
4.98
5.66
5.7
5.63
5.93
Cnrysene
Koc
(I/kg)
3.8E+06
3.5E+06
4.2E+06
2.2E+06
2.2E+05
1.7E+06
1.1E+07
1.4E+06
3.7E+06
A-CHL
Koc
(I/kg)
6.16E+05
1.21E+06
7.22E+05
6.13E+05
7.35E+05
1.09E+06
9.72E+05
5.25E+05
6.60E+05
Chrys.
log Koc
5.91
0.59
6.40
0.40
6.02
0.61
6.20
5.34
5.97
6.47
6.02
6.29
A-CHL
log Koc
5.62
0.52
5.74
0.71
5.78
0.47
5.67
5.3
6.31
5.75
5.59
5.64
B[bjf
Koc
(I/kg)
5.6E+06
1.1E+07
4.7E+06
4.8E+06
4.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.3E+07
1.3E+06
5.1E-I-06
DIELDRIN
Koc
(I/kg)
4.77E+05
2.42E+05
5.76E+05
4.53E+05
2.61 E+05
5.78E+05
1.17E+06
3.17E+05
1.57E-I-05
B[b)f
log Koc
6.33
0.67
6.70
0.54
6.16
0.65
6.51
5.96
6.48
6.47
5.91
6.30
DIELO.
log Koc
5.41
0.64
5.33
0.25
5.44
0.73
5.45
5.42
5.41
5.94
5.32
5.16
B[k]f
Koc
(i/kg)
9.6E+06
1.4E+07
7.4E+06
7.6E+06
1.6E+06
1.5E+07
1.7E+07
2.3E+08
6.0E+06
DDT
Koc
(i/kg)
3.32E+06
2.14E+06
4.16E+06
5.37E+06
3.97E+06
6.20E+06
1.86E+06
1.20E+06
B[k]f
log Koc
6.56
0.64
6.92
0.46
6.40
0.63
6.74
6.01
6.76
6.74
6.17
6.43
DDT
log Koc
6.20
0.66
6.06
0.55
6.31
0.73
6.62
6.07
6.74
6.18
5.97
B[a]p
Koc
0/kg)
8.5E+06
6.3E+06
9.2E+06
9.2E+06
2.7E+06
3.0E+06
3.2E+07
3.6E+06
4.9E+06
B[a]p
log Koc
6.56
0.55
6.71
0.32
6.51
0.60
6.8
6.25
6.42
6.86
6.37
6.45
39
-------
CO
s
CD
1
O)
o
-co
I
O)
I!
o
o
k
O)
o
-10
00
CO
IO
6o|
Figure 16. Relationship between log K'^ and log K'ow.
40
-------
Table 13. Stream-wide average values for
Parameter
PCBs
A-Chlordane
G-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT
fP
0.75
0.50
0.55
0.42
0.78
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.59
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.77
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene 0.86
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.88
Chrysene 0.74
Lead 0.77
Copper 0.70
3.4. Spatial variability of sediment characteristics
The organic pollutants of interest (PCBs, PAHs, pesticides and metabolites) have been
detected in bottom sediments of the Buffalo River (NYSDEC, 1989). In addition, inorganic
pollutants of interest (metals and cyanides) have been detected in the water column of the river
(NYSDEC, 1989). These parameters are known to sorb strongly to bottom sediments. These
contaminants have a very low solubility in water and sorb strongly to organic matter associated
with bottom sediments. While these bottom sediments are relatively immobile during periods of
low to average flows, higher flow rates associated with snow melt or stormwater runoff may
induce resuspension of the sediments. In addition, these events cause a much higher than normal
sediment load to be transported from the upstream tributaries (see Section 4.1.1.).
Sediment cores were taken from 37 locations along the river bottom and several positions
in the Buffalo Ship Canal (Figure 17). These locations include 10 master stations where a full
range of parameters was analyzed, supplemented by reconnaissance, or indicator stations where
selected parameters were measured. Details of the coring procedures, analyses and results are
41
-------
described in a report under preparation by AScI Corp. for the Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) of EPA (Joe Rathbun, personal communication). According to that report, the
average core length was 105" (267 cm). Relatively clean, brown silt was usually found in the
upper foot or two, with oily silt beneath. Concentration data are reported as averages over the
"upper sediment layer". This corresponds with the top 24" of the core. These data were
combined with a digital map of the river to produce plots of contaminant concentrations at each
measurement station, as shown in Appendix D. These figures give an indication of areas with
relatively high concentration levels. For example, from Figures Dl 1 and D12, there are several
locations where metals concentrations are particularly high. These locations are mostly around
the Buffalo Color Peninsula, though several high readings are also seen further downstream.
42
-------
Lake
Erie
aw
I
c/i
•o
A
en
I
•8
EL
I
SAMPLING SITES
BUFFALO RIVER SEDIMENT QUALITY SURVEY
1301 - Indicator station
)2Ql - Master/Indicator station
li - Master station
boundary
-------
Estimates of the total in-place contaminant mass, Table 14, were made by spatially
averaging the data shown in the figures of Appendix D. These calculations are meant to provide
only an order-of-magnitude indication of the potential source represented by in-place
contaminants, since the nature of the available data precludes the calculation of better mass
estimates. Specifically, the data were sampled mostly from near-shore areas, with few
measurements taken closer to the middle of the channel. The overall lack of finely spaced
measurement points, along with the high degree of variability in the reported values, implies that
simple averaging will not necessarily provide accurate mean values. Also, only the upper layer
concentrations are reported, so the values in Table 14 do not reflect mass concentrations from
depths below 24 in. or 24 cm.
Table 14. Contaminant mass in sediments.
Contaminant
PCBs
g-chlordane
a-chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
Mass in upper sediment
layer (kg)
7.69
0.32
0.07
0.06
0.26
16.17
17.68
14.34
17.99
19.77
1,399
1,408
44
-------
4. Loading estimates
4.1. Upstream loading estimates
4.1.1. Suspended solids
Data. As noted above, transport of contaminants into the AOC is strongly dependent on
sediment transport. Therefore, the ability to accurately predict suspended solids loadings to the
AOC from upstream tributaries is an important component in the contaminant mass balance
modeling effort. Suspended solids were measured as part of the data surveys conducted in 1990
and 1992 (Figures 13-15). The majority of these data, obtained from within the AOC, with the
exception of data from the most upstream site (Site 1), are not useful for developing predictive
relationships of upstream loadings to the AOC. However, data from Sites 2-6 can be used in
validating solids transport modeling results within the AOC. Suspended solids and pollutant
loadings from the upstream tributaries were therefore developed from TSS samples taken at
several locations upstream of the Buffalo River/Cazenovia Creek confluence (at Highway 62)
and at Site 1, and from water column samples taken at Site 1, which is about 2,000 ft.
downstream of this confluence. A summary of available TSS data is listed in Table 15.
Table 15. Data availability for TSS
Site no. *
120
119
105
104
CazR/Sl
CazS/U2
BRS/U2
BCR/S2
CAYR/S3
104
1
Period of record
7/89-4/90
7/89-9/90
1/90-7/92
1/90-7/92
3/92-4/92
3/92-4/92
3/92-4/92
3/92-4/92
3/92-4/92
10/90-12/91
10/90-4/92
No. of samples
42
44
41
48
4
4
4
4
4
6
12
Sampling location
Cazenovia Ck. at Cazenovia Parkway
Buffalo River at S. Ogden St.
Cazenovia Ck. at HWY 62 (Bailey Ave.)
Buffalo River at HWY 62 (Bailey Ave.)
(grab) Cazenovia Ck. at Northrup Rd.
(grab) Cazenovia Ck. at Cazenovia Pkwy.
(grab) Buffalo River at S. Ogden St.
(grab) Buffalo Ck. at N. Blossom Rd.
(grab) Cayuga Ck. at Lake Ave.
(grab) Buffalo River at HWY 62
Buffalo River AOC, Sampling Site 1
* Except for the last row, all site identification numbers refer to NYSDEC designations.
45
-------
Reported TSS measurements do not normally include bed load transport. The bed load,
also referred to as "unmeasured sediment discharge", is useful for predicting total solids load
(Colby, 1957). However, this is not directly useful for predicting contaminant loading since the
bed load consists mostly of larger particles while sorption occurs mainly to the smaller size
fractions. Total sediment discharge rates were estimated for sites 1, 104 and 105 (Table 15)
using the Colby (1957) relations, to provide some indication of total solids loading. The
available data for Site 1 and calculated total sediment discharge rates are summarized in Table
16. In the following calculations for contaminant loadings, however, only the suspended loads
are used.
46
-------
Total Sediment Discharge Calculations, Colby Relations
Buffalo River Mass Balance Modeling Project
Sampling Stte #1 , Buffalo River AOC
(D
Date
10/18/90
10/22/90
10/27/90
10/31/90
11/5/90
11/5/90
11/9/90
11/13/90
4/17/92
4/17/90
4/18/90
4/22/90
(2)
Observed
TSS
(mg/L)
8
6
3
3
3
2
28
12
154
52
74
34
(3)
Q
(cfs)
1029
418
376
336
322
322
648
684
2592
2592
1678
1609
W
Buffalo
Harbor
WSEL
(IGLD)
572.92
571.03
571.31
570.74
570.43
570.43
570.96
571.34
571.73
571.73
571.57
572.18
(5) (6)
Buffalo Cross
Harbor Section
WSEL Area
(NGVD) (n*2)
574.22 3460
572.33 2962.867
572.61 3036.517
572.04 2886.588
571.73 2805.047
571.73 2805.047
572.26 2944.455
572.64 3044.408
573.03 3146.991
573.03 3146.991
572.87 3104.905
573.48 3265.355
(7) (8)
Depth Width
(ft) (ft)
14.42 239.9445
12.53 236.4619
12.81 237.0427
12.24 235.8323
11.93 235.1255
11.93 235.1255
12.46 236.3126
12.84 237.1034
13.23 237.8678
13.23 237.8678
13.07 237.5597
13.68 238.6956
O)
Velocity
(fl/s)
0.297399
0.14108
0.123826
0.1164
0.114793
0.114793
0.220075
0.224674
0.823644
0.823644
0.540435
0.492749
(10)
Relative
Cone of
Sands
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
(11)
Avatebfl
Ratio
0.16
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.56
0.24
3.08
1.04
1.48
0.68
(12)
Ratio of
Departure
0.5
0.48
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.28
1
0.65
2.3
1.4
1.7
1.1
(13) (14) (15) (16)
Curve C Unmeas Unmeas Total
UnSedD Sediment Sediment Sediment
m width Discharge Discharge Discharge
(ton/day) (ton/day) (mg/L) (mg/L)
119.9723 43.21861 51.21861
113.5017 100.6541 106.6541
75.85365 74.78147 77.78147
75.46634 83.25674 86.25674
75.24016 86.61622 89.61622
65.83514 75.78919 77.78919
1 236.3126 135.1815 163.1815
1 154.1172 83.5219 95.5219
1 547.0959 78.24089 232.2409
1 333.0149 47.62489 99.62489
1 403.8515 89.21443 163.2144
1 262.5651 60.49039 94.49039
g
n
£
H
r?
Q
3
a
EL
cL
3"
n
3-
o*
£L
*•
o
3
o
o
Notes: (5) NGVD • IGLD +1.3 ft
(10) Figure 7 (Colby. 1957)
(12) Figure 8 (Colby. 1957)
(13) Figure 5 (Colby. 1957)
(15)[(14)*370.6853/(3)]
vo
3
§
-------
Modified Parsons procedure for estimating TSS concentrations. A procedure for
estimating TSS was reported in an early study by Parsons et al. (1963). Using data from 1953 -
1961, they developed a relation between suspended sediment concentration and discharge for
each of the three tributary creeks,
r — ]f/ia*5 ; = i •? •* (T\
Cj — A(-y. ,1 IjA-5 \ '
where i = 1, 2, or 3 corresponds with Buffalo, Cayuga or Cazenovia Creek, respectively, Q -
suspended sediment concentration in tributary i (mg/L), Kj = "credibility constant" for tributary i
and QJ = discharge in tributary i (cfs). Values for Kj are shown in Table 17.
Table 17. Watershed and seasonal variation in Kj (eq. 7).
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Buffalo Creek
0=1)
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.7
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.2
1.8
1.4
Cayuga Creek
0 = 2)
0.8
1.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.7
0.9
Cazenovia Creek
0 = 3)
1.0
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.5
1.8
1.6
1.0
(8)
The total load to the AOC is obtained by summing,
3 3 ]gj
»=! i=)
where Q = Qj + Q2 + Qs = total flow in Buffalo River and C = sediment concentration entering
the river. The concentration C is then found by dividing the right hand side of (8) by Q.
48
-------
In order to compare results from this equation with present observations, it was found
that a correction factor had to be added due to the generally lower TSS values observed more
recently. Thus,
where F = seasonally-dependent correction factor. Based on solids data listed above, values for
F were calculated for all months except June, by comparing estimates using (9) with observed
TSS. These values are shown in Table 18. A direct value for June was not estimated because
measured TSS values were not available for that month. Instead, the value listed for June was
obtained by averaging the values for May and July. Predicted concentrations using (9) are
plotted vs. observed values in Figure 18. Although the comparison appears reasonable, it was
felt that a relationship developed from the current data alone may be more appropriate due to
changes in land use and erosive characteristics in the watershed from the time the Parsons et al.
(1963) study was done.
Table 18. Values for correction factor in (9).
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Correction factor (F)
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.23
0.266
0.600
0.431
0.441
0.189
0.2
49
-------
Predicted vs. Observed TSS - Corrected Parsons et al. (1963)
model
100
Predicted 10
10
Observed
100
Figure 18. Relationship between observed and predicted TSS values.
50
-------
Proposed procedure for estimating TSS. The TSS data described above were used to
develop a relationship between TSS concentrations and discharge for the Buffalo River and its
tributaries. For many of the TSS samples, actual discharge measurements at the time and
location of sampling were available. This was true for all of the grab samples and also for some
of the samples taken at Sites 104 and 105. In other cases, where discharge was not directly
measured, discharge values from upstream USGS gages at the time closest to the sampling time
were used to estimate the corresponding value at the sampling site.
First, total flow for Site 1 was estimated as
/1-»0\
&. do)
where Qbc, Q^y and Qcaz are the instantaneous measured discharges taken at the time closest
to the sample time at the Buffalo Creek, Cayuga Creek and Cazenovia Creek gages, respectively,
and the coefficients are ratios of total tributary drainage area at the confluence to the drainage
area for each gage, as described in Section 3.1. When neither actual measured discharge nor
time of sample were available, mean daily discharges for each of the gages on the sample day
were used in (10) instead. For Sites 105 and 104 (Table 15), the following relations were used:
(Site 105) Q =
(Site 104) e = ^+-^ (12)
Discharge estimates for Sites 120 and 119 were obtained in a similar fashion, using ratios of
drainage areas,
(Site 120) G = CL 03)
51
-------
The appropriateness of using stream gage data in this manner to estimate instantaneous
flows was investigated by calculating flows at times when measured flows were available. A
comparison of measured discharge to calculated discharge showed that this procedure provides
reasonable estimates. This procedure may not be reasonable, however, for locations further
downstream where Lake Erie seiching affects the flows.
Correlation analyses. Once discharge estimates were obtained for each TSS sample, the
data were examined in several ways. First, the data set from each station was analysed by
assuming a power equation relationship of the form TSS = aQb, with TSS in rng/L and Q in cfs.
The coefficients a and b were then determined using a best-fit linear equation to (log TSS) vs.
(log Q). The regressions for data from all stations except 119 and 120 resulted in similar
coefficient values with relatively high correlations (approximately 0.78 - 0.95). The data from
stations 119 and 120 gave results quite different from each other as well as from the other
stations. Upon examining the data, it was found that the values for these two stations were
generally obtained during low flow periods while data from the other stations were for higher
flows. It was concluded that data from each of the two main tributaries to the Buffalo River
(i.e., Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks) could be combined, by tributary, to obtain two relationships
between TSS and Q; however, these relationships must account for differences between low and
high flow periods.
The high flow data (all data except those from stations 119 and 120) were also lumped
together by season and regression analyses were performed. The results showed no
distinguishable seasonal trend in the relationship between TSS and Q.
Finally, all data were divided into two groups: Cazenovia Creek above the Buffalo River
confluence and the Buffalo River and its tributaries above the confluence with Cazenovia Creek,
including all low flow data from stations 119 and 120 (this latter grouping is hereafter referred to
as "upstream Buffalo River"). These two sets of data are presented in Figures 19 and 20. The
difference between the TSS vs. Q relationship in low and high flows is apparent from these plots.
This phenomenon is believed to be associated with a stratified flow development occurring with
52
-------
low flows. It appears to be a reasonable approach to develop best-fit lines for each data set that
distinguishes between low flow and high flow TSS concentrations.
1E4
0.1
1
10
Q<154cfs: TSS = 4mg/L
Q>154cfs: TSS =
0.00120*QA1.610784 mg/L
100 1000
Discharge (cfs)
1E4
Figure 19. TSS vs. Q, for Cazenovia Creek
53
-------
1000
D)
CO
CO
0.1
10
Q<403 cfs : TSS = 12.8 mg/L
Q>403 cfs: TSS =
0.00247*QA1.425741 mg/L
100 1000
Discharge (cfs)
1E4
1E5
Figure 20. TSS vs. Q, for upstream Buffalo River
54
-------
For each data set high flow data were regressed using all data above various selected low
flow threshold values. The best-fit equation with the threshold value giving the highest
correlation was then adopted for the high flows. The arithmetic average of (log TSS) was then
computed for those values below the threshold value of Q. The point at which the high flow
equation equals the low flow TSS value was then set as the threshold discharge between high
and low flows (i.e., this represents the point of intersection for the two lines). For Cazenovia
Creek a low flow threshold value of 165 cfs was determined, with a corresponding low flow TSS
value of 4 mg/L, while for the Buffalo River tributaries the low flow threshold is 447 cfs, with a
corresponding low flow TSS of 12.8 mg/L. The difference in low flow TSS values for these
tributaries may explain in part the difference in power equation coefficients seen in the initial
examination of individual station data from stations 119 and 120.
The resulting relationships for TSS as a function of flowrate are
(Cazenovia Creek) TSS = A.Q(mgIL) , Q£ 165 cfs (15a)
TSS=Q.Wl06Q™(mg/L) , Q> 165 cfs (15b)
where Q (cfs) is from (11), and
(Buffalo River tributaries) 7S5 = 12.8(wg/I) , Q<447cfs (16a)
TSS = 0.002130143(mg/L) ,Q>447cfs (16b)
where Q (cfs) is from (12). The correlation coefficients (r^) for the above relations are as
follows: (15b) 0.84, (16b) 0.64.
Statistical bias in regressions of log-transformed data. The regression model used to
describe the relationship between TSS and discharge has the general form
\OBTSS =B.+B}togQ+s (17)
where Bo and Bj are constants and e is the error between the fitted line and the actual data.
When this equation is back transformed to obtain power relations such as (15b) and (16b) the
error term is omitted. Linear regression models involving non-transformed variables omit this
term because the mean of the error terms is assumed to be zero. For transformed variables the
mean of the error terms is zero in log units, but not in arithmetic units. Therefore, because the
55
-------
mean will not be zero after back transformation, the error term must be included in the resulting
power relation,
TSS = 10(B-+£)0B' (18)
where 106 is the bias correction term. If there is no error (e = 0) then this term is equal to 1.
In order to estimate the appropriate bias correction for each relationship (eqns. ISb and
16b), the distributions of the regression residuals were examined (Newman, 1993). For each
relationship, the regression residuals for the high flows were calculated and the frequency
distributions were plotted, as shown in Figures 21 and 22. From these plots, h appears that the
residuals are approximately normally distributed. The bias correction can then be estimated from
(Havlicek and Crain, 1988; Newman, 1993)
MSE
N
where N is the number of observations. Resulting bias correction factors of 1.13 and 1.16 were
-«**** -«MB*
obtained for Cazenovia Creek and the upstream Buffalo River tributaries, respectively.
Adopted relationships for TSS vs. discharge. The final relationships used to calculate
TSS as a function of discharge are obtained by applying the bias correction factors to (ISb) and
(16b), resulting in
Cazenovia Creek) TSS = Q.OQl2QQl6"(mg/L) ,Q>154cfs (20)
(Buffalo River tributaries) TSS = 0.00247Q}426(mg / L) , Q > 403 cfs (21)
Note that the threshold values distinguishing between high and low-flow relations change slightly
after applying the bias correction factors - the cut-off values in (20) and (21) also apply to (ISa)
and (16a).
Eqns. (15a), (16a), (20) and (21) thus form the basis for estimating TSS as a function of
discharge in the two main tributaries which join to form the lower Buffalo River. These relations
56
-------
-1.5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Calculated - Observed (log TSS)
1.5
Figure 21. Frequency distribution of high flow regression residuals, Cazenovia Ck.
57
-------
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Calculated - Observed (log TSS)
1.5
Figure 22. Frequency distribution of high flow regression residuals, upstream Buffalo River
58
-------
are compared with data and plotted in Figures 23 and 24. The comparison appears to be
reasonable and indicates that this approach is useful for estimating suspended sediment load to
the AOC. Mass solids loading to the Buffalo River are obtained by adding computed mass
loadings for each tributary. Time series of calculated upstream TSS loadings to the AOC are
plotted for the three periods for which observed TSS data are available - Fall 1990, April 1991
and Spring 1992 - in Figures 25, 26 and 27, respectively. These plots also show a reasonably
good fit for the TSS prediction equations. These relationships, along with water column data,
can then be used to estimate contaminant mass loadings to the AOC from the upstream
tributaries, as discussed in the following section.
59
-------
1000.0
10.0
OL 1.0
0 1 H 1—i i 11 in| 1—i i 11 nil 1—i i 11 nil 1—i i 11 ni| 1—i i 11 in
0.1 1.0
10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Observed TSS
Figure 23. Comparison of predicted and measured TSS, Cazenovia Creek
60
-------
10000
co 1000
CO
•o
3 100
o
TJ
S>
a.
0.1
1.0 10.0
Observed TSS
100.0
1000.0
Figure 24. Comparison of predicted and measured TSS, upstream Buffalo River
61
-------
300
250 -
200-
co
CO 100
,150-Hr
10 15 20
Oct18-Nov13,1990
25
30
Computed TSS — Flow (cms) - TSS (Observed) |
Figure 25. Upstream TSS loading, fall 1990
62
-------
20000
165 170 175 180 185 190 195
April 1-30,1991
Computed TSS — Flow (cms)
- TSS (Observed)
Figure 26. Upstream TSS loading, April 1991
63
-------
5000
4000-
"3)3000 -
J2 2000 H
r-
1000
160
525 530 535 540 545 550
March 26-April 25,1992
555
Computed TSS — Flow (cms) * TSS (Observed)]
Figure 27. Upstream TSS loading, spring 1992
64
-------
4.1.2. Contaminants
Coupled suspended sediment and water column data were available from four different
sources, as summarized in Table 19.
Table 19. Availability of coupled sediment and water column data for contaminants.
Data set Locations Contaminants* Period of record
ARCS Sitesl-6,AOC PCBs, PAHs, pesticides Fall 1990, spring 1992
NYSDEC** Various sites in AOC PCBs, PAHs, metals Fall 1990, spring 1992
3nd upstrcdm
ACOE*** Two sites in AOC PCBs, PAHs, metals Summer 1992
EPASTORET Various sites in AOC Metals 11/71-10/91
and upstream
* Paniculate and dissolved water column concentration data were available for all contaminants except metals, for
which only total water column concentrations were available.
** Litten and Anderson (1992)
*** Data from 1992 dredging demonstration, obtained from Waterways Experiment Station (D. Averett, personal
communication, 1993)
Measurements from Site 1 (ARCS data, upstream boundary of AOC) are shown in Table 20 for
all contaminants except metals. The ARCS metals data showed unreasonably high
concentrations, in comparison to all other available metals data, and were not used. Metals
loadings were calculated from data obtained by the NYSDEC, as discussed below. For those
dates on which the necessary data are available, sorbed pollutant concentrations can be estimated
on the basis of the tabulated values and measured sediment discharge rates. The pollutant
(paniculate phase) load to the AOC during the period of study is then computed as the product
of the pollutant concentration and the sediment discharge rate. These calculations are shown in
Table 21. However, a more general approach was desired to develop relationships between
sorbed pollutant concentrations and suspended sediment discharges (or concentrations) for the
available pollutants of interest at the upstream limit of the AOC. Paniculate and dissolved water
65
-------
column data for non-metals and total water column data for metals were examined in order to
develop relationships for total pollutant loadings to the AOC, as described below.
Table 20. Upstream non-metal paniculate concentrations.
(all data from ARCS
date
10/18/90
10/22/90
10/27/90
10/31/90
11/5/90
11/5/90
11/9/90
11/13/90
4/17/92
4/17/92
4/18/92
4/22/92
TSS
(mg/I)
8
6
3
3
3
2
28
12
154
52
74
34
flow
(cfe)
1029
418
376
336
322
322
648
684
2592
2592
1678
1609
site 1)
cone, (mg/kg)
PCB
0.633
0.365
0.081
0.183
0.274
1.645
0.039
0
0.013
0.024
0
0.0191
Chlordane
1.53e-3
9.88e-3
0
4.83e-3
2.04e-2
3.13e-2
1.03e-3
1.19e-3
8.406-4
3.83e-3
6.92e-4
2.29e-3
Dieldrin
1.51e-3
6.65e-2
1.49e-2
0
l.Sle-2
1.306-4
1.356-3
0
3.38e-4
6.926-4
0
6.72e-4
DDT
1.516-3
6.65e-2
1.496-2
0
1.816-2
1.30e-4
1.356-3
0
6.406-4
1.086-3
1.906-4
1.346-2
B(a)a
0
1.65
0.652
0.672
2.19
2.39
0.096
0.459
0.357
0.82
0.115
0.41
B(b)f
0
2.75
1.08
1.07
4.02
4.62
0.188
0.709
0.493
1.14
0.205
1.10
B(k)f
0
0.933
0.253
0.377
1.47
1.73
0.059
0.262
0.217
0.484
0.078
0.472
B(a)p
0
2.36
0.661
0.666
2.62
3.41
0.115
0.356
0.314
0.694
0.119
0.625
Cbiysene
0
3.16
0.946
1.06
3.38
4.54
0.156
0.699
0.422
0.914
0.27
0.901
Table 21. Measured non-metal paniculate pollutant loading rates.
date
10/18/90
10/22/90
10/27/90
10/31/90
11/5/90
11/5/90
11/9/90
11/13/90
4/17/92
4/17/92
4/18/92
4/22/92
lending rates (kg/day)
tolids
2.00e4
6.09e3
2.74e3
2.45e3
2.3Se3
1.56e3
4.41e4
2.00e4
9.70e5
3.28e4
3.02eJ
1.33eJ
PCB
1.27e-2
2.22e-3
2.22e-4
4.48e-4
6.45C-4
2.57e-3
1.74e-3
0
1.26f-2
7.83e-4
0
2.63e-3
Chlordane
3.06e-S
6.02e-5
0
1.18e-5
4.79e-5
4.88e-5
4.53e-5
2.38e-S
8.11e-4
1.26e-4
2.09e-4
3.04e-4
Dieldrin
3.066-5
4.056-4
4.09e-5
0
4.24«-5
1.97e-7
S.93e-5
0
3.28C-4
2.27e-5
0
8.93e-5
DDT
3.06e-5
4.05e-4
4.096-5
0
4.246-5
1.97e-7
5.93e-5
0
6.20e-4
3.55e-5
5.76e-5
1.78e-3
B(a)«
0
l.OOe-2
1.79e-3
1.65e-3
3.14e-3
3.73e-3
4.23e-3
9.166-3
3.46e-l
2.69e-2
3.47e-2
5.45e-2
B(b)f
0
1.68C-2
2.95e-3
2.61e-3
9.45e-3
7.2U-3
8.29e-3
1.41e-2
4.78e-l
3.73e-2
6.19e-2
1.46e-l
B(k)f
0
5.68e-3
6.93e-4
9.24e-4
3.46e-3
2.70e-3
2.60e-3
5.236-3
2.106-1
1.596-2
2.356-2
6.27e-2
B(a)p
0
1.44e-2
1.81e-2
1.636-3
6.156-3
5.32e-3
5.07e-3
7.10e-3
3.056-1
2.27e-2
3.59e-2
8.31e-2
Cbryiene
0
1.926-2
2.59e-3
2.60e-3
7.93e-3
7.08e-3
6.88e-3
1.39e-2
4.09e-l
2.99e-2
8.15e-2
1.20e-l
66
-------
Particulate pollutant concentrations (non-metals). Correlation analyses were performed
on the non-metal paniculate pollutant data in mg (dry weight pollutant)/kg (dry weight TSS)
versus TSS in mg (dry weight)/L. This was done for all non-metal pollutants of interest with
water column data available from ARCS Site 1 only, and then for all data from Sites 1-6
together. In all cases, except for Dieldrin and DDT, the correlation coefficients were slightly
higher for Site 1 data alone (N = 8-12, r = 0.60 - 0.90) than for the combined Site 1 - 6 data (N
= 33 - 56, r = 0.55 - 0.88). However, due to the greater number of samples for the Site 1-6
data, all correlation coefficients for all pollutants have a higher level of significance (0.01 in all
cases). Coupled suspended sediment and paniculate water column concentrations for PCBs and
PAHs were also available from the ACOE Dredging Demonstration Project. Therefore, the
additional data (9-10 samples for each) were added to the ARCS (sites 1-6) data sets for
PCBs and PAHs and regressions were performed. The regressions which included the dredging
demo data resulted in higher correlation coefficients for all data sets except benzo(a) anthracene,
which was slightly lower. However, all regressions using the dredging demo data provided
correlations with a 0.01 level of significance. Data from NYSDEC (Litten and Anderson, 1992)
for PCBs and PAHs were not used in these regressions because only one data sample was
available for PCBs and the PAH data were reported only for total PAHs.
Prediction equations for paniculate PCBs and all PAH pollutants were obtained from the
combined ARCS Sites 1-6 and dredging demo data analyses. For pesticides, the prediction
equations were obtained from the ARCS data set alone. Bias correction factors for the log-
transformed data were then computed for all prediction equations assuming normally distributed
residuals as described in Section 4.1.1. A sample plot showing the basic relationship is provided
in Figure 28. The final adopted relationships for paniculate pollutants versus TSS are as follows:
67
-------
(23)
(25)
(26)
where TSStota] (mg/1) is a flow weighted average of total upstream TSS concentration. The
inverse relation with TSS shown in these regresssions is consistent with the observation that
higher TSS demonstrates higher median particle size and larger particles carry lower mass-
specific contaminant levels.
68
-------
10
11f
E 0.1
CD
CJ>
O_
0.01
0.001
X
10 100
TSS (mg/1)
1000
Figure 28. Sample plot of relationship between particulate concentration and TSS
69
-------
Dissolved non-metal pollutant concentrations. The dissolved non-metal pollutant water
column data for the ARCS data set (Sites 1-6) were examined in a similar manner as the
particulate data. For these data, however, it was found that multiple linear regressions of
dissolved pollutant versus Q (ft3/s) and TSS (mg/L) generally provided better fits. For all non-
metal pollutants, dissolved data from Site 1 alone resulted in higher correlations than the data
from Sites 1-6 together. No significant relationships between dissolved pollutant concentration
and Q and TSS were observed for the She 1 - 6 data together. For the Site 1 data, all of the
relationships derived were significant to at least the 0.1 level of significance (N = 7 - 12, r = 0.54
- 0.95), except those for PCBs, chlordane, dieldrin, and DDT. No significant relationship was
observed between these four dissolved pollutants and Q and TSS. As with the particulate
pollutants, dissolved water column data were available for PCBs and PAHs from the Dredging
Demonstration project. NYSDEC data were not used for the same reason as stated earlier for
particulates. There were fewer dissolved data samples for each pollutant (1-6 samples), and
these were added to the Site 1 data for PCBs and PAHs to perform the multiple linear
regressions. As with the Site 1 data alone, no significant relationships were observed for PCB as
a function of Q and TSS. For the PAHs, the correlation coefficients for all constituents were
lower with the addition of the dredging demo data, with levels of significance < 0.10. Therefore,
prediction equations for dissolved PAHs were obtained from the ARCS data (Site 1) and
arithmetic averages of all observed data for PCBs and pesticides are suggested for use in loading
estimates. Again, bias correction factors for the log transformed data were calculated for each
prediction equation as described in Section 4.1.1. The final adopted relationships for dissolved
non-metal pollutant concentrations are:
= °-670 (32)
70
-------
(33)
(38)
(39)
(f)=o.
om (it)
where 0 is the total adjusted tributary flow (eqn. 10) in cfs and TSStotal K tne fl°w weighted
average upstream TSS in mg/L.
Total non-metal pollutant concentrations. Total non-metal pollutant loading
concentrations are obtained by adding the paniculate and dissolved estimates using the
appropriate unit conversion factors. Uncertainty in these estimates arises from sampling and
measurement errors associated with the determination of the sorbed pollutant concentration and
the suspended sediment concentration and the transfer of the relationship from the sampling site
to other sites of interest. There are also inherent uncertainties involved in applying statistical
71
-------
regression equations when estimating concentrations. However, the above equations provide
reasonable estimates, based on the limited data available.
Metals. Total metal concentration data (lead and copper) were available for several
locations within the Buffalo River AOC and in the upstream tributaries with corresponding TSS
concentration and stream discharge data as summarized in Table 22. Table 23 lists measured
metals concentrations and loading rates, based on the NYSDEC data set noted in Table 22
(specifically, BR Bailey and flow weighted sums from BR S/U2 and CAZ S/U1).
Table 22. Summary of coupled suspended sediment and water column data for metals.
(data for lead and copper)
Data Set
NYSDEC*
ACOE**
EPA-STORET
Station
Ohio St.
BR Bailey
BRS/U2
BRR/S2
CAZS/U1
CAZR/S1
CAYR/S3
-
-
01031002
01032213
01032311
01032221
Location
Buffalo River at Ohio Street
Composite, Buffalo R. and Caz
Creek at Bailey Avenue Bridges
Buffalo R. at S. Ogden Street
Buffalo R. at N. Blossom Rd.
Caz Creek at Caz Pkwy
Caz Creek at Northtup Rd.
Cayuga Creek at Lake Ave.
Mobil Oil
Dead Man's Cove
Buffalo River at Ohio Street
Cay. Cr. at Bowen Rd. (Lane.)
Buffalo Cr. at Rt 277 (Card.)
Cay. Cr. at Three Rod Rd
(Alden)
No. Samples
8/8
1/1
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
14/14
7/7
16/23
0/4
0/4
1/1
Period of Record
12/30/91, 3/26/92-4/25/92
12/30/91
3/26/92-4/25/92
3/26/92-4/25/92
3/26/92-4/25/92
3/26/92-4/25/92
3/26/92-4/25/92
Summer 1992
Summer 1992
4/87-10/91
5/88-11/88
5/88-11/88
4/87-12/87
* Litten and Anderson (1992)
** 1992 Dredging demo data (D. Averett, personal communication, 1993)
72
-------
Table 23. Upstream metals concentrations and loading rates.
Date
12/30/91
3/26/92
4/1/92
4/17/92
4/25/92
TSS (mg/1)
118.6
160.0
40.0
100.1
271.1
Flow (cfs)
2393
3465
2124
2992
7495
Concentrations (mg/1)
lead
0.0063
0.0075
0.0018
0.0045
0.0087
copper
0.0144
0.0091
0.0042
0.0051
0.0116
Loading (kg/day)
lead
36.9
63.6
9.4
32.9
160
copper
84.3
77.2
21.8
37.3
213
For non-metal pollutants, a generalized approach for estimating metals loadings to the
AOC was desired; therefore, correlation analyses were performed on total lead and total copper
concentrations (mg/1) versus TSS (mg/1). Regressions were first performed for the data from
each site individually. Several of the individual stations provided significant relationships for
metals vs. TSS, especially the upstream stations for data from NYSDEC (Litten and Anderson,
1992). Some stations provided no significant relationship at all. Regressions were then
performed by grouping the station data in various ways such as all data upstream of the AOC, all
data within the AOC, all data, Buffalo River tributaries upstream of Cazenovia Creek, Cazenovia
Creek upstream Buffalo River, etc. Once again, several of these groupings provided significant
relationships. The final relationships chosen for total lead and total copper were the ones which
provided the highest level of significance with the greatest number of data points within the
group. They were: lead - all upstream NYSDEC data plus the Dredging Demo-Mobil Oil data
(n=35, r=0.85); and copper - all upstream NYSDEC data plus all EPA-STORET data for
Cayuga Creek (n=26, r=0.76). Both relationships have a significance level of 0.01.
Total lead and copper loadings to the Buffalo River AOC from upstream tributaries can
therefore be estimated using the following relationships, which include log-transform bias
correction factors as discussed in Section 4.1.1:
= 2.66x10 TSS
0586
Tot
(42)
73
-------
where TSSjot is in (mg/L).
4.2. Point sources
4.2.1. Industrial discharges
Industrial discharges to the Buffalo River are regulated by the NYSDEC. Currently there
are 13 industrial wastewater discharges in the Buffalo River watershed and AOC. Two of the
thirteen industries discharging to the AOC were identified in the Buffalo River Remedial Action
Plan (NYSDEC, 1987) as supplying more than 0.1 Ib/day (0.05 kg/day) of priority pollutants,
while six others were noted as potential sources, though loadings in excess of 0.1 Ib/day (0.05
kg/day) were not anticipated. The two industries are Buffalo Color Corporation and PVS
Chemical. The RAP provided two years of loading data (1985-86 and 1986-87) for various
pollutants from these facilities. In addition, EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS) discharge
and loading data for these facilities were available from the NYSDEC for the period of June
1988 through July 1991. These data are summarized in Table 24.
74
-------
Table 24. Summary of industrial discharges.
Facility Parameter
Buffalo Color: Chloroform
Cyanide
Lead*
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper*
Nitrobenzene
Parachlorometa
1,3 dichlorobenzene
TOC*
Total ammonia, -him
Total res. chlorine
(1)
(85-86)
0.0
0.23
0.0
0.18
0.36
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
Loading rates
(1) (2)
(86-87) (88-89)
1.4
0.0
0.23
0.0
0.77
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
_
—
<0.18
<0.59
—
<14.5
<0.41
<0.41
<0.41
<0.41
<0.41
77.3
1.8
—
(kg/day)
(2)
(89-90)
_
—
<0.18
<0.59
—
<5.2
<0.41
<0.55
<0.41
<0.41
<0.41
85.9
3.0
—
(2)
(90-91)
—
—
<0.14
<0.59
—
<3.0
<0.50
<0.68
<0.36
<0.36
<0.36
67.3
4.5
8.8
PVS Chemical: N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Methylene chloride
Chromium
Copper*
Zinc
Phenols (4AAP)
Cadmium
Iron*
Total RecPhenolics
TSS*
Total res. Chlorine
5-day BOD
COD
Oil and grease
0.0
0.0
0.68
0.41
2.5
0.0
1.4
0.08
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.64
10.7
0.23
252
<152
<440
<51.6
9.3
0.16
244
<47.0
<305
<43.2
0.36
0.09
4.6
0.10
72.6
5.2
<39.4
<98.2
<20.2
* priority parameter of interest
(1) sampling data from NYSDEC, Remedial Action Plan; 24-hour annual composite (convened from Ib/day)
(2) Permit Compliance System database, SPDES discharges, NYSDEC; *<" indicates that the reported value was
computed using detection limits from the PCS database
75
-------
4.2.2. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
As previously noted, there are a number of CSO outfall locations within the AOC. These
are shown on the map of Figure 29. In an earlier study, Calocerinos & Spina Engineers (C&S,
1988), under contract to the Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA), developed a hydraulic model of the
combined sewer system of Buffalo. Phase I of that study began in 1977 and was completed in
September, 1983. Various physical aspects of the sewer system were assessed, including the
structural condition of pipes 36 inches or greater, the operation and physical condition of the two
major outlying pump stations, the level of protection provided by CSOs against intrusion of
extraneous flow into the system from receiving waterways, and the amount of deposition in
various sewers throughout the system. Phase n of that study involved the actual model
development.
In addition to the hydraulic model, the Phase n study included grab samples of discharges
from several CSOs. Analyses were performed for conventional pollutants, heavy metals and
some organics. Table 25 lists dates and locations of sampling points (at CSO discharge
locations) and Table 26 lists the metals data from the C&S report. Table 27 lists concentrations
for the PAHs and pesticides of interest obtained as part of the ARCS study.
Table 28 shows PCB concentrations. Due to the scarcity of these data, additional values
were obtained from literature sources for comparison (Marsalek and Ng, 1989; Granier, et al.,
1990) and are shown in Table 29. Values were also sought to supplement the data set for the
other organics. These data are correlated with land use and may be used for the Buffalo River
AOC as long as land use characteristics are known. The data in Tables 30 and 31 were taken
from Jordan (1984) and list land use descriptions and associated concentrations for a number of
the constituents of interest in the present study.
76
-------
Figure 29. CSO outfall locations along Buffalo River AOC.
77
-------
Table 25. CSO sampling dates and locations (from C&S, 1988).
Date
5/16/88
5/19/88
5/19/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/29/88
4/29/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/29/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
Location
Foot of Albany
BSA-Texas and Kerns
BSA-Old Bailey and Littell
Blank
Swan and Oak
BSA-Eagel and Emslie
Colorado and Scajaguada
BSA-Hamburg and Perry
Foot of Albany
Blank
BSA-Hamburg and Perry
Swan and Oak
Foot of Albany
Foot of Albany
Lafayette and Howard
Bailey and Scaj.
BSA-Old Bailey and Littell
BSA-Eagle and Emslie
Colorado and Scajaquada
BSA-South Buffalo Pump
BSA-South Legion
Mobil Oil
Cornelius Creek
BSA-Meterins Station
BSA-Texas and Kerns
78
-------
Table 26. Metals data for CSOs (from C&S, 1988).
Calocerinos & Spina Metals Data
Copper
0.26
0.10
0.13
0.27
0.10
0.08
0.07
Lead
ND
ND
ND
0.44
ND
ND
ND
Date
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
5/16/88
4/30/88
4/29/88
4/29/88
Site
BSA - Cornelius Creek
Daily & Scajaquada
BSA - Eagel & Emslie
BSA - Hamburg & Perry
BSA - Hamburg & Perry
Foot of Albany
Foot of Albany
* all concentrations in mg/I; ND - not detected
79
-------
Table 27. PAHS and pesticides in CSOs of South Buffalo.
(dissolved phase)
Pollutant
gamma.
Chlordane
alpha-
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Benzo(a)
anthracene
Benzo(b)
fluoranthene
Benzo(k)
fluoranthene
Benzo(a)
pyrene
Chrysene
Babcock
12/5/90
BQL
BQL
BDL
5.94
8.07
1.33
1.80
4.59
Cazenovia
12/5/90
BQL
BDL
BDL
3.65
1.72
0.341
0.391
2.67
Smith SL
12/5/90
BQL
BQL
BDL
1.57
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.70
Hamburg
12/5/90
BQL
BQL
BDL
20.5
8.85
20.3
1.92
4.53
Smith
St.
8/9/91
0.253
0.179
BQL
22.8
9.60
2.27
2.33
14.3
Hamburg
8/9/91
0.105
0.106
BQL
46.4
19.9
3.34
4.51
28.8
(paniculate
phase)
C3fUI113-
Chlordane
alpha-
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Benzo(a)
anthracene
Benzo(b)
fluoranthene
Benzo(k)
fluoranthene
Benzo(a)
pyrene
Chrysene
0.153
0.144
BDL
7.45
10.2
3.45
5.46
9.86
BQL
BQL
BDL
3.55
6.17
2.16
3.59
5.05
0.676
0.708
BDL
134.8
144.2
68.2
147.1
182.1
0.0923
0.0934
BDL
1.87
1.89
0.603
0.612
4.26
0.063
BQL
BQL
34.0
29.4
20.5
43.2
34.3
0.0423
BQL
1.41
17.3
21.3
5.24
6.91
22.2
* all units in ng/1 of water; BQL - below quantitative limits; BDL - below detection limits
80
-------
Table 28. PCB concentrations in CSOs in South Buffalo Sewer Districts.
District, date
Babcock, 12/5/90
Hamburg, 12/5/90
Smith, 12/5/90
Cazenovia, 12/5/90
Smith, 8/9/91
Hamburg, 8/9/91
dissolved *
BMDL
23.3
BMDL
BMDL
BMDL
BMDL
paniculate
20.83
152.66
99.03
3.96
18.80
22.56
* all concentrations in ng/1 water; BMDL - below machine detection limit
Table 29. Additional PCB data for CSOs.
PCB Data
Concentration
38-260 ng/L
(130)
90-2600 ng/L
(633)
36-2400 ng/L
(625)
30 ng/L
14 ng/L
27-290 ng/L
0.179ug/L
0.0269 ug/L
0.0888 ug/L
0.131 ug/L
0.1 79 ug/L
0.0 ug/L
0.641 ug/L
Source
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Land Use
1
1
1
?
?
?
2
2
2
?
1
1
1
Area
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
Source Key:
1 - Granier et al (1990)
2-MarsalekandNg(1989)
Land Use Key
1 - Residential
2 -Urban
Area Key:
1-CSO
2 -Runoff
3 - Stormwater Drainage
Values in parenthases are
mean flow weighted cone.
81
-------
Table 30. Site characteristics for CSO data (from Jordan, 1984).
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Site
Ernest St.
@ Aliens
Dexter St.
@
Huntingdon
Lander St.
Michigan St.
Branch St.
Prairie Ave.
Phalen
Creek
Eustis St.
City
Providence
Providence
Seattle
Seattle
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Paul
St. Paul
State
RI
RI
WA
WA
MO
MO
MN
MN
Catchment
Area
(acres)
65
300
500
745
2580
518
870
78
Land Use
Partly residential and
highly industrial
Single family
residential
and scattered industrial
Light industrial and
mixed commercial
Heavy commercial and
mixed
industrial/residential
80%
residential/commercial
13% industrial, 7%
open
50%
residential/commercial
40% industrial, 10%
open
Primarily multifamily
res. and open space
with some
industrial/commercial
Light
industry/commercial
(soil is very
impervious)
82
-------
Table 31. Concentrations of parameters for sites of Table 27.
Pollutant
PCB-1016
Benzo(a)
anthracene
Benzo(b)
fluoranthene
Benzo(k)
fluoranthene
Benzo(a)
pyrene
Lead
Copper
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
353
479
325
51
B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
290
652
32
38
C
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
250
467
117
80
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
180
55
83
45
E
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
458
96
657
21
F
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
500
125
543
31
G
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
175
66
233
112
H
ND
2
1
3
2
403
36
141
18
* all units in micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted; values reported are mean concentrations; ND - not
detected
Unfortunately, the Phase n study by C&S considered the sewer collection system for the
entire City of Buffalo, and did not focus specifically on outfalls to the Buffalo River AOC. In
particular, many of the smaller outfalls to the Buffalo River were not included in their study,
especially for the discharges to Cazenovia Creek (see Figure 29).
For the present study, a PC version of the SWMM model (PCSWMM4) was used to
generate expected flows to the river from CSOs. This work is described in some detail by Irvine
et al. (1993a). These flows were then combined with either measured data (such as Tables 26 -
28) or estimated concentrations (Tables 29 - 31) to obtain loading estimates. Although the loads
due to those outfalls discharging within the AOC are of more direct interest when comparing the
importance of various sources for the river, the results for the upstream outfalls provide an
indication of the extent to which upstream loads may be attributed to CSOs. Marshall (1993)
describes the modeling and loading calculations specifically for the upstream outfalls. In the
following, results are presented separately for upstream and downstream CSO loads.
83
-------
The CSO model was calibrated using data from one of the larger outfalls, at Babcock St.,
as described by Irvine et al. (1993b). It was then applied in two different modes. First, it was
desired to estimate loadings due to a "typical" year of rainfall. After reviewing data available
from the Buffalo Airport, precipitation data from 1990 were determined as a close approximation
to the 30-year norms. The model was then run in a continuous mode using the data from that
year. A total discharge of 620,000 m^ was found for all outfalls, with 571,000 m^ coming from
the downstream outfalls alone (although smaller in number, the downstream outfalls contribute
much more to the total CSO flows and associated pollutant loadings). The total loadings
obtained in this exercise are summarized in Table 32.
Table 32. CSO loadings for typical year (1990)
Pollutant
PCB
g-Chlordane
a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
B(a)a
B(b)f
B(k)f
B(a)p
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
TSS
Average concentration *
53.0
0.385
0.458
1.41
50.0
45.2
22.2
36.7
52.4
326.1
247.0
266.4
(kg/ yr)
Upstream load
2.63e-3
1.91e-5
2.27e-5
6.96e-5
2.48e-3
2.23e-3
1.10e-3
1.82e-3
2.59e-3
16.2
12.3
13,210
Downstream load
(within AOC)
2.34e-2
1.69e-4
2.02e-4
6.21e-4
2.21e-2
1.99e-2
9.80e-3
1.62e-2
2.31e-2
144.0
109.1
117,620
* metals concentrations are in ng/1; TSS concentrations are in mg/1; all other concentrations are ng/1
In the second modeling approach it was desired to develop loading inputs that might
result from different design storms, to provide information needed for long-term water quality
modeling of the river. To do this, additional precipitation data were collected to describe storms
84
-------
which had mean return periods of 1, 2, 5, 10, 25 and 100 years. The CSO model was run for
each of these storms to develop associated flow estimates which were combined with average
concentrations to calculate pollutant loadings, as above. The overall procedure is described by
Marshall (1993), who includes detailed calculations for each of the contaminants of interest. It
was found that the total load from a CSO was reasonably well correlated with total precipitation
from a storm. Figure 30 shows an example of this relationship. Similar curves were produced
for each individual CSO, for each contaminant. In Figure 30, the total for all upstream CSOs has
been added, since there is no need to separate effects of individual overflows in that region. As
shown, there is a minimum precipitation at which a significant overflow will occur and it should
be noted that there is some degree of uncertainty in choosing the minimum precipitation value.
However, the model appears to reproduce loadings from large storms fairly well, which provide
the majority of CSO loadings. For precipitation values above this minimum, the load is
approximately linearly related to total storm precipitation. An equation of the following form
was assumed to estimate loads:
(44)
where W = load (kg/day), I = total precipitation (in), Ijnin = minimum value for I at which
overflow occurs and S - slope of the line relating W and I (as in Figure 30). Values for I^n an^i
S are reported in Table 33 for each of the outfalls. These parameters may be used in (44) to
estimate CSO loadings which would result from a storm with a given total precipitation.
85
-------
05
O
0
Q- l
o
E
O
(/>
05
O
DO
O
CL
Figure 30. Example of CSO loading calculation as a function of storm precipitation
86
-------
Table 33. Parameters for estimating CSO loadings
Outfall*
Imin (in)
Pollutant
PCB
g-Chlor
a-Chlor
Dieldrin
B(a)a
B(b)f
B(k)f
B(a)p
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
TSS
Upstream
1.97
57+58
0.0
30
0.0
31
3.3
32
1.97
33
1.97
34
3.3
S «kg/d)/in)
2.75e-3
2.0e-5
2.4e-5
7.3e-5
2.59e-3
2.34e-3
1.156-3
1.9e-3
2.72e-3
16.9
12.8
13,820
4.6e-4
3.3e-6
3.9e-6
1.2e-5
4.3e-4
3.9e-4
1.9e-4
3.2e-4
4.5e-4
2.80
2.12
2290
1.69e-3
1.2e-5
1.5e-5
4.5e-5
1.59e-3
1.44e-3
7.1e-4
1.17e-3
1.67e-3
10.4
7.88
8496
6.5e-6
4.7e-8
5.6e-8
1.7e-7
6.1e-6
5.6e-6
2.7e-6
4.5e-6
6.4e-6
0.0401
0.0304
32.8
l.Oe-5
7.3e-8
8.7e-8
2.7e-7
9.5e-6
8.6e-6
4.2e-6
7.0e-6
9.9e-6
0.0619
0.0468
50.5
1.3e-5
9.5e-8
l.le-7
3.5e-7
1.2e-5
l.le-5
5.5e-6
9.1e-6
1.3e-5
0.0809
0.0613
66.1
5.1e-6
3.7e-8
4.4e-8
1.3e-7
4.8e-6
4.3e-6
2.1e-6
3.5e-6
5.0e-6
0.0312
0.0236
25.5
Outfidl*
Imin (in)
Pollutant
PCB
g-Chlor
a-Chlor
Dieldrin
B(a)a
B(b)f
B(k)f
B(a)p
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
TSS
35
2.33
3.2e-5
2.4e-7
2.8e-7
8.6e-7
3.1e-5
2.8e-5
1.4e-5
2.2e-5
3.2e-5
0.20
0.151
163.0
36
3.3
6.1e-6
4.4e-8
5.3e-8
1.6e-7
5.7e-6
5.2e-6
2.5e-6
4.2e-6
6.0e-6
0.0375
0.0284
30.6
36a
1.83
S ((kg/day)/in)
2.5e-4
1.8e-6
2.2e-6
6.7e-6
2.4e-4
2.1e-4
l.le-4
1.7e-4
2.5e-4
1.55
1.17
1267
38
1.83
1.9e-4
1.4e-6
1.6e-6
5.1e-6
1.8e-4
1.6e-4
8.0e-5
1.3e-4
1.9e-4
1.17
0.888
957.6
39
1.49
1.45e-3
l.le-5
1.3e-5
3.9e-5
1.37e-3
1.24e-3
6.1e-4
l.Ole-3
6.1e-4
8.94
6.77
7303
42
0.0
l.le-4
8.3e-7
9.9e-7
3.0e-6
l.le-4
9.7e-5
4.8e-5
7.9e-5
l.le-4
0.702
0.532
573.7
* outfall identification numbers correspond with Irvine et al. (1993) and Marshall (1993) and
generally increase upstream (see also Figure 29); all upstream outfalls are grouped together as
explained in the text; outfalls 57 and 58 are grouped together because they are located very close
to each other
87
-------
4.3. Sediment resuspension potential and contamination risk
The risk of contamination from resuspended sediments is difficult to evaluate without a
detailed sediment transport model. The figures of Appendix D indicate areas of particular
concern for the targeted pollutants. In order to provide some indication of the degree to which
the sediments would be susceptible to erosion, values for the dry fraction of wet weight of the
sediment samples are plotted in Figure 31. This fraction is related to porosity and to the critical
shear stress required to cause erosion. Higher porosity indicates a "looser" sediment and lower
dry fraction corresponds with higher porosity. Therefore, areas with lower dry fraction values
should be relatively more easily erodible. Unfortunately, from the data in Figure 31 it appears
that the physical sediment characteristics do not show significant variations along the river bed..
Therefore, specific conclusions about contamination risk associated with erosion and
resuspension of bottom sediments are not possible at this time and will have to be evaluated with
the use of a sediment transport model.
88
-------
' Figure 31. Sampling data for dry fraction of wet weight upper
sediment layer, summer 1990.
89
-------
One other measure of the potential for contamination by sediment resuspension is the
amount of material contained in the upper sediment layer. These values were listed in Table 14.
As previously noted, these values are meant only to indicate relative orders of magnitude for the
contaminant mass contained within the sediments and do not necessarily represent the amount of
mass that would be eroded by a given storm or over a particular time period.
4.4. Non-point sources (inactive hazardous waste sites)
Loadings from inactive hazardous waste sites were analyzed by Taylor (1991).
Hazardous waste sites were identified in the Buffalo River RAP (NYSDEC, 1989), as shown in
Figure 32. Loadings were estimated using analytical and mathematical groundwater transport
models applied to six of these sites identified as potential contributors to pollution in the Buffalo
River. These sites, along with identification numbers appearing in Figure 32, include Allied
Chemical (004), Buffalo Color (012), Lehigh Valley Railroad (071), MacNaughton-Brooks
(034), Madison Wire (036) and West Seneca Transfer Station (039). The last two sites in this
list do not appear on Figure 32 since they are located slightly upstream of the AOC. Table 34,
from Taylor (1991), summarizes those targeted pollutants associated with each of the six sites.
Analyses were not completed for PCBs and pesticides since there was no indication of
groundwater pollution of these contaminants.
90
-------
•( eone«rn
Lake
Figure 32. Inactive hazardous waste sites, fromNYSDEC (1989).
91
-------
Table 34. Summary of targeted pollutants associated with inactive hazardous waste sites
(from Taylor, 1991).
Site
Allied Chemical
Buffalo Color
Lehigh Valley Railroad
MacNaughton-Brooks
Madison Wire
West Seneca Transfer
Organic pollutants
PAHs
Inorganic pollutants
Iron, lead
Copper, iron, lead
Iron
Iron
Copper, iron, lead
Iron, lead
Because of large uncertainties in the estimates obtained with the groundwater models
(due to lack of sufficient data for estimating adsorption characteristics), Taylor reported a range
of possible loading rates for each of the pollutants listed in Table 34. The maximum (steady-
state) rates are listed in Table 35. Breakthrough curves were calculated for each of the
pollutants and showed that steady-state transport was in fact not reached for any of the metals
for periods well in excess of 1,000 years. Simulations for the Buffalo Color site were obtained
only for 100 years, but these showed no indication of reaching steady state. Therefore, the
values reported in Table 35 probably over-estimate the actual loadings, which may be a small
fraction of the steady state values. For the Buffalo Color site, the situation is somewhat different
due to the close proximity to the river. Here h is possible that steady-state may have been
reached, especially for the PAHs where steady-state was predicted to be reached after about 15
years. The values for PAH loadings listed in Table 35 are therefore expected to be reasonable.
Metals loadings from the Buffalo Color site are not reported in Table 34 since steady-state values
were not obtained. However, for contamination times of the order of 50 years, the model
predicts loadings of approximately 4 kg/yr for copper, 8 kg/yr for iron and 0.05 kg/yr for lead.
92
-------
Table 35. Maximum (steady-state) loading rates from non-point sources
(from Taylor, 1991).
Site
Allied Chemical
Buffalo Color
Lehigh Val. RR
MacNaughton
Madison Wire
West Seneca
(kg/yr)
Copper
78.6
Iron
26.9
665
1,620
245
1,340
Lead
0.02
0.31
2.09
B(a)a
0.22
B(b)f
0.07
B(k)f
0.01
B(a)p
0.02
Chrys.
0.03
4.5. Export from system
It was desired to estimate annual export from the system for each of the contaminants of
interest, in the same way upstream loadings were calculated in Section 4.1. However, there were
only limited data available for downstream sites, compared with the data used for upstream
calculations (particularly for relating TSS with flow). In addition, there was too much scatter in
those data to allow development of reasonable regressions. For the estimates presented here the
paniculate concentrations for Site 6 (for non-metals) were converted to volumetric
concentrations by multiplying them with the corresponding observed TSS values. The resulting
values were then averaged and added to the averaged dissolved concentrations, also from the
Site 6. These total concentrations were then multiplied by the total average annual flow,
obtained from Table 5. Estimates of annual metals export were made using data available from
the Ohio Street bridge (Litten and Anderson, 1992) and EPA-STORET data. Average values for
lead (0.0067 mg/1) and copper (0.0076 mg/1) concentrations were multiplied by the average
annual daily flow (343 cfs), obtained from Table 5. These values were then multiplied by 365 to
obtain annual export estimates. Table 36 summarizes the results of the export calculations.
93
-------
Table 36. Estimates for mass export from system
Parameter
PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
TSS
Annual export (kg/yr)
0.98
0.04
0.04
0.01
6.30
6.68
2.36
3.19
7.46
2,052
2,323
5.33e6
4.6. Summary
4.6.1. "Typical" year
Referring to Figure 2, it is desired to estimate the total annual loading for each of the
targeted pollutants to the AOC, from each of the various sources. Following the procedure
outlined in Section 4.1.1, upstream TSS loadings were calculated for daily averaged flows
(Section 3.1). Using values for both Q and TSS, dissolved and paniculate loadings for each
contaminant were calculated for each day, using eqns. (22 - 43), and summed to obtain total
annual upstream loading estimates. The resulting values are listed in Table 37, which includes
values for each of the sources noted in Figure 2, except for sediments. Sediment loading rates
may be estimated only after application of a sediment transport model. Industrial point source
loading values are taken from Table 24 and CSO loadings are taken from Table 32. Non-point
source loadings are from Table 35 and export rates are reproduced from Table 36. Due to
previously mentioned uncertainties in the groundwater loading estimates, each of the values in
Table 35 for metals has been multiplied by 0.25 to provide estimates which are believed to be
closer to actual (non-steady-state) values. The metals loadings estimated for the Buffalo Color
site are also included in these estimates.
94
-------
Table 37. Summary of annual loading estimates..
Parameter
Total PCBs
Chlordane **
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDT
B(a)anthracene
B(b)fluoranthene
B(k)fluoranthene
B(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Lead
Copper
Total solids
Total annual loading (kg/yr)
Upstream
0.77
0.03
0.04
0.02
3.06
3.74
3.78
2.16
4.11
359
933
5.50e7
Industrial
_
—
—
—
_
—
__
—
_
66.4
331.8
CSOs*
0.02
—
—
—
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
144.0
109.1
1.18eS
Ground-
water
_
—
__
—
0.22
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.66
23.7
Export
0.98
0.04
0.04
0.01
6.30
6.68
2.36
3.19
7.46
2,052
2,323
5.33e6
* CSO loadings reported here are only for downstream outfalls
** a-chlordane and g-chlordane values are combined
Total solids entering and leaving the river are also estimated in Table 37, to provide a
measure of the degree to which the river acts as a sediment trap. These values indicate that, on
average, a large fraction of the incoming suspended sediment load remains within the river. A
comparison of the upstream and export (downstream) loadings indicates that there may be
additional sources for some of the contaminants along the AOC. Possibilities include CSOs
(note that the CSO data are not very complete for contaminant concentrations and many values
are inferred from literature sources), sediment release or other sources not accounted for. The
metals data indicate that much more mass is leaving the system than entering. However, it
should be noted that the upstream loading estimates are based on TSS loads calculated from
monthly flows averaged over a 45-year record. Because the average monthly flows tend to be
low, the TSS estimates are also low, resulting in low estimates for metals loading (this may also
95
-------
affect the other parameters). Export rates are based on an average concentrations based on a
much smaller data set generally measured during higher flow events, which result in a higher
export calculation. This affects the metals export much more than the other parameters because
different data sets were used for the metals. The ARCS project will have to evaluate all sources
in order to balance mass for these parameters.
-------
5. References
Buffalo Sewer Authority (1988), Combined Sewer Overflow Inspection Points Within City of
Buffalo, revised March, 1988.
Calocerinos & Spina Engineers (1988), Buffalo Combined Sewer Overflow Phase n Study,
Report Number: C-36-1004-01-3, prepared for Buffalo Sewer Authority, Buffalo, NY, June.
Calocerinos and Spina (1977), Hertel Avenue Planning Area Infiltration/Inflow Analysis,
Consulting Report, prepared for the Buffalo Sewer Authority Buffalo, New York, July.
Colby, B.R. (1957), Relationship of unmeasured sediment discharge to mean velocity. Trans.
Am. Geophys. Union 38 (5), 708-719.
Endicott, D.D., W.L. Richardson, T.F. Parkerton, and D.M. DiToro (1991), A Steady State
Mass Balance and Bioaccumulation Model for Toxic Chemicals in Lake Ontario. Final report to
the Lake Ontario Fate of Toxics Committee. U.S. E.P.A. ERL-Duluth, LLRS, Grosse He, MI.
Granier, L., M. Chevreuil, AM. Cami and R Letolle (1990), Urban runoff pollution by
organochlorines and heavy metals. Chemosphere, 21 (9), 1101-1107.
Havlicek, Larry L. and Ronald D. Grain (1988), Practical statistics for the physical sciences.
American Chem. Soc., Washington, DC.
Huang (1987), "Analysis of Waterbody Surface Heat Exchange", Master of Science Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Hydroqual, Inc., (1984), "Water-Sediment Partition Coefficients for Priority Metals", 11/82,
included in: Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book II
Streams and Rivers, Chapter 3, Toxic Substances. U.S. E.P.A. 6/84.
Irvine, Kim N., Ellen J. Pratt and Stephen Marshall (1993a), Estimate of combined sewer
overflow discharges to the Buffalo River Area of Concern, report to the US Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Irvine, K.N., E.G. Loganathan, E.J. Pratt and H.C. Sikka (1993b), Calibration of PCSWMM to
estimate metals, PCBs and HCB in CSOs from an industrial sewershed. from New Techniques
for Modeling the Management ofStormwater Quality Impacts, ed. W. James, Lewis Publ., Boca
Raton, FL, chap. 10.
Jordan, E.C. Co. (1984), Combined sewer overflow toxic pollutant study, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, report EPA 440/1-84/304.
Litten, Simon and Bernadette Anderson (1993), An automated sampling system for trace
contaminant load estimation - Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY, unpublished report, NYSDEC.
97
-------
Marsalek, J. and H.Y.F. Ng (1989), Evaluation of pollution loadings from urban runoff nonpoint
sources: Methodology and applications. J. Great Lakes Res. 15 (3), 444-451.
Marshall, Stephen (1993), Contaminant loading to the Buffalo River from combined sewer
overflows. M. Eng. project, in preparation.
Meredith, Dale D. and Ralph R. Rumer (1987), Sediment dynamics in the Buffalo River. Report
prepared for the NYSDEC, Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Newman, Michael C. (1993), Regression analyses of log-transformed data: Statistical bias and its
correction. Environmental Tech. Chem. 12, 1129-1133.
NYSDEC (1989), Buffalo River Remedial Action Plan. Water Division, Buffalo Office.
Parsons, D.A., R.P. Apmann and G.H. Decker (1963), The determination of sediment yields
from flood water sampling. Pub. no. 65, Intl. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology, 7-15.
Taylor, Stewart W. (1991), Pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River Area of Concern from
inactive hazardous waste sites. Final report, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office, project no. X995024-01.
98
-------
6. Appendices
The following appendices contain figures and tables (from spreadsheets) which document
much of the water quality data available for the Buffalo River. Some of these data have been
summarized, or presented in averaged form in the main document. Appendix A shows measured
fiowrates in the river throughout the year, based on 45 years of record compiled by Meredith and
Rumer (1987). Appendix B summarizes contaminant water column concentrations obtained
during the two ARCS sampling periods. Appendix C shows the spatial variation in calculated
partition coefficients for each of the parameters of interest. Appendix D shows contaminant
concentrations obtained in the sediments.
99
-------
Appendix A. Buffalo River flowrates
List of Figures
(average daily flow frequency distribution curves for a random day in each month, based on data
from 1940 -1945; all flows in cfs)
Al. January 1.
A2. February 9.
A3. March 18.
A4. April 22.
AS. May 14.
A6. April 10.
A7. July 27.
A8. August 13.
A9. September 18.
A10. Octobers.
All. November 15.
A12. December 20.
-------
H-
d
(D
>
Frequency of Occurrence
oeno
CO CO
enoen
D
en
1°
o
en
o
Q)
13
CD
I
O
0
(D
2 <
co (D
^^^* ^HB
U W
co(Q
CTl
Tl
i
-------
0
H
(D
ro
Frequency of Occurrence
Ol
Ol
01
00
-30
co-.
T| •«
lx ^
co CO
s a
T]
i
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
OJ
®
01
01
i
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
ro
>
*>.
00
I
IS3 Cf.
fO ^
7?
CD w
(^ ^^
j£. 9
So
CD ^
oo ni
T]
O
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
C
n
(D
CO
I
io
9
o
-------
H-
vQ
n>
>
o\
Frequency of Occurrence
Ol
Ol
GO
O
03
I
<
®
o
oo mi
i
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
C
H
(D
CD
10
. o>
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
M
(D
00
ro co
01 o
CD
I
Tl ®
>
o <
2o
CD 0)
C30 ""'
Tl
i
-------
H
(D
vo
Frequency of Occurrence
10
o
GO
o
CD
I
$0
(D
S. 2j
3: CD
So
co 0)
oo s:
Tl
i
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
0
fl>
>
M
O
DO
I
oo
Si
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
(D
00
i
-? JD
•CO
(D
So
co 0>
00 •"'
Tl
i
-------
(D
K)
Frequency of Occurrence
Ol
CD
go
9m
00 -fl
01 —
i
-------
Appendix B. Water quality data
List of Figures
(contaminant concentrations for 6 sites, fall 1990)
Bl. Total PCBs.
B2. A-chlordane.
B3. G-chlordane.
B4. Dieldrin.
B5. DDT.
B6. Benzo(a)anthracene.
B7. Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
B8. Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
B9. Benzo(a)pyrene.
BIO. Chrysene.
Bll. Lead.
B12. Copper.
(contaminant concentrations for 3 sites, spring 1992)
B13. Total PCBs.
B14. A-chlordane.
B15. G-chlordane.
B16. Dieldrin.
B17. DDT.
B18. Benzo(a)anthracene.
B19. Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
B20. Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
B21. Benzo(a)pvrene.
B22. Chrysene.
B23. Lead.
B24. Copper.
(average suspended solids concentration, downstream boundary condition)
B25. 1986-1987.
B26. 1987-1988.
B27. 1988-1989.
B28. 1989-1990.
B
-------
8
\
\
•8
O
Q>
-------
\
u
o*
(O
Q)
3
-------
G-Chlordane Concentration
90
F-igure B3
-------
V
\
tt)
«
c
\
-------
ft
(0
o
I
I
-------
B[a]a Concentration
Figure B6
-------
I
Hi
V
<£» '
ft
- tf
V*
1
-------
I
\
\
o
CO
(A
-------
»
vO
-. tf
»-«
2,
*0
\
-------
\
I
\
I
-------
-------
-------
Total PCBs Concentration
PCB (ng/L)
site 6
site 3
4-17-92
4-18-92
srtel
4-22-92
Figure B13
-------
A-Chlordane Concentration
0.16
sites
site 3
4-17-92
4-18-92
sitel
4-22-92
Fi'gure B14
-------
G-Chlordana Concentration
0.12
4-17-92
Site6
siteS
4-18-92
sitel
4-22-92
Figure B15
-------
Dieldrin Concentration
Dieldrin (ng/L)
4-17-92
site 6
site 3
4-18-92
s'ltel
4-22-92
Figure B16
-------
DtfE
4.-I7-92
4.22-92
-------
8
I
CO
Q>
I
-------
B
coo1
4.A7-92
4.22-92
-------
4.17-92
4.^92
4-22-92
-------
Col*'
4-17-92
4.^92
B21
-------
Chxysen<
Concentration
Chrysene (ng/L) 50
sites
4-17-92
site 3
4-18-92
sftel
4-22-92
Figure B22
-------
4.22-92
B23
-------
o
fc
s
•o
1
•5
\
O
0 &
* jL
\^ — -^r
o
8
_A
o
10
(0
1
\
-------
Average Sus Solids Cone, 1986-87
Downstream Boundary Conditions
IT 20
Apr Jun
Aug Oct
Month
Dec Feb
Figure B25
-------
Average Sus Solids Cone, 1987-88
Downstream Boundary Conditions
Apr Jun
Aug Oct
Month
Dec Feb
Figure B26
-------
Average Sus Solids Cone, 1988-89
Downstream Boundary Conditions
— 20
o
O 15 4
10
CO
CO
O)
0
Apr Jun
Aug Oct
Month
Dec Feb
Figure B27
-------
Average Sus Solids Cone, 1989-90
Downstream Boundary Conditions
Apr Jun
Aug Oct
Month
Dec Feb
Figure B28
-------
Appendix C. Partition coefficients
List of Figures
(longitudinal variation of log K'oc or log K'j; calculated values are shown as stars, average values
are shown as solid rectangles)
Cl. PCBs.
C2. A-chlordane.
C3. G-chlordane.
C4. Dieldrin.
C5. DDT.
C6. Benzo(a)anthracene.
C7. Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
C8. Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
C9. Benzo(a)pyrene.
CIO. Chrysene.
Cll. Lead.
C12. Copper.
(longitudinal variation of f» calculated values - see text; average values are denoted as above)
C13. PCBs.
C14. A-chlordane.
CIS. G-chlordane.
C16. Dieldrin.
C17. DDT.
CIS. Benzo(a)anthracene.
C19. Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
C20. Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
C21. Benzo(a)pyrene.
C22. Chrysene.
C23. Lead.
C24. Copper.
Spreadsheets used for calculating log K'oc (or log K'j) and fp:
C25. PCBs.
C26. Pesticides.
C27. PAHs.
C28. Metals.
-------
O)
*-H
^>
C/D
CD
co §
PQ
DH
O
o
\|A|/
/IS/1\
00
*
co
in
-co
-CO
I
-10 g
2
a
-co
CD
03
-CM
CO
Figure Cl
-------
H-
vQ
(D
n
ro
0
1
A-CHLORDANE
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
8
G-CHLORDANE
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
o
0 7
'
H-
|
(D
n
w
§
3
a
o
"T"
7
1
456
Distance Upstream from Mouth (km)
-------
n
(D
O
1
DIELDRIN
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
H
(D
O
DDT
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
C
n
o
1
Benzotalanthracene
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
log K"oc vs. Distance Upstream
7-
o
0
(D
O
bj°c
o 6
__
OQ
0
1
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
8
BenzotkJfluoranthene
log Woe vs. Distance Upstream
7-
o
o
(D
o
00
c
o 6
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
H-
o
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
8
CHRYSENE
log K'oc vs. Distance Upstream
C
H
(D
n
i-"
o
60
-------
0
LEAD
log ICd vs. Distance Upstream
1
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
H-
vQ
0
H
fl>
O
l-1
to
1
COPPER
log K*d vs. Distance Upstream
23456
Distance Upstream of mouth (km)
8
-------
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
PCBs
c
M
(D
O
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
M
n>
n
0
A=Chlordane
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
Distance Upstream from Mouth (km)
-------
0.8
H-
»fl
0
0.6
0.4
0.2
G-CHLORDANE
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
m
o
36
36
2"
T~
4
36
JH.
JIL
36
T~
7
Distance Upstream from Mouth (km)
m
36
36
m
36
-------
(D
O
t-1
(Ti
Dieldrin
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
1
234567
Distance Upstream from Mouth (km)
-------
H
fl>
O
M
^J
0.6
0.4
0.2
DDT
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
0
1
234567
Distance Upstream from Mouth (km)
8
-------
s
[S3
CD
GJ o
o>
o
CD
Figure CIS
-------
p-
iQ
C
M
(D
O
M
vo
0.4
0.2
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
o
o
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
H-
iQ
c
h
n>
o
N)
O
0.6
0.4
0.2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
0.6
c
h
ID
O
K)
fa
0.4
0.2
Benzo[a]pyrene
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
o
o
4567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
8
-------
Chrysene
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
1
0)
O
M
K)
En
0.4
0.2
i r
0123456789
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
H-
vQ
d
H
(D
O
NJ
0
0
LEAD
Fp vs. Distance Upstream from Mouth
1
234567
Distance Upstream from mouth (km)
-------
A
<*-*
o
O
CD
\|/ W11 V
/K /TVT\ /^
Csl
d
-CD
-co
-CD
.2
Lco
cn
PH
CD
o
cC
<4-3
Csl
Figure C24
-------
OVERALL BUFFALO RIVER PCBs Water Column
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
422-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-18-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
1022-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
SIT
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
6
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
[DOC]
(ppm)
10
10
10
11
13
12.6
11.45
16
10
9
13
11
7.54
9.88
9.84
10.9
10.5
10.5
10.94
12.5
12.74
11
12.92
7.02
7.64
6.07
8.6
7.85
11.7
10.25
10.96
12.11
11.84
7.64
1124
8.65
8.27
8
7.35
8.59
8.04
9.29
8.46
9.2
8.65
7.04
5.89
6.08
6.96
9.53
8.27
2.41
7.7
9.7
9.32
7.19
[POC]
(ppm)
3
7
1
4
0
1.3
0.95
2
4
6
6
2
2.16
2.32
1.56
0.7
0.7
0.9
126
1.7
0.46
1.3
0.18
2.48
2.96
8.23
7.3
4.85
2.32
4.65
0.46
0.59
0.16
2.16
2.58
321
3.81
4.34
1.83
1.01
2.36
1.37
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
TSS
(ppm)
154
52
74
25.3
74
28
24
30
34
29
20
19
8
14
6
4
14
6
24
30
28
3
1
16
4
12
3
11
3
4
4
2
6
21
1
3
2
13
24
2
8
4
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
12
20
16
76
4
16
8
[PCB] [PCB]
Foe part dms. K'd K'oc log K'oc
(MG/KG) (NG/L) (L/KG) (UKG)
0.0195 0.012964 BDL
0.1346 0.023905 0.495789 4.82E+04 3.58E+05 5.554097
0.0135 0.018064 0.066651 2.71E+05 2.01 E+ 07 7.302242
0.1581 0.332966 0.512002 6.50E+05 4.11E+06 6.614188
0.0000 BDL 123726
0.0464 0.018732 BDL
0.0396 0.02969 BDL
0.0667 0.062532 0.699741 8.94E-f04 1.34E+06 6.127259
0.1176 0.019078 0.980964 1.94E+04 1.65E+05 5218301
02069 0.151131 1.12076 1.35E+05 6.52E+05 5.814088
0.3000 0.061651 BDL
0.1053 0.077612 0258848 3.00E+05 2.85E+06 6.45461
02700 0.633465 0.128303 4.94E+06 1.83E+07 7262123
0.1657 0.001246 4284309 2.91 E+02 1.76E+03 3244382
02600 0.364648 1.451364 2.51E+05 9.66E+05 5.985124
0.1750 0.397019 0.73414 5.41 E+05 3.09E+06 6.489994
0.0500 0.132S26 BDL
0.1500 0.148472 BDL
0.0525 0.255682 BDL
0.0567 0.261626 0269105 9.05E+05 1.60E+07 7203297
0.0164 0.087273 BDL
0.4333 0.080926 0.73427 1.10E+05 2.54E+05 5.405411
0.1800 0.836361 BDL
0.1550 0.072406 0.52868 1.37E+05 8.84E+05 5.94625
0.7400 0.894211 0.72866 1.23E+06 1.66E+06 6219684
0.6858 0.195111 BDL
2.4333 0.840173 0.152905
0.4409 0227947 0.434155 5.25E+05 1.19E+06 6.075841
0.7733 0.182921 1206006 1.52E+05 1.96E+05 5292547
1.1625 BDL 0.772833
0.1150 0257697 0.448264 5.75E+05 5.00E+06 6.698876
02950 1.140409 0.255042 4.47E+06 1.52E+07 7.180627
0.0267 0.304222 0.175837 1.73E+06 6.49E+07 7.81211
0.1029 0.055164 0.02867 1.92E+06 1.87E+07 7271993
2.5800 1.003402 2.00233
1.0700 027441 0.365812
1.9050 1.645333 BDL
0.3338 0.194951 BDL
0.0763 0.168515 BDL
0.5050 1.310041 0.030976 4.23E+07 8.37E+07 7.922972
02950 0256277 BDL
0.3425 0297365 0.975304 3.05E+05 8.90E+05 5.949488
0.0275 0.03943 BDL
0.3368 0.021543 0.017004 127E+06 3.76E+06 6.575404
02389 0.030501 BDL
02468 0.030266 BDL
0.1179 0.090424 0.017032 5.31 E+06 4.50E+07 7.653674
02479 0.078539 0.079553 9.87E+05 3.98E+06 6.600226
0.4461 0.184782 0223482 827E+05 1.85E+06 6268012
0.0642 BDL BDL
0.4715 BDL 0.075457
0.4181 0.060459 BDL
0.0909 0.10531 0.876159 120E+05 1.32E+06 6.121222
0.8250 0222627 0.001131 1.97E+08 2.39E+08 8.377603
0.4338 0.042218 BDL
1.5613 0.125163 0.521862
Fp
0.715
0.953
0.943
0.728
0.398
0.796
0.851
0.975
0.004
0.601
0.684
0.964
0248
0.687
0.831
0.852
0.313
0.697
0.899
0.912
0.976
0.988
0.549
0.973
0.993
0.965
0.959
0.901
0.999
Fd
0.285
0.047
0.057
0.272
0.602
0204
0.149
0.025
0.996
0.399
0.316
0.036
0.752
0.313
0.169
0.148
0.687
0.303
0.101
0.088
0.024
0.012
0.451
0.027
0.007
0.035
0.041
0.099
0.001
2129
AVO« 920E+06 1.91E+07
LOG- . 6.96 7.28
6.44
Figure C25
-------
OVERALL
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-18-90
10-22-90
10-2240
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
1M1-90
11-05-90
11-0540
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
-90
40
40
• >90
11-13-90
timmlir'tft^m
pOTOdQOT
Q-CHL Q-CHL Q-CHL Q-CHL
part dte. K'd K'oc
SIT (NQ/U (NG/L) (UKQ) (L/KQ)
1 0.036916 0.033802 7.48E+03 3.B4E+05
1 O.OS7541
3 0.059287
« 0.087349 0.025154 1.37E+05 8.68E+OS
1 0.020881 0.014754 1.89E+04
3 0.032925 0.008612 1.35E+OS Z91E+06
3 0.039557 0.013549 1.22E+05 3.07E+08
6 0.060388 0.010129 1.99E+05 2.98E+06
1 0.038468 0.016236 6.97E+04 5.92E+05
3 0.009851 0.02785 1.22E+04 5.90E+04
6 0.014022 0.017304 4.0SE+04 1J5E+05
6 0.09199 0.014461 3.35E+05 3.18E+06
1 0.00483 aOOSBS 1.01 E+OS 3.76E+OS
2 0.00212 0.005106 &97E+04 1.79E+05
1 0.02295
2 0.0151
3 0.00401
3 0.01027
4 0 0.011717
S 0.03994 0.007439 1.79E+05 3.16E+08
6 0.01143 0.009753 4.19E+04 2.55E+06
1 0 0.011132
2 0 0.014929
3 0 0.008092
3 0.01446 0.024166 1.50E+05 &02E+OS
4 0 0.011281
S 0 0.015675
6 0.01105 0
1 0.00445 0.012599 1.18E+05 1.52E+05
2 0.00274 0.011002
3 0.00906 0.012966 1.74E+OS 1.52E+06
4 0.01491 0.043706 1.71E+05 S.78E+05
4 0.00495 0.023507 3.51 E+04 1.32E+08
5 0.01311 0.029375 &13E+04 2.07E+05
6 0 0.019082
1 0.02247 0.009868
1 0.02363 0.017782
2 0 0.025143
3 0.02004 0.014547 S.74E+04 7.53E+05
4 0.02047 0.017501 S.85E+OS 1.16E+06
5 0.01693 0.014743 1.44E+05 4.87E+05
6 0 0.016656
1 0.01402 0.025866 1.94E+04 7.04E+05
2 0.00976 0.014013 2.49E+04 7.39E+04
2 0.01502 0.02981 1.80E+04 7.53E+04
3 0.015 0.009485 5.65E+04 259E+05
4 0.02459 0.015896 5.52E+04 4.69E+05
S 0 0.019736
6 0.04762 0.026881 6.33E+O4 1.42E+OS
1 0.00531 0.008749 5.08E+04 7.B8E+05
2 0.00487 0.006381 3.82E+04 8.09E+04
3 0.01716 0.03741 2.87E+04 6.B6E+04
4 0.00873 0.012371 7.16E+03 7.87E+04
S 0 0.011843
5 0 0.008166
6 0 0.014055
AVG- 9.83E+04 9.22E+05
tog- 4.99 5.96
G-CHL
togK'oc
5.58
5.94
6.46
6.49
6.47
5.77
4.77
5.13
6.50
5,57
5.25
6.50
6.41
5.31
5.18
6.18
5.76
6.12
5.32
9.88
6.06
5.69
5.85
4.87
4.88
5.36
5.67
5.15
5.90
4.91
4.64
4.90
5.65
Q-CHL
Fp
0.535
0.776
0.791
0.745
0.856
0.703
0.261
0.448
0.864
0.448
0.293
0.843
0.540
0.374
0.261
0.411
0.254
0.174
0.309
0.579
0.539
0.535
0.352
0.411
0.335
0.613
0.607
0.639
0.378
0.433
0.314
0.352
Q-CHL
Fd
0.465
0.224
0.209
0.255
0.144
0.297
0.739
0.552
0.136
0.552
0.707
0.157
0.460
0.626
0.739
0.589
0.746
0.826
0.691
0.421
0.461
0.465
0.648
0.589
0.665
0.387
0.393
0.361
0.622
0.567
0.686
0.648
A-CHL
part.
(NG/L)
0.069853
0.131827
0.136785
0.045259
0.030504
0.055972
0.083184
0.090082
0.039221
0.009003
0.027862
0.213858
0.007409
0.003789
0.036325
0.021015
0.006751
0.016117
0.009219
0.057084
0.017068
0
0
0.013194
0.023856
0
0
0.019655
0.010046
0.007141
0.015978
0.02631
0.008608
0.022572
0.018821
0.038683
0.038969
0
0.039562
0.024183
0.020036
0
0.014776
0.015893
0.019524
0.019052
0.033193
0
0.053265
0.008998
0.010476
0.036097
0.010717
0.006581
0
0
A-CHL
ditt.
(NQ/U
0.049953
0.051331
0.023338
0.02198
0.024248
0.021282
0.032495
0.058821
0.033587
0.038482
0.025231
0.027631
0.024922
0.00928
0.018307
0.045597
0.032167
0.068044
0.03339
0.021968
0.027987
0.018195
0.021073
0.029555
0.01785
0.023254
0.010684
0.015087
0.028941
0.021027
0.026401
0.022986
0.013064
0.020707
0.030188
0.018983
0.028335
0.01515
0.023917
0.015883
0.020371
0.014911
0.009162
0.015699
0.02656
0.031969
0.012653
0.011071
0.039375
0.017661
0.020073
0.013055
0.019504
A-CHL
K'd
(L/KG)
1.17E+04
3.49E+04
1.77E+04
9.09E+04
1.09E+05
1.41E+05
3.55E+04
5.28E+03
4.15E+04
2.93E+05
3.67E+04
9.80E+03
2.43E+05
5.66E+05
2.63E+04
8.42E+03
5.92E+04
8.98E-f03
2.95E+04
3.2BE+OS
1.00E+05
1.44E+OS
2.65E+05
4.55E+05
6.82E+04
4.07E+04
8.68E+04
4.27E+05
1.65E+05
3.32E+04
2.79E+04
4.68E+04
7.43E+04
7.SSE+04
5.95E+04
5.93E+04
4.73E+04
S.73E+04
7.96E+03
8.20E+04
1.10E+05
5.04
A-CHL
K'oc
(I/KG)
6.00E+05
^20E+05
1.96E+06
2.74E+06
i12E+06
3.02E+05
i55E+04
1.38E+05
Z78E+06
1.36E+05
5.91 E+04
9.34E+05
3i4E+06
557E+05
1.60E+05
1.04E+06
5.45E+05
1.90E+05
4.43E+05
2.27E+05
1.86E+05
2.30E+06
1.54E+06
2.56E+06
3.96E+05
1.14E+06
8.45E+05
5.60E+05
1.21E+06
8.27E+04
1.96E+05
3.01E+05
6.41E4-05
1.33E+05
9.24E4-05
1.00E+05
1.37E+05
8.78E+04
S.93E+04
8.16E+05
5.91
A-CHL
togK'oc
5.78
5.34
6.29
6.44
6.33
5.48
4.41
5.14
6.44
5.13
4.77
5.97
6.51
5.72
5£1
6.02
5.74
5.28
5.65
5.36
5.27
6.36
6.19
6.41
5.60
6.06
5.93
5.75
6.08
4.92
5.29
5.48
5.81
5.13
5.97
5.00
5.14
4.94
5.00
5.62
A-CHL
FP
0.643
0.469
0.718
0.723
0.809
0.547
0.133
0.453
0.848
0.227
0.121
0.593
0.694
0.269
0.168
0.640
0.201
0.320
0.567
0.524
0.302
0.514
0.476
0.290
0.461
0.676
0.460
0.569
0.482
0.438
0.567
0.675
0.679
0.625
0.416
0.486
0.478
0.378
0.247
A-CHL
Fd
0.357
0.531
0.282
0.277
0.191
0.453
0.867
0.547
0.152
0.773
0.879
0.407
0.306
0.731
0.832
0.360
0.799
0.680
0.433
0.476
0.698
0.486
0.524
0.710
0.539
0.324
0.540
0.431
0.518
0.562
0.433
0.325
0.321
0.375
0.584
0.514
0.522
0.622
0.753
Figure C26
-------
OVERALL pestfchtes
DIELDRIN
put
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-1842
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-1840
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-0540
11-0540
11-0540
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-1340
11-1340
11-1340
11-13-90
11-1340
11-13-90
11-13-90
srr
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
8
1
3
8
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
4
5
8
1
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
(NO/L)
0.052054
0.035986
0.022609
0.075S46
0.020329
0.013809
0.027801
0.022854
0.017708
0.0121
0
0.39875
0.08693
0
0
0
0.04137
0.00606
0.04481
0
0.02971
0.10166
0
0
0.05113
0
0.08347
0.06367
0.07704
0
0.0776
0.05102
0.05415
0.00025
0
0
0.05727
0
0
0.03767
0
0
0.03477
0.07732
0.12707
0.07215
0
0.18091
0.04013
O
0
0.04278
0
DIELDRIN
diM.
(NG/L)
0.052846
0.081247
0.099832
0.04144
0.043893
0.061777
0.057364
0.086989
0.098041
0.054604
0.057681
0.054685
0.082416
0.106964
0.108834
0.076245
0.037112
0.056181
0.095308
0.097315
0.081549
0.092402
0.079206
0.096105
0.104155
0.045379
0.059734
0.074851
0.044329
0.087522
0.042609
0.09729
0.10604
0.070288
0.054996
0.054106
0.187379
0.058337
0.068199
0.074684
0.078702
0.078562
0.104759
0.10729S
0.060991
0.073531
0.082118
0.112492
0.039726
0.103753
0.09366
DIELDRIN
K'd
(L/KG)
6.40E+03
4.99E+03
2.99E+04
1.65E+04
9.31 E+03
1.62E+04
7.73E+03
1.62E+04
2.77E+04
127E+04
2.84E+03
4.02E+05
1.95E+04
2.61 E+05
5.87E+04
3.51 E+05
6.45E+05
8.34E+04
521E+05
2.31 E-MM
1.58E+04
3.S1E+04
4.33E+04
2.40E+04
123E+05
3.05E+04
2.S8E+04
DIELDRIN DIELDRIN DIELDRIN DIELDRIN DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT
K'oc togK'oc Fp Fd put din. K'd K'oc logK'oe
(L/KG)
328E+OS
3.69E+05
1.89E+05
3.56E+05
2.3SE+05
2.42E+05
6.57E+04
1.53E+05
1.02E+05
224E+05
1.73E+05
929E+05
126E+05
3.53E+05
1.33E+05
3.05E+06
Z19E+06
8.10E+05
1.03E+06
B.39E+05
&39E+04
2ME+05
1.75E+05
S.38E+04
Z61E+05
7.30E+04
5.94E+04
5.52
5.57
528
5.55
5.37
5.38
4.82
5.19
5.01
5.35
524
5.97
5.10
5.55
5.12
6.48
6.34
5.91
6.01
5.92
4.81
5.47
524
4.73
5.42
4.86
4.77
0.496
0270
0.431
0.317
0.183
0.326
0208
0.23S
0.181
0275
0.074
0.547
0.238
0.511
0.392
0.584
0.563
0.636
0.510
0.392
0.306
0.496
0.548
0.402
0.711
0.328
0292
(NG/L) (NG/L) (L/KG) (L/KG)
0.504 0.098439 0.019574 327E+04 1.68E+06
0.056326
0.730 0.049409 0.027335 Z44E+04 1.B1E+06
0.569 0.036714 0.006359 2.28E+05 1.44E+06
0.014164 0.006242 3.07E+04
0.683 0.013695 0.003218 1.52E+05 3.27E+06
0.817 0.034421 0.025641 5.59E+04 1.41E+06
0.674 0.027468 0.026652 3.44E+04 5.15E+05
0.792 0.45456 0.011942 1.12E+06 9.52E+06
0.018531 0.025777 2.48E+04 1.20E+05
0.011415 0.008756 6.52E+04 2.17E+05
0.765 0.026327 0.009549 1.45E+05 1.38E+08
0.819 0.0121
0
0.39675
0.08693
0
0
0 0.005311
0.725 0.04137
0.926 0.00806 0.005771 3.75E+04 228E+06
0.453 0.04481 0.01432 1.04E+06 Z41E+O6
0
0.762 0.02971
0.489 0.10166 0.025658 8.81 E+05 1.34E+06
0 0.006892
0 0.010652
0.608 0.05113 0.005208 8.93E+05 2.02E+06
0 0.014502
0.08347 0.008103
0.416 0.06367 0.00607 Z62E+06 2.28E+07
0.437 0.07704 0.03949 9.75E+05 3.31 E+06
0 0.007422
0.364 0.0776 0.018543 1.99E+05 1.94E+06
0.05102 0.012061
0.05415
0.00025 0.004957
0 0.006862
0 0.004761
0.490 0.05727 0.00623 4.60E+06 9.10E+06
0
0 0.011246
0.608 0.03767 0.006218 2.16E+05 7.87E+06
0
0 0.031174
0.694 0.03477 0.005576 2.23E+05 9.02E+05
0.504 0.07732
0.452 0.12707 0.00801 7.55E+05 3.05E+06
0.598 0.07215 0.010454 Z46E+05 5.53E+05
0
0289 0.18091
0.672 0.04013 0.043444 5.77E+04 1.38E+05
0 0.00718
0 0.011795
0.706 0.04278 0.010568 2.53E+05 S.B3E+05
0 0.007933
6.22
6.26
6.16
6.52
6.15
5.71
6.98
5.08
5.34
6.14
6.36
6.38
6.13
6.31
7.36
6.52
629
6.96
6.90
5.96
6.48
5.74
5.14
5.77
DDT
FP
0.834
0.644
0.852
0.810
0.573
0.508
0.974
0.418
0.566
0.734
0.512
0.758
0.798
0.908
0.913
0.661
0.807
0.902
0.858
0.862
0.955
0.873
0.480
0.802
DDT
Fd
0.1&
0.35t
0.14)
0.19C
0.42
0.49:
0.021
0.5K
0.43-
0.261
0.4K
0.24:
0.20:
0.09:
0.08
0.33'
0.19:
0.09!
0.14i
0.13;
0.04:
0.12:
0.52(
0.191
1.04E+05 4.77E+05
5.02 5.68
5.41
6.01 E+05 3.32E+06
5.78 6.52
6.20
Figure C26 (cont.)
-------
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
1-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-18-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-22-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
1 0-27-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
1-09-90
1-09-90
1-09-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
SIT
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
6
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
TSS
(ppm)
154
52
74
25.3
74
28
24
30
34
29
20
19
8
14
6
4
14
6
24
30
28
3
1
16
4
12
3
11
3
4
4
2
6
21
1
3
2
13
24
2
8
4
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
12
20
16
76
4
16
8
poq
(ppm)
10
10
10
11
13
12.6
11.45
16
10
9
13
11
7.54
9.88
9.84
10.9
10.5
10.5
10.94
12.5
1274
11
12.92
7.02
7.64
6.07
8.6
7.85
11.7
10.25
10.96
1211
11.84
7.64
11.24
8.65
8.27
8
7.35
8.59
8.04
9.29
8.46
9.2
8.65
7.04
5.89
6.08
6.96
9.53
8.27
241
7.7
9.7
9.32
7.19
p>oq
(ppm)
3
7
1
4
0
1.3
0.95
2
4
6
6
2
2.16
232
1.56
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.26
1.7
0.46
1.3
0.16
248
296
8.23
7.3
4.85
232
4.65
0.46
0.59
0.16
216
258
3.21
3.81
4.34
1.83
1.01
2.36
1.37
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
Foe
0.0195
0.1346
0.0135
0.1581
0.0000
0.0464
0.0396
0.0667
0.1176
0.2069
0.3000
0.1053
0.2700
0.1657
0.2600
0.1750
0.0500
0.1500
0.0525
0.0567
0.0164
0.4333
0.1800
0.1550
0.7400
0.6858
24333
0.4409
0.7733
1.1625
0.1150
0.2950
0.0267
0.1029
25800
1.0700
1.9050
0.3338
0.0763
0.5050
0.2950
0.3425
0.0275
0.3368
0.2389
0.2468
0.1179
0.2479
0.4461
0.0642
0.4715
0.4181
0.0909
0.8250
0.4338
1.5613
B[a]a
part.
(MG/KG)
0.357
0.82
1.536
0.115
0.224
0.308
3.019
0.41
1.129
0.265
0.407
1.646
0.975
0.783
0.652
0.674
0.238
1.559
0.252
0.672
1.165
0.418
1.329
0.696
0.209
2525
2189
239
0.475
0.4
1.694
0.415
0.364
0.096
0.096
0.143
0.114
0.164
0.361
0.447
0.459
0.107
0.299
0.401
1.98
0.434
1.066
B[a]a
disc.
(NG/g
23.63
24.71
221
294
264
247561
3.74685
4.88836
4.57962
6.08329
229622
0.81635
1.94769
1.75555
3.46727
6.33328
5.85154
3.57488
6.01586
29977
271457
0.44334
7.34264
259643
2.10213
24.0203
26.6318
2.41183
0.40415
1.87478
0.33613
219888
4.66987
33.6245
4.32327
1.76966
3.62166
0.39569
1.01592
5.36129
1.40597
1.19437
4.00944
B[a)a B[a]a
K-d K'oc
(UKG) (UKG)
1.51E+04 7.76E+05
3.32E+04 2.47E+05
5.20E+04
1.05E+05 2.65E+06
1.55E+05 1.32E+06
284E+05 6.55E+05
8.26E+05 4.59E+06
1.22E+05 7.88E+05
4.31E+04 9.77E+04
1.88E+05 243E+05
4.43E+05 1.50E+06
2.56E+05 9.61E+06
4.71E+05 4.58E+06
1.98E+04 5.92E+04
1.50E+04 1.97E+05
7.02E+05 1.39E+06
1.03E+06 3.48E+06
1.94E+05 5.67E+05
2.86E+05 1.04E+07
4.37E+04 1.30E+05
244E+04 9.89E+04
4.88E+03 4.14E+04
8.35E+04 3.37E+05
253E+05 5.66E+05
1.27E+05 1.98E+06
270E+05 5.74E+05
294E+05 7.04E+05
7.48E-I-04 8.23E+05
1.41E+06 1.71E+06
3.63E+05 8.38E+05
Blaja
(ogK'oc
5.89
5.39
6.42
6.12
5.82
6.66
5.90
4.99
5.39
6.18
6.98
6.66
4.77
5.29
6.14
6.54
5.75
7.02
5.11
5.00
4.62
5.53
5.75
6.30
5.76
5.85
5.92
6.23
5.92
Blaja
Fp
0.699
0.633
0.715
0.841
0.460
0.452
0.662
0.321
0.361
0.470
0.606
0.908
0.205
0.265
0.584
0.891
0.437
0.889
0.550
0.406
0.120
0.700
0.876
0.603
0.844
0.825
0.850
0.849
0.853
Blaja
Fd
0.301
0.367
0.285
0.159
0.540
0.548
0.338
0.679
0.639
0.530
0.394
0.092
0.795
0.735
0.416
0.109
0.563
0.111
0.450
0.594
0.880
0.300
0.124
0.397
0.156
0.175
0.150
0.151
0.147
21.29
AVG= 2.73E+05 1.70E+06
tog= 5.44 6.23
5.66
Figure C27
-------
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-16-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-27-90
10-2740
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-31-90
1001-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
1001-90
11-0540
11-05-90
11-0540
11-0540
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-0940
11-09-90
11-0940
11-09-90
11-0940
11-09-90
11-0940
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-1340
11-1340
11-1340
11-13-90
11-1340
SIT
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
6
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
*IM f *v*n
pat
(MQ/KQ)
0.422
0.914
0.491
3.62
0.27
0.355
0.426
1.759
0.901
2041
0.459
1.316
3.16
1.716
1.092
0.946
1249
0.397
224
0.392
1.062
1011
0.846
2298
1.369
0.348
4.816
3.376
4.536
0.834
0.558
2464
0.599
0.482
0.156
0.169
0214
0.196
0284
0.424
0.563
0.699
0.189
0.629
0.522
2274
0.522
1299
w*ny*^ra vrtiiy»wiv wtMywuv w
dto. K-d K-oc 1
(NQA) (UKQ) (UKQ)
8.57 4.92E+04 253E+06
9.101 1.00E+05 7.46E+05
829 4.37E+05 2.76E+06
1.34 201E+05
1.99 2.14E+05 5.41E+06
3.36 5.24E+05 7.85E+06
6.43 1.40E+05 1.19E+06
1125 1.81E+05 8.77E+05
1.92 6.B5E+05 6.51 E+06
1.75327
222682
242034
1.84783
285334
1.36633 6.92E+05 1.60E+06
1.80085 220E+05 1.42E+06
1.99319
1.4318
52289
5.33919 7.34E+04 1.67E+05
1.92283 5.52E+05 7.14E+05
206044
124637 1.B4E+06 6.24E+06
1.16951 1.17E+06 4.39E+07
3.0301
1.66223
1.50734
126355 6.60E+04 1.98E+05
15.6755 3.56E+04 4.67E+OS
1.61913 1.S2E+06 3.01 E+06
1.17854 4.09E+05 1.19E+06
207725 8.14E+04 242E+05
3.77529 S.24E+04 2.13E+05
16.8005 1.69E+04 1.43E+05
145548 1.23E+05 4.95E+05
1.65746 422E+05 6.57E+06
296096 1.75E+05 1.93E+06
124512 1.83E+06 221 E+06
200925
toQlCoc
6.40
5.87
6.44
6.73
6.90
6.08
5.94
6.81
620
6.15
522
5.85
6.80
7.64
5.30
5.67
6.48
6.08
5.38
5.33
5.16
5.69
6.82
628
6.35
' Fp
0.883
0.839
0.917
0.837
0.940
0.827
0.840
0.929
0.675
0.779
0.447
0.624
0.787
0.875
0.462
0.461
0.753
0.621
0.695
0.595
0.321
0.775
0.835
0.930
0.860
Fd
0.117
0.161
0.083
0.163
0.060
0.173
0.100
0.071
0.325
0.221
0.553
0.376
0213
0.125
0.538
0.539
0247
0.379
0.305
0.405
0.679
0225
0.165
0.070
0.120
P*l
(MQ/KQ)
0.493
1.139
0.606
3.435
0205
0.334
0.446
1.345
1.102
2545
0.556
0.958
2754
1.374
0.93
1.075
1.456
0.363
2109
0.374
1.067
1.308
0.756
2597
1.353
0.33
4.419
4.023
4.621
0.881
0.526
2238
0.525
0.585
0.188
0.179
0.191
021
0226
0.599
0.653
0.709
0.157
0.647
0.567
1.711
0.379
0.923
din. K'd ICoc 1
(NQ/U (UKQ) (UKQ)
5.9 8.36E+04 429E+06
62 1.84E+05 1.36E+06
0.88 6.89E+05 5.10E+07
423 8.12E+05 S.14E+06
0.783 262E+05
1.03 4.33E+05 1.09E+07
0.9 1.49E+06 224E+07
3.39 325E+05 2.76E+06
5.48 4.64E+05 Z24E+06
202 275E+05 9.17E+05
1.86 5.15E+05 4.89E+06
1.06077
1.43076
1.72589
1.93811
256549
126048 8.53E+05 1.97E+06
0.55047 265E+06 1.47E+07
1.16523 3.12E+05 201E+06
0.86827
123482
271005
251252 1.49E+05 3.38E+05
1.35501 7.87E+05 1.02E+06
1.71416
0.42626 1.77E+06 1.54E+07
1.45663 1.78E+06 6.04E+06
1.51213 8.95E+05 3.36E+07
0.79754 4.14E+05 4.02E+06
252626
127021
1.0632
10.7334 821E+04 2.46E+05
13.6152 3.B6E+04 S.07E+OS
0.8502 6.88E+05 2.01 E+06
0.50419 3.73E+05 1.36E+07
1.30606 1.37E+05 4.06E+05
260087 8.07E+04 3.27E+05
15.3416 1.47E+04 125E+05
2546 235E+05 8.49E+05
4.12197 1.58E+05 3.55E+05
1.30441 5.44E+05 8.47E+06
0.73414 2.14E+05 4.54E+05
1.4199 4.56E+05 1.09E+06
207659 8.24E+OS 9.99E+05
29742 1.27E+05 294E+05
3.55034
logK'oc
6.63
6.14
7.71
6.71
7.04
7.35
6.44
6.35
5.96
6.69
6.29
7.17
6.30
5.53
6.01
7.19
6.78
7.53
6.60
5.39
5.70
6.30
7.13
5.61
5.51
5.10
5.98
5.55
6.93
5.66
6.04
6.00
5.47
FP
0.928
0.905
0.981
0.954
0.912
0.978
0.917
0.931
0.846
0.907
0.719
0.726
0.633
0.621
0.703
0.876
0.781
0.843
0.897
0.516
0.481
0.733
0.913
0.793
0.693
0292
0.868
0.816
0.867
0.811
0.879
0.767
0.671
Fd
O.OT:
0.09!
0.01!
0.0*
0.081
O.OZ
0.06,
0.061
0.15.
0.09.
028
027
0.16
0.37
0.29
0.12
021
0.15
0.10
0.48
0.51
0.26
0.08
020
0.30
0.70
0.13
0.18-
0.13,
0.16
0.12
0.23
0.32
4.54E+05 3.79E+06
5.66 6.58
5.91
5.62E+05 6.51E+06
5.75 6.81
6.33
Figure C27 (cont.)
-------
DATE
4-1742
4-1742
4-1742
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-1842
4-2242
4-22-92
4-2242
4-22-92
10-1840
10-1840
10-2240
10-2240
10-2240
10-2240
10-22-90
10-2240
10-2240
10-2740
10-2740
10-2740
10-2740
10-2740
10-27-90
10-2740
104140
104140
104140
104140
104140
104140
1041-90
11-0540
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05--90
11-05-90
11-0540
11-05-90
11-0940
11-09-90
11-0940
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-1340
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-9O
SIT
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
6
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
S
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
P«t
(MO/KQ)
0217
0.48*
0263
1.421
0.078
0.147
0.196
0.511
0.472
1.083
0242
0.367
0.933
0.459
0.343
0253
0.511
0.125
0.789
0.144
0.377
0.327
0.334
0.975
0.478
0.125
1.668
1.474
1.728
0.321
0205
0.828
0.208
0.198
0.059
0.071
0.072
0.077
0.079
a 179
0213
0.262
0.064
0.231
0.192
0.562
0.129
O.312
dta. »Cd tCoc toglCoc Fp
(NG/1) (UKO) (UKQ)
1.349 1.61 E+05 826E+06
1.313 3.69E+05 2.74E+06
0286 9.20E+05 6.80E+07
1.526 B.31E+05 5.88E+06
0.195 4.00E+05
0.179 8.21 E+05 1.77E+07
0.367 5.34E+05 1.35E+07
0.32 1.60E+08 2.40E+07
0.77 6.13E+05 5.21E+06
1.1 9.85E+05 4.76E+06
0.55 4.40E+05 1.47E+08
0.499 7.35E+05 6.99E+06
022083
028766
0.36749
029866
0.49446
021975 1.15E+06 2.66E+06
0.12326 4.15E+06 Z30E+07
025037 4.99E+05 3.22E+08
021072
027236
OS0296
0.49652 Z89E+05 6.55E+05
027892 1.35E+06 1.75E+06
0.10165 329E+08 2.86E+07
0.31118 3.13E+06 1.06E+07
0.35939 1.33E+06 4.99E+07
0.18105 6.90E+05 6.71E+06
0.4209
024106
0.19871
2.55584 1.26E+05 3.76E+05
2.98823 6.86E+0* B.OOE+05
025462 7.78E+05 227E+06
0.12279 4.80E+05 1.75E+07
0.31349 Z26E+05 6.72E+05
0.46724 1.65E+05 6.68E+05
22867 3.45E+04 2.93E+05
0.38679 4.63E+05 1.87E+06
0.98138 Z17E+05 4.87E+05
0.26834 9.76E+05 1.S2E+07
0.14851 4.31E+05 9.14E+05
0.3485 6.63E+05 1.59E+08
0.35993 5.33E+05 5.87E+08
0.43166 1.30E+06 1.58E+06
0.56219 229E+05 5.29E+05
O.63375
8.63E+05 9.61E+06
5.94 6.98
6.92
6.44
7.83
6.77
725
7.13
7.38
6.72
6.68
6.17
6.84
6.42
7.36
6.51
5.82
6.24
7.46
7.03
7.70
6.83
5.58
5.95
6.36
724
5.83
5.82
5.47
627
5.69
7.18
5.96
620
6.77
620
5.72
&S6
0.961
0.950
0.866
0.959
0.958
0.926
0.980
0.954
0.966
0.898
0.933
0.775
0.808
0.889
0.761
0.802
0.929
0.862
0.889
0.935
0.620
0.622
0.757
0.931
0.864
0.822
0.492
0.928
0.859
0.921
0.696
0.914
0.976
0.839
0.786
Fd
0.039
0.050
0.014
0.041
0.042
0.072
0.020
0.046
0.034
0.102
0.067
0225
0.194
0.111
0239
0.198
0.071
0.138
0.111
0.065
0.380
0.378
0243
0.089
0.136
0.178
0.506
0.072
0.141
0.079
0.104
0.086
0.024
0.161
0214
pvt din. K'd K'oc togK'oc Fp
(MO/KG)
0.314
0.694
0.363
1.706
0.119
0216
0.291
0.782
0.625
1.3
0.305
0.499
2.359
1.065
0.664
0.661
0.551
0.196
1226
0.173
0.666
0.524
0.566
1.512
0.851
0.201
2.649
£619
3.411
0.572
0.376
1.511
0.349
0.338
0.115
0.12
0.145
0.129
0.144
0.325
0.376
0.356
0.129
0.386
0.351
1.171
0267
0.68
(NO/I) (UKQ) (UKQ)
^196 1.43E+05 7.34E+06
2.16 3.21 E+05 2.38E+06
1.022 1.67E+06 1.06E+07
0.12 9.92E+05
0.896 6.96E+05 5.83E+O6
1277 1.02E+06 4.92E+08
0.66 4.62E+OS 1.54E+06
0.413 1.21E+06 1.15E+07
0.30142
0.36031
0.5107
0.45666
0.7722
0.37002 1.79E+08 4.12E+06
0.15161 3.63E+06 ZO2E+07
0.34366 5.70E+05 3.68E+06
0.30171
027753
OJ0007
051302 3.37E+05 7.65E+05
0.37434 1.78E+06 2.30E+06
0.4053 3.73E+06 126E+07
0.38549 221E+06 8.28E+07
0.18551 1. QBE +06 1.05E+07
0.85766
0.18347
2.19381 2.61E+05 7.81E+05
1.77119 2.12E+05 Z78E+06
022826 1.48E+06 4.32E+06
0.14976 7.68E+05 &79E+07
0.40529 2.96E+05 8.79E+05
0.57966 223E+05 9.02E+05
3.37095 427E+0* 3.62E+05
0.38253 8.50E+05 3.43E+06
1.08914 3.52E+05 7.88E+05
0.38369 9.28E+05 1.45E+07
0.16966 7.60E+05 1.61E+06
0.3299 1.17E+06 2.80E+06
0.58546 2.00E+06 &42E+06
0.68132 3.92E+05 9.03E+05
0.68906
1.05E+06 8.47E+06
6.02 6.93
6.87
6.38
7.02
6.77
6.69
6.19
7.06
6.62
7.31
6.57
5.68
6.36
7.10
7.92
7.02
5.89
6.44
6.64
7.45
5.94
5.96
5.56
6.54
5.90
7.16
621
6.45
6.38
5.96
6.56
0.957
0.944
0.977
0.960
0.967
0.902
0.958
0.843
0.784
0.901
0.788
0.842
0.882
0.930
0.958
0.772
0.836
0.856
0.956
0.892
0.862
0.545
0.960
0.908
0.918
0.938
0.949
0.689
0.862
Fd
0.0*3
0.056
0.023
0.0*0
0.033
0.096
0.042
0.157
0216
0.099
0.212
0,158
0.118
0.070
0.042
0228
0.164
0.144
0.044
0.108
0.138
0.455
0.040
0.092
0.082
0.062
0.051
0.111
0.138
Figure C27 (cont.)
-------
METALS
Water Column
DATE
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-17-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-18-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
4-22-92
10-18-90
10-18-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-22-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-27-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
10-31-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-05-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-09-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
11-13-90
AVG«
log value*
SIT
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
6
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
TSS
(MG/L)
154
52
74
25.3
74
28
24
30
34
29
20
19
8
14
6
4
14
6
24
30
28
3
1
16
4
12
3
11
3
4
4
2
6
21
1
3
2
13
24
2
e
4
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
12
20
16
76
4
16
8
2129
DOC
(MG/L)
10
10
10
11
13
12.6
11.45
16
10
9
13
11
7.54
9.88
9.84
10.9
10.5
10.5
10.94
12.5
12.74
11
12.92
7.02
7.64
6.07
8.6
7.85
11.7
10.25
10.96
12.11
11.84
7.64
1124
8.65
827
8
7.35
8.59
8.04
929
9.53
827
2.41
7.7
9.7
9.32
7.19
9.53
8.27
2.41
7.7
9.7
9.32
7.19
POC
(MG/L)
3
7
1
4
0
1.3
0.95
2
4
6
6
2
2.16
2.32
1.56
0.7
0.7
0.9
126
1.7
0.46
1.3
0.18
2.48
2.96
823
7.3
4.85
2J3Z
4.65
0.46
0.59
0.16
2.16
2.56
321
3.81
4.34
1.83
1.01
2.36
1.37
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
0.77
9.43
6.69
6.91
3.3
6.94
12.49
Foe
0.0195
0.1346
0.0135
0.1581
0.0000
0.0464
0.0396
0.0667
0.1176
02069
0.3000
0.1053
02700
0.1657
02600
0.1750
0.0500
0.1500
0.0525
0.0567
0.0164
0.4333
0.1800
0.1550
0.7400
0.6858
2.4333
0.4409
0.7733
1.1625
0.1150
0.2950
0.0267
0.1029
2.5800
1.0700
1.9050
0.3338
0.0763
0.5050
02950
0.3425
0.0275
0.3368
02389
02468
0.1179
02479
0.4461
0.0642
0.4715
0.4181
0.0909
0.8250
0.4336
1.5613
LEAD
DISS.
(MQ/L)
0.0102
0.0222
0.0161
0.0052
0.0053
0.006
0.0078
0.0081
0.0061
0.0092
0.0029
0.0054
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.004
0.003
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.003
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.017
0.003
0.003
BDL
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.002
BDL
0.004
BDL
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.001
BDL
LEAD
SUSP.
(MG/L)
0.0103
0.014
0.0051
0.0884
0.0229
0.036
0.0406
0.0418
0.023
0.0139
0.0083
0.0063
0.005
0.0015
0.0005
0.0005
0.01
0.009
0.0065
0.034
0.007
0.011
0.0035
BDL
BDL
0.0085
0.003
BDL
0.052
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.007
0.004
0.012
0.003
0.008
0.025
0.051
0.017
0.01
0.013
0.008
0.008
0.021
0.031
0.004
0.079
0.066
0.013
0.024
LEAD
K'd
(UKG)
6.56E+03
121E+04
428E+03
6.72E+05
5.84E+04
2.14E+05
2.17E+05
1.72E+05
1.11E+05
521E+04
1.43E+05
6.14E+04
2.83E+05
8.33E+04
5.78E+06
4.17E+04
6.00E+06
3.75E+05
I.OOE-t-06
4.55E+05
7.14E+04
929E+04
9.52E+04
5.71 E+04
5.83E+05
3.88E-t-05
2.50E+05
3.46E+05
825E+06
8.13E+05
8.90E+05
5.95
LEAD
log K'd
3.82
4.08
3.63
5.83
4.77
5.33
5.34
524
5.04
4.72
5.16
4.79
5.45
4.92
6.76
4.62
6.78
5.57
6.00
5.66
4.85
4.97
4.98
4.76
5.77
5.59
5.40
5.54
6.92
5.91
5.27
LEAD
Fp
0.502
0.387
0241
0.944
0.812
0.857
0.839
0.838
0.790
0.602
0.741
0.538
0.895
0.700
0.945
0.500
0.923
0.750
0.800
0.927
0.667
0.722
0.727
0.615
0.875
0.886
0.800
0.963
0.971
0.929
LEAD
Fd
0.498
0.613
0.759
0.056
0.188
0.143
0.161
0.162
0210
0.398
0259
0.462
0.105
0.300
0.055
0.500
0.077
0250
0.200
0.073
0.333
0278
0273
0.385
0.125
0.114
0.200
0.037
0.029
0.071
Figure C28
-------
(•}uoo)
see'o
126-0
OSS'O
626*0
(.8*"0
10*'0
2S*-0
621'0
292-0
802'0
1970
0470
89KO
S*9*0
C26'0
S6S-0
996-0
e*s-o
6570
96&-0
ai*-o
1170
91*'0
19S'0
S49-0
C09'0
6*9*0
616*0
>oe*o
0070
99**0
/Sl'O
*170
9*1*0
2170
609*0
S670
S170
9970
eieo
926-0
S670
S070
2670
/070
1C70
iee*o
6/10
6810
8070
Pd
NOUI
S990
6/9*0
OS*'0
149-0
619*0
669*0
8*9*0
148*0
864'0
264'C
6*4'0
oe/'o
2*S'0
996*0
440*0
90*'0
*60'0
4S**0
1*4*0
*99*0
285*0
684-0
*8S*0
66*-0
521*0
466*0
IS**0
480*0
969*0
009*0
*»S*0
6*8*0
984*0
*S8'0
894*0
166*0
904*0
584*0
*C4'0
889*0
*/9'0
SO/'O
S6/*0
99/-0
£6/0
69/0
699-0
128*0
U8'0
36/0
dd
NOUI
SO'S
60'S
24'5
60>
ll'S
e/>
60-9
»9'»
86-9
OO'S
ers
60S
66**
69**
*l*9
20°*
65*5
/re
19'*
*l'S
2S*S
ws
/6*S
49*5
99**
80**
275
14'*
86'*
88'5
9l'S
09'*
se-s
64*5
29*5
46*S
60*S
675
995
91*S
WS
58*
58**
11*5
*rs
*l'S
S9**
06**
64'*
26'*
6C'*
P.»Bo)
NOUI
16'9
80+3*0*2
50+3*71
SO+367S
*0+380*l
90+3871
*o+30»-g
90+3*71
*0+366'*
90+3 1**2
SO+310'l
90+396*1
SO+340-l
•W+399'6
*0+367*
50+396*1
*0+3*0'l
so+30**e
60+38*- 1
*0+38*'9
SO+396*!
50+362*6
90+396*9
90+3*6*6
50+399**
*0+32l*4
*0+361'1
50+3*9*1
*o+3*rs
*0+ 329*6
50+329*4
90+36*'!
*0+346*6
90+3*72
90+361'9
90+391'*
SO+326'6
SO+340-l
50+314*1
50+385°*
SO+3S*'l
SO+301'1
*0+32l*4
*0+3W4
50+3671
50+386*1
80+346*1
*0+36*>
»0+300*8
*0+36l*9
*0+3678
*0+3/>*2
toxn)
P.X
NOUI
2**'0
800*1
*90'1
80*2
84*0
9l>'0
60S*0
69**0
904*1
44*0
969*0
969*0
*1S*0
1570
961*0
ieO'0
56*0
510*0
29S'0
Sl*'0
two
684*0
458*0
566*0
96*0
669*0
eo*'0
119*0
6/6*0
460*0
940*0
5970
946*0
890*0
619*0
*l*'l
6*1*1
489*1
586*0
*4'l
58*0
99**0
916-1
484*0
8S*0
**'0
96'0
64'0
15*1
90*1
51*1
66*0
48*0
72
*l*2
26*2
fvow)
*dsns
NOUI
959*0
909'0
eos*o
**S*2
286*0
S86*0
1*6*0
286*0
6S70
6/70
681-0
6/ro
61-0
2170
4*70
*46-0
SIS'O
12*'0
499-0
66**0
86**0
6S**0
6670
70
6570
481*0
U*'0
*96*0
*8**0
*64*0
S*S*0
C0*°0
9**0
*14*0
4270
656*0
656*0
*16*0
892*0
4670
9270
424*0
8*5*0
5170
170
70
9*0
66*0
66*0
26'0
6*0
82*0
e**o
8*'0
9*0
19*0
fi/ow>
*SSIO
NOUI
145*0
920*0
605'0
691*0
*CO*0
465*0
06**0
0870
**6'0
6*1*0
oo ro
Ztfi'O
566-0
6670
199-0
2*0*0
046*0
1870
820*0
0*1*0
96 1'O
9470
*670
691*0
910*0
059*0
800*0
91 1*0
005*0
6970
4*9*0
625*0
844*0
49*'0
00**0
009*0
6970
499°0
980'0
490'0
Pd
U3ddO3
62**0
*46*0
16**0
969*0
996*0
C0*'0
019*0
02/*0
9S9*0
4S8*0
006*0
99**0
S09-0
404*0
616*0
9S6*0
oeo'o
614*0
246'0
098*0
*OB*0
*24*0
904*0
168*0
286*0
OS**0
266*0
298*0
OOS'O
464*0
696*0
14**0
2270
665*0
009*0
00*'0
164*0
666*0
*16*0
666*0
dj
U3ddOO
075
49'*
46'9
Ol*»
19*5
91*9
94'*
/s>
96**
69**
66*5
19*9
es>
*4'*
84*5
44'*
90*4
trc
679
*74
16*9
61*9
46'*
08**
16*9
69*9
16*6
*6*4
64*5
24**
51*8
47*
2*'*
96*6
99**
64°*
98°6
60*5
68*6
ie*s
96**
P.*80!
U3ddOO
979
90+328*1
6*0*0
*0+369> 2*0*0
90+3476 960*1
W+3/71 280*0
90+3276 *6l*0
90+3**' t 860*1
*0+3C9'9 420'0
*0+314*6 920*0
*0+381*6 960*0
*0+328-9 2*0-0
90+3*1*2 861*0
90+3176 *1**0
*O+30*'*S 20*0
*0+39**S 620*0
80+3*0*9 850*0
*0+398'S SIO'O
40+361*1 890*0
60+306*1 100*0
90+346*1 6900
1*0'0
660*0
910*0
640-0
*90*0
40+324*1 690*0
601*0
WO
90+350*2 990*0
4970
8*0*0
90*0
*10*0
921*1
260*0
90+396*1 8*0*0
*0+386*6 120*0
*0+300*9 *20*0
890*0
50+361*9 680*0
90+348*6 646*0
SO+3SOZ 600*0
40+381*2 906*1
90+326*8 490*0
201*0
*0+397S 400*0
90+30**! *10*0
*0+399*l 900*0
*0+319*2 800*0
60+325*6 200*0
*0+394** 900*0
*0+396*S 600*0
60+310*6 900*0
80+340*1 610*0
eO+394'9 900'0
90+3*0*2 9960*0
*0+360'6 860*0
(DXn) tVOfl)
p.x *dsns
fcOddOO U3ddOO
**0'0
950*0
820*0
*90°0
920°0
9£00
WO
S20'0
*10°0
220*0
620*0
9WO
izo-o
SIO'O
*20'0
260'0
eoo'o
260*0
420*0
610'0
410'0
SOO'O
108
108
200'0
108
400*0
*!0*0
108
600*0
108
108
108
108
110*0
900-0
lO'O
108
210-0
400'0
110*0
10*0
600*0
108
400-0
SOO'O
UO'O
600*0
400*0
400*0
900*0
600*0
400*0
210'0
600-0
400-0
fl/ON)
•SSKJ
usddoo
-9A1
9 06-61-11
S 06-Cl-U
s 06-ei-u
* 06-ei-u
e 06-ei-u
2 06-61-11
I 06-61-U
9 06-60-11
9 06-60- U
* 06-60- U
6 06-60- U
Z 06-60- U
Z 08-60-U
1 06-60-U
9 06-SO-U
S 06-SO-U
* 06-SO-U
6 06-SO-U
2 06-SO-U
1 06-SO-U
1 06-SO-U
9 08-16-01
8 06-16-01
* 06-ie-oi
* 06-ie-oi
e 06-ic-oi
2 06-16-01
i 06-ie-oi
9 06-42-01
S 08-42-01
* 06-42-01
6 06-4701
6 06-42-01
2 06-42-01
1 08-42-01
9 08-22-01
S 06-22-01
* 06-22-01
6 06-22-01
6 06-22-0!
2 06-22-01
1 06-22-0!
2 06-91-01
1 08-81-01
9 26-22-*
9 26-22-*
6 26-22-*
1 26-22-*
9 26-91-*
6 26-81-*
6 26-81-*
1 26-81-*
9 26-41-*
6 26-4 !-*
1 26-/1-*
I 26-/1-*
3JJS 31VO
STV13H
-------
-PPPOPPPPPPPPPPPPOP--MOPPP-PPNPPPPOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
POOOOO OOOOO
m • « u N u a ui p ^^*t*»aatt*
Q 2S2SS3S853 8 8 SI 3 R
a
m
+
8
iBeop
ppppppppppppop
p
?
5
3
B
pp
pppppopppppp
! 2 f K S S
'
OPPOPPOPOPPP
p-pp-ppp
ppppppppppop
- »»:J«»-!»5i>5<»!»!J»>!»»«:^--
IM fnrnrnfnmfnrnrnfnmrnrnmmmmmrn
+ •*• + + + + ++ + + + + + •»• + •»• + + +
8 282882222882282388
- N
m m
+ -f
8 8
,
m fn rn ffl rn m ffi in mrnififTinintnirnrtitirnni 36 ^
> + ^. 4, 4. 4. 4. 4. ^>4.^^^^^^>^4. Q&
882 88898 288282288882 3
a
3
a *. aa *. *. « « u> a *. «. ui *. ^ u a
a k ^ o« a w >i
S58 282*
01 *. *. u « ». u p u u »
S 5J fi $ 8 3 8 8 S 2 S
pppppppppppppppppp
p p
5 |
M 8
PP ppppp pppppopppppp -n
33 SSftSS S3.a *
« a "nSiolS S^C
pppppppppppppppppp
p p
PPP PPPPP pppppppppppp
.
m irimffimminmrnfTinirnnifflrnmiMffiin mmffini m fn rnmm
+ -f>-f + -f + + + + + + + -f--f'f + +'+- •*•++• 4- 4- -f + + + + + + + + 4> + 4> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
8 888828288882282882 8888 82 28228888888888888888888822
« «S»*<^<»^!»»ac»»^a»at»»
8 8S8 = 388883883»8S:;2
ioi ui *. »pi.k».aai»uiuiuiuipipiuipiui».»uiuioi
? 38 8B28838aaS38S8«2a8 = ::
$}
poopppppppppppoppp pppp pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppp
pppppppppppppppppp pppp po ppppppoppppoopoppoppopoopo -n;
------ ^ » » ij 01 to tj S 8 i !2 i X °°8?-88$3^"'^83-8-88328S8^8 .
620
-------
Appendix D. Sediment concentrations
List of Figures
(spatial variation of contaminant concentrations in upper sediment layer, "N/A" = not available)
Dl. PCBs.
D2. A-chlordane.
D3. G-chlordane.
D4. Dieldrin.
D5. DDT.
D6. Benzo(a)anthracene.
D7. Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
D8. Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
D9. Benzo(a)pyrene.
D10. Chrysene.
Dll. Lead.
D12. Copper.
-------
Buffalo River
Total PCB's (ng/g dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
H
ID
-------
C
n
(D
o
to
Buffalo River
a-cis-Chlordane (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
H-
iQ
c
1-1
n>
o
Buffalo River
7-trans-Chlordane (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
n
n>
Buffalo River
Dieldrin (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
H
(D
O
Buffalo River
DDT (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
M
(D
Buffalo River
Benzo(a)anthracene (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
H-
iQ
CJ
II
fl>
D
Buffalo River
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
C
t-l
n>
o
oo
Buffalo River
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
K
n>
o
vo
Buffalo River
Benzo(a)pyrene (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
0
M
(D
a
i-«
o
Buffalo River
Chrysene (ug/kg dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
C
H
(D
Buffalo River
Lead (ug/g dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
•n
c
H
O
M
K)
Buffalo River
Copper (ug/g dry weight)
Upper Sediment Layer
Summer 1990
-------
|