WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
OF THE
RARITAN-LOWER BAY SYSTEM
DECEMBER, 1974
f STATEN ISLAND
BROOKLYN
-------
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
OF THE
RARITAN BAY SYSTEM
By
James P. Rooney*
Steven C. Chapra**
Prepared for
Water Programs Branch
Environmental Programs Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
^Environmental Engineer: Chief, Technical Evaluation Section, EPA-Region II
**Environmental Engineer: Data Systems Branch, EPA-Region II
-------
Acknowledgement s
The author wishes to acknowledge the input of several
of his colleagues and friends in EPA-Region II in the
preparation of this manuscript. Special thanks are due to
Guy Apicella, Environmental Engineer of the Water Programs
Branch for his aid in man}7 aspects of the computer appli-
cations and data retrievals.
Thanks are also due to Ms. Marie Smith who typed and
re-typed the seemingly endless drafts with patience and
care. Thanks must be extended to Mr. Robert Rauenbuhler
for all the art work and actual preparation of the report
which was done in the usual timely and professional fashion.
Finally, the author is grateful to the many previous
investigators, most notably, J. Ayers, H. Jeffries, B.
Ketchum, D.J. O'Connor and R.V. Thomann of Manhattan College
and Hydroscience, Inc., without whose work this investigation
would not have been possible.
J.P.R.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Introduction 1
II. General Description of Raritan Bay System 2
Physical Features 2
Hydrology 2
Existing Waste Sources 6
III. Mathematical Model Theory and Derivation 8
One-dimensional Analysis 8
Two-dimensional Analysis 11
IV. Model Application to Raritan Bay System 14
Steady-State Model Verification 15
Salinity Verification 16
Dissolved Oxygen Verification 17
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 17
Photosynthetic Sources 18
Benthal Oxygen Demand 19
Atmospheric Rearation 19
Verification Procedure 19
Effect of Individual Waste Sources 20
V. Effect of Alternate Abatement Measures 21
MCSA Discharge at Existing Outfall Site 21
MCSA Discharge off Keyport Harbor 21
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations --. 23
Biblography 26
Figures 29
Computer Runs 46
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Raritan Bay System
Figure 2. Existing Waste Sources
Figure 3. Raritan Bay System Segmentation - 50 Section Model
Figure 4. Dispersion Coefficients - Raritan Bay Model
Figure 5. Raritan River Flow at Perth Amboy - Probability Plot...
Figure 6. Flow Routing - 10 Year Average August-September Conditions
Figure 7. Chloride Verification - 10-Year Average August-September
Conditions
Figure 8. Flow Routing - July, 1971
Figure 9. Observed Dissolved Oxygen Data - July, 1971
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen Verification - July, 1971
Figure 11. DO Deficit Due to MCSA District - July, 1971
Figure 12. DO Deficit Due to Boundary Condition Effects - July, 1971
Figure 13. Flow Routing - Year 2020
Figure 14. Projected Dissolved Oxygen Distribution for MCSA Dis-
charge at Present Outfall Site - Year 2020
Figure 15. Projected Dissolved Oxygen Distribution for MCSA Dis-
charge off Keyport Harbor - Year 2020
Figure 16. Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Distribution for MCSA Dis-
charge in Central Bay Area - Year 2020
-------
I. Introduction
The Raritan Bay, Lower Bay and Sandy Hook Bay combine to form
a triangular body of interstate tidal water that extends inland
approximately 13.5 miles between Staten Island, New York on the
northwest, and the New Jersey shoreline to the south. At the
western extremity, the Raritan River and Arthur Kill join the
Bay while on the east the Raritan Bay System abuts the ocean
between Sandy Hook and Coney Island (Fig. 1). The New York-New
Jersey state boundary passes approximately from east to west through
the middle of the Bay until it swings northerly up the middle of
the Arthur Kill. The entire system is estuarine and is characterized
by tidal oscillations and current reversals which provide the major
dispersive mechanisms within the system.
The waters of this study area are presently utilized for
industrial water supply, navigation, commercial fin and shellfishing
and a variety of recreational activities. However, full utilization
of these waters is presently restricted by unsuitable water quality
resulting from the impact of the five (5) principal wastewater
sources affecting this estuary:
a). The waste loading entering the Bay from the Arthur Kill;
b). The degraded water quality which enters through the Narrows
which is due to wastewater discharges in the New York Harbor
System;
c). The waste loading from the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
(MCSA) treatment facility;
d). Other point source waste loadings to Raritan Bay in the vicinity
of the MCSA discharge; and
e). The water quality at the mouth of Raritan River which results
from upstream discharges.
The following report is an effort to describe, on a preliminary
basis, the conceptualization of the Raritan Bay System as a unique
mathematical entity wherein the observed naturally occurring hydro-
dynamic and water quality phenomena can be reproduced. The analysis
hopefully will provide greater understanding and insight into both
the transport and physical phenomena which dominate the system,
such that the model can be utilized ultimately as a predictive tool
for subsequent evaluation of proposed pollution abatement alternatives.
The procedures followed within the analytical framework of the report
thus allow evaluation of proposed siting for the MCSA outfall given
the appropriate data relative to both this discharge and the other
major discharges to the Raritan Bay System. The water quality pro-
jections thus obtained represent both tidally and spatially averaged
values over specific segments of the system.
-1-
-------
II. General Description of Raritan Bay System:
Physical Features
The estuarine system, collectively referred to as the Raritan
Bay System, may be divided into three(3) general and distinct
hydrologic areas — Raritan Bay is located in the western portion
of the System, the Lower Bay stretches from Point Comfort eastward
to Sandy Hook, while Sandy Hook Bay is located generally southeast
of the Point Comfort-Sandy Hook traverse (Fig. !.)•
The entire System is a shallow estuary, having a mean depth of
less than 15 feet and a surface area of 1670 x 10& square feet. The
floor of the Bay slopes fairly uniformly and gently toward the central
axis where the depths are approximately 22 feet in Raritan Bay and
28 feet in Lower Bay. Maximum depths in the Bay are on the order
of 30 feet, excluding the major shipping channels which have depths
ranging to 40 feet.
The System is characterized by a number of peripheral shoals
located both along the Staten Island and the New Jersey south shore
beaches - a factor which is quite significant with respect to the
resultant hydrodynamic patterns exhibited within the Bay.
Hydrology
Examination of the hydraulic, tidal and geometric structures of
the Raritan Bay System suggests an extremely complex and interacting
natural water system governed not only by the effects of the inter-
connected waterways but also by such external forces as wind, tides
and tidal lags. Accordingly, the initial efforts of the study were
directed largely towards a determination of the movement of waters
both within and across the defined boundaries of the system.
Through the review of past survey and study results, the probable
flow paths for specific pollutant parameters were both defined and
quantified to the degree of accuracy considered necessary for adequate
representation of the System.
The Raritan Bay System is bounded by four(4) arbitrary traverses
at which predetermined water quality constituents were designated.
The locations of these boundaries are as follows: (1) across the
mouth of the Raritan River, (2) across the mouth of the Arthur Kill,
(3) across the Verranzano Narrows, and (4) along a traverse between
Norton Point, N.Y. and Sandy Hook, N.J. (Fig. 2).
Raritan Bay is one of a collection of shallow bays and lagoons
which characterizes the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. It is typical
in that it has a roughly triangular shape and its hydraulics are
governed primarily by wind and tidal mechanisms. Source waters
-2-
-------
which are largely responsible for the general flow patterns within
the System enter the basin from opposite ends - from the Raritan River
on the west and through the Verrazano Narrows and Lower Bay* on the
east. The general tendency within the System is thus towards the
creation of a discernible large scale counterclockwise gyre of
slowly circulating water masses (Jeffries, 1962). The net result
of this pattern is the establishment of a series of physical-chemical
gradients directed along and at right angles to the axis of the
estuary - an observation which substantiates the need for multi-
dimensional modeling of the Bay.
The Bay is also the recipient of a number of smaller direct
freshwater inputs from both natural tributaries and artificial sources.
Aside from the municipal-industrial discharges which are discussed
in greater detail in later sections, the major remaining natural
advective sources are the Arthur Kill, Matawan Creek, and the
Navesink River. The most significant of these, the Arthur Kill,
does not represent a substantial source of freshwater but rather
acts a large surge basin contributing to the complex mixing processes
existing at the western end of the Bay. The major significance of
this tributary lies in the fact that it represents a large source
of both biodegradable and potentially toxic substances which are
dispersed throughout the Kill and eventually into the western portion
of the Raritan Bay System. The remaining Matawan Creek and Navesink
River inputs do not have any appreciable effect on the circulation
patterns within Raritan Bay outside their immediate confluence areas
due largely to their insignificant flows and their remoteness from
the deeper portions of the Bay.
The general counterclockwise flow patterns exhibited within
the Bay itself have been frequently substantiated by observations
of salinity, iron, and suspended solids profiles. These past
surveys have indicated that flushing in Raritan Bay System is
accomplished by a net tidal drift which is westward along the north
shore and eastward along the south shore (WHOI, 1949). Many of the
specific details concerning the general circulation pattern are as
yet undefined and therefore, unpredictable. Certain portions of the
Bay, most notably, the western end of the System, for example, are
known to exhibit small scale tidal reverses without any apparent
relationship to the larger semi-diurnal tidal flood and ebb. How-
ever, a number of know hydraulic phenomena resulting from the
interaction of the aforementioned general circulation patterns and
the Bay structure are predictable.
It is known that the southwesterly thrust of higher salinity waters
flooding into the Raritan Bay System from the Verrazano Narrows-Lower
Bay area along the Staten Island shoreline is impeded and eventually
diverted along a southerly course in the vicinity of Great Kills
*The source water across this boundary is actually a mixture of Hudson
River water and sea water having an average salinity of 27 0/00.
-3-
-------
Harbor due to the influence of Old Orchard Shoal. This shoal area is
in effect a sluggish eddy which acts as a barrier between the Raritan
Bay and Hudson River circulation patterns almost as effectively as
though it were dry land (WHOI, 1949). The resultant diversion of
this inland (Hudson) thrust appears to exert an action which accelerates
the seaward movement of (Raritan) freshwater along the south shore
of Raritan Bay while at the same time damming back the waters
accumulated in the head of the Bay area (Jeffries, 1962). This
phenomena has been evidenced somewhat by the observation of intertidal
current reversals, the existence of many small scale eddy formations
and the relative lateral, longitudinal and vertical uniformity throughout
the western Bay area.
The effect of the Raritan River influent on Bay circulation patterns
is limited largely to the south shore area of the Bay. The lateral
gradients in such parameters as salinity and turbidity during high
flow periods have established the general excursion of the Raritan
River along this section of the Bay. It has been noted likewise, that
the ebb currents immediately north of Point Comfort are regularly stronger
than the flood indicating a definite net drift seaward past this point
in particular and along the south shore in general. The seaward drift
due to this Raritan influence is in the order of 0.5 miles per day
west of Conaskonk Point with a range varying from 0.25 to 0.5 miles
per day. The net detention time within the head of the Bay itself
is in the order of 6 tidal cycles or approximately 3 days under average
flow conditions (Ketchum, 1950). This detention is consistent with
the reported 7 day travel time from the Raritan River confluence to
Conaskonk Point (WHOI, 1949) and the estimated overall flushing time
of 32-42 tidal cycles or 16-21 days for the entire Bay System (Jeffries,
1962). East of the Conaskonk Point-Point Comfort area, the bay widens
and deepens markedly enough to allow greater mixture of the Raritan
River influent with large volumes of the diverted Hudson River-Lower
Bay water masses. Most of this mixture finds its way seaward around
Sandy Hook, however, at certain times some of this volume is likely
dispersed back into the Raritan Bay System along with the indraft along
the Staten Island shoreline.
The hydrodynamics of Sandy Hook Bay have not yet been adequately
defined, however, there are indications that no waters diluted by the
Raritan River flow directly into Sandy Hook Bay after rounding Point
Comfort. It is quite likely that the effect of the Raritan influent
on this portion of the System is governed largely by dispersion mechanisms
dependent on wind and tidally induced parameters. Measurements within
the Bay itself reveal only weak and variable direction currents not
specifically correlated with the larger scale tidal oscillations of
the Raritan-Lower Bay System. There is evidence that a steady north-
ward drift occurs along the west shore of Sandy Hook - a result un-
doubtedly of the influence of the Navesink influent on this portion
of the Bay. It is likely that a small scale counterclockwise gyre similar
to the larger pattern exhibited in the Bay proper exists in this sector
-4-
-------
of Sandy Hook Bay due to the Navesink influent and possible Coriolis
effects. Past studies concerned with the hydraulics of the Raritan
Bay System indicate that, in general, Sandy Hook Bay itself, is a
relatively stagnant portion of the System which is largely unaffected
by the general hydraulic patterns prevalent in the central Bay area.
Along the traverse extending from Sandy Hook to Norton Point,
it has been noted that ebb tides are generally stronger and flow
somewhat longer than the flood tides - an observation which is con-
sistent with the general Hudson seaward drift along Ambrose Channel.
Tidal velocities and the attendant dispersion characterics are greater
along this interface than in any other area of the Bay with the ex-
ception of the Verrazano Narrows. Average and peak tidal velocities
along this interface are in the order of 1.7 and 4.2 fps, respectively,
(U.S.G.S. Current Charts, 1956) as compared to an average tidal
velocity throughout the Raritan Bay System of 0.8 fps(Hydroscience,
1968). It should be noted that, with the exception of this turbulent
outer boundary area, the tidal velocities and tidal range generally
increase as the Bay System narrows toward the western end; the maximum
velocity readings being 1.0 fps off Point Comfort, 1.5 fps at Great
Beds Channel, and 2.5 fps in the lower Raritan River (WHOI, 1949).
Conversely, tidal velocities have been observed to generally decrease
along nearshore areas due to extensive shoaling and are frequently so
weak(less than 1/6 knot) that the direction of tidal flow becomes more
variable. This phenomena is particularly true in the western end of
the Bay where intertidal reverses and resultant eddies often retard
exchange of water over the shoals along the south shore. The pattern
of circulation in the Lower Bay-New York Bight boundary vicinity has not
been specifically defined, however, salinity profiles indicate that
less saline water leaves the Bay System close around Sandy Hook while
that from the Hudson River flows out along Ambrose Channel. Higher
salinity waters occupy the central region of this coastal boundary
indicating generally lesser freshwater extrusion in this area than
across the Ambrose Channel-Sandy Hook sectors.
In summary, the Raritan Bay System may be considered a wide, generally
shallow, estuarine system dependent largely upon the influence of the
widely dispersed source water inputs and the complex interaction of
its tributary channels, variable wind patterns, and independent hydraulic
parameters governed by tidal phenomena. It is characteristic in
that saline waters generally penetrate further upstream along the
right shore(looking upstream) than along the southern end of the Bay-
-a phenomena which is frequently observed in northern hemisphere
estuaries.* Yet it is unique in that, although it is a predominantly
dispersive system, it exhibits both large and small scale circular
water movements which at times tend to prevent the intrusion into or
entrap pollutants within certain areas of the Bay. Thus, the joint
consideration of outfall siting and Bay hydrodynamics is of paramount
importance if the protection and enhancement of Raritan Bay water
quality is to be achieved.
*This description also applies but is reversed in southern hemisphere
estuaries. (Ketchum, 1951).
-5-
-------
Existing Waste Sources
At the present time there are a total of twenty-three(23) known
point waste sources which discharge to the Raritan Bay System. Fourteen(14)
of those sources are located in New Jersey, predominantly along the
south shore of the Bay, while the remaining(9) are located in Staten
Island, N.Y.. There are twenty-one(21) municipal wastewater discharges
to the Raritan Bay System which constitute the major point sources
in the study area. The two(2) industrial sources, International
Flavors and Fragrances and S.S. White, Inc., represent only minor
discharges relative to the larger municipal sources. The ten(10)
largest wastewater discharges to the Raritan Bay System and pertinent
discharge characteristics have been listed for reference in Table 1.
The location and magnitude of each has also been included in Fig. 2.
All other point sources to the System have been excluded from the
model analysis due largely to their relatively insignificant flows
or organic loadings.
The effluent data which was assembled for each particular dis-
charger was obtained from a number of independent sources thereby
assuring more accurate and reliable estimates. The major data
sources utilized are listed as follows: 1) the EPA STORET system,
2) Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) Annual Reports, 3) the
South Raritan Bay Interim Basin Plan (prepared by the New Jersey
State Department of Environmental Protection), 4) Raritan Bay
Project results (FWPCA, 1968), and 5) Refuse Act Permit Program
files.
The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority(MCSA) discharge represents
by far the largest point source discharge within the Raritan Bay
System. The estimated present discharge of 240,000 #/day BOD^ and
405,000 ///day ultimate oxygen demand (UOD) account for approximately
90.4% and 89.4% of the total load of each respective constituent
discharged to the Bay from all known point sources. The actual
MCSA discharge site is located approximately 1000 feet south of
Great Beds Light in the western end of the Bay and is unique in that
a dredged dispersion basin has been provided to a depth of 35 feet
in an otherwise shallow region of the Bay which averages about 9.0
ft. mean sea level(MSL) depth. This source, in conjunction with
the second major point source, the City of Perth Amboy, represents
over 96% of the total BOD5 loading to the Raritan Bay System from
all identified municipal and industrial sources.
The majority of the existing municipal discharges to the Bay
receive only primary treatment with the two(2) exceptions being the
Oakwood Beach facility (secondary) and the Tottenville, S.I.
discharges (untreated).
Finally, it should be noted that the two(2) largest waste(UOD)
sources in the Bay System are discharge to the western end of the
Bay in an area with very limited capacity to assimilate any waste-
water discharges due to the poor hydrodynamic, physical and flushing
characteristics which are unique to the portion of the Bay. The
-6-
-------
TABLE 1.
Existing Municipal Waste Sources
Raritan Bay System
Trt.
Level
Waste Source
1) Middlesex Co. S.A. Pri
2) Perth Amboy Pri
3) Oakwood Beach Sec
4) Keansburg Pri
5) South Amboy Pri
6) Keyport Pri
7) Highlands Pri
8) Atlantic Highlands Pri
9) Sayreville-Morgan Pri
10) Madison Twsp. Pri
Total
Flow (MGD) ±1
Design Actual
72.0 72.0
10.0 6.0
15.0 13.0
5.0 2.0
1.0 0.9
2.9 0.7
1.2 .4
0.6 .3
0.3 .15
1.4 0.6
97.05
Effluent Loadings (#/day)
BOD5 I/ NH3 I/ UOD I/ Chlorides U
240,000
(400)
17,300
(290)
3,800
(35)
1,200
(72)
1,580
(210)
585
(100)
500
(150)
292
(117)
268
(214.
584
(117)
266,109
9950
(16.6)
1000
(20)
1190
(11)
125
(7.5)
225
(30)
82
(14)
91
(27)
29.
(11.7)
49.
) (39.)
125
12,866
405,000.
26,100.
11,050.
2,363.
3,377.
1,244.
1,160.
568.
622.
1437
452,921
174,960
(292)
4670
(90)
34,690
(320)
2,670
(160)
450
(60)
584
(100)
218,024
Pri = Primary Treatment
Sec = Secondary Treatment
\J = Flow data from Raritan Bay-South Shore Interim Basin Plan and Interstate Sanitation
Commission Annual Report (1971).
2/ = BOD5, NH3 and Chloride data from STORET system.
3/ - Ultimate Oxygen demand from Equation: UOD = 1.5 BOD5 + 4.5
( ) = effluent concentrations in mg/1
-------
analyses presented in later sections of this report will investigate
to a greater extent the significance of these phenomena with respect
to the site selection for the MCSA outfall.
-7-
-------
III. Mathematical Model Theory and Derivation*
The technique used to evaluate the steady-state or tidally averaged
distribution of water quality constituents in Raritan Bay is a special
finite difference approximation to the ordinary differential equations
describing the conservation of mass in an estuary(Hydroscience, 1970).
The natural water system, in this case, the Raritan Bay System, is
subdivided into a number of individual finite water parcels which
are considered to be completely mixed but inter-dependent water bodies
(Fig. 3). No gradients are permitted within any individual segment.
A steady-state mass balance is then formulated around each of these
interconnected segments which results in a set of differential equations,
which are then solved simultaneously using a Gauss-Seidel elimination
technique.
The actual vehicle for applying this technique is a digital model
(EPA, 1973) adapted from a program developed originally by the afore-
mentioned consultant. Although a detailed description of the program
and the underlying theory are beyond the scope of this report, a
brief discussion of the theory has been included for reference and
background information.
One-Dimensional Analysis (Steady-State)
In the one-dimensional analysis, a length of estuary is subdivided
into n sections, each of which are assumed to approximate completely
mixed volumes(Fig. T-l). In the segmentation scheme, the numerical
designation is
1
2
i-1
i
i+1
n-1
n
Figure T-l.
usually started at the upstream end of the system and ascends towards
the ocean boundary. For the particular model utilized in the analysis,
a mass balance for each of the individual segments is written as follows:
Vide = Qi-l,i
+E'
•'i-l
- K.V.C. +W.
1=1,2.
(T-l)
^condensed from Estuarine Modelling An Assessment, prepared for the
EPA Water Quality Office by Tracer, Inc., 1971.
-------
where
V± = volume of segment i
Eij = Eij Aij/((Li+LJ )/2)= bulk dispersion coefficient between section
i and j .
<^ij = finite difference weight, a function of the ratio of flow to
dispersion.
Bij = *ii -1
Q. • = net nontidal flow from segment i to segment j .
C^ = concentration of pollutant constituent in segment i.
K£ = first order reaction coefficient in segment i for water quality
constituent, C
A.. = cross-sectional area between segments i and j.
L-j^ = characteristic legnth of segment i.
W-j_ = source or sink of water quality constituent C.
n = total number of segments.
The first two terms on the righthand side of Equation (T-l) represent
the mass of constituent c entering (from segment i-1) and leaving (to
segment i+1) due to advective or non-tidal transport. Elements three
and four in the equation indicate that portion of the constituent c
dispersed into or out of segment i due to existing concentrations of
the constituent in adjoining segments i-1 and i+1 and the longitudinal
mixing provided by the semi-diurnal tidal reverses. Term five in the
equation represents the loss of constituent c due either to decay and/or
physical sedimentation as incorporated in the first order decay coefficient,
K^; The sixth and final term includes all other sources or sinks of
constituent c within section i.
If all terms containing items c±-^, c^ or c^+^ in Equation (1) are
grouped on the left side the general equation
Ai i-1 Ci -1 + Aii Ci + Ai, i+1 Ci+l = Wi (T'2)
results, where the parameter, a, has the dimensions (Lr/T) and is a function
of V, Q, E, K and A . A total of n equations of this type may be written for
the system and can be used to construct a matrix of the form
(A) (c) = (W) (T-3)
where A is an n x n matrix consisting entirely of system parameters
defining both the physical and hydraulic nature of the particular estuary
under analysis. Matrix (W) is an n x 1 matrix representing specific
sources (waste inputs) and sinks within the individual segments. The
response matrix (c) represents the projected steady-state instream
concentrations of constituent c in each segment. The solution for
the response matrix (c) is thus reduced to the solution of n
simultaneous equations which may be represented as follows:
(c) = (A) (W) (T-4)
-9-
-------
The matrix (A) has a particular form for the one-dimensional
estuary. This form is known as a tri-diagonal matrix where only the
main diagonal and the diagonals above and below the main diagonal
appear in the matrix. All other elements are zero. This is a
feature which permits special efficient computing programs for de-
termination of the inverse of matrix (A) . One can of course use
other methods of solution for simultaneous equations to obtain the
concentrations in each section.
The inverse matrix (A) is termed a steady-state response matrix
and represents the responses in c due to the discharge of material of a
unit amount into each section. This can be seen by
(A) (c) = (I)
(c) = (A)-1 (I)
(T-5)
(T-6)
where (I) is the identity matrix and (c) is now an n x n matrix. The
first column of (c) then represents the response over all sections due
to a unit steady input into the first section; the second column of <.(c)
represents the response over all sections due to a unit steady input into
the second section, and so on.
For two-stage consecutive reactions, as in the case of carbonaceous
BOD-DO, a similar procedure is followed. A matrix (B) is generated; the
only difference between (A) and (B) is the reaction coefficients on the
main diagonal. Thus, if D stand for DO deficit and L for BOD, the
matrix equation for DO is
(B) (D) = (S)
(T-7)
where (S) is the vector or sources and sinks. If only the BOD sink of
DO is considered then
(B) (D) = (VKdL) (T-8)
where K, is the deoxygenation coefficient. Multiplying by (B) gives
(D) =
(VKdL)
where Kd is the deoxygenation coefficient. Multiplying by
'1
But since
then
(D) = (B)' (VKdL)
(L) = (A)'1 (W)
(D) =
(VKD) (A)'1 (W)
(T-9)
~^ gives
(T-10)
(T_n)
(T-12)
where (VKd) is an n x n diagonal matrix. Equation (T-7) indicates the
method of solution for two stage consecutive reactions.
-10-
-------
Two Dimensional Analysis (Steady-State)
The steady-state mass balance equation for single-stage non-
conservative substances in two dimensions is given by
= 0 =
(-vc)
f-i (E
£ x ,
- K (X,Y)c
(T-13)
where u and v are the velocities in the x- and y- direction and similarly
E^ and E^ are the tidal dispersion coefficients in the x- and y- direction.
These two directions can be interpreted in terms of either the horizontal
plane (x - length, y - width) or the vertical plane (x - length, y - depth)
General analytical solutions of Equation (T-13) for arbitrary coefficients
are not available. Hence, in water quality modeling, a finite section
approach can be used.
One approach to solving Equation (T-13) is to utilize the notion of
a sequence of completely mixed sections discussed in terms of the one-
dimensional estuary previously. For the multi-dimensional steady-state
case, a mass balance around a finite section is surrounded by segment j
is given as shown in Figure T-2.
V, dc = 0 =
k dT
Fig. T-2; -Segmentation in two dimensions.
Qk.^k.ck +8k.C.H E'k.(C.-Ck))
-V
kKk
K=l,2 n
(T-14)
where all terms have been defined previously and the summation extends over
all j segments bordering on segment k. This equation also results from
a formal finite-difference approximation to Equation T-13 with a variable
weight given to the advective term. If all terms involving the dependent
variable ck are grouped on the left hand side, one obtains
akCk+Iak.C. = Wk±IK
k..
-11-
-------
where
A = Z(A . c< + E' ) + V K
kk
kj
k k
. = 0 & - E'
kj kj kj
(T-15)
The flow convention is positive leaving the section. Note that
and
For sections on a boundary where the flow between the boundary and the
section is designated Q^j, (positive leaving the section),
A, , = I. (Q, . K + E' ) V K, + Q «K
kk 1 kj j kj k k kk kk
and the forcing function is
Wk = Wk + (E'kk - QL,.*, ,,u) C,
tv t\. IS. IV
,
kk
+ Ef. . (T-16)
(T-17)
where CB is the boundary concentration. For Qkk entering the section from
the boundary (negative),
kk
i (Qkj
E'kj) + K
kk+E'kk
and
= Wk + (E1
kk
(T-19)
The n equation with suitable incorporation of boundary conditions can
be represented in matrix form as
A A A
11 12 In
A A A
A21 22 2n
A. Ao A
nl nZ nn
x
C.
1
c
2
,
I n.
[w 1
1
w ,
2
W
- n
or
A (c) = (W)
-12-
-------
where (A) is an n x n matrix of known coefficients that depends on the system
parameters. For most applications, a relatively large number of the
elements of (A) are zero. The multi-dimensional matrix can be com-
pared to the tri-diagonal form for one-dimensional estuaries.
As indicated for both the one- and two-dimensional estuarine
analysis, the steady-state solution of a natural water system response
to a specific discharge(s) ultimately reduces to the solution of
n simultaneous equations each of which represents the mass transport
into and out of each respective segment. The actual solution technique
may involve a simultaneous equation solution procedure, as in this
case, or any number of other matrix inversion routines. The advantage
of the matrix inversion routine, however, lies in the fact that a
reference matrix (Eq. T-6) may be formulated for subsequent analyses
on the water system without the requirement of further computer runs.
The results which are obtained for specific water quality constituents
from this approach represent tidally averaged concentrations which can
be expected after the system has reached a condition of dynamic(steady-
state) equilibrium. The range of fluctuations about the projected values
obtained by this teclinique thus depend largely upon the nature of the
existing tidal hydraulics and related phenomena.
-13-
-------
IV. Model Application to the Raritan Bay System
Any natural water system may be viewed as a unique mathematical
system consisting of a specific combination or array of complex inter-
acting subsystems, each of which exhibits singular geometric, hydrodynamic
and kinetic properties. The physical response of the system to a particular
pollutant discharge may be described by a set of differential equations
which represent the individual properties of each subsystem and its
effect on adjoining segments.
The purpose of a mathematical model of a natural water system is thus
to reproduce observed natural phenomena of particular significance through
the application of mathematical techniques on a segment by segment basis.
In the finite difference approach used in the analysis of the Raritan
Bay System the initial procedure consisted of the development of an
adequate segmentation scheme based upon known wastewater input locations,
geometric, hydraulic and circulation factors. The Raritan System, like
many natural estuaries, may be segmented into an arbitrary number of
discrete segments in which there are no steep pollutant concentration
gradients and in which the pollutant levels may be considered uni-
form, i.e., the segment are assumed to approximate completely mixed
water volumes. Inherent in this approach is the added assumption
of vertical homogeneity or the absence of any vertical stratification
of the water quality constituent being modeled.
The general counterclockwise circulation patterns existing within
the Raritan Bay System and discussed in the Hydrology section of this
report form the basis for the resultant Raritan Bay System segmentation
(Fig. 3.). A priori knowledge and quantification of the specific
flow routing due to the Raritan and Hudson River influences was
provided largely through past research performed by the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) (1949), Ketchum (1951), Jeffries
(1962), and through reference to U.S.G.S. Current Charts (1956).
Small scale adjustments to the 50 segment scheme were subsequently
based upon known physical data concerning specific wastewater
inputs, shoal and channel locations and probable dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) sources and sinks. The final grid pattern generally con-
sists of smaller segments near the western end of the Bay where
the major waste inputs are located and where water quality
conditions are usually more critical. The segmentation thus allows
greater definition of specific pollutant distributions in this
area of concern and precludes the possibility of excess concentration
gradients within individual sections. Segments located west of
the Raritan Bay-Lower Bay boundary line at Point Comfort are
generally smaller than 1.5 square miles in surface area while in
the Lower Bay and Sandy Hook Bay the segmentation consists of
larger sections as a result of the smaller observed pollutant
gradients, the lesser definition of specific flow paths, and the
absence of any significant point waste sources.
The primary mass(pollutant) transport mechanisms within the Raritan
-14-
-------
Bay System are the freshwater flushings due to the various natural and
artificial water sources and the dispersive mixing provided by the
semi-diurnal tidal oscillations.
The dispersive transports utilized in the model verification and
subsequent water quality projections are represented by appropriate co-
efficients which have been assigned to each of the model interfaces as
indicated in Figure 4. In many natural estuarine systems, lateral dis-
persion, as indicated by these coefficients, are usually on the order
of 1/2 to 1/10 the longitudinal coefficients. However, in the Raritan
Bay System these parameters were found to be generally of the same order
due largely to the two-dimensional nature of the large scale circulation
patterns and the effects of the many smaller eddy formations. Initial
estimates of these coefficients were provided by tidal current charts
and the empirical Four-Thirds Law relating this parameter to peak tidal
velocities. More accurate estimates of this dispersion coefficients
were subsequently provided by utilization of the salinity profiles ob-
served throughout the Bay as described in later sections of this report.
Although of much lesser significance than the dispersion transport
in Raritan Bay, the freshwater(advective) transport was also considered
in the study. River and sewage treatment plant flows were routed from
point of entry to ocean boundaries along routes indicated by general
circulation patterns mentioned in past field studies. Some consideration
was given to the probability of advection along major shipping channels
and deeper portions of the system, however, the primary excursion routes
for the advective paths was assumed to be along preassigned circulatory
channels and/or other direct routes to the ocean. Wastewater effluent
flows were determined largely from Interstate Sanitation Commission(ISC)
and STORET data while river flows were obtained from U.S. Geological
Survey (U.S.G.S.) stations in the Raritan Basin, e.g., Raritan River
at Kisco Dam, South River at Old Bridge, and on Lawrence Brook at
Farrington Dam, and were extrapolated to the mouth of the Raritan River
at Perth Amboy. The resultant flow-frequency graph at this location
has been included for reference in Figure 5.
All physical data pertinent to the individual segments within
the system, e.g., mean sea level (MSL) depths, section volumes,
interfacial areas, characteristic lengths, etc., was obtained from
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map No. 369-SC (New York Harbor, 1971).
Steady-State Model Verification
The major test for the validation of a particular model, its
mathematical technique(s), the underlying assumptions, and the specific
physical-hydraulic parameters employed consists of the verification or
comparison of calculated water quality responses to actual observed
data. Throughout the discussion of the model application to the Raritan
System, it was assumed that the system parameters, e.g., dispersion co-
efficients, flow routing and quantification, etc., were known a priori
values. Yet, in many cases, the means to allow more precise specification
-15-
-------
of these parameters were not available. The order of magnitude of many
of the system and input(waste load) parameters was known only through
either past research, empirical correlations or independent analyses
designed specifically for the determination of a particular unknown.
Consequently, past survey data indicating average salinity profiles was
utilized to more accurately define the specific dispersive properties of
the Bay, while existing dissolved oxygen data allowed verification of
the DO sources and sinks throughout the system.
Salinity Verification
In order to verify the transport mechanisms inherent in the model, a
conservative(non-degradable) constituent is often traced from a known source
location as it is advected and/or dispersed throughout the system.
Tracer dyes, e.g., Rhodamine B, are often utilized for this purpose, how-
ever, in the absence of such artificial sources, salinity(or chloride)
is the most common constituent traced. The basic assumption behind this
selection is that the identical transport mechanisms will operate on
discharged pollutants as on chlorides introduced to the system through
ocean boundaries or known point sources.
The period selected for the chloride verification of the Raritan Bay
System extended over the months of August and September for the ten(10)
year interval from 1962 to 1972. Mean chloride data was obtained from the
STORET system for all stations within the Bay at which more than 10
samples were available. The chloride data and pertinent standard deviations
at each station are plotted for reference in Figure 7. It should be noted
that, in general, the standard deviations shown are greater at stations
in the lower Raritan River, Arthur Kill and lower Hudson area, where tidal
ranges are usually more severe and where advective(freshwater) effects
have not yet been dampened.
The major chloride sources in the Bay range from the 175,000 ///day
discharged by MCSA to the relatively insignificant loads contributed by
the Highlands and Atlantic Highlands facilities. Data pertinent to all
other point chloride sources was obtained from STORET surveys and has been
included in the aforementioned Table 1.
In order to compute the chloride concentrations within the model, the
chlorinity was specified for all boundaries within the system. Along the
coastal traverse, these values range from 15.20% at segment 4 to 15.65%
at segment 3. The chloride concentrations established for the Raritan
River and Arthur Kill boundaries were 13.00% and 13.70% respectively.
All chloride boundary condition concentrations were based upon ob-
served 10-year mean summer values as were the freshwater(advective)
input flows.
The major freshwater source to the western end of the Bay -
the Raritan River flow - was determined from U.S.G.S. records over the
survey interval. The 500 cfs used approximates this 10-year mean August-
September flow. The subsequent flow routing was established on the
basis of the aforementioned criteria and has been indicated on Figure
-16-
-------
The calculated 10-year mean chloride profiles have been superimposed
on the August-September chloride values observed over the same time period
to allow comparison(Fig. 7). "Goodness of fit" between the observed and
calculated chloride values was evaluated by the application of two(2)
statistical analysis routines: 1) a Student's 't' test was performed
at each station to determine the 95% confidence limits around observed
values and 2) the mean standard deviation of all observed values was
obtained from the STORE! system. The calculated chloride contours
(isoclors) fell well within the range of predictions permissible under
each of these statistical analyses.
Dissolved Oxygen Verification
Past water quality surveys in the Raritan Bay System have indicated
specific regions wherein present water quality standards, as mandated by
the New Jersey State TW-1 classification and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission (ISC) 'A1 classification, are being contravened. Most notably,
the minimum required DO levels of 4.0 mg/1 (New Jersey State) and 5.0 mg/1
(ISC) are both being contravened in the western end of the Bay in the
vicinity of the MCSA discharge, and also in the Arthur Kill and the tidal
stretch of the Raritan River. As such, the DO analysis included in
this report is limited largely to that portion of the Bay System which
is located west of Point Comfort with the exception of the discussion
of boundary condition influences.
The instream DO levels in the Bay area are an important index of
water quality conditions in that certain minimum concentrations of this
constituent are necessary for the survival of many aquatic organisms.
The major sources and sinks of DO in the Raritan Bay System are car-
bonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demands, benthic uptake from organic
sediments, photosynthetic production and respiration and atmospheric
rearation. General background on each of these parameters and their
particular significance and quantification in the Raritan Bay System
are discussed below.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand:
When wastewater is discharged into a stream or estuary, the
decomposable organic matter becomes food supply for the living organisms
in the aquatic environment. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of an
effluent is a measure of the oxygen consumed when specific micro-
organisms utilize this organic matter as food and convert the more
complex compounds into simpler products.
There are two stages of BOD; the first being due to carbonaceous. BOD
and the second due to nitrogenous oxidation demand(NOD). The rate
at which oxygen is utilized during both of these processes is dependent
upon instream temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, and ph among
other parameters. Both decomposition kinetics are aerobic, although
different individual species are responsible for each.
-17-
-------
The 5-day BOD concentrations for the three(3) major discharges in
the Raritan Bay System - MCSA, Perth Amboy and Oakwood Beach - were
obtained from the STORE! system for the DO verification period of
July 12-22, 1971. These values were 400, 290, and 35 mg/1 which
represent 240,000, 17,300 and 3800 ///day BOD5, respectively. The
corresponding NOD contributions due to these three(3) major discharges
over this interval as determined from the STORET data were 44,800,
4500 and 5350 #/day, respectively. More detailed information concerning
these and all other significant discharges to the Raritan Bay System
has been included for reference in Table 1. The BOD decay(removal)
rate for all segments in the Bay was assumed to be 0.25 day"
at 20°C. This rate, however, was altered within the program due to
varying temperatures recorded throughout the Bay over the verification
period. The relationship utilized
T-70
KR = 0.25 x (1.04)1
where T is the temperature (°C) which results in decay rates (K^)
ranging from 0.255 day"-*- to 0.288 day"-'-. Implicit in the model analysis
was the assumption that the NOD decay rate was identical to the
carbonaceous rates and thus both deoxygenation processes occurred
simultaneously.
The temperatures utilized for the DO verification were those
recorded by the July 12-22, 1971 ISC survey, however, 10-year mean
August-September values were applied for the subsequent DO projections
for the design year 2020.
Photosynthetic Sources:
It was observed that during the July, 1971 DO verification survey
supersaturation of dissolved oxygen occurred in certain areas of the
Bay, especially in the Sandy Hook Bay area where average DO values were
on the order of 9.44 mg/1 and 9.16 mg/1 at two(2) particular stations
(Fig. 9). Specific analyses to determine the extent of this phenomena
(FWPCA, 1969) at two(2) stations near the head of the Bay recorded a
net 02 production of approximately 2.0 ing/I/day in the upper 9 feet
of water. To account for this phenomena, an average dissolved oxygen
source was added to various segments in the western end of the Bay in the
Conaskonk Point-Point Comfort vicinity. Net values of 1.6 mg/l/day
in Keansburg Harbor(section 48), 0.9 mg/l/day in Keyport Harbor(sections
27 and 28) and 0.10 mg/l/day in the deeper central area(sections 18,
19, 20, 23, and 47) were incorporated into the model to account for
photosynthetic effects. No photosynthetic sources were included for
the extreme western Bay area due to the suppressant effects of the
generally more turbid water, probable toxicity from Arthur Kill dis-
charges and the greater observed zoo-plankton respiratory rates which
would tend to offset any net Q£ production.
-18-
-------
Benthal Oxygen Demands:
Sludge deposits are present in the western end of the Bay especially
in adjacent embayments and are due largely to the relatively high levels
suspended matter discharged by the treatment facilities located in this
region. Although there are no estimates of the magnitude of the
oxygen demand represented by these benthal deposits, it is possible
that a significant portion of this uptake has been suppressed by toxic
substances originating from the Arthur Kill and subsequently settling
in the more shallow and quiescient areas of this inner Bay region.
For the purpose of this analysis the benthic sinks were assumed to be
zero in all segments of the inner Bay region.
Atmospheric Rearation:
Aside from photosynthetic oxygen production, the only remaining
oxygen source in the inner Bay area is due to atmospheric rearation.
The rate of this rearation is directly proportional to the DO deficit,
the instream temperature and the turbulence of the water and is inversely
proportional to the depth of the water body. The value of the rearation
coefficient(K^) for Raritan Bay ranges from 0.3 day"^ near the
mouth of the Raritan River to 0.1 day" at the Raritan Bay-Lower Bay
boundary at Point Comfort (Hydroscience, 1968). Accordingly, the
rearation coefficient was set at 0.20 day" for all segments within
the inner Bay area. The temperature correction applied to this co-
efficient by means of the equation
KA
0.20 x 1.025(T 20)
where T is the temperature (°C) results in rearation rates ranging from
0.208 day"-'- to 0.212 day"-1- throughout the area of concern.
Verification Procedure:
The period chosen for verification of the calculated dissolved
oxygen profiles was July 12-22, 1971. The joint ISC - New Jersey State
survey undertaken over this period provided the dissolved oxygen
data presented in Figure 9. Fifteen(15) sampling stations were selected
for surveillance on eight(8) days within the 11 day period. Two(2)
samples were collected daily at stations 1 through 8 and three(3) daily
samples were collected at stations 9 through 15, thereby providing
sixteen(16) and twenty-four(24) samples at each of these respective
sets of sample stations.
The BOD and DO deficit boundary conditions set for the July, 1971
survey period were based on 10-year August-September mean water quality
conditions observed at stations closest to each specific boundary and
are as follows:
-19-
-------
Segment BOD (mg/1) DO deficit (mg/1)
1 2.28 3.20
7 2.26 4.75
50 2.26 3.90
The BOD and DO deficit concentrations at the coastal interfaces between
Sandy Hook and Norton Point and at the Shrewsbury-Navesink interface were
assumed to be zero.
The Raritan River flow of 250 cfs over the survey period was determined
from U.S.G.S. data and extrapolated on a flow per unit drainage area basis to
the mouth of the Raritan at Perth Amboy in the same procedure utilized in the
preparation of Figure 5. The subsequent flow routing represented in Figure 8.
was established largely on the basis of past hydrologic studies discussed in
earlier sections of this report with additional reference to STORET records for
pertinent treatment plant flows at that particular time.
The distribution of dissolved oxygen throughout the critical inner Bay
area (west of Point Comfort) was calculated for the July, 1971 survey period
on the basis of the aforementioned assumptions and by utilizing the parameters
discussed. The individual DO profiles have been plotted along with the
observed DO values from the joint survey to permit comparison (Fig. 10).
Application of the Students 't' 95% confidence limits and standard
deviation comparison tests, as was performed on the calculated chloride
profiles, indicated that the agreement between the calculated and observed
isopleths represents adequate simulation of the dissolved oxygen kinetics
and distribution throughout the western Bay area.
Effect of Individual Waste Sources
A number of additional DO analyses were performed to assess the effect of
individual waste sources on instream DO distributions and thereby allow more
adequate evaluation of future abatement proposals. The particular analyses
undertaken were based upon the July, 1971 survey period and concerned the
individual DO deficit response due to each of the following specific waste
inputs:
a. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority alone
b. Boundary effects.
The DO deficits resulting from each of these particular waste sources during
the July, 1971 survey have been plotted for reference on Figures 11, and 12.
In both cases, the 250 cfs Raritan River flow routing (Fig. 8) and
background photosynthetic effects were assumed constant.
-20-
-------
V. Effect of Alternate Abatement Measures
Based upon the hydrodynamic characteristics of the Bay which were
substantiated by the salinity verification and the dissolved oxygen kinetic
parameters which were provided by the DO verification, it is now possible
to determine the effects of any number of alternate abatement proposals,
including outfall relocation, higher degrees of treatment and multiple
dischrge points. The specific alternatives considered were all
evaluated on the basis of year 2020 wastewater flows and the estimated
140 cfs Raritan River average daily flow which is exceeded 95% of the
time (Fig. 5). All other parameters, e.g., benthal demand, photo-
synthetic production, etc, were assumed to remain constant, however,
the flow routing was adjusted accordingly for each particular analysis.
MCSA Discharge at Existing Outfall Site
The estimated wastewater discharge from the MCSA facility utilized
in the 2020 analysis was 140 mgd(372 cfs) which represents, after
the proposed UNOX secondary treatment, an ultimate oxygen demand
(UOD) equal to 350,000 ///day. This estimate is based upon an average
effluent BOD5 of 50 mg/1 and ammonia(NH3) concentration of 20 mg/1 as
indicated in the UNOX pilot plant operating data. Likewise, the Oak-
wood Beach, S.I. facility will contribute a UOD equal to 34,000 #/day
based upon a design capacity of 40 mgd and effluent BOD^ and NH^ con-
centrations of 35 and 11 mg/1, respectively. All other existing
point waste sources with the exception of the Oakwood Beach discharge
are assumed to be serviced by either MCSA or by the Bayshore Regional
Outfall Authority and, as such, are not included in the analysis.
Future boundary conditions for BOD^ and DO deficit are identical to
those utilized in the DO verification analysis for the summer of 1971.
The flow routing established for the Raritan River drought flow of
140 cfs which is used for the analysis is indicated in Figure 13.
Reference to the anticipated DO distribution for the inner Bay area
(Fig. 14) indicates that the 4.0 mg/1 DO criteria (NJS) will be contra-
vened in the extreme western sector of the Bay and in both the lower
Raritan River and the Arthur Kill. The larger area wherein contra-
vention of the 5.0 mg/1 criteria (ISC) can be expected extends from
the 4.0 mg/1 isopleth to a point approximately 1 mile east of the
present discharge site. These contraventions may be even more severe
if the boundary conditions at the Raritan and Arthur, Kill interfaces
worsen, if benthic sinks begin to exert a more significant deficit due
to the abatement of possible toxic suppressants from the Arthur Kill
discharges, or if the net photosynthetic oxygen production"in certain
areas of the Bay is either reduced or eliminated.
MCSA Discharge off Keyport Harbor
The specific wastewater discharges and system parameters utilized
in the analysis of the relocation of the MCSA discharge to segment 46
(at the mouth of Keyport Harbor) are identical to those employed in
the previous analysis for discharge at the present outfall site. The
-21-
-------
flow routing, however, was altered slightly to reflect the change in
outfall location and the resultant loss of advective transport in the
western end of the Bay. The calculated DO profiles (Fig. 15) indicate
a general abatement of the DO contraventions within the inner Bay area
when compared to the previous MCSA discharge analysis at the existing
site. The results indicate a minimum DO of 3.26 mg/1 in the Arthur
Kill as opposed to 3.01 mg/1 in the same segment for the present site
analysis. Both analyses indicate contravention of the 4.0 mg/1 and
5.0 mg/1 minimum DO criteria will occur, however, relocation of the out-
fall to section 46 will allow greater dispersion of the MCSA discharge
throughout the Bay and will thereby lessen the severity of its impact
on the oxygen resources in any of the more critical areas within the
System.
The particular outfall relocation analyses discussed above indicate
that the major advantage of the existing outfall site lies in the
magnitude of the tidal currents affecting the effluent plume which
have been observed to reach a peak velocity of 1.1 knots(1.96 fps).
However, the major disadvantages of the present discharge site consist
of the following items, which tend to significantly reduce the natural
assimilative capacity in this portion of the Bay:
a. the generally shallow depths (often less than 10 feet) which
inhibit initial plume dilution
b. the reduction of large scale effluent dispersion by the
proximity of the surrounding shorelines
c. The tendency for eddy and tidal effects to disperse portions
of the plume onto nearby shores and up the Raritan Estuary
and Arthur Kill where there is minimal assimilative capacity
due to natural physical constrictions and poor flushing
characteristics
d. the potential inhibition to flushing due to the effects of
the general circulation patterns exhibited further out in
the bay
e. the presence existing background oxygen demands exerted
by neighboring waste discharges, boundary condition effects
and potential benthic uptakes
In summary, the analysis presented adequately simulates present
water quality conditions and also indicates the relatively disadvantageous
nature of the western end of the Bay area for consideration as an ultimate
discharge site. The investigation into alternate outfall sites generally
demonstrates the decreasing impact of the MCSA discharge with relocation
into the central Bay area where the effluent plume will be more effectively
dispersed by the predominant circulation patterns which occur in this
area.
-22-
-------
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of this preliminary two-dimensional analysis
the following conclusion concerning the Raritan Bay System and the
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority (MCSA) discharge are presented:
1. The Raritan Bay System is a tidal waterway governed primarily
by tidal oscillations, dispersion mechanisms and the hydrodynamic
influences of the freshwater sources provided by the Raritan
River and Hudson River Basins.
2. Existing dissolved oxygen conditions in the inner Bay area
contravene the established New Jersey State (4.0 mg/1) and
Interstate Sanitation Commission (5.0 mg/1) criteria during
summer months.
3. The existing MCSA discharge is the most influential point
waste source in the Raritan Bay System and is largely re-
sponsible for the DO contraventions exhibited in the inner
Bay region.
4. Review of past hydrodynamic studies indicates that large
counterclockwise circulation pattern(s) exist in the Bay
System which tend to entrap pollutants within certain areas
of the System; the only places where non-tidal drifts clearly
remove pollution from the Raritan Bay System are around the
tip of Sandy Hook and in the main New York (Ambrose) Channel.
5. An adequate mathematical model can be developed to simulate
present water quality conditions and to allow evaluation of
alternate pollution abatement measures; through the use of
such a model the effect of individual waste sources can be
isolated to aid in the assessment of their significance and
abatement; the mathematical model developed in this analysis
adequately represents the kinetics and distribution of in-
stream DO concentrations resulting from wastewater discharges
from all known point sources to the Raritan Bay System.
6. The analysis indicates that discharge of the secondary effluent
from the MCSA treatment facility at the present outfall site
will result in contravention of both the New Jersey State (TW-1)
and ISC (Class 'A') water quality standards under the estimated
ultimate oxygen demand loading of 350,000 ///day for-the year
2020.
7. The analysis further demonstrates that, as the MCSA discharge
location is moved out into the Bay, the relocation generally
provides more effective dilution of the wastewater effluent,
more adequate utilization of the natural assimilative capacity
-23-
-------
of the Bay and results in less severe water quality conditions
in the critical inner Bay region.
8. Assuming an estimated MCSA waste loading of 350,000 #/day for
secondary treatment in the year 2020, relocation of the outfall
to a site near the mouth of Keyport Harbor(segment 46) will
result in marginal DO conditions in the inner Bay region with
respect to the New Jersey State TW-1 criteria of 4.0 mg/1.
The ISC standard of 5.0 mg/1 will be contravened throughout
the western end of the Bay. The analysis assumes no improve-
ment in boundary conditions, however, all other waste loadings
except the Oakwood Beach effluent are excluded from the analysis.
9. Under the estimated year 2020 loadings, relocation of the NCSA
outfall to the central Bay region(segment 19) will provide
general compliance with the New Jersey State minimum DO
requirement(4.0 mg/1); however, compliance with the ISC
Class 'A' standard of 5.0 mg/1 will be contingent largely
upon the improvement of boundary water quality conditions
in the lower Raritan River and Arthur Kill.
10. For the estimated year 2020 loadings, the analysis indicates that
relocation of the MCSA outfall site beyond Conaskonk Point is
required to meet the New Jersey State (TW-1) DO standard;
the required outfall length may be minimized by utilization of
the deeper waters in the central Bay area, possibly through an
interstate agreement with New York State; it is recommended,
however, that a sophisticated study program and related field
survey be undertaken to more adequately define the hydrodynamics
of this area and the impact of alternate outfall siting in this
region prior to final site selection.
The aforementioned conclusions are tentative in nature, however,
adequate simulation of the Raritan Bay System has been accomplished
through this analysis. The results obtained can be utilized to
investigate and subsequently quantify the impact of wastewater discharges
on water quality conditions in the Bay. Throughout the course of the
analysis a number of items were noted which_ deserve further investigation
in possible future studies. These areas of concern are referenced for
future consideration as follows:
1. Specific studies should be initiated to permit evaluation of
such alternate abatement measures for the MCSA discharge as:
a. outfall relocation into waters along the south shore of the
Raritan Bay System.
b. outfall relocation into the deeper central Bay region.
c. multiple discharge sites along the central axis of the Bay
System.
-24-
-------
d. advanced waste treatment in conjunction with any of the above
three (3) discharge alternatives.
2. More sophisticated analyses are desirable for the specific
investigation of hydrodynamic phenomena in the Bay System,
in general, and in the western end of the Bay, in particular.
3. Future studies should be initiated to more adequately define the
significance of both benthal oxygen demand and photosynthetic
production in the Bay during the critical summer-fall months.
4. An intensive 2-3 week study should be undertaken during late
summer state-state conditions to provide a more adequate data
base to allow more accurate salinity and DO verification over
the entire Bay System.
5. Future analyses should be performed to investigate the impact of
specific waste sources, boundary conditions and alternate abate-
ment measures on the bacterial conditions in the Bay; specific
consideration should be given to the potential for re-opening
previously condemned bathing and shellfish harvest areas.
6. Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to determine the
significance of specific hydrodynamic and kinetic parameters, eg.,
freshwater flows and routing, rearation, BOD and coliform removal
rates, dispersion coefficients, etc., with respect to resultant
instream water quality responses.
-25-
-------
BIBLOGRAPHY
Ayers, J., B. Ketchum, and A. Redfield. 1949. Report to Middlesex
County Planning Board on hydrographic considerations relative to
the location of sewer in Raritan Bay. Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst.
Ref. 49-13. 49p.
Bunce, Ronald L., and L. J. Hetling. 1966: A steady-state segmented
estuary model. Tech. Paper No. 11, FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Int.,
Mid. Atl. Reg., Charlottsville, Va.
DiToro, D. M., D. J. O'Connor, and R. V. Thomann. 1970: A dynamic model
of phytoplankton populations in natural waters. Env. Eng. & Sci. Prog.,
Manhattan College, Bronx, N.Y. June, 1970.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1967. Proceedings of
the conference on the pollution of Raritan Bay and adjacent interstate
waters. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 3v.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969. Pollution control
in the Raritan Bay area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 34p.
Hydroscience. 1968. The influence of waste discharges on water quality
in Raritan Bay. Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, N.J. 40p.
Hydroscience. 1970. Interim report, development of water quality model
Boston Harbor: prepared for Mass. Water Resources Commission. Hydroscience,
Inc., Westwood, N.J. 173p.
Hydroscience. 1968. Mathematical Models for Water Quality for the
Hudson - Champlain and Metropolitan Coastal Water Pollution Control
Project: prepared for Fed. Water Poll. Control Admin, by Hydroscience,
Inc., Leonia, N.J. 344p.
Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1971. Report of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission on the water pollution control activities and
the interstate air pollution control program. ISC, New York, N.Y.
77 + p.
f
Jeffries, H. P- 1959. The plankton biology of Raritan Bay. Ph.D. Thesis.
Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, N.J. 180p.
Jeffries, H. P. 1962. Environmental characteristics of Raritan Bay, a
polluted estuary. Limnol. and Oceanog. 7:21-31.
Ketchum, B. 1950. Hydrographic factors involved in the dispersion of
pollutants introduced into tidal waters. Boston Soc. of Civil Eng.
p. 296-313.
-26-
-------
BIBLOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Ketchum, B. 1951. The exchanges of fresh and salt waters in tidal
estuaries. Journal of Marine Research 10(1): 18-35.
Metcalf & Eddy. October 1972. Material submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (unpublished). Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./Engineers, New York,
N.Y. n.p.
O'Connor, D. J., 1960. Oxygen balance of an estuary. Proc. ASCE,
816, No. SA 3 (May), p. 35-55.
O'Connor, D.J., 1965. Estuarine distribution of non-conservative
substances. Jour. San. Engr. Div., ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SAi, p. 23-42.
O'Connor, D. J., 1967. Reactions in Stream and Estuarine Analysis -
Notes for Manhattan College Summer Institute in Water Pollution Control,
Manhattan College, Bronx, N.Y.
O'Connor, D. J. and Mancini, J. L.. 1972. Water quality analysis of
the New York Harbor complex. Journal WPCF, Vol 44, No. 11, p. 2129-2139.
Patten, B. C. 1961. Plankton energetics of Raritan Bay. Limnol. and
Oceanog. 6:369-87.
Patten, B. C. 1962. Species diversity in net phytoplankton of Raritan
Bay. Journal of Marine Research. 20:57-75.
Raytheon Company. 1972. An ecological survey of the Arthur Kill. Raytheon
Co., Environmental System Center, Environmental Research Laboratory, n.p.
Thomann, R. V.. 1963. Mathematical model for dissolved oxygen. Proc.
ASCE, 89, No. SA 5 (Oct.) p. 1-30.
Thomann, R. V.. 1970. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management.
Stanford, Connecticut, Environmental Sci. Serv. Pub. Co. 286p.
Thomann, R. V., D. J. O'Connor, and D. M. DiToro. 1970. Modeling of
the nitrogen and algal cycles in estuaries. Presented at 5th Int. Water
Poll. Rec. Conf., San Francisco, Calif., 1970.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1956. Tidal current chart: New York Harbor
(7th ed.).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. STORET: water quality control
information system.
-27-
-------
BIBLOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971-72. Refuse Act Permit
Program files. EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Documentation for HAROI:
A steady-state estuarine water quality computer model. EPA, Region II,
New York, N.Y.
-28-
-------
FIGURES
-------
NEW JERSEY
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
WASTE SOURCE LOCATIONS
• MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE
-[-INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE
ACTUAL FLOW (MOD)
ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND
(U.O.D.) (#/DAY x 103)
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
SYSTEM SEGMENTATION
-------
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS*
1012345
-------
PROBABILITY PLOT OF EXTRAPOLATED DAILY DISCHARGE DATA
FOR RARITAN RIVER AT ENTRANCE TO RARITAN BAY
1904-08, 45-58, 60-63
DRAINAGE AREA 1072 SQUARE MILES
10,000-
Q
z
o
LU
VJ
tt
UJ
o.
^
LU
UJ
"- 1,000-
C
^
:
^
v
>
!
\
1
\
2
)
\
0
3
\
4
0
0
5
Sy
6
0
s»
s
0
7
-
\
8
0
.
\
0
9
\
9
0
V
5
9
^
9
8
9
9«
•^
9
).e
*-^
'.9
99.
% TIME EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
Figure 5
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
FLOW ROUTING
10 YEAR AVERAGE RARITAN FLOW
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER)
RARITAN FLOW = 500 cfs
MCSA FLOW = 120 els
-------
CHLORIDE VERIFICATION
10-YEAR AVERAGE VALUES
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER)
CALCULATED VALUES -1420-
OBSERVED VALUES
AVERAGE CHLORIDE
• CONCENTRATION (%.)
• STD. DEVIATION OF DATA (%.)
-------
to
c
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
FLOW ROUTING
JULY 12-22, 1971
RARITAN FLOW = 250 cfs
MCSA FLOW = 120 cfs
D.O. VERIFICATION
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
OBSERVED D.O. DATA
JULY 12-22, 1971
STATION NUMBER
AVERAGE DISSOLVED
OXYGEN (mg/l)
MINIMUM OBSERVED
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VERIFICATION JULY 12-22, 1971
-40- = CALCULATED VALUES (MG/L)
/—'\*-~ AVERAGE VALUE (MG/L)
(-112-) = OBSERVED VALUES (MG/L)
•— MINIMUM VALUE (MG/L)
= EXISTING MCSA DISCHARGE
V1 t>0J->
-------
Kr = 0.25 DAY'1
-1.3- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT DUE TO MCSA DISCHARGE - JULY, 1971
-------
Kr = 0.25 DAY'1
-1.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT DUE TO BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS - JULY, 1971
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
FLOW ROUTING
OUTFALL DESIGN YEAR 2020
RARITAN FLOW = 140 cfs
(i 5% OF TIME)
MCSA FLOW = 372 els
-------
Kr = 0.25 DAY'1
-4.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
CALCULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION FOR MCSA DISCHARGE AT PRESENT OUTFALL SITE - YEAR 2O20
-------
Kr = 0.25 DAY'1
-4.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
CALCULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION FOR MCSA DISCHARGE OFF KEYPORT HARBOR - YEAR 2020
-------
K, = 0 25 DAY'1
-40- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
CALCULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION FOR MCSA DISCHARGE IN CENTRAL BAY AREA - YEAR 2020
-------
COMPUTER RUNS
a. Salinity Verification: 10-Year August/September Average
b. Dissolved Oxygen Verification: July, 1971
c. Outfall Relocation Projections: Year 2020
-------
RARITAN SAY TEST RUN
50 SECTION MODEL
SCALE FACTCRS — AREA E G LENGTH
1000.000 l.OCO 1.000 5280.000
EPSILON =O.CC100000 OPEGA = 1.000 FL = 1.00 MAXIT = 500
FAC(1)= 1.040 FAC(2)= 1.020 FAC(3)= 1.040 FAC(4)= 1.080
SEGMENT BCD BOUNDARY CCNCITI ON(NG/L) CC TEFICIT BCUNCARY CONDITIONING/LI
1 14860.CO 0.0
3 15650.CC 0.0
4 152CO.CO 0.0
5 15250.CC 0.0
6 13500.CO 0.0
7 13700.CO 0.0
49 15550.CO 0.0
5C 130CC.CC 0.0
-------
REVISED PARAMETER LIST
INTERFACE Q
ICFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
NEW FLOWS
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
1- 2
2- 1
?- 4
4.- 3
5- 4
6- 5
7- 33
8- 6
9- S
1.0- 4
11- 3
12- 1
13- 3
14- 11
15- 11
16- 10
17- 9
18- 17
19- 17
20- 15
21- 15
22- 21
23- 19
24- 23
25- 24
26- 19
27- 28
28- 27
29- 30
30- 29
31- 25
32- 31
33- 32
34- 32
35- 34
36- 35
37- 39
38- 29
39- 30
40- 34
41- 32
42- 31
43- 31
44- 39
45- 26
46- 26
47- 18
48- 18
49- 1
50- 35
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
15.000
0.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3500.000
0.0
1500.000
0.0
70.000
C.O
507.000
55.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.000
70.COC
55.000
C.O
0.0
-133.000
133.000
70.000
125.000
0.0
125.000
512.000
0.0
0.0
C.O
374.000
-387.000
0.0
133.000
0.0
120.000
0.0
0.0
507.000
C.O
-500.000
500.000
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
12
0
11
5
6
8
7
10
10
5
4
3
12-
3500.
0.
0.
0.
-15.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
632.
1500.
2000.
1500.
13-1500.
14
11
10
19
18
16
20
0
20
25
26
24
45
0
38
31
26
33
34
33
36
40
40
39
37
36
40
32
39
40
27
27
19
0
3
50
0.
0.
562.
0.
0.
70.
0.
0.
70.
-70.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-133.
55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-387.
0.
254.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-500.
000
0
0
0
000
0
500
0
0
ceo
ceo
coo
000
000
0
c
ceo
0
0
ceo
0
0
ceo
000
0
0
0
0
0
000
ocn
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oco
0
ceo
0
0
0
0
0
c
ceo
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
49
0
500.000
0.0
12-2000.000
11-
10
6
0
9
17
8
14-
13
14
15
20
17
16
47
20
19
22
0
24
26
31
25
46
0
45
39
30
34
7
35
50
0
0
0
38
37
42
41
42
41
29
45
27
0
49
0
1500.000
-632.000
-15.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1500.000
1500.000
1500.000
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
-507.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-70.000
0.0
-70.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
133.000
-374.000
133.000
-125.000
-0.500
-512.000
-500.000
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
387.000
-387.000
-254.000
0.0
-133.000
-507.000
0.0
0.0
500.000
0.0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
1
0
13
10
5
0
0
0
0
9
15
0
0
0
21
20
18
48
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
31
47
0
0
45
32
41
0
40
0
0
0
0
43
41
44
43
44
43
30
47
46
0
0
0
-4000.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
647.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-70.000
-507.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-55.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
374.000
-125.000
0.0
0.0
387.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-254.000
387.000
0.0
254.000
0.0
0.0
-374.000
507.000
-507.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
0
0
49
4
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
26
23
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
42
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
44
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1500.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-70. COO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-55.000
0.0
-55.000
-70. COO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-133.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-120.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5C7.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
2000.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-562.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
125.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
SECTION TEMPERATURE VOLUME
4C> UQ*.*AGAL)
DEPTH
-LET)
WTEMP
(LBS/DAXJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1_C
11
12
13
14
15
Ifc .
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 _
35
36
37
38
39
AQ.__
41
42
43
4
-------
ITERATION NLfBER
453
IDNL_
1
_2_
3
4
5
6
7
.8__
9
10
11
12
13
J4_
15
16
17
18
19
20-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
J2_.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
_44._
45
46
47
48
49
DECAY
COEFFICIENT
(I/DAY)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o_ .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o"
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
"o.o"
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MATRIX SOURCE
DIAGONAL LOADS
(MGC) (LBS/OAY)
182122. CCO***********
42082.375 0.0
120878. C63***********
38449.410***********
4C737. 762**** *******
22807.121***********
7797.230***********
19133.363 0.0
4303.453 C.O
22655.148 0.0
30044.621 0.0
26806.340 0.0
14309.035 C.O
11797,199 . 0.0
10177.422 0.0
26489.777 0.0
23925.949 C.O
13023.504 0.0
22251.035 0.0
. 23205.117 _ 0.0
8474.738 0.0
74.352 0.0
16159.504 0.0
19013.574 C.O
15327.660 0.0
17676.539 C.O
5784.914 0.0
1446.295 C.O
13054.406 0.0
23343.434 C.O
21558.402 0.0
24857.254 C.O
11118.164 0.0
48233.992 0.0
21957.590 0.0
1727. C07 C.O
1611.585 0.0
3958.345 0.0
23307.273 0.0 "
19228.406 C.O
23610.586 C.O
27134.836 0.0
19806.871 0.0
8913.227. 1_7496C.OOO
21531.195 C.O
17612.758 0.0
11351.332 0.0
1247.531 0.0
203626.938***********
BOD
PROFILE
(MG/L)
15034.91
15034.91
15373.21
15138.89
15137.48
14772.68
13682.39
14786.48
14825.68
14984.92
15065.93
15125.44
15272.63
15C97.24
14787.38
14858.98
14799.87
14525.77
14508.91
14628.54
14714.24
14714.23
14317.05
14233.37
14055.74
14119.75
14162.62
14162.61
13958.08
13875.23
13819.89
13688.14
13663.41
13644.56
13588.18
13641.91
13719.70
13902.88
13818.62
13665.76
13694.61
13733.29
13755.48
13628.59
14043.82
14130.67
14295.88
14525.75
15377.64
-------
RARITAN BAY TEST RUN
SCALE FACTCRS —
50 SECTION MODEL
AREA E
1000.000 1.000
LENGTH
5280.000
EPSILQN =C.CC1COCOO
FAC(1)= 1.040
OPEGA = l.CCO
FAC12)= 1.020
FL = 1.00 MAXIT = 500
FAC(3)= 1.040 FAC(A)=
1.080
S-EGMEMT BOD BOUNDARY CONDITIONING/D
1 2.28
7 2.26
50 2.26
DO DEFICIT BOUNDARY CONDITION(MG/L)
3.20
4.75
3.90
-------
REVISED PARAMETER LIST
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
NEW FLCUS
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
INTERFACE Q
(CFS)
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
-42-.
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
2
1
4
3
4
. 5.
33
6
8
4
3
1
3
11
11
10
q
17
17
15
15
21
19
23
24
19
28
27
30
29
25
31
32
32
34
35
39
29
30
34
32
31
31
39
26
26
18
18
1
35
C
0
0
0
c
15
C
0
0
0
0
-3500
C
1500
0
62
0
320
0
0
0
0
c
62
62
0
0
0
-73
73
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.50C
.0
.0
.0
.0
.coo
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.000
.0
.0
.0
.000
.000
62.000
62
.000
0.0
62
262,
.000
.coo
0.0
0.
0.
.0
.0
247.000
-200.
0.
.000
.0
73.000
0.
,0
120.000
0.
,0
0.0
320.000
0.0
-500.
250.
.000
.000
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
. . 48-
49-
5C-
12
0
11
5
6
8
7
10
10
5
4
3
350C
0
0
0
-15
0
-0
0
0
382
150C
2000
12-1500
13-1500
14
11
10
19
18
16
20
0
20
25
26
24
45
0
38
31
26
33
34
33
36
40
40
39
37
36
40
32
39
40
27
27
19
0
3
50
0
C
320
0
0
62
0
0
62
-62
0
0
C
0
0
-73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.CCO
.0
.0
.0
.CCO
.0
.500
.0
.0
.CCO
.CCO
.000
.000
.CCO
.0
.0
.OCO
.0
.0
.000
.c
.0
.000
.000
.0
.0
.c
.0
.0
.CCO
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.0
0
.0
-200.000
0
.0
127. OCO
0.0
0,
.0
0.0
0,
0,
.0
.0
0.0
-250. CCO
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
?8-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
49
0
500
0
12-2000
11
10
6
0
9
17
B
-1500
-382
-15
0
0
0
0
14-1500
13
14
15
20
17
16
47
20
19
22
0
24
26
31
25
46
0
45
39
30
34
7
35
50
0
0
0
38
37
42
41
42
41
29
45
27
0
49
0
1500
1500
0
0
0
0
-320
0
0
0
0
-62
0
-62
0
0
0
73
-247
73
-62
0
-250
-262
0
0
0
0,
0,
200
-200,
-127,
0,
-73,
-320,
0,
0,
500.
0,
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.coo
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.coo
.000
.000
.000
.500
.000
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
• COO
.000
.0
.000
.coo
.0
.0 ..
.000
.0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
1
0
13
10
5
0
0
0
0
9
15
0
0
0
21
20
18
48
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
31
47
0
0
45
32
41
0
40
0
0
0
0
43
41
44
43
44
43
30
47
46
0
0
0
-4000,
0,
0,
0.
397,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
-62,
-320.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
247.
-62.
0.
0.
200.
0,
0.
0.
0.
-127.
200.
0.
127.
0.
0.
-247.
320.
-320.
0.
0.
0.
.000
.0
.0
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.000
.0
.0
.000
.0
.0
,0
.0
.000
.000
.0
,000
.0
.0
.000
.000
.000
,0
.0
.0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
0
0
49
4
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
26
23
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
42
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
44
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0
0
0.0
1500.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-62.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-62.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-73.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-120.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
320.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
COO
0
0
0
0
0
coo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
coo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
26-
27-
28-
29-
30-
31-
32-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
2000.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-------
SECTION TEMPERATURE VClUfE
(C) (1C**6GAL>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4_2
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
21.00
21.00
20.50
21.00
21,
21.
50
50
21.
21.
23.00
21.50
21.50
21.50
21.50
21.00
21.00
21.50
.50
.50
21.50
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
21.50
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.50
22.50
22.50
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
22.50
22.50
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
20.50
23.00
38148.CO
6597.36
71089.88
23023.44
17376.04
31236.48
1959.76
21048.71
6874.12
18445.68
19784.60
5213.56
5961.56
5C93.88
5C93.88
13426.60
1374C.76
9200.40
13740.76
14967.48
4345.88
671.70
1855.04
2999.48
2326.28
4577.76
2094.40
160.07
7150.88
513.13
1136.96
2169.20
2C49.52
1668.04
897.60
89.76
216.92
545.29
434.59
379.24
195.23
195.23
130.15
117.44
2707.76
2797.52
3904.56
1C02.32
18326.00
964.92
DEPTH
(FT)
WTEMP
(LBS/CAY)
55.0016C9486.0C
27. OC
25.00
25.00
28.00
26.00
25.00
20.00
10.00
25.00
20.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
16.00
29.00
17.00
13.00
17.00
23.00
10.00
15.00
18.00
20.00
15.00
13.00
7.00
3.00
7.00
9.00
18.00
28.00
27.00
20.00
15.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
7.0C
15.00
15.00
10.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
6.00
38.00
17.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76240.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39052.10
-------
ITERATION NLPBER
79
:ON
i
2
3
_4_
5
6
7
a
9
J.O
11
12
13
14
15
L6
17
18
19
2C
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3A
35
36
37
3-8
39
_4C_
41
4Z
43
44
45
4ft
47
48
49
DECAY
COEFFICIENT
(I/DAY)
0.26C
0.26C
0.255
- - 0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.281
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.260
0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.276
0.276
0.276
0.281
0.281
- .. . 0^281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.276
0.276
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.27C
0.27C.
0.27C
0.27C
0.255
MATRIX
DIAGONAL
(MGC)
SOURCE
LOADS
(LBS/DAY)
19204C. 4381609486. 000
43797.688
139C02.438
44435.500
45358.520
31089.441
8348.344
24714.410
6126.117
27554.453
35290.488
28161.863
15859. C39
13147.836
11528.059
30049.871
27558.016
15487.707
25961.988
27250.688
9649.863
252.454
16660.242
19826.277
15956.105
18895.805
6351.238
1489.579
15017.023
23428.914
2183C.070
25472.219
11694.844
48677.332
22182.375
1752.249
1672.587
4108.711
23373.777
19352.387
23686.289
27201.871
19831.348
8946.250
22244.691
18329.785
12360.445
1518.558
208299.125
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
c.o
76240.313
1730. COO
0.0
C.O
C.O
C.O
0.0
11050.000
C.O
0.0
2363.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
C.O
C.O
0.0
c.o
1244.000
0.0
C.O
C.O
C.O
C.O
c.o
261CC.COO
3377.000
0.0
0.0
C.O
.C.O
0.0
C.O
C.O
3348CO.COO
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
BOD
PROFILE
1MG/L)
1.50
1.44
0.35
0.10
0.03
0.02
2.61
0.04
0.11
O.U
0.20
1.12
0.49
0.35
0.30
0.23
0.25
0.56
0.65
0.46
0.33
0.10
1.23
1.49
2.26
1.96
1.56
1.61
2.73
4.05
3.60
3.98
3.38
4.04
4.01
4.74
4.69
3.48
4.96
4.83
5.64
5.14
5.29
9.72
2.33
1.83
1.16
0.46
0.42
-------
ITERATION NLNBER
78
SECTION OEOXYGENATTON REAERATION MATRIX
COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT DIAGONAL
ll/DAY) U/CAY) (MGD)
SOURCE PHOTO MINUS
LOADS RESPIRATION
(MGD*MG/L)(MG/U-CAY)
BOTTOM DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DEMAND DEFICIT
(GM/M**2/DAY) (MG/L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
1 1
12
13
14
15
Ifc
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0.26C
0.26C
0.255
0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.281
0.265
0.265
C.265
0.265
0.26C
0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.276
0.276
0.276
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.276
0.276
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
C.281
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.255
C.204
C.204
C.202
C.204
C.206
C.206
C.212
C.206
C.206
C.206
C.206
C.204
C.204
C.?06
C.206
C.20f>
C.20A
C.20R
C.20B
C.20P
C.208
C.206
C.208
C.208
C.208
C.208
C.20H
C.208
C.210
C.210
C.210
C.212
C.212
C.212
C.212
C.212
C.212
C.210
C.210
C.212
0.212
C.212
C.212
C.212
C.208
C.208
C.20S
C.208
C.202
189904.125
43428.234
135237.500
43146. 188
44331 .258
29242.758
R213. 172
23470.020
5719.723
26463.957
34120.832
27869.902
15525. 191
12846.688
11226.910
29256.098
26745.668
14914.336
25105.660
26317.910
9379.027
212.743
16544.637
19639.348
15811.133
18610.516
6220.715
1479.603
14547.895
23395.250
21755.480
25322.598
11553.480
48562.277
22120.461
174ft. 057
1657.625
4072.938
23345.270
19326.230
23672.824
27188.406
19822.371
8938. 148
22075.945
18155.441
12117.109
1456.093
207328.563
285769.063
2478.275
6315.879
618.164
150.745
196.614
20652.816
196.070
200.097
560.095
1066. 136
1515.553
762.308
477.443
408.319
813.928
928.492
463. 317
1051.718
353.050
383.012
17.097
429.901
1207.677
1421.612
2422.337
-1001.562 '
-74. 176
5392.746
572.460
1127.770
2428.952
1945.452
1895.552
1011. 199
119.598
286.361
523.740
594.444
514.602
309. 823
282.213
193.519
320.861
1707.081
1381.587
838.296
-878.510
1980.716
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.100
0. 100
0.100
0.0
0.0
0.100
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.900
0.900
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.100
l.COO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.32301331
2.30808640
0.65773958
0.22836244
0.07912838
0.06533551
4.19839382
0.08073175
0.25604850
0.25582623
0.40549338
1.83748722
0.91694671
0.53640831
0.56944960
0.44297785
0.45530635
0.73151749
0.87607360
0.69634330
0.60551155
0.29198426
1.46298504
1 .68676949
2. 13939667
1.96709156
1.38035488
1.29914856
2.56384087
2.65602779
2.67619991
3.27083302
3.68624020
3.40642929
3.46552086
3.36666489
3.18358612
2.69867039
2.76845169
3.27737713
3.08654499
2.97378540
2.88607025
2.95349693
2.18664742
1.87586021
1.33018494
0.02340548
0.71617663
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H
S
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
IT
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
C . 2H
0. 15C3CE
0 . 1 5 0 3 6 E
0. 15377E
o. isitcE
0. 15151E
0. 14795E
C. 13761E
0. 1481 3E
0 . 1 4 8 8 6 E
n. 15033t
0. 15107E
0. 1 5127E
0 . 1 5 2 8 0 fc
0. 15134E
o . 148835
0. 14937F
0 . 1 4 8 8 8 fc
0. 14t 73E
0 . 1 4 6 5 9 E
C. 147556
0. 14324F
0. 148246
0. 14506E
0. 1 444CE
0. 14299E
0. 14348E
C. 14374E
n. 14374E
0. 14196E
0. 14123E
0. 14113E
0. 13913E
0. 13823E
n. 13850E
0. 13786E
0. 13856E
0. 13950E
0. 14145E
0. 14067E
0. 1 3887E
0. 13935F
0. 1 3986E
0. 1401 3E
0. 13872E
0. 14273E
0. 14348E
0. 14486E
0. 14673E
0. 15379E
0. 1 3521E
1
05
05
05
C5
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
C5
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
C .21 ?
C . 2 1CCOC
C. 2 1COQF
C.2C5COF
C.21CCOE
0.215COE
0.21 500C
C.23CCOE
C. 2 15COF
C.21500F
C.215COE
C.215COF
C.21CCOF
0. 21CCOE
C.215COE
C . 2 1 5 0 0 F
C. 2 1500F
C . 2 1500F
r . 2 2 C C 0 F
0. 27COOF
C.22COOE
C.22CCOE
0.215COF
C.22CCOE
C.22CCOF
0.22000E
0.22000F
C.22CCOE
C.22CCOE
0.2250QF
C.225COF
C.225COE
C.23COOF
C. 2 3CCOE
C. 23CCOF
C. 23COOE
C.23CCOe
C.23CCOF
C.225COE
C.225COF
C. 2^CCOE
0 . 2 3 C C 0 E
C. 23CCOE
0.23COOE
0.23COOE
0.22COOF
0.220COF
0.22COOE
C.22CCOF
0. 2C500E
0. 23COOF
t
C2
02
02
C2
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
C2
02
0?
02
02
02
02
02
02
337.090
0 . 2 3 2 3 0 E
0.2308 IE
0. t5774F
C . 2 2 a 3 6 F
0. 79128E
C.65336E
C.419Q4E
0.80732E
C . 2 5 6 0 5 E
0.25583E
0 .40549F
C . 18375E
0.91695E
C. 53641E
0.56945E
C . 4 4 2 9 8 E
C.45531E
C.73152E
0.87607E
0.69634E
C.60551E
0.29198E
0. 14630F
0 . 1 6 8 6 8 E
0.2 1 394F
0. 19671E
0 . 1 3 8 0 4 E
0. 12991E
0.25638F
0.2.6560F
C.26762E
0. 32708F
C.36862E
C. 34064E
C. 34655E
0. 33667E
0. 31836E
0. 26987E
C . 2 7 6 8 5 E
0. 32774F
G . ? C 8 6 5 F
0. 29738F
C.28861C
0.29535E
0.21866E
0. 1 8759F
C.133C2E
0.23405E-
0. 7161SE
C. 36357E
H 9 6 8 . 1
01
C 1
CO
CO
-01
-Cl
01
-Cl
00
00
00
01
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
CO
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Cl
01
01
Cl
Cl
01
01
01
Cl
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
-01
00
01
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
05
7G693E
70693E
70442E
70601F
70608E
7C871E
71631E
70857E
70H03E
70695E
7064 IE
70626E
70513E
70621E
70806E
70766E
70802E
70960E
7 0 9 7 0 E
709COE
7 0 8 4 9 E
7CR49E
71083E
71 132F
71236E
71199E
71 180E
71180E
71311E
71365E
71372E
71519E
71582E
71566F
7 1612E
71561F
71492E
71348E
71406F
71539F
71503F
71466E
71446F
71550E
71254E
71 199F
71098E
7C960E
70440E
71808E
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0.0
0.47463E
0.47612E
0.63865E
0.68318E
0.69817F
0.70217E
0. 29647E
0.7C050F
0.68243E
0.63137E
0.66586E
0.5?251E
0.61344E
0.65257E
0.651 1 IE
0.66336E
0.66249E
0.63645E
0.62209E
0.63936E
0.64794E
0.67929E
0. 56453E
0.54264E
0.49842F
0.51529E
0.57377E
0.58189E
0.45672F
0.44804F
0.44610E
0.38811E
0.34720E
0. 37502F
0. 36957E
0. 37895E
0. 39656E
0.44362E
C. 43721F
0. 38765E
0.40638E
0.41728E
0.42585F
0.42015F
0.49388E
0.52441E
0.57796E
0. 70726E
0.63279E
0. 35451E
0.0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
3 . 6 3 5 6 5 i> 4 5
-------
RARITAN BAY TEST RUN
SCALE FACTORS —
50 SECTION MODEL
AREA E Q LENGTH
1000.000 1.000 1.000 5280.000
EPSILCN =0.00100000
FAC(1)= 1.040
OMEGA = 1.000
FAC(2)= 1.020
FL = 1.00 MAXIT = 500
FAC(3)= 1.040 FAC(4) =
1.080
SEGMENT BOO BOUNDARY CCNDITION(MG/LI
'l 2.28
7 2.26
-SO- 2.26
CO DEFICIT BOUNDARY CONDITION(MG/L)
3.20
4.75
3.90
-------
RFVISED PARAMETER LIST
NEW FLOWS
INTERFACE Q INTERFACE Q INTERFACE Q INTERFACE Q INTERFACE Q INTERFACE Q
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS)
1- 2 0.0 1- 12 350C.CCO 1- 49 500.000 1- 1-4000.000 1- 0 0.0 1- 0 0.0
2- 1 0.0 2- 0 0.0 2- 0 0.0 2- 0 0.0 2- 0 0.0 2- 0 0.0
3- 4 0.0 3- 11 O.C 3- 12-2000.000 3- 13 0.0 3- 49 0.0 3- 3 2000.0
4- 3 0.0 4- 5 0.0 4- 11-1500.000 4- 10 0.0 4- 4 1500.000 4- 0 0.0
5- 4 C.O 5- 6 -15.000 5- 10 -524.000 5- 5 539.000 5- 0 0.0 5- 0 0.0
6- 5 15.000 6- 8 0.0 6- 6 -15.COO 6- 0 0.0 6- 0 0.0 6- 0 0.0
7- 33 0.500 7- 7 -0.5CO 7- 0 0.0 7- 0 0.0 7- 0 0.0 7- 0 0.0
8- 6 0.0 8- 10 0.0 8- 9 0.0 8- 0 0.0 8- 0 0.0 8- 0 0.0
9- 8 0.0 9- 10 0.0 9- 17 0.0 9- 0 0.0 9- 0 0.0 9- 0 0.0
10- 4 0.0 10- 5 524.OCO 10- 8 0.0 10- 9 0.0 10- 16 -40.COO 10- 17 -484.0
11- 3 0.0 11- 4 1500.CCO 11- 14-1500.000 11- 15 0.0 11- 16 0.0 11- 0 0.0
12- 1-3500.000 12- 3 2000.CCO 12- 13 1500.000 12- 0 0.0 12- 0 0.0 12- 0 0.0
13- 3 0.0 13- 12-1500.000 13- 14 1500.000 13- 0 0.0 13- 0 0.0 13- 0 0.0
14- 11 1500.000 14- 13-1500.CCO 14- 15 0.0 14- 0 0.0 14- 0 0.0 14- 0 0.0
15- 11 0.0 15- 14 C.C 15- 20 0.0 15- 21 0.0 15- 0 0.0 15- 0 0.0
16- 10 40.000 16- 11 0.0 16- 17 0.0 16- 20 -40.000 16- 0 0.0 16- 0 0.0
17- 9 0.0 17- 10 484.OCO 17- 16 0.0 17- 18 -484.000 17- 19 0.0 17- 0 0.0
18- 17 484.000 18- 19 0.0 18- 47 -484.000 18- 48 0.0 18- 0 0.0 18- 0 0.0
19- 17 0.0 19- 18 0.0 19- 20 0.0 19- 23 0.0 19- 26 0.0 19- 47 0.0
20- 15 0.0 20- 16 4C.OCO 20- L9 0.0 20- 21 0.0 20- 23 -40.000 20- 0 0.0
21- 15 0.0 21- 20 0.0 21- 22 0.0 21- 0 0.0 21- 0 0.0 21- 0 0.0
22- 21 0.0 22- 0 O.C 22- 0 0.0 22- 0 0.0 22- 0 0.0 22- 0 0.0
23- 19 0.0 23- 20 4C.OCO 23- 24 -40.000 23- 0 0.0 23- 0 0.0 23- 0 0.0
24-, 23 40.COO 24- 25 -40.000 24- 26 0.0 24- 0 0.0 24- 0 0.0 24- 0 0.0
25- 24 40.COO 25- 26 0.0 25- 31 -40.000 25- 0 0.0 25- 0 0.0 25- 0 0.0
26- 19 0.0 26- 24 0.0 26- 25 0.0 26- 31 0.0 26- 45 0.0 26- 46 0.0
27- 28 0.0 27- 45 O.C 27- 46 0.0 27- 47 0.0 27- 0 0.0 27- 0 0.0
28- 27 0.0 28- 0 O.C 28- 0 0.0 28- 0 0.0 28- 0 0.0 28- 0 0.0
29- 30 -124.000 29- 38 C.O 29- 45 124.000 29- 0 0.0 29- 0 0.0 29- 0 0.0
30- 29 124.000 30- 31 -35.000 30- 39 -449.000 30- 45 360.000 30- 0 0.0 30- 0 0.0
31- 25 40.000 31- 26 0.0 31- 30 35.COO 31- 32 -40.000 31- 42 -35.COO 31- 43 0.0
32- 31 40.000 32- 33 0.0 32- 34 -40.000 32- 41 0.0 32- 42 0.0 32- 0 0.0
33- 32 0.0 33- 34 0.0 33- 7 0.500 33- 0 0.0 33- 0 0.0 33- 0 0.0
34- 32 40.000 34- 33 O.C 34- 35 -152.000 34- 40 112.000 34- 0 0.0 34- 0 0.0
35- 34 152.COO 35- 36 0.0 35- 50 -152.000 35- 0 0.0 35- 0 0.0 35- 0 0.0
36- 35 0.0 36- 40 0.0 36- 0 0.0 36- 0 0.0 36- 0 0.0 36- 0 0.0
37- 39 0.0 37- 40 0.0 37- 0 0.0 37- 0 0.0 37- 0 0.0 37- 0 0.0
38- 29 0.0 38- 39 0.0 38- 0 0.0 38- 0 0.0 38- 0 0.0 38- 0 0.0
39- 30 449.000 39- 37 0.0 39- 38 0.0 39- 43 -77.000 39- 44 -372.COO 39- 0 0.0
40- 34 -112.000 40- 36 0.0 40- 37 0.0 40- 41 112.000 40- 44 0.0 40- 0 0.0
41- 32 0.0 41- 40 -112.OCO 41- 42 112.COO 41- 44 0.0 41- 0 0.0 41- 0 0.0
42- 31 35.000 42- 32 0.0 42- 41 -112.000 42- 43 77.000 42- 0 0.0 42- 0 0.0
43-31 0.0 43- 39 77.OCO 43- 42 -77.000 43- 44 0.0 43- 0 0.0 43- 0 0.0
44- 39 372.000 44- 40 0.0 44- 41 0.0 44- 43 0.0 44- 0 0.0 44- 0 0.0
45- 26 0.0 45- 27 0.0 45- 29 -124.000 45- 30 -360.000 45- 46 484.000 45- 0 0.0
46- 26 0.0 46- 27 0.0 46- 45 -484.000 46- 47 484.000 46- 0 0.0 46- 0 0.0
47- 18 484.000 47- 19 0.0 47- 27 0.0 47- 46 -484.000 47- 0 0.0 47- 0 0.0
48- 1.8.. .0.0 48- 0 0.0 48- 0 0.0 48- 0 0.0 48- 0 0.0 48- 0 0.0
49- i -500.000 49- 3 0.0 49- 49 500.000 49- 0 0.0 49- 0 0.0 49- 0 0.0
50- 35 152.000 50- 50 -140.OCO 50- 0 0.0 50- 0 0.0 50- 0 0.0 50- 0 0.0
-------
•SECTION TEMPERATURE VOLUfE
(C) (10**6GAL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3D
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48_.
49
50
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
.00
.00
20.50
21.00
.50
.50
23.00
21.50
21.50
21.50
21.50
21.00
21.00
.50
.50
.50
.50
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
21.50
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.50
22.50
22.50
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
. 23.00
23.00
22.50
22.50
23.00
23.00
23..00
23.00
23.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
.22.0.0
20.50
23.00
.56
.56
.88
.88
.48
.88
3B148.CC
6597.36
71089.83
23023.44
17376.04
31236.48
1959.76
21048.71
6E74.12
18445.68
19784.60
5213.
5961.
5C93.
5C93.
13426.60
1374C.76
9200.40
13740.76
14967.
4345.
671.70
1855.04
2999.48
2326.28
4577.76
2094.40
160.C7
7150.88
513.13
1136.96
2169.20
2049.52
1668.04
897.60
89.76
216.92
545.29
434.59
379.24
195.23
. 195.23
130.15
117.44
2707.76
2797.52
3904.56
1C02.32
18326.CO
964.92
DEPTH
1FT)
WTEMP
(LBS/DAY)
55.001609486.00
27.00
25.00
25.00
28.00
26.00
25.00
20.00
10.00
25.00
20.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
16.00
29.00
17. CC
13.00
17.00
23.00
10.00
15.00
1R.OO
20.00
15.00
13.00
7.00
3.0C
7.00
9.00
18.00
28. OC
27.00
20.00
15.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
7.0C
15.00
15.00
10.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
6.00
38.00
17.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76240.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38379.31
-------
ITERATION NtPBER
78
'ION
1
2.
3
-------
ITERATION NLPBER
76
SECTION DEOXYGENATION REAERATICN MATRIX
COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT CIAGONAL
(1/OAY) (1/CAY) (MGD)
SOURCE PHOTO MINUS
LOADS RESPIRATION
IMGD*MG/L>IMG/IL-DAY)
BOTTOM DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DEMAND DEFICIT
(GM/M**2/DAY) (MG/L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
^
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 .
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 ...
35
36
37
38
39
.40
41
.42
43
44
45
.46
47
48
49
0.260
0.260
0.255
0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.281
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.260
0.26C
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.265
0.27C
0.27C
0.270
0.27C
0.27C
0.27C
0.276
0.276
0.276
C.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.276
0.276
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.27C
0.270
0.27C
0.27C
0.255
C.204
0.204
C.202
C.204
C.206
C.206
C.212
C.206
C.206
C.206
C.206
C.204
0.204
C.206
0.206
C.206
C.206
C.208
C.20R
0.20R
C.208
C.206
C.208
0.208
C.208
0.208
C.208
C.208
0.210
C.210
C.210
C.212
0.212
C.212
0.212
C.212
C.212
C.210
C.210
C.212
C.212
0.212
C.212
0.212
C.208
0.208
C.208
C.208
0.202
18S904.125
43428.234
135237.500
43146.188
44323.578
29242.758
8213.172
23470.020
5719.723
26459.535
34120.832
27869.902
15525.191
12846.688
11226.910
29256.223
26757.465
14935.020
25105.660
26313.414
9379.027
212.743
16542.258
19643.871
15809.535
18610.516
6220.715
1479.603
14555.773
23475. COO
21754.660
25324.332
11553.480
48548.184
22110.266
1746.057
1657.625
4072.938
23385.602
19334.387
23682.613
27194.117
19817.602
8999.480
22092.367
18190.012
1215R.047
1456.093
207328.563
285768.688
2478.215
6311.887
606.600
142.175
127.923
20599.313
113.118
181.091
530.384
1047.580
1515.402
761.558
473.727
398.150
776.959
863.794
443.277
994.020
300.148
372.676
16.635
411.942
1172.424
1379.148
2360.644
-1024.692
-80.226
5367.355
569.473
1092.085
2283.427
1820.952
1751.564
899.268
106.101
276.370
521.066
591.210
488.154
301.173
274.853
189.982
320.030
1696.422
1369.563
828.402
-880.303
1980.266
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.0
0.0
0.100
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.900
0.900
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 |
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.100
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.32292557
2.30799961
0.65726358
0.22506475
0.07670677
0.05624691
4.14091587
0.06964254
0. 24360746
0.24850088
0.39897430
1.83722687
0.91585374
0.53069276
0.55264324
0.42942035
0.44087487
0.71190506
0.84716666
0.67135566
0.58591163
0.28296572
1.41017532
1.62614822
2.06098557
1.89990330
1.33306503
1.24883366
2.49452400
2.56293869
2.57160473
3.14335251
3.57471657
3.27741241
3.33720779
3.22724342
3.05498028
2.61530781
2.65928745
3.14212322
2.94902229
2.84555054
2.76127529
2.77995682
2.12695313
1.82706547
1.29961205
0.00537058
0.71596408
-------
50
3
1
2
-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
2*.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
0.28
0.15035E
0. 15035E
0. 15371E
0.15128E
0. 15131E
0.14762E
0. 13616E
0. 14773E
0.14793E
0. 14961E
0. 15044E
0. 15124E
0. 15269E
0. 15077E
0. 14735E
0. 14817E
0.14752E
0. 14437E
0. 14423E
0. 14559E
0.14654E
0. 14654E
0.14217E
0. 14125E
0. 13932E
0. 13992E
0. 14COOE
0. 14000E
0. 13735E
0. 13624E
0.13686E
0.13515E
0. 13526E
0.13472E
0. 13433E
0.13439E
0.13472E
0. 13654E
0. 13530E
0. 13441E
0. 13419E
0. 13486E
0. 13491E
0.13111E
0.13852E
0. 13964E
0.14163E
0. 14437E
0.15377E
0. 13273E
1
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
C5
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
C.212
0.21000E
0.21COOE
0.2C500E
0.21CCOE
0.21500E
0.21500E
0.23000E
0.215COE
0.21500E
C.215COE
0.21500E
C.21CCOE
0.21000E
C.215COE
0.21500E
0.215COE
0.21500E
C.22COOE
0.220COE
0.22000E
0.22000E
C.21500E
0.22000F
C.22CCOE
C.22COOE
0.22COOF
C.22CCOE
0. 22000F
C.22500E
0.22500E
C.225COF
C.23COOE
0.23COOE
0.23000E
0.23000E
0.23000E
0.23000E
0.22500E
C.22500F
C.23COOF
0.23COOE
C.23000E
0.23000E
0.23COOE
C.22COOE
C.22000E
0.22CCOE
C.22000F
C.2C500F
0.23000E
6345.523
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
0.23229E
0.23080E
0.65726E
0.22506E
8753.598
01
01
00
00
0. 76707E-01
0.56247E-01
0.41409E
0.69643E
0.24361E
0.24850E
0.39897E
0.18372F
0.91585E
0.53069E
0.55264E
0.42942E
0.44087E
C.71191E
C.84717E
0.67136E
C.58591E
C.28297E
0.14102E
0.16261E
0.20610E
0.18S99E
0.13331E
0. 12488E
0.24945E
0.25629E
0.25716E
0.31434E
0.35747E
0.32774E
0.33372E
0.32272E
0.30550E
0.26153E
0.26593E
0.31421E
0.29490E
0.28456E
0.27613E
0.27800E
0.21270E
0.18271E
0.12996E
01
-01
00
CO
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Cl
0.53706E-02
0.71596E
0.35340E
00
01
0.
0.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
70694E
70694E
70446E
70625E
70623E
70895E
71738E
70886E
70871E
70748E
70687E
70628E
70522E
70662E
70914E
70854E
70902E
71133E
71144E
71044E
70974E
70974E
71296F
71363E
71505E
71461E
71455E
71455E
71651E
71732E
71686E
71812E
71804E
71843E
71872E
71868E
71843E
71710E
71801E
71867E
71883E
71833E
71830E
72109E
71564E
71481E
71335E
71134F
70442E
71990E
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0.0
0.47465E
0.47614E
0.63873E
0.68375E
0.69856E
0.70332E
0.30328E
0.70190E
0.68435E
0.68263E
0.66697E
0.52256E
0.61363E
0.65355E
0.65388E
0.66560E
0.66493E
0.64014E
0.62672E
0.64330E
0.65115E
0.68144E
0.57194E
0.55102E
0.50895E
0.52462E
0.58124E
0.58967E
0.46705E
0.46103E
0.45970E
0.40379E
0.36057E
0.39069E
0.33500E
0.39596E
0.41294E
0.45557E
0.45208E
0.40445E
0.42393E
0.43378E
0.44217E
0.44310E
0.50295E
0.53211E
0.58339E
0.71080F
0.63282E
0.36650E
0.0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
3.53402615
------- |