EPA-600/2-76-222a
September 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
JAMAICA BAY, NEW YORK
Volume I. Summary Report
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
EPA-600/2-76-222a
September 1976
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
JAMAICA BAY, NEW YORK
Volume I
Summary Report
Donald L. Feuerstein
William O. Maddaus
H. F. Ludwig & Associates
Engineering-Science, Inc.
Berkeley, California 94710
Project No. 11023 FAO
Project Officer
Anthony N. Tafuri
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Munici-
pal Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our
natural environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay
between its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the
problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment,
and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This
publication is one of the products of that research; a most vital
communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This particular effort demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a waste-
water management program, incorporating improved treatment of municipal
sewage and control and treatment of combined sewer overflows, that would
achieve bathing water quality throughout a major recreational resource
adjacent to the largest population center in the United States.
Franeis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The Jamaica Bay ecosystem and wastewater discharges to the bay were
characterized during a comprehensive 3-year study. The primary ob-
jective of the project was the development of management criteria and
procedures for the bay ecosystem, with major emphasis on combined
sewer overflow management to provide for water contact recreation in
the bay.
Jamaica Bay was created by marsh dredging and retains may marshland
characteristics. Thus, management of the bay ecosystem for long-term
beneficial uses will require control of the impacts of man's activi-
ties in the surrounding environs.
Analysis of the sampling results and the output of the hydrologic mod-
els developed during the project demonstrated that (1) the four munic-
ipal sewage treatment facility effluents are the major sources of or-
ganic and nutrient materials discharged to the bay, (2) combined sewer
overflows represent significant sources of solids and coliforms to the
bay, (3) the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow treatment facility
will provide substantial benefit in reducing overall pollution from
combined sewer overflows in the Jamaica Bay drainage basin and (4)
treatment of combined sewer overflows from the Paerdegat Basin will
provide the next greatest benefit to the quality of the bay.
The estimated capital cost of upgrading the four sewage treatment fa-
cilities is $185,183,000 and the estimated capital cost of providing
treatment for all combined sewer overflows is $123,272,000 (1973 dol-
lars) . Recommendations are presented on the most cost-effective de-
velopment of a wastewater management program for the Jamaica Bay
drainage basin.
Implementation of these recommendations would result in water quality
conditions suitable for water contact recreation at all potential
beaches along the perimeter of Jamaica Bay.
Volume II of this report contains supplemental data on the water quali-
ty and sediment quality of Jamaica Bay. It is available from the
National Technical Information Service.
Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 11023 FAO (for-
merly 36-NY-2), under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Work was completed as of October 1974.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Acknowledgments xv
Section
I CONCLUSIONS 1
Wastewater Inflows 2
Receiving Water Quality 4
Wastewater Treatment 7
Cost-Effectiveness 8
II RECOMMENDATIONS 10
III INTRODUCTION 11
Problem Delineation 11
General Problem 11
Specific Problems in Jamaica Bay 13
Project Objectives 14
Project Scope and Conduct 14
IV CHARACTERISTICS OF JAMAICA BAY AND ENVIRONS 16
Topography 16
Geological Characteristics 16
Surface Features 17
Hydrography and Hydrology 18
Hydrographic and Hydraulic Characteristics 18
Tides 19
Mixing and Stratification 19
Surface Inflows 20
Climatology 21
Temperature 21
Winds 24
Precipitation 24
Evaporation 24
Demography 25
New York City and Metropolitan Area 25
Borough Populations 25
Drainage Area Populations 25
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Land Use 28
Present Land Use 28
Projected Land Use 28
V JAMAICA BAY ECOSYSTEM 30
Quality Objectives and Criteria 30
Uses of Jamaica Bay 30
Water Quality Requirements 32
Tentative Criteria 34
Quality of Jamaica Bay 35
Receiving Water Quality 37
Sediment Quality 63
Special Studies 74
VI ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 81
Management Perspectives 81
Ecosystem Interactions 81
Use Perspectives 81
Management Techniques 82
Wastewater Management 82
Dredging 82
Flushing 83
Management Parameters 84
Zero-Risk Index 85
Water Contact Recreation Index 85
Aesthetic Acceptability Index 85
Productivity Potential Index 85
Zero-Benefit and Benefit Management Indices 86
Quantification System 87
VII WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES 88
Wastewater Sources 88
Dry-Weather Flow 88
Combined Sewer Overflow 88
Separate Storm Sewer Runoff 88
Other Sources of Wastewater 91
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 91
Coney Island Water Pollution Control Facility 91
Rockaway Water Pollution Control Facility 91
26th Ward Water Pollution Control Facility 92
Jamaica Water Pollution Control Facility 92
Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control 92
Facility
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Wastewater Quality 93
Untreated Sewage 93
Water Pollution Control Facilities Effluent 93
Combined Sewer Overflows 93
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility 98
Effluents
Separate Storm Sewer Runoff 105
Other Discharges 105
Total Wastewater Loadings in Jamaica Bay Basin 105
VIII EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 112
Evaluation Criteria 112
Environmental 112
Economics 113
Effectiveness 113
Evaluation Methods 114
General 114
Urban Runoff Model 115
Receiving Water Model for Coliform Density 119
Receiving Water Quality Model for BOD 121
Wastewater Management Alternatives 123
Alternative 1 125
Alternative 2 125
Alternative 3 125
Alternative 4 125
Alternative 5 125
Alternative 6 127
Alternative 7 127
Alternative 8 127
Alternative 9 127
Alternative 10 127
Alternative 11 128
Pollutant Loadings for Each Alternative 128
Effects of Alternatives 130
Recreation Day Profiles 130
Receiving Water Responses 133
Costs of Alternatives 135
Environmental Impact 137
Cost-Effectiveness of Alternatives 138
IX REFERENCES 141
X APPENDICES 142
Appendix A - Basic Design Criteria, Spring Creek 142
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility
Appendix B - Pollutant Mass Emission From Combined 147
Sewer Areas
Appendix C - Mathematical Models 158
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Mean and Spring Tidal Ranges in Jamaica Bay 20
2 Characteristics of Jamaica Bay Drainage Basin 21
3 Flows to Jamaica Bay from Sewage Treatment Facilities, 1972 23
4 Average Monthly Air Temperature and Precipitation at 23
John F. Kennedy International Airport
5 Populations Served by Sewerage Systems in the Boroughs of 27
Brooklyn and Queens, 1910-2000
6 Land Use in New York City, Brooklyn and Queens, 1959-1969 29
7 Uses of Jamaica Bay and Environs—Detrimental Factors and 30
Environmental Requirements
8 Tentative Water Quality Criteria for Jamaica Bay 34
9 Water Quality and Sediment Characteristics of Long Island 76
Bays
10 Results of Fish and Invertebrate Trawls in Jamaica Bay and 78
Other Long Island Bays
11 Heavy Metal Concentrations in Jamaica Bay, 1973 79
12 Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Waters and 80
Sediments of Jamaica Bay
13 Combined and Storm Sewer Characteristics of Jamaica Bay 89
Drainage Basin
14 Average Untreated Dry-Weather Wastewater Quality, Mass 94
Emission Coefficients and Flows Influent to Water Pol-
lution Control Facilities, 1970
15 Average Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent Charac- 95
teristics and Loadings to Jamaica Bay Prior to Upgrading
of Facilities, 1970
16 Average Wastewater Constituent Removals for Water Pollution 96
Control Facilities of Jamaica Bay Prior to and After
Upgrading
17 Average Upgraded Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent 97
Characteristics and Loadings to Jamaica Bay
18 Average Mass Emission Coefficients of Untreated Combined 99
Sewer Overflows to Jamaica Bay
19 Average Quality Characteristics of Untreated Combined 100
Sewer Overflows to Jamaica Bay
via
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
Average Annual Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay from 101
Untreated Combined Sewer Overflows
21 Average Annual Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay from 104
Combined Sewer Overflows Provided with Auxiliary Water
Pollution Control Facilities
22 Average Characteristics and Total Pollutant Loadings 106
of Separate Storm Sewer Runoff to Jamaica Bay
23 Estimated Annual Pollutant Loadings from Landfills in 106
the Jamaica Bay Basin
24 Average Annual Wastewater Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica 107
Bay from Water Pollution Control Facilities Prior to
Upgrading, from Untreated Combined Sewer Overflows and
from All Other Sources
25 Total Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay from Water Pol- 108
lution Control Facilities Prior to Upgrading, from
Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility
and from All Other Sources
26 Total Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay from Upgraded 109
Water Pollution Control Facilities, from Spring Creek
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility and from
All Other Sources
27 Total Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay from Upgraded 110
Water Pollution Control Facilities, from Auxiliary
Wastewater Pollution Control Facilities on All Com-
bined Sewer Overflows and from All Other Sources
28 Wastewater Management Alternatives for Jamaica Bay 124
29 Average Total Pollutant Loadings to Jamaica Bay for 129
Alternative Wastewater Management Programs
30 Assumed Coliform Concentration in Effluents from Water 129
Pollution Control Facilities
31 Estimated Additional Costs for Elements of Alternative 136
Wastewater Management Systems for Jamaica Bay
32 Estimated Costs of Alternative Wastewater Management 137
Programs for Jamaica Bay
33 Cumulative Mass Emission and Combined Sewer Overflow 152
Data, Jamaica Bay
34 Arrival Time in Hours from Beginning of Tidal Cycle 158
35 Predicted Maximum Coliform Concentrations 159
36 Average Annual BOD5 Loadings to Jamaica Bay 160
37 Assumed Seasonal Distribution of BOD Sources 162
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Location map of Jamaica Bay 12
2 Location of major water pollution control facilities 22
and tributary areas - Jamaica Bay
3 Historical and projected population surrounding Jamaica 26
Bay
4 Location of sampling stations in Jamaica Bay 36
5 Summertime average temperature isopleths for waters of 38
Jamaica Bay
6 Wintertime average temperature isopleths for waters of 38
Jamaica Bay
7 Summertime average transparency isopleths for waters of 39
Jamaica Bay
8 Wintertime average transparency isopleths for waters of 39
Jamaica Bay
9 Summertime average total suspended solids isopleths for 40
waters of Jamaica Bay
10 Wintertime average total suspended solids isopleths for 40
waters of Jamaica Bay
11 Summertime average volatile suspended solids isopleths 42
for waters of Jamaica Bay
12 Wintertime average volatile suspended solids isopleths 42
for waters of Jamaica Bay
13 Summertime average pH isopleths for waters of Jamaica 43
Bay
14 Wintertime average pH isopleths for waters of Jamaica 43
Bay
15 Summertime average chlorides isopleths for waters of 44
Jamaica Bay
16 Wintertime average chlorides isopleths for waters of 44
Jamaica Bay
17 Summertime average dissolved oxygen isopleths for waters 45
of Jamaica Bay
18 Wintertime average dissolved oxygen isopleths for waters 45
of Jamaica Bay
19 Summertime average dissolved oxygen saturation isopleths 47
for waters of Jamaica Bay
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
20 Wintertime average dissolved oxygen saturation isopleths 47
for waters of Jamaica Bay
21 Summertime average biochemical oxygen demand isopleths 48
for waters of Jamaica Bay
22 Wintertime average biochemical oxygen demand isopleths 48
for waters of Jamaica Bay
23 Summertime average organic nitrogen isopleths for waters 50
of Jamaica Bay
24 Wintertime average organic nitrogen isopleths for waters 50
of Jamaica Bay
25 Summertime average ammonia isopleths for waters of 51
Jamaica Bay
26 Wintertime average ammonia isopleths for waters of 51
Jamaica Bay
27 Summertime average nitrate isopleths for waters of 52
Jamaica Bay
28 Wintertime average nitrate isopleths for waters of 52
Jamaica Bay
29 Summertime average total phosphate isopleths for waters 54
of Jamaica Bay
30 Wintertime average total phosphate isopleths for waters 54
of Jamaica Bay
31 Summertime average orthophosphate isopleths for waters 55
of Jamaica Bay
32 Wintertime average orthophosphate isopleths for waters 55
of Jamaica Bay
33 Summertime average hexane extractable materials iso- 56
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
34 Wintertime average hexane extractable materials iso- 56
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
35 Summertime average total coliforms isopleths for waters 57
of Jamaica Bay
36 Wintertime average total coliforms isopleths for waters 57
of Jamaica Bay
37 Summertime average fecal coliforms isopleths for waters 58
of Jamaica Bay
38 Wintertime average fecal coliforms isopleths for waters 58
of Jamaica Bay
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
39 Summertime average fecal streptococci isopleths for 60
waters of Jamaica Bay
40 Wintertime average fecal streptococci isopleths for 60
waters of Jamaica Bay
41 Summertime average microplankton isopleths for waters 61
of Jamaica Bay
42 Wintertime average microplankton isopleths for waters 61
of Jamaica Bay
43 Summertime average microplankton diversity index iso- 62
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
44 Wintertime average microplankton diversity index iso- 62
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
45 Summertime average zooplankton isopleths for waters of 64
Jamaica Bay
46 Wintertime average zooplankton isopleths for waters of 64
Jamaica Bay
47 Summertime average zooplankton diversity index isopleths 65
for waters of Jamaica Bay
48 Wintertime average zooplankton diversity index isopleths 65
for waters of Jamaica Bay
49 Average temperature isopleths for sediments of Jamaica 67
Bay
50 Average biochemical oxygen demand isopleths for sedi- 67
ments of Jamaica Bay
51 Average dry solids fraction isopleths for sediments of 68
Jamaica Bay
52 Average sand fraction isopleths for sediments of Jamaica 68
Bay
53 Average silt fraction isopleths for sediments of Jamaica 69
Bay
54 Average clay fraction isopleths for sediments of Jamaica 69
Bay
55 Average Kjeldahl nitrogen isopleths for sediments of 71
Jamaica Bay
56 Average hexane extractable material isopleths for sedi- 71
ments of Jamaica Bay
57 Average total sulfide isopleths for sediments of Jamaica 72
Bay
Xll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
58 Average total phosphate isopleths for sediments of 72
Jamaica Bay
59 Average benthic biomass isopleths for sediments of 73
Jamaica Bay
60 Average benthos diversity index isopleths for sediments 73
of Jamaica Bay
61 Sampling locations for Long Island bays sampling program 75
62 Location of combined sewer overflows and tributary areas, 90
Jamaica Bay
63 Assumed performance of Spring Creek Auxiliary Water 103
Pollution Control Facility
64 Components of urban hydrological system 117
65 Estimated total bacterial emission caused by isolated 120
storms from each drainage system
66 Summer storm duration curve for New York City 122
67 Location of primary and auxiliary water pollution con- 126
trol facilities for alternatives 1 through 9
68 Location of major interceptors and outfalls for alterna- 126
tives 10 and 11
69 Effect of alternative wastewater management programs on 131
usable beach days for each potential beach
70 Effect of alternative wastewater management programs on 132
usable beach days for all potential beaches
71 Effect of wastewater management programs on average BOD5 134
concentration in Jamaica Bay
72 Cost-effectiveness (usable beach days) of alternatives 139
73 Cost-effectiveness (BOD) of alternatives 140
74 Relationship between overflow volume and BOD emission 148
from combined sewered areas
75 Relationship between overflow volume and COD emissions 149
from combined sewered areas
76 Relationship between overflow volume and suspended 150
solids emissions from combined sewered areas
77 Relationship between overflow volume and HEM emission 151
from combined sewered areas
78 Relationship between overflow volume and total organic 152
nitrogen emission from combined sewered areas
Xlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
79 Relationship between overflow volume and total inorganic
nitrogen emission from combined sewered areas
80 Relationship between overflow volume and total soluble 154
phosphorus emission from combined sewered areas
81 Comparison between the computed and the measured over- 169
flow from Spring Creek drainage basin
82 Definition sketch for coliform analysis 172
83 Comparison between the computed and the measured coli- 174
form pollutograph. Spring Creek East drainage basin
84 Comparison between the computed and the measured coli- 175
form pollutograph, Spring Creek West drainage basin
85 Input-output and components of Rand water quality simu- 177
lation model
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any project as lengthy and demanding as this one cannot be accomplished
without an extra measure of effort on the part of persons either for-
mally or informally connected with the project. Such debts cannot be
repaid, only acknowledged. The first person who must be so acknowledged
is Mr. Martin Lang, who had the responsibility for the project, first as
Director of the Bureau of Water Pollution Control then more recently as
First Deputy Administrator, New York City Environmental Protection Ad-
ministration, and who provided the leadership so necessary to the pro-
ject's success. Mr. William B. Pressman and Mr. Edward 0. Wagner of
the New York City Bureau of Water Pollution Control were most coopera-
tive and provided valuable assistance to the project staff. The assis-
tance and tolerance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency project
officers, Dr. Thomas Murphy, Mr. George Pence, Mr. Anthony N. Tafuri
and Mr. Frank Condon are gratefully acknowledged.
Special recognition is extended to Drs. D. W. Eckhoff and N. E. Arm-
strong, who served as Project Director and Assistant Project Director,
respectively, during the crucial, initial phases of the project. Ap-
preciation is extended to Dr. D. S. K. Liu, now with the New York City
Rand Institute, for his many contributions, notably the mathematical
modeling and analysis. The cooperation of Dr. J. J. Leendertse, New
York City Rand Institute, requires special mention.
Finally, the contributions of the Project Advisory Board in providing
guidance and critical review of project activities are acknowledged.
The members of this Board were:
Mr. Martin Lang, First Deputy Administrator, New York City
Environmental Protection Administration;
Mr. William B. Pressman, Project Director, City of New York;
Dr. Thomas Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. George Pence, Office of Water Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency;
Mr. Anthony N. Tafuri, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Frank Condon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Dr. Erman A. Pearson, Consultant, Chairman;
Dr. Earnest F. Gloyna, Consultant, Vice-chairman; and
Dr. Harvey F. Ludwig, H. F. Ludwig & Associates.
H. F. Ludwig & Associates is an affiliate of Engineering-Science, Inc.
xv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Achievement of bathing water standards at all times during the summer
recreational season at potential beach sites is one of the primary water
quality objectives for Jamaica Bay. This will require disinfection of
all combined sewer overflows to the bay. Improvement in the quality of
the ecosystem, the other primary objective, will require upgrading of
the performance of the four major sewage treatment facilities that dis-
charge to the bay.
The wastewater management improvement program initiated several years
ago by the Department of Water Resources, City of New York, will, upon
its completion, result in lowering of the bacterial levels in Jamaica
Bay to bathing water standards at all times at potential beach sites
during the recreational season and in substantial improvement in the
quality of the ecosystem at all times of the year. Key elements of the
program are the performance upgrading of the four existing water pollu-
tion control facilities to effect greater removals of suspended solids
and organic, oxygen-demanding materials and the phased construction of
treatment facilities on the eight major combined sewer overflows to
effect, primarily, substantial reduction in bacterial densities. At
the present time, three municipal sewage treatment facilities (26th Ward,
Jamaica and Rockaway) are being modified to full step-aeration processes
and one auxiliary facility (Spring Creek) has been completed to capture
and treat the combined sewer overflows from two of the basins (Spring
Creek East and Spring Creek West).
Performance upgrading of all four sewage treatment facilities will re-
sult in substantial reductions of average total pollutant loadings of
oxygen-demanding substances and suspended solids, in addition to lesser
reductions in other pollutants such as nutrients and oil and grease.
However, little effect upon the improvement of bacterial quality and
hence compliance with bathing water standards will be realized unless
combined sewer overflows are disinfected.
Reduction in the average levels of ^x-yg-en—demanding materials to near
natural background levels in the bay can be accomplished only by rout-
ing nearly all of the dry- and wet-weather sewage treatment facility
effluents and combined sewer overflows out of the bay to the New York
Bight. Because the levels of oxygen-demanding materials in the bay
that will result from the discharges of the upgraded treatment facili-
ties are not believed to present serious problems in the ecosystem, the
relative high cost of routing the wastewaters out of the bay to further
reduce these levels does not appear justified.
-------
WASTEWATER INFLOWS
Jamaica Bay presently receives numerous inflows along its periphery, in-
cluding treated municipal wastewaters, surface runoff from separately
sewered areas, combined sewer overflows and other minor pollutant
sources. Data characterizing'these inflows were obtained during the
conduct of this project and were useTd to assess their impact upon
Jamaica Bay under various alternative wastewater management programs.
Major conclusions concerning the wastewater characteristics and the im-
portance of the inflows to the bay are presented below.
1. The proportion of rainfall on combined sewered areas that re-
sults in combined sewer overflows varies from 38% in the Thurston Basin
drainage area to over 92% in the Hendrix Creek drainage area. These
variations are attributed to differences in upstream storage capacities
in the various sewer systems.
2. Discharge to the bay from the Spring Creek combined sewer
overflow treatment facility occurs for about one-fourth of the 40
storms typically occurring during the 5-month (mo) summer recreational
season.
3. Average per capita municipal wastewater flow and pollutant
loadings are typical of other urban areas; i.e.,
Flow 162 gallons per day (gpd)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 0.160 pounds per day (Ib/day)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 0.525 Ib/day
Suspended solids (SS) 0.194 Ib/day
Hexane extractable materials (HEM) 0.032 Ib/day
Total nitrogen (TN) 0.059 Ib/day
Total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) 0.023 Ib/day
Total organic nitrogen (TON) 0.035 Ib/day
Total phosphorus (TP) 0.012 Ib/day
Total soluble phosphorus (TSP) 0.008 Ib/day
4. Average 5-day, 20°C biochemical oxygen demand (BODg) removal
efficiencies for the four sewage treatment facilities (26th Ward, Coney
Island, Jamaica and Rockaway) prior to their upgrading (1970) ranged
from 55 to 63%. This corresponds to an intermediate (between primary
and secondary) level of treatment.
5. Following upgrading of the four existing sewage treatment
facilities to full step-aeration processes, they are expected to re-
move from 85 to 90% of the 6005, which will constitute a secondary
level of treatment.
6. The overall bacterial quality of the sewage treatment facil-
ity effluents will be greatly improved following upgrading of the
-------
chlorination facilities at the 26th Ward facility. Chlorination facil-
ities at the other three sewage treatment facilities are adequate.
7. Mass emission coefficients, expressed as pounds per acre, of
7 pollutants in the 44 storms monitored during this project correlated
linearly with storm overflow depth. The pollutants are BOD5, COD, SS,
HEM, TON, TIN and TSP.
8. The urban runoff model developed in this project is an ex-
tremely useful tool for predicting the total amount and time history of
pollutants, such as BOD and total coliforms, discharged to Jamaica Bay
as a result of a combined sewer overflow. The appropriate equation is:
aS(q + qj' + W(q J
•3 U t b t
where C = constituent concentration at time t;
C = dry-weather constituent concentration;
q = dry-weather flow rate;
q = wet-weather flow rate;
O
S = coefficient related to storage factor and sewer slope;
a = 0 when t > t or
max
a = 1 when t < t ;
— max
t = time of hydrograph peak;
max
n = empirical coefficient;
W = coefficient varying with street cleaning frequency, basin
geometry and population density; and
k = varies from 1.5 to 2.0.
9. The time history of total coliforms contained in a combined
sewer overflow was found to follow a W-shaped curve. The shape results
from a combination of the three components of the runoff model. The
first component accounts for dilution of dry-weather coliform concen-
trations by stormwater runoff. The second component accounts for the
addition of coliforms from scoured sediments in the sewer. The third
component accounts for the contribution of coliforms from street gut-
ters. The central peak in the concentration profile, creating the
W-shaped curve, is caused by the scouring component, which rises ex-
ponentially as the storm hydrograph rises but drops sharply as the sedi-
ments are resuspended.
10. The performance of the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow
treatment facility will vary according to transient storm character-
-------
istics, ranging from a secondary level of treatment when all runoff to
the facility can be totally contained and subsequently drained to the
26th Ward treatment facility to a decreasing level of treatment commen-
surate with sedimentation basin performance characteristics for increas-
ing storm sizes.
11. Prior to upgrading of- the four sewage treatment facilities and
prior to control of any combined sewer overflows, the relative contri-
butions of BOD5 to Jamaica Bay from the various sources was 81% for sew-
age treatment plants, 14% for combined sewer overflows, 4% for separate
storm sewers and < 1% for all other sources. Following upgrading of
the four sewage treatment facilities and if all combined sewer overflows
are treated by facilities comparable to the Spring Creek facility, the
relative contributions of BOD5 would be 76% for sewage treatment plants,
14% for combined sewer overflows, 10% for separate storm sewers and < 1%
for all other sources.
12. The four sewage treatment facilities prior to upgrading con-
tribute over 90% of the nutrient loading to Jamaica Bay. Because of
the small contribution from other sources, and negligible effect of the
improved processes on nutrient removal, these facilities will continue
to contribute over 90% of the nutrient loading after upgrading.
13. As a result of upgrading the four sewage treatment facilities
to step aeration, the total annual average pollutant loadings to Jamaica
Bay from all sources of BOD 5 will decrease 60%, COD will decrease 23%,
total suspended solids will decrease 38%, HEM will decrease 29%, total
nitrogen will increase 2% and total phosphorus will decrease 7%. (The
increase in nitrogen is due to increased future flows at the sewage
treatment facilities and low removal rates.)
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
From the extensive water quality data base established as part of this
project, the following conclusions have been drawn regarding the char-
acteristics of Jamaica Bay, particularly in the way the bay has been
modified by waste discharges.
14. Very little net circulation occurs in Jamaica Bay. Nearly
all water that enters the bay on flooding tide leaves the bay on ebbing
tide. The net advective daily flow out of the bay is equivalent to
< 1% of the volume of the bay.
15. The extensive tide-induced movements of water in Jamaica Bay
create sufficient turbulence to cause nearly completely mixed conditions
in the vertical dimension in most areas of the bay. The only exception
is the Grassy Bay area which exhibits some stratification.
16. During the summer a gradient of increasing temperature exists
-------
from Rockaway Inlet to Head of Bay. This is due primarily to ambient
air temperatures having a more pronounced effect on the shallower bay
waters than on the deeper portions.
17. Water transparency of Jamaica Bay is lower in the summer than
in the winter. Summertime averages ranged from 0.6 to 1.6 meters (m),
whereas wintertime averages ranged between 1.2 and 2.4 m.
18. Significant differences in summertime and wintertime average
total suspended solids concentrations occur only in the mid-bay channels,
where values decreased from 53 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in the summer
to 19 mg/1 in the winter. Elsewhere throughout the bay, average values
were in the order of 8 and 10 mg/1.
19. Volatile suspended solids concentrations in Jamaica Bay are
similar in the summer and the winter except in the center of the bay due
to the proximity of the marshland areas, where the summertime average
was about 12 mg/1 as compared to the wintertime average of around 6 mg/1.
20. The pH of Jamaica Bay waters is lower in the summer than the
winter, probably due to higher algal photosynthetic activity in the
winter which causes a decrease in water acidity. The lowest average pH
in the summer was 7.4, whereas the lowest in the winter was 7.8.
21. A small chlorosity gradient exists in the bay during both
seasons. Chlorosities in the Grassy Bay area are approximately 18% be-
low that found in the New York Bight. This slight gradient is caused
by the relatively small amount of fresh water (< 1% of the volume of
the bay each day) that is discharged to the bay.
22. Dissolved oxygen levels in Jamaica Bay are higher everywhere
during the winter as compared to the summer due to temperature-induced
differences in the saturation and the reduction in the rate of BOD
exertion during the winter. Average dissolved oxygen levels ranged
from about 3 to 7 mg/1 during the summer and from about 10 to 13 mg/1
in the winter.
23. Due to poor water circulation and proximity of wastewater dis-
charges in the Grassy Bay area, dissolved oxygen levels during the
summer in this area are depressed to about 24% of saturation levels, as
contrasted to relatively high levels extant elsewhere throughout the
bay. During the winter, all of the bay is saturated or nearly satu-
rated with oxygen.
24. The seasonal differences in 8005 concentrations in Jamaica
Bay waters are the result of seasonal metabolic differences. 6005
concentrations are higher in the vicinities of the 26th Ward and
Jamaica sewage treatment facility discharges and in the center of the
bay, due to effluents and marsh grass decomposition, respectively.
Summertime averages of BOD 5 ranged from about 2.0 to 3.5 mg/1; whereas
-------
wintertime averages ranged from about 2.5 to 5.0 mg/1.
25. Average organic nitrogen, ammonia and nitrate concentrations
in Jamaica Bay waters are highest in the Grassy Bay area due to poor
water circulation and the proximity of the water pollution control facil-
ity effluents, which are the primary sources of this material.
26. The amounts of nitrogen in Jamaica Bay waters are sufficient
to support large populations of algae.
27. Total phosphate and orthophosphate concentrations in the
waters are highest in the back-bay areas of the bay due to the proximity
of the sewage treatment facility discharges and poor water circulation
in these areas.
28. Except for localized areas of Jamaica Bay, most concentrations
of HEM in the waters are about equal in summer and winter. A wintertime
average HEM of 3.4 mg/1 was noted near the John F. Kennedy International
Airport; the same area indicated an average summertime concentration of
only 0.5 mg/1.
29. Total coliform, fecal coliform and fecal streptococci densi-
ties in the waters of Jamaica Bay are higher in the winter than in the
summer. This is due to the practice of not chlorinating effluents from
the sewage treatment facilities during the winter. Concentrations of
total coliforms in excess of bathing water standards were observed
throughout the north channel during the summer and throughout the bay
during the winter. Coliform disappearance studies showed that, because
of the low rate of measured die-away, the frequent occurrence of com-
bined sewer overflows would be sufficient to maintain concentrations in
the bay waters at these high levels.
30. Microplankton concentrations in Jamaica Bay are much higher
in the winter than in the summer. Although there appeared to be no
correlation between concentration of microplankton and location of
wastewater discharges, the microplankton diversity index shows marked
reduction in areas near combined sewer overflows, particularly Paerdegat
Basin, Fresh Creek Basin and Bergen Basin.
31. Average zooplankton concentrations in Jamaica Bay in the
winter were an order of magnitude less than summertime averages.
Neither summer nor winter zooplankton populations appeared to correlate
with sewage treatment facility discharge or combined sewer overflow lo-
cations. Zooplankton species diversity indices were somewhat lower in
the north channel in the proximity of the 26th Ward facility discharge.
32. Special samplings in other bays on Long Island indicated that
water quality, as measured by BODs, soluble phosphorus, total coliforms,
midroplankton and zooplankton concentrations, is presently lower in
-------
Jamaica Bay than in other Long Island bays. This reflects the effects
of wastewater discharges to Jamaica Bay. Results of fish and inverte-
brate trawls in Jamaica Bay and other Long Island bays showed that a
more balanced and favorable fish and invertebrate community exists in
Jamaica Bay, however, than in the other Long Island bays.
33. Sediment quality of Jamaica Bay did not show seasonal varia-
tions. Quality was found to be degraded in the back part of the bay
due to poor water circulation which allows settleable solids to accumu-
late. For example, sediment BOD5 was highest in the Head of Bay area,
and the highest values of HEM, sulfides and phosphorus occurred in the
Grassy Bay area.
34. The distribution of benthos reflected the spatial distribution
of degraded sediment conditions. Minimum species diversity indices of
less than 0.2 were observed in the Grassy Bay area.
35. The quality of Jamaica Bay sediments is higher than for other
Long Island bays due to continuous dredging to maintain navigable water-
ways in the bay.
36. Heavy metals are accumulating in Jamaica Bay, but their pres-
ent levels are not high enough to cause acute toxicity to marine organ-
isms. Average concentrations, expressed as micrograms per liter (pg/1),
were 100 for copper, 1.5 for chromium, 15 for nickel, 120 for zinc, 2.9
for cadmium, 120 for lead and 2.9 for mercury.
37. The results of analyses for chlorinated hydrocarbons in the
waters and sediments of Jamaica Bay show a gradual increase from Rock-
away Inlet to the east end of the bay. Although concentrations of total
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the sediments are several orders of magni-
tude greater than those found in the waters, there is no evidence that
these levels, or levels in the overlying waters, are obstacles to de-
velopment of additional beneficial uses for Jamaica Bay.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The following conclusions can be drawn from the planned upgrading of
the four existing dry-weather sewage treatment facilities.
38. Upgrading of the 26th Ward, Coney Island, Jamaica and Rock-
away facilities to provide secondary (step-aeration) treatment and im-
provement of the chlorination facilities at the 26th Ward facility to
a total ultimate capacity of 340 million gallons per day (mgd) will
require a total estimated capital cost of $185,183,000. Including the
estimated costs for additional operation and maintenance of upgraded
facilities, the total annual cost would be $18,272,000.
39. Improving the chlorination facilities at the 26th Ward
facility will increase the total number of usable beach days in
-------
Jamaica Bay by only 1%. Greater increases would be noticeable, however,
at potential bathing beach sites located at Canarsie Beach, between
Canarsie Beach and Fresh Creek and between Spring Creek and Shellbank
Basin.
40. Upgrading the four sewage treatment facilities to the step-
aeration process will reduce the average BODs concentrations in Jamaica
Bay by approximately 33% from that prior to construction and operation
of the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow treatment facility, thereby
increasing the dissolved oxygen levels in the bay. Improvement will be
higher in areas near the discharge locations of the four sewage treat-
ment facilities.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of each individual combined sewer
overflow treatment facility and alternative combinations of two or more
facilities in conjunction with the upgraded sewage treatment facilities
has led to the following conclusions.
41. The Spring Creek auxiliary facility, recently completed at a
cost of $14,300,000, should show an overall 8% improvement in the usable
beach days in Jamaica Bay and a 12% improvement in the usable beach days
at the potential beach between Spring Creek and Shellbank Basin. A
small decrease in the average concentrations of BOD and other wastewater
constituents in Jamaica Bay will be associated with the operation of the
Spring Creek facility.
42. Capital costs for combined sewer overflow treatment at pro-
posed locations range from $4,991,000 at Hendrix Creek Basin to
$39,007,000 at Thurston Basin. The difference in cost is due in part
to the difference in size between each treatment facility and in part
to the extent of the interceptors that must be constructed to divert
the combined sewer overflows to the facility.
43. The effect of untreated combined sewer overflow on the po-
tential beaches in Jamaica Bay depends upon the size of the drainage
area, the size of the storm, the tidal conditions during and after the
rainfall and the proximity to potential beach sites.
44. Development of Canarsie Beach and a beach site between
Canarsie Beach and Fresh Creek adjacent to Floyd Bennett Field and
Island Channel into a totally usable beach will require management of
the Fresh Creek Basin and Paerdegat Basin combined sewer overflows.
45. Development of potential beach sites at Canarsie Beach and
between Canarsie Beach and Fresh Creek into totally usable beaches will
require management of the Paerdegat Basin, Fresh Creek Basin, Hendrix
Creek Basin and Spring Creek Basin combined sewer overflows.
-------
46. Development of a beach site between Spring Creek and Shellbank
Basin into a totally usable beach will require management of the Fresh
Creek Basin, Hendrix Creek Basin, Spring Creek Basin and Bergen Basin
combined sewer overflows.
47. The most cost-effective addition to the upgraded sewage treat-
ment facilities and the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow facility
would be to construct an auxiliary facility to serve the Paerdegat Basin.
48. Construction of all potential combined sewer overflow treat-
ment facilities will enable water quality in Jamaica Bay to always meet
the water quality standards for total coliform density at all potential
beach sites.
49. It is estimated that a total capital cost of $308,455,000 and
a total annual cost of $29,402,000 will be required to upgrade the four
sewage treatment facilities and provide an auxiliary facility for each
major combined sewer overflow to Jamaica Bay.
50. Although a submarine outfall system could also provide totally
usable beaches within Jamaica Bay and even further reductions in BOD
and other constituent concentrations within the bay, such a system is
not cost-effective. The capital cost for a system to provide total pro-
tection to potential beach sites is estimated to be $569,483,000, and
an annual cost of $53,134,000. These costs are much higher than waste-
water management programs involving combined sewer overflow control and
treatment.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this project have led to the following recommendations
regarding wastewater management in the Jamaica Bay drainage area.
1. The sewage treatment facility performance upgrading program
should be given the highest priority for implementation.
2. Design of future auxiliary facilities for treatment of com-
bined sewer overflows should proceed only after the performance and
effects of preceding facilities have been carefully assessed.
3. With regard to construction of additional auxiliary facilities,
the highest priority should be assigned to Paerdegat Basin and Fresh
Creek Basin.
4. To provide totally usable beaches from the standpoint of bac-
terial quality, steps should be taken to construct auxiliary facilities
to service each combined sewer overflow to Jamaica Bay.
5. Development of a detailed monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of the wastewater management program in improving the
quality of Jamaica Bay should await the final development of the Water
Quality Simulation Model by the New York City Rand Institute. In this
way, key parameters and measurement frequencies can be identified more
meaningfully and more economical programs can be designed.
6. The assumed performance capability of the Spring Creek auxil-
iary facility should be verified.
7. The cost-effectiveness of providing additional storage volume
at proposed auxiliary facilities should be studied using the Rand model.
8. The urban runoff model and the Rand model should be used to
develop operating criteria for proposed auxiliary facilities.
10
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Jamaica Bay is in many respects quite similar to the other bay systems
which span the south shore of Long Island. It is shallow, supports an
extensive system of tidal marshes and has a restricted interchange of
water with the ocean through a narrow inlet. The bay measures about 4
by 6 miles (mi), and the area encompasses approximately 20 mi2. Nearly
31% of this area is taken up by islands and tidal marshes in the cen-
tral portion of the bay.
Jamaica Bay, except for some small reaches in the eastern end, lies en-
tirely within the City of New York. As shown in Figure 1, the bay is
bounded on the south by the rather narrow Rockaway Peninsula, which
separates it from the New York Bight of the Atlantic Ocean, on the east
by Nassau County and the John F. Kennedy International Airport, on the
north by the Howard Beach section of the Borough of Queens and on the
west by the Borough of Brooklyn.
Although Jamaica Bay covers a rather extensive area, its mean depth is
only 16 feet (ft). Because the mean tidal range at Rockaway Inlet is
approximately 5 ft and tidal variations within the bay itself are of a
similar magnitude, approximately one-third of the volume of the water
in the bay flows out through Rockaway Inlet with the ebbing tide and
returns on the flooding tide.
Relative to the volume of tidal inflow and outflow from the bay, the
net fresh water input to the bay is extremely small, amounting to less
than 1% of the volume of the bay on a daily basis. Of the total fresh
water input to the bay, sewage treatment facility effluents contribute
approximately 70%, or 220 mgd. The remaining 30% is almost equally di-
vided in quantity between combined sewer overflows and storm runoff.
PROBLEM DELINEATION
General Problem
Jamaica Bay, like many other bodies of water in close proximity to ur-
ban areas, has been subjected to unplanned and conflicting uses. Fur-
thermore, concepts of water quality requirements have undergone contin-
uous evaluation with time, so that systems for drainage and wastewater
treatment instituted in the past no longer conform to contemporary wa-
ter resource management objectives. In many cases drainage systems
date from a time when sewage treatment was considered to be unnecessary
or economically infeasible. Sewerage systems were instituted solely
for purposes of conveying any and all liquid wastes to points of con-
venient discharge. When sewage treatment was instituted to improve the
quality of the aquatic environment, the existing combined sewer systems
11
-------
Figure 1. Location map of Jamaica Bay
12
-------
were retained for economic reasons. As a consequence, during most per-
iods of rainfall, these systems carry more wastewater than can be accom-
modated by the water pollution control facilities, and the excess flows
(consisting of a mixture of sanitary sewage and urban surface runoff)
are diverted directly to the receiving water. In this regard, the City
of New York is not unique; approximately one-half the United States ur-
ban population is served by combined sewers.
To alleviate these problems the city has planned a construction program
to control the adverse effects of discharges from combined sewers.
Special studies already conducted by the city have shown that the cost
of this program will most likely approach $500 million. Consequently,
it is the desire of the city that the best possible understanding of
the problem be achieved, so that a maximum improvement in the receiving
waters can be attained at a minimum cost. With this thought in mind,
the Jamaica Bay Wastewater Management Program was initiated.
Specific Problems in Jamaica Bay
Because of the proximity of Jamaica Bay to a heavily urbanized area,
its uses have multiplied in number and extent, so that the task of re-
source allocation has become increasingly difficult. Over the years
there has been an increasing awareness of water quality problems, re-
sulting in more stringent water quality requirements for each of the
bay uses. Furthermore, the effects of many uses, such as collection of
wastewater discharges, conflict with the requirements of other uses,
such as recreation and fishing.
Presently the major uses of the bay resources are fishing, boating,
wildlife management, dredging for fill material, solid and liquid waste
disposal, land reclamation, airport facilities and shipping. Addition-
al uses, which have been seriously restricted or eliminated entirely,
include aesthetic enjoyment, primary water contact sports and shellfish
propagation.
Many factors contribute to the past and continuing degradation of water
quality in Jamaica Bay. Factors with an extensive impact on water qual-
ity are those related to the discharge of wastewaters. Effluents dis-
charged from sewage treatment facilities and combined sewer overflows
are the most significant wastewaters, although urban surface runoff
(storm drainage), drainage from John F. Kennedy International Airport
and other miscellaneous sources of wastewaters have a measurable impact
on water quality.
Wastewaters are not the only sources contributing to the problem.
Drainage from solid waste disposal areas adds pollutants to the bay.
Land reclamation has virtually eliminated the productive marsh areas
that once surrounded the bay. Dredging, by altering the hydrography
and bottom composition, has often resulted in undesirable conditions.
13
-------
In developing a long-range plan for water pollution control in Jamaica
Bay, it was necessary to consider the relative impacts of all these
factors.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the Jamaica Bay Wastewater Management Program
was to determine the feasibility of progressing with a combined sewer
overflow control program by evaluating the impact of constructing and
operating a combined sewer overflow treatment facility on the Spring
Creek drainage basin. The program had as its general objectives:
1. A characterization and evaluation of those parameters that
measure the effects of combined sewer overflows and other interacting
wastewater discharges;
2. A study of the pre-conditions in the area that would be af-
fected by discharges from the Spring Creek facilities; and
3. The conduct of a post-construction survey to determine the
effectiveness of the treatment process in upgrading the quality of the
receiving water.
Specific objectives of the completed program phases were:
1. To determine the characteristics of combined sewer overflows
and other interacting pollution sources in the bay;
2. To estimate the relative contribution of pollutants by each
waste source;
3. To determine the significant physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the waters and sediments of the bay; and
4. To achieve an understanding, insofar as possible, of the ef-
fects of waste discharges on the quality of waters and sediments of the
bay and on the ecological system.
Due to unavoidable program delays and an extended construction period
for the combined sewer overflow treatment facility, called the Spring
Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility, which lasted beyond
the program performance period, it was not feasible to perform a post-
construction evaluation of the effects of this facility on the water
quality of Jamaica Bay. Performance characteristics and operational
data on the first two years of the facility's operation are included,
however.
PROJECT SCOPE AND CONDUCT
For technical reasons, tasks were developed in three basic categories:
pollutional inputs, receiving water and sediment quality, and water
quality response to pollutional inputs. Thus, the technical program
followed closely the specific objectives established for the study.
14
-------
Evaluation of pollutional sources contributing to Jamaica Bay included
monitoring and characterization of the following inputs.
1. Combined Sewer Overflows. Special monitoring and sampling sta-
tions were established at Hendrix Creek, Spring Creek (on two sites)
and Thurston Basin. Approximately 30% of the combined sewer overflows
entering Jamaica Bay originate in the drainage areas tributary to these
sites.
2. Sanitary Sewage (Dry-Weather Flow). Sampling stations were lo-
cated at the Coney Island, 26th Ward, Jamaica and Rockaway sewage treat-
ment facility effluents.
3. Urban Surface Runoff (Storm Drainage). Two monitoring sta-
tions were established: one for evaluation of drainage from a 1,200-
acre (ac) area in the southeast area of Queens and the other for a
smaller area in the vicinity of Gerritsen Creek in Brooklyn.
4. Industrial Wastes. A detailed analysis of the sources and ex-
tent of pollution arising from John F. Kennedy International Airport
was made. Other significant industrial sources were also considered.
5. Tidal Exchange. Monitoring programs were established to pro-
vide data for estimating the magnitude of the net tidal exchange.
6. Other Sources. Evaluations of landfill practice, dredging,
deposition of aerosols and other miscellaneous sources of pollutants
were also included in the program.
The basic program of characterization of the water quality of Jamaica
Bay involved monitoring cruises with sampling at 15 principal sampling
sites at 2-mo intervals. Water samples were taken at high water slack
and low water slack to provide both mean water quality conditions and
variations of these conditions; and their physical, chemical and bio-
logical properties were established. Samples of the sediment were also
taken, and quantitative descriptions of benthic animals and sediment
characteristics were obtained. Special programs included the determina-
tion of primary photosynthetic productivity, bacteriological (coliform)
mortality, oxygen transfer, benthic respiration and toxicity factors.
The third section of the technical work program consisted of mathemati-
cal modeling of the significant phenomena involved in the response of
the bay to the various pollutional influences. These included the oxy-
gen budget, toxic effects, coliform die-away and general dispersion and
fate of pollutants within the bay system.
15
-------
SECTION IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF JAMAICA BAY AND ENVIRONS
The study of the effects of treated wastewater discharges and combined
sewer overflows on the water quality of Jamaica Bay has required a
proper assessment of the nature of these overflows and the nature of
the receiving water responses. Studies of the topography, hydrography
and hydrology of the land draining to the bay were necessary to deter-
mine the patterns, frequencies and amounts of hydraulic inputs into the
bay. Population changes were also considered to determine future waste
inputs from sewage treatment facilities. Land use in the drainage area
was considered because it affects the hydraulic characteristics of run-
off patterns.
TOPOGRAPHY
Geological Characteristics
Long Island originated as the outwash of glaciers which covered the
area for the last time in the Pleistocene many thousands of years ago.
The most prominent landforms of Long Island are the terminal moraines
that form the high ridges in the central and eastern end of the island;
the gently sloping outwash plain extending southward from the moraines?
the deeply eroded headlands along the north shore; and the barrier
beaches along the south shore.
Underlying the surface of Long Island are layers of pervious and imper-
vious sedimentary rock, which provide the island with tremendous ground-
water reservoirs. It is estimated, for example, that 60 x 10 gallons
(gal.) of water are stored in these groundwater aquifers. The material
underlying Jamaica Bay is entirely glacial deposit and is therefore per-
vious to inflow and outflow. It is not known whether active exchange
of fresh or salt water has occurred through this layer; however, his-
torical records indicate that these layers are not a source of signifi-
cant fresh water inflow to Jamaica Bay. For example, the New York Har-
bor Survey, which has recorded salinity in Jamaica Bay since 1926, has
recorded no significant changes in the salinity regime in the bay to
date. In the 1930's, when groundwater supplies in Brooklyn and Queens
were used extensively for water supplies, the water table was drawn
down to the extent that salt water penetrated the supply aquifers, in-
dicating an active inflow of salt water through this pervious layer
into underlying water-bearing strata. However, by the end of the
1940's substantial recovery had occurred, and by 1965 the water table
in all but the northern part of Brooklyn had recovered to a position
above sea level. A depression in the water table was caused by con-
tinued groundwater pumping in southwest Queens, and salt water is now
moving into that area [1] .
16
-------
Surface Features
As has been indicated, the higher regions are areas of glacial deposits.
These deposits rise to heights of 211 ft in Queens and 220 ft in Brook-
lyn. The drainage area to Jamaica Bay is south of this prominent ridge.
Most of the land directly adjacent to Jamaica Bay and within approxi-
mately 1 mi of its periphery is almost flat. Historically this area
was marsh, which has since been filled in for real estate development.
For example, on the west side of Jamaica Bay is Barren Island, the lo-
cation of Floyd Bennett Field; historically the island was separated
from the main portion of Long Island and was considerably smaller than
its present size. Fill material placed on the north and northwest por-
tions of the island has permanently connected it with Long Island. On
the north border of the bay are seven inlets which also are the remains
of extensive marsh areas in that region. Landfill operations have nar-
rowed these channels until they are now simply extensions of the com-
bined sewer overflow systems and essentially form a buffering system
between the combined sewer outlets and the bay. Located on the eastern
border of Jamaica Bay is John F. Kennedy International Airport. Fill
for this area was taken entirely from Jamaica Bay, and the present
Grassy Bay, which is adjacent to the airport and has a mean depth of
approximately 40 ft, was the source of this fill. The only extensive
peripheral marshland which still exists is in Nassau County, on the ex-
treme eastern edge of Jamaica Bay. However, even this marsh is rapidly
being transformed into filled land for real estate developments. The
entire southern border of Jamaica Bay is comprised of Rockaway Penin-
sula, formed principally by the deposition of sands carried in by ocean
currents.
Extensive marsh areas still exist within Jamaica Bay itself. The main
island is Rulers Bar Hassock, which contains the City of Broad Channel
and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 3,000 people reside
in Broad Channel, and it is through this city that vehicular and subway
transportation reaches Rockaway Peninsula from Brooklyn or Queens.
Fresh water ponds are present on both sides of Broad Channel and are
used by considerable numbers of migrating ducks and other waterfowl,
representing about 200 species, throughout the year. In all, the marsh
areas cover approximately 4,000 ac, of which only a small portion is ac-
cessible by land and the balance by boat. According to previous inves-
tigations [2,3], those islands not accessible by land contain large pop-
ulations of rodents and are unsuitable for bird nesting.
A variety of plant life exists on these marshy areas and consists prin-
cipally of smooth cord grass intermixed with salt hay and glasswort.
However, in the Wildlife Refuge other species have been planted, includ-
ing autumn olive, chokeberry, black pine and rugosa rose, with the re-
sult that a considerable diversity of plant life now exists there [4].
17
-------
HYDROGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
Hydrographic and Hydraulic Characteristics
The present volume of the bay inside the Marine Parkway Bridge at mean
tide level is approximately 7 x 109 ft3. The surface area varies from
3.6 x 108 ft2 at mean low water to 5.2 x 108 ft2 at mean high water,
which demonstrates the extent of the intertidal marsh areas still re-
maining in Jamaica Bay. The average depth varies from 13.5 ft at mean
low water to 18.5 ft at mean high water, and at mean tide level the av-
erage depth is 16.0 ft.
Dredging has considerably altered the natural features of the bay, as
have the landfill activities in the peripheral marsh zones. Estimates
of the total quantity of material dredged from the bay and its tribu-
tary creeks and basins indicate that approximately 70% of the existing
volume of the bay can be attributed to dredging.
In addition to sand mining, dredging in Jamaica Bay has been carried
out for purposes of navigational channel construction. Surveys carried
out approximately 60 years (yr) ago [5], before extensive commercial
development of the bay had begun, show that originally the bay was al-
most exclusively marshland, with shallow channels separating the patches
of marsh. In relatively few areas were mean water depths greater than
5 ft.
An engineering study completed in 1909 [5] presented recommendations
for the development of deepwater port facilities in Jamaica Bay; al-
though the recommendations were never carried out to any great extent,
in the ensuing years Rockaway Inlet was dredged to accommodate medium-
draft ships, and the peripheral channels (Island Channel and Beach
Channel) were progressively deepened, widened and extended. Continuing
activities, including channel maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, have resulted in the present conditions: Rockaway Inlet now
has a depth of about 40 ft, whereas the peripheral shipping channels,
with nominal depths of 25 ft and widths of about 1,000 ft, extend to
Spring Creek on the North Shore and (with somewhat narrower widths) to
Head of Bay on the southeast and Bergen Basin on the north of John F.
Kennedy International Airport.
The largest single dredging project involved the removal of about 50 x
106 cubic yards (yd3) of material from the Grassy Bay area for fill ma-
terial used in the construction of Idlewild (now John F. Kennedy) Inter-
national Airport. Material was removed to a depth of about 40 ft, cre-
ating a rather extensive "pot hole" at the head of the bay. Under these
conditions, the greater momentum of the waters moving eastward in Beach
Channel with flooding tides caused a net counter-clockwise transport of
water in the Jamaica Bay system. That is, greater quantities of water
moved in than out through Beach Channel. The excess moved northerly
through Grassy Bay and out through Island Channel.
18
-------
However, when at John F. Kennedy International Airport a runway was
extended across the southern portion of Grassy Bay to Jo Co Marsh, the
circulation patterns were interrupted. It now appears that little, if
any, net circulation occurs in Jamaica Bay. Nearly all the water en-
tering the bay on flooding tides is carried via the peripheral channels
which essentially terminate in Grassy Bay. On ebbing tides an equiva-
lent quantity of water moves back through the channels and into Rocka-
way Inlet. A minor exception occurs in Pumpkin Patch Channel, which
stretches across the western portion of the bay from Nova Scotia Bar
near Rockaway Inlet to the Spring Creek area on the north shore. Be-
cause of the shallowness (5 to 10 ft) of this channel, tidal waves are
propagated at a slower rate than in Island Channel, resulting in a net
flow of water from northeast to southwest in the channel.
Net advective flows in Jamaica Bay are nearly insignificant compared to
tidal flows. It is estimated that net daily flow out of the bay (from
peripheral inputs) is equivalent to less than 1% of the volume of the
bay, whereas the diurnal tidal prism is approximately 60 times greater
than this value.
Tides
The tidal wave characteristics of Jamaica Bay are predominantly semidi-
urnal with a period of 12.42 hours (hr). Thus high tides and low tides
occur almost twice each day. The mean tidal range in Jamaica Bay is
approximately 5 ft, although this value increases toward the head of
the bay. The increase is due to the presence of a standing wave, which
is caused by reflection of the tidal wave and is common for closed-end
estuaries.
When the sun and moon are either in opposition or in conjunction, tidal
ranges occur which are greater than average. These spring tides add
approximately 20% to the range in the New York Bight, and similar con-
ditions prevail in Jamaica Bay. Table 1 presents mean and spring tidal
ranges for various points in Jamaica Bay.
The rise and fall of the tide at the bay inlet and the associated ex-
change of water masses through the entrance result in the temporary
storage of a large amount of sea water in the bay during high tide and
the drainage of this water seaward during low tide. The total volume
of water exchanged by this process is known as the tidal prism. The
mean tidal prism (volume of water lying between mean high and mean low
waters) of Jamaica Bay is 2.51 x ICr ft , which is equivalent to 35.9%
of the total bay volume at mean tide level. A substantial increase
(about 20%) in the tidal prism occurs during spring tides.
Mixing and Stratification
The extensive tide-induced movements of water in Jamaica Bay create suf-
ficient turbulence to effect nearly completely mixed conditions in the
19
-------
Table 1. MEAN AND SPRING TIDAL RANGES IN JAMAICA BAY
Location
Plumb Beach Channel
Barren Island, Rockaway Inlet
Beach Channel (bridge)
Mill Basin
Canarsie Pier
Grassy Bay
John F. Kennedy Airport
Motts Basin
North Point, Head of Bay
Tidal range,
Mean
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4
ft
Spring
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
vertical direction in most areas of the bay. Stratification is minimal,
even at the bay entrance near the Marine Parkway Bridge. In most areas
of low tidal velocity, shallow depths offset stabilizing factors associ-
ated with quiescence. Grassy Bay is a noteworthy exception. With lit-
tle advective transport through this area and a comparatively small
relative tidal prism (about 10%), this zone of Jamaica Bay is frequent-
ly stratified. However, the fetch in Grassy Bay is at least 3,500 ft,
and wind-induced turbulence helps to break up the stratification.
Surface Inflows
There are 18,909 ac within the Jamaica Bay drainage basin which are ser-
viced by combined sewer systems. With approximately 40 inches (in.) of
annual rainfall, almost evenly distributed throughout the year, and an
estimated runoff factor of 65%, the average discharge from combined sew-
er systems amounts to approximately 34 mgd. During normal precipita-
tion periods, rain falls on the average every third day. Consequently,
there are short periods during which the volumetric discharges from com-
bined sewer overflows are substantially greater than 34 mgd. The peak
discharge from combined sewer overflows during a 5-yr storm, which sta-
tistically has a 60-minute (min) average intensity of 1.8 in./hr, would
amount to 13,500 mgd. The 18,083 ac in the Jamaica Bay drainage basin
with separate storm sewers contribute approximately the same quantity
of wastewater as do combined sewers. Table 2 shows the breakdown of
sewerage system types (including unsewered areas) in the New York City
portion of the Jamaica Bay drainage basin.
Water pollution control facility effluents constitute the major sources
of nontidal inflow to Jamaica Bay. In dry weather these sources dis-
charge approximately 220 mgd to the bay. The four sewage treatment fa-
cilities in the study area operated by the Bureau of Water Pollution
20
-------
Table 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF JAMAICA BAY DRAINAGE BASINa
Type of discharge
Point of discharge
Drainage area,
ac
Combined sewers
Subtotal
Separate storm
sewers
Subtotal
Unsewered
Subtotal
Bergen Basin
Thurston Basin
Spring Creek East
Spring Creek West
Hendrix Creek
Fresh Creek
Paerdegat Basin
Sheepshead Bay
Rockaway Peninsula
Queens (primarily at Thurston
Basin and Bergen Basin)
Brooklyn (primarily at Sheeps-
head Bay)
Queens
Brooklyn
Total area
2,699
2,190
1,382
1,874
492
2,001
5,730
291
1,250
18,909
13,233
4,850
18,083
1,369
676
2,045
39,037
New York City only.
Control of the City of New York are responsible for nearly all the flow
from these sources. The locations of these sewage treatment facilities,
their points of discharge and their tributary areas are shown in Figure
2. Table 3 presents flow data for the four facilities. The continuous
fresh-water inflow contributed from natural streams is insignificant
when compared with this dry-weather wastewater inflow. The 13-yr aver-
age daily flow from Valley Stream, which empties near the head of the
bay, is 2.65 mgd. Motts Creek, 1 mi southwest of Valley Stream in Nas-
sau County, in most cases discharges less than 0.65 mgd into Jamaica
Bay.
CLIMATOLOGY
Temperature
In general, New York City's mean annual temperature is slightly higher
than that of most places in the United States at the same latitude.
Despite its nearness to the ocean, the area has a climate which more
closely resembles continental than maritime. The modified continental
climate is due primarily to the fact that weather conditions affecting
21
-------
«£!>•••••:
«•'*»! "-'>';""" i --t
•:/.. V »..ll
Figure 2. Location of major water
pollution control facilities and
tributary areas - Jamaica Bay
22
-------
Table 3. FLOWS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES, 1972
Facility Flow, mgd
New York City
Coney Island 99
26th Ward 66
Jamaica 93
Rockaway 19
Military installations
Floyd Bennett Field 0.3
Fort Tilden 0.3
Nassau County
Inwood 1.3
Cedarhurst 1.0
the city usually approach from a westerly direction and not from the
ocean on the east. The principal exception is during the summer, when
sea breezes from the cool ocean surface often moderate the afternoon
heat.
The average annual temperature at John F. Kennedy International Airport,
the reporting weather station nearest to Jamaica Bay, is 53.2°F (11.8°
C). The average monthly temperature at John F- Kennedy International
Airport, as shown in Table 4, ranges from 31.5°F (-0.28°C) in February
to 75.7°F (24.3°C) in July.
Table 4. AVERAGE MONTHLY AIR TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION AT
JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Temperature, °F
31.7
31.5
38.3
49.0
59.9
70.0
75.7
74.4
67.6
57.4
46.3
35.2
Precipitation,
in.
Rainfall Snowfall
3.60
3.44
3.56
3.47
3.49
4.11
4.12
4.10
4.49
3.07
3.07
3.40
7.7
8.6
5.4
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
6.0
Because of the shallowness of Jamaica Bay, water temperatures closely
reflect ambient conditions in the overlying atmosphere. The average
23
-------
annual temperature of the bay waters is approximately 55°F (12°C), and
the gradient within the bay is less than 2°F (1°C) under most condi-
tions. During the coldest periods of the year, ice forms in most of
the shallow zones of the bay, and water temperatures lie close to 32°F
(0°C). Summertime temperatures in the range of 75 to 80°F (23 to 27°C)
are common.
Winds
Data compiled from observations of the U.S. Weather Bureau at the Bat-
tery (Manhattan) indicate that the prevailing winds are from the north-
west, with a significant southerly component. From October through May
the winds are predominantly from the northwest and during the summer
months are from the south.
The total annual wind movement averages almost 30% from the northwest
and approximately 15% from the south. Over 50% of the winds in New
York City in excess of 25 miles per hour (mph) are from the northwest,
whereas similar winds from the east account for only 0.3% of the total.
Precipitation
In the Jamaica Bay area precipitation is both moderate and evenly dis-
tributed throughout the year, as shown in Table 4. Most of the rain-
fall from June through September comes from thunderstorms and therefore
is usually of short duration but relatively intense. From October to
April, precipitation is generally associated with widespread storm ac-
tivity, so that day-long rain or snow is common. The average annual
precipitation increases from about 40 in. near Rockaway to about 47 in.
in the northern and western suburbs of New York City. The average an-
nual precipitation is 43.93 in. at John F. Kennedy International Air-
port. The average monthly rainfall is fairly evenly distributed, with
August having the most rainfall and February the least.
On the basis of U.S. Weather Bureau snow measurements, the average an-
nual snowfall at John F. Kennedy International Airport is 29.8 in. (ap-
proximately equivalent to 4 in. of water), ranging from 1.0 in. in No-
vember to 8.6 in. in February. The average monthly snowfalls are pre-
sented in Table 4.
Evaporation
Evaporation data in the vicinity of Jamaica Bay appear in the evapora-
tion maps published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. The average Class A
pan evaporation is approximately 40 in. (1946-1955 average), whereas
the annual lake evaporation is approximately 30 in., of which 73% oc-
curs in the period from May to October. Thus, precipitation and evapo-
ration nearly offset one another in terms of hydraulic input to Jamaica
Bay.
24
-------
DEMOGRAPHY
New York City and Metropolitan Area
Population trends in New York City and the surrounding metropolitan
area are expected to parallel those in the rest of the United States;
that is, small increases or acbual decreases in the central city popu-
lation with relatively large growth in the surrounding communities. It
is projected that the population of New York City will decrease from
the present 7.75 million persons to 7.68 million in 1985. However, the
total metropolitan area population is projected to increase nearly 40%
(from 17.2 million to 23.7 million) in the same period.
Borough Populations
The populations of the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens and
of Nassau County are shown in Figure 3 for the period from 1850 to the
year 2000. The latest census, taken in 1970, showed that over 2.6 mil-
lion people resided in Brooklyn, just under 2.0 million were in Queens
and slightly over 1.4 million lived in Nassau County. Projections of
populations for these three counties and for Manhattan are given in
Figure 3 and indicate that both Brooklyn and Manhattan will show de-
creases in population up to 1985 and that continued decreases may be
expected up to the year 2000. In Queens and Nassau counties a definite
leveling is indicated by the projection of the Regional Plan Associa-
tion [6] .
Drainage Area Populations
The Bureau of Water Pollution Control maintains an estimate of the popu-
lation served by its sewerage system. Estimates of populations served
by the Coney Island, 26th Ward, Jamaica and Rockaway water pollution
control facilities (WPCF) are given in Table 5. For the most part,
these population changes parallel those in the boroughs; however, small
changes do occur and were considered in the projection of the drainage
area populations.
Drainage area populations were projected using the ratio of the popula-
tion served by a particular water pollution control facility to that of
the entire borough. It was evident from following these trends through
time that either the ratio increased as the connected population in-
creased or the ratio decreased as the population served remained static
or increased at a growth rate somewhat less than that of the county as
a whole. In each case, however, this ratio leveled off such that a con-
stant value could be used to make the projections indicated in Table 5.
For the population as a whole, it is anticipated that the percentage
increase in connected population between 1960 and 1970 will be only
3.7% and the increase from 1970 to 1980 only 0.2%. However, for the
sewage treatment facilities in Brooklyn a net decrease in population
served is expected to occur between 1970 and 1980. Only a small in-
25
-------
2,500 —
2,000 —
Q_
O
D_
1B50
1900
2000
YEAR
Figure 3. Historical and projected population
surrounding Jamai ca Bay
26
-------
Table 5. POPULATIONS SERVED BY SEWERAGE SYSTEMS IN THE BOROUGHS OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS,
1910-2000
(thousands)
Brooklyn
Year
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Borough
total
1634.4
2018.4
2560.4
2698.3
2738.2
2627.3
2550.0
2475.0
2450.0
2390.0
Coney
Island
WPCF
133.4
434.2
536.0
588.3
612.7
617.1
608.8
602.7
587.9
26th
Ward
WPCF
321.6
398.0
391.4
364.0
360.3
374.8
371.2
367.5
358.5
Borough
total
284.0
469.0
1079.1
1297.6
1550.8
1809.6
1900.0
1925.0
1950.0
1960.0
Queens
Jamaica
WPCF
112.8
345.4
412.4
473.1
538.3
566.2
573.6
581.1
584.1
Rock-
away
WPCF
21.5
34.9
41.2
54.0
69.6
81.4
90.1
95.6
98.0
Total
connected
population
589.3
1212.5
1381.0
1479.4
1580.9
1639.5
1643.7
1646.9
1628.5
Increase
over
previous
period
623.2
168.5
98.4
101.5
58.6
4.2
3.2
-18.4
Percent
increase
105.7
13.8
7.1
6.8
3.7
0.2
0.1
-1.1
Source
County
USCBa
USCB
USCB
USCB
USCB
USCB
RPAb
RPA
of data
Plant
BWPC0
BWPC
BWPC
BWPC
BWPC
BWPC
United States Census Bureau.
^Regional Plan Association.
'Bureau of Water Pollution Control.
-------
crease is anticipated for the Jamaica facility in Queens, whereas a 10%
increase is expected for the Rockaway treatment facility.
Because population changes are projected to be relatively small for the
next 30 yr, it is expected that waste flows to Jamaica Bay from the
water pollution control facilities will remain near the present levels
of discharge.
LAND USE
Present Land Use
Present land uses for New York City and the boroughs of Manhattan,
Brooklyn and Queens as compiled by the Department of City Planning are
given in Table 6. As indicated in the table, the major uses of land
are for residence, streets, and parks and outdoor recreation.
The relative balance of land use in the drainage area of Jamaica Bay is
consistent with that indicated in Table 6. In Brooklyn, the entire
drainage area is composed for the most part of residential areas. Com-
mercial and industrial use is relatively small, and industrial use is
limited to light industry. The drainage area in Queens is similar, but
some heavy industry is present. The major concentration of light indus-
try is located near the John F. Kennedy International Airport. More de-
tailed descriptions of the drainage areas of the combined sewers moni-
tored will be given in Section VII with the descriptions of those areas.
Projected Land Use
No major changes in land use are anticipated for any of the areas drain-
ing to Jamaica Bay. Development of housing on existing landfill areas
just north of the Southern Belt Parkway will increase populations in
those areas, and development of housing in Nassau County in the present
marsh area should increase populations there; however, drainage from
those areas is to two water pollution control plants in Nassau County.
Plans for the Jamaica area of Queens as proposed by the Regional Plan
Association [7] will, if implemented, result in an intensified commer-
cialization of that area. Such a development would, of course, intensi-
fy the daily variations in sewer flow from that area to produce a flow
similar to that which occurs at the present time in Manhattan; however,
the net increase in flow from that area is anticipated to be small.
28
-------
Table 6. LAND USE IN NEW YORK CITY, BROOKLYN AND QUEENS,
1959-1969
Use
Open uses & vacant
land
Licensed parking
lots
Othera
Total
Parks & outdoor
recreation
Residence
1-family detached
1-family attached
2-family
1^
Walk-up multiple
Elevator multiple
Total
Commercial & indus-
trial
Commercial & re-
tail0
Office
Light industry
Warehouse & stor-
age yards
Automotive
Heavy industry
Total
Public & private
institutions
Tr anspor ta ti on
Total net area
Mapped Streets
Total gross area
New York
ac
385.6
25,656.3
25,041.9
35,468.7
19,066.9
4,576.9
9,875.3
9,139.5
4,865.8
47,524.4
2,176.9
345.9
2,354.1
1,174.2
1,575.8
4,431.6
12,058.5
12,399.1
9,641.0
143,133.6
61,547.4
204,681.0
City
%
0.2
12.5
12.7
17.3
9.3
2.2
4.8
4.5
2.4
23.2
1.1
0.2
1.2
0.6
0.7
2.1
5.9
6.1
4.7
69.9
30.1
100.0
Brooklyn
ac
94.1
3,292.3
3,386.4
10,356.9
2,151.1
1,820.7
4,404.1
3,549.8
1,224.9
13,150.7
503.2
37.1
603.4
424.2
489.9
1,412.2
3,470.0
2,083.2
1,800.9
34,248.1
15,995.9
50,244.0
%
0.2
6.6
6.8
20.6
4.3
3.6
8.8
7.1
2.4
26.2
1.0
0.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
2.8
6.9
4.1
3.6
68.2
31.8
100.0
Queens
ac
116.6
5,924.5
6,040.7
11,448.3
11,304.2
2,068.8
3,805.8
2,367.8
1,200.2
20,746.8
744.2
38.4
663.7
396.6
484.4
1,253.2
3,580.5
4,102.2
6,201.9
52,120.4
21,285.6
73,406.0
%
0.2
8.0
8.2
15.6
15.4
2.8
5.2
3.2
1.6
28.3
1.0
o.i
0.9
0.5
0.7
1.7
4.9
5.6
8.4
71.0
29.0
100.0
Includes farms, used automobile lots, licensed junk yards and accessory
parking lots.
Includes hotels and motels.
CDoes not include store space in ground floors of buildings having other
predominant land use.
Source: Department of City Planning from Sanborn Map Company data.
29
-------
SECTION V
JAMAICA BAY ECOSYSTEM
QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
Uses of Jamaica Bay
Jamaica Bay supports a wide spectrum of beneficial uses. As a conse-
quence the quality requirements of the waters and environment of the
bay are necessarily complex, and, as might be anticipated, conflicts
among beneficial uses occur in a number of cases. Competition for
space or facilities is an expected major factor, but a certain degree
of competition also arises from detrimental factors associated with
use. Table 7 lists the known uses of Jamaica Bay and its environs and
presents in general terms the detrimental factors and environmental
quality requirements for each use.
Table 7. USES OF JAMAICA BAY AND ENVIRONS—DETRIMENTAL FACTORS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Use
Potential
detrimental factors
Environmental
quality requirements
Shipping
Dredging
Landfill
Air terminals
Residence
Wastewater
disposal
Floating debris
Navigational hazards
Unnatural bottom profile
Increased turbidity
Upsets benthic community
Destroys marsh community
Destroys marsh and/or
benthic communities
Aesthetically objection-
able
Leachates affect water
quality
Oil spills—runoff
Unburned fuels from air-
craft
Noise
Exclusive use of area
Suspended materials cover
benthic communities
Organic materials cause
oxygen depletion
Relative freedom from odors
and noise
30
-------
Table 7 (Continued). USES OF JAMAICA BAY AND ENVIRONS—DETRIMENTAL
FACTORS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Use
Potential
detrimental factors
Environmental
quality requirements
Boating
Fishing
Wildlife
propaga-
tion,
birds,
water-
fowl
Fish
Shellfish
Swimming
Aesthetic
enjoyment
Nutrients stimulate al-
gal blooms
Oils, greases and float-
ables
Potential pathogenic
agents
Toxicity to aquatic life
Aesthetic factors (color,
odor, turbidity)
Navigational hazards
Exclusive use of area
Navigational hazard
Aesthetic acceptability (col-
or, odor, turbidity, float-
ables, oils)
Aesthetic acceptability
Abundance of fish
Relates to food chain, tox-
icity, temperature, dis-
solved oxygen
Undisturbed habitat
Adequate food
Adequate food
Dissolved oxygen
Low levels of pathogenic
microorganisms
Suitable substrate
Adequate food
Aesthetic acceptability, low
levels of potential patho-
genic agents
Aesthetic acceptability
It is worthy of comment relative to Table 7 that most uses of the bay
environment result in a preponderance of detrimental factors over and
against environmental quality requirements. Except for residence, it
would be difficult to assign any controllable quality requirements to
these uses. It should also be noted that beneficial uses are extreme-
ly sensitive to quality conditions.
31
-------
Water Quality Requirements
Aesthetics—
Aesthetically pleasing waters add to the quality of human experience
and as such have a value which although difficult to quantify cannot be
ignored. In addition to being pleasant to observe, attractive waters
enhance the values of adjoining properties and may provide a focal
point of pride in the community.
The appearance of pollution or the thought of its existence, even in an
abstract sense, reduces aesthetic value. The knowledge that water is
clean enhances both direct and indirect aesthetic appreciation. Fur-
thermore, attitudes stimulated by appreciation of a resource may pro-
duce tangible benefits through public desire for the maintenance of
attractive conditions.
It is clear that Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about
the aesthetic quality of the environment. Expectations will likely
rise with increases in education and leisure time and will undoubtedly
be reflected in continuing and intensified public demand for clean wa-
ter. Therefore, the recognition, identification and protection of the
aesthetic values and qualities of water should be a primary objective
in all water quality management programs. These needs are, ironically,
most urgent in areas where pollution problems are most acute, namely,
in cities and large metropolitan areas where population and pollutional
discharges are most heavily concentrated.
Wildlife is a significant element of the aesthetics of the environment.
Beyond the direct experience of viewing is the satisfaction of knowing
that these life forms are present. Conversely, periodic disruptions of
the aquatic environment by pollution (as reflected in fish kills, dam-
aged waterfowl, odors and noxious vegetative growth) degrade aesthetic
qualities and appreciation. The losses extend beyond the periods in
which the undesirable conditions occur. An estuary that periodically
is offensive will lose much of its aesthetic value.
Furthermore, when aesthetically unappealing conditions exist, it is al-
most certain that problems associated with other beneficial uses also
exist. One example is odors due to release of reduced (sulphurous)
gases, which can occur only when dissolved oxygen conditions are inade-
quate to support a healthy biota. Oils and greases on the water sur-
face inhibit oxygen transfer as well as producing an undesirable visual
impression and creating undesirable accumulations at the shoreline and
in the sediments. Therefore, the maintenance of aesthetically accept-
able quality conditions in surface waters should be of principal concern
in establishing objectives for any water quality management program,
with particular attention to biological factors relating to aesthetic
acceptability.
32
-------
Because many of the relationships between biological response and more
readily determinable environmental quality factors are only loosely de-
fined at the present time, it is considered essential to involve other
parameters in the development of criteria for the protection of aesthe-
tic values. Furthermore, in some cases the biological implications may
be marginal, whereas the asethetic impact may be substantial. Such fac-
tors as settleable solids, odiferous materials, turbidity elements and
floatable materials are some of the candidates for selection.
Health—
Surface waters have recreational potential wherever there are people
and are likely to be used for recreation even if grossly polluted.
Moreover, demands on water for recreational use are becoming extremely
intense, particularly in urban areas such as New York City. Therefore,
it can be readily deduced that recreational uses of water resources in
close proximity to urban areas should receive thorough consideration in
the designation of water quality improvement objectives and in the se-
lection of water quality criteria.
A principal consideration relative to recreational uses is the suitabi-
lity of the water resource from a health or epidemiological standpoint.
Requirements should be based on the need to minimize, insofar as possi-
ble, the risk of contracting the disease through use of the water for
recreation, or at least to reduce the probability to a level not statis-
tically significant from that for waters considered to be unpolluted.
Unfortunately there does not now exist sufficient epidemiological evi-
dence which offers a universally acceptable quality parameter upon
which to base criteria for recreational water use. Secondly, as tech-
nology increases, new phenomena relating to the transmission of poten-
tial pathogenic agents and their modes of infection are coming to light.
In general, new knowledge in this area usually results in more stringent
criteria and standards related to accepted parameters.
Therefore, it is recommended that the existing health-oriented require-
ments., as manifest in standards promulgated by appropriate regulatory
agencies, be retained as criteria until further evidence warrants their
modification or revision.
Aquatic Biota—
Estuaries are recognized as being of critical importance to the ecosys-
tem and in man's harvest of economically useful living marine resources.
It is in these areas that the maximum conversion of solar energy for
plant life takes place, and they are justly identified as nurseries be-
cause so many animals utilize them for feeding in their early life
stages. Some species, such as the oyster, spend their entire life span
in the estuary, while the shrimp resides there only as a juvenile.
33
-------
Therefore, protection of the aquatic biota of Jamaica Bay should be of
primary concern in the establishment of water quality criteria and
standards, and it is recommended that these criteria be oriented toward
management of the ecology to provide for the intended uses of the bay.
Tentative Criteria
Tentative water quality criteria for Jamaica Bay are presented in Table
8. For purposes of establishing objectives and criteria, two major cat-
egories of beneficial use are suggested: recreation, with the subcat-
egories aesthetics and health, and protection of aquatic biota.
Table 8. TENTATIVE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR JAMAICA BAY
Categories of use
Quality
characteristics
Recreation
Aesthetics Health
Protection of Related water
aquatic biota characteristics
Total coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Dissolved oxygen
Median
<24/ml
Log mean
<2/ml
>5.0 mg/1
Mic roplankton
Benthic animal
diversity
Transparency
(Secchi
disc)
Sediment BOD
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Floatable hexane
extractable
materials
<500 cells
per ml
>80% of normal
> 2 m
< 4 mg/g
<50 yg/1
<2 mg/m2
(water)
<0.3 g/m2
(shore)
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
BOD
Biostimulants
Settleable sol-
ids
Suspended sol-
ids
Biostimulants
Turbidity
Toxicity
Settleable sol-
ids
Turbidity ele-
ments
Biostimulants
BOD
Settleable sol-
ids
Suspended sol-
ids
Chlorinated hy-
drocarbons
Oils and greases
34
-------
Table 8 (continued).
Quality
characteristics
TENTATIVE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR JAMAICA BAY
Categories of use
Recreation
Aesthetics Health
Protection of
aquatic biota
Related water
characteristics
Floatable par-
ticulates
Temperature
Color
Odor
85°F
<5 mg/la
above
normal
6.5 < pH < 8.5
No objection-
able odor
(none yet
proposed)
AT < 4°F
(winter)
AT < 1.5°F
(summer)
Floatable par-
ticulates
Temperature
Color
Acidity
Basicity
Odor
Organics
Standard chloroplatinate
QUALITY OF JAMAICA BAY
An evaluation of the water and sediment quality in Jamaica Bay is essen-
tial for assessment of the effects of wastewater discharges on the bay,
especially to establish a receiving environment quality baseline against
which to judge improvement in water and sediment quality due to opera-
tion of the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow treatment facility and
other subsequent facilities that may be provided for the abatement of
pollution from combined sewer overflows. After evaluation of all read-
ily available historical data on the quality of Jamaica Bay, a sampling
program was established and conducted for spatial and temporal charac-
terization of water and sediment quality of Jamaica Bay.
Fifteen stations, providing a complete representation of effects of tid-
al action, wastewater inflow and marshland on water and sediment qual-
ity throughout Jamaica Bay, were sampled over a 3-yr period. Locations
of the sampling stations are shown on Figure 4. Water samples taken at
mid-depth on high and low slack water for each survey were analyzed for
temperature, transparency, total suspended solids, volatile suspended
solids, pH, chloride, dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), Kjeldahl nitrogen, organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, total
phosphate, orthophosphate, hexane extractable material (HEM), total
coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci bacteria
and microplankton. Vertical hauls with a plankton net were made at
each sampling station for zooplankton analysis. Sediment samples were
analyzed for temperature, BOD, dry solids content, sand fraction, silt
fraction, clay fraction, Kjeldahl nitrogen, HEM, total sulfide, total
phosphate and benthic organisms.
35
-------
Figure 4. Location of sampling
stations in Jamaica Bay
36
-------
Receiving Water Quality
To provide a general description of the quality of the waters of Jamaica
Bay, results obtained during the 3-yr program of sampling and analysis
were aggregated and averaged to reflect summer and winter conditions.
(Results obtained during the surveys of 11 June 1969, 21 August 1969,
1 July 1970 and 17 August 1970 were included in the summer average; re-
sults obtained during the surveys of 14 December 1968, 19 February 1969,
17 December 1969 and 2 March 1970 were included in the winter average.)
Summertime and wintertime average water quality characteristics are rep-
resented in Jamaica Bay by isopleths and by value at the mouth of Rocka-
way Inlet and in the New York Bight.
Detailed individual water quality analyses for the 3-yr sampling program
are provided in Appendix D, Volume II, Supplemental Data.
Temperature—
Summertime average water temperatures in Jamaica Bay increase landward
from about 21°C at Rockaway Inlet to over 23°C in Head of Bay and in the
north channel in the vicinity of the Spring Creek drainage basins, as
shown in Figure 5. This temperature gradient is due to ambient air tem-
peratures, which have a more pronounced effect on the shallow bay waters
than on the ocean waters, and to the effects of discharges of relatively
warm stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows.
Wintertime average water temperatures in Jamaica Bay, shown in Figure 6,
exhibit less spatial variation than do summertime temperatures. The
coldest wintertime average temperature, of less than 1.5°C, appears to
occur in Head of Bay. There appears to be a slight warming influence on
the bay created by the effluents from the 26th Ward Water Pollution Con-
trol Facility and the Spring Creek combined sewer overflows.
Transparency—
Average summertime and wintertime transparency isopleths, determined
from Secchi disc depth measurements and presented in Figures 7 and 8,
respectively, exhibit a generally increasing transparency from back-bay
areas to the inlet of the bay. The wintertime average transparencies
of the bay are greater than summertime averages, with the largest dif-
ferences occurring in the north channel and Grassy Bay. In these areas,
the summertime average water transparencies increase from about 0.6 m
to twice that value, or 1.2 m. Correspondingly, the summertime average
water transparency at the entrance to Rockaway Inlet is 1.68 m, whereas
the wintertime average is 2.50 m.
Total Suspended Solids—
Summertime average total suspended solids concentrations, shown in Fig-
ure 9, are not significantly different from wintertime average total
37
-------
0123
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO s-
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
/9.6m2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 5. Summertime average
temperature isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, °C
KILOMETERS
\
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 »h WARD WPCF. '
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 6. Wintertime average
temperature isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, °C
38
-------
1
KILOMETERS
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
J./5-
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCK AWAY CSO
Figure 7. Summertime average
transparency isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, m
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
j
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF,/
FRESH CREEK CSO--
14
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
2.87m\
2.77^2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 8. Wintertime average
transparency isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, m
39
-------
0 I
KILOMETERS
? SPRiNG CREEK CSO
HENDR1X CREEK CSO
26!h WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
,CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTO
, BASiN
CSO
8.2*2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 9. Summertime average tota
suspended solids isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
0 ' Z 3
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRiX CREEK CSO
26 fh WARD WPCF,,'
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAF
BASIN CSO
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
|l CSO THURSTON
(BASIN
CSO
8.1*'
OCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 10. Wintertime average total
suspended solids isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay. mg/l
40
-------
suspended solids, shown in Figure 10, except in mid-bay channels, e.g.,
Pumpkin Patch Channel, where the summertime average total suspended
solids concentration was 53 mg/1 as compared to a wintertime concentra-
tion of 19 mg/1.
Volatile Suspended Solids—
Isopleths of average volatile suspended solids concentrations for sum-
mertime and wintertime are shown on Figures 11 and 12, respectively.
Summertime concentrations are generally higher, especially in the cen-
ter of the bay (Pumpkin Patch Channel), where for both seasons the high-
est spatial concentrations are also observed. Concentrations of vola-
tile suspended solids appear to remain nearly constant both spatially
and temporally along the Rockaway Peninsula beaches.
pH—
The distributions of average pH in Jamaica Bay during summertime and
wintertime conditions are shown in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. In
Grassy Bay the summertime average pH is depressed about 0.3 units from
the average pH of 7.8 occurring at the Rockaway Inlet and to a somewhat
lesser degree (0.2 units) in the north channel and Head of Bay. The
wintertime average pH values are quite uniform throughout the bay and
in the New York Bight, with all reported average values being 7.8 or
7.9 units.
The seasonal variation in pH value may be due in part to metabolic acti-
vity because during photosynthesis algae (phytoplankton) utilize carbon
dioxide from the water, which causes a decrease in acidity and a concom-
itant increase in pH value. Conversely, respiration by plants and ani-
mals increases carbon dioxide levels, which causes a decrease in pH
value. In Jamaica Bay, algal photosynthetic activity is highest and
respiration is lowest in the winter, which is reflected in the seasonal
differences of pH distribution.
Chlorosity—
The spatial distributions of average summertime and wintertime chlorosi-
ties in Jamaica Bay are quite similar, as shown in Figures 15 and 16.
Because the only significant fresh water flows to the bay are sewage
treatment facility effluents and stormwater runoff, and these are small
compared to the tidal exchange occurring through Rockaway Inlet, a very
small salinity gradient exists in Jamaica Bay. Average summertime and
wintertime chlorosities of less than 14 grams per liter (g/1) in Grassy
Bay increase almost uniformly to 17 g/1 in the New York Bight.
Dissolved Oxygen—
Distinct seasonal and spatial variations in average dissolved oxygen
concentrations occur in Jamaica Bay and are shown in Figures 17 and 18,
41
-------
KILOMETERS
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARO-WPCF*..
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROE6AT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTO
,8AS!N
CSO
3.4*2
"ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCK AWAY CSO
Figure 11. Summertime average volatile
suspended solids isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 th WARD WPCF,
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-~
NORTH CONDUIT
-CSO , BERGEN BASIN
"" I CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
CONEY
ISLAND
WPCF ,
3.6'.3
2.7.Z
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 12. Wintertime average volatile
suspended solids isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
42
-------
KILOMETERS
1
• SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO v
26th WARD
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
" (1 CSO
THURSTON
• BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 13.Summertime average pH
isopleths for waters of Jamaica
amaica Bay
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF./
FRESH CREEK CSO~
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
THURSTON
! BASIN
CSO
78
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 14.lintertime average pH
isopleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
7.8*2
43
-------
0123
L *. A F
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF-.J
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 15. Summertime average
chlorides isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, g/l
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 th WARD WPCF, '
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 16. Wintertime average
chlorides isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, g/l
44
-------
KILOMETERS
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
\ CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
6.8.2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 17. Summertime average
dissolved oxygen isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO —
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
I CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
9.3.
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 18. Wintertime average
dissolved oxygen isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
45
-------
which represent summertime and wintertime conditions, respectively.
High average dissolved oxygen levels of around 10 to 12 mg/1 throughout
the bay in the wintertime are depressed markedly in the summertime to
levels below 7 mg/1 everywhere in the bay and to concentrations of less
than 3 mg/1 in Grassy Bay. The observed seasonal differences in average
dissolved oxygen concentrations in Jamaica Bay are due both to seasonal
temperature differences, which greatly affect oxygen solubility, and to
seasonal differences in metabolic demand on the dissolved oxygen re-
sources of the bay.
In Grassy Bay, vertical stratification of dissolved oxygen occurs, and
in the lower layers of water zero values of dissolved oxygen may be
found. Also, dramatic changes in dissolved oxygen content can occur
throughout the day in Grassy Bay. Diurnal water g_uality characteris-
tics of Grassy Bay are presented in Appendix E, Volume II, Supplemental
Data. This behavior with respect to dissolved oxygen concentrations
reflects the degraded water quality conditions in Grassy'Bay.
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation—
Isopleths of average summertime and wintertime dissolved oxygen satura-
tion values in Jamaica Bay are shown in Figures 19 and 20 and indicate
generally the same spatial and seasonal distribution that was observed
for average dissolved oxygen concentrations.
In Jamaica Bay proper, the minimum average wintertime dissolved oxygen
saturation of about 94% occurred in the north channel in the vicinity
of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility discharge. A slightly de-
pressed average wintertime value (96%) also occurred in Grassy Bay near
the Jamaica sewage treatment facility outfall. Elsewhere in the bay
during the wintertime, dissolved oxygen concentrations exceeded 100%
due to photosynthetic activity of the large microplankton population in
the bay. Lower average wintertime dissolved oxygen saturation values
were noted in the Rockaway Inlet (98%) and in the New York Bight (94%).
Average summertime dissolved oxygen saturations were lowest (about 24%)
in Grassy Bay and increased rather uniformly to values in excess of 80%
in Rockaway Inlet.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand—
The spatial and seasonal distributions of summertime and wintertime
average BOD5 concentrations are shown in Figures 21 and 22.
The seasonal differences in BOD5 concentrations are the result of the
seasonal temperature differences; higher BOD5 values occur in winter,
when lower temperatures inhibit bacterial decomposition of organic mat-
ter, creating higher steady-state BOD5 concentrations in the bay. Av-
erage summertime BOD5 concentrations ranged from 1.6 mg/1 in Rockaway
Inlet to 3.6 mg/1 in the center of the bay in Pumpkin Patch Channel.
46
-------
1
KILOMETERS
t
• SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO v
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
-CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
95.6* I
,88.0
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 19.Summertime average
dissolved oxygen saturation iso-
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay, %
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENORIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF- '
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
1-sf
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
95.0*1
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 20. Wintertime average
dissolved oxygen saturation iso-
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay, %
47
-------
1
KILOMETERS
\
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTO
.BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 21.Summertime average bio-
chemical oxygen demand isopleths
for waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
\
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 th WARD WPCF-..'
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 22.Wintertime average bio-
chemical oxygen demand isopleths
for waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
48
-------
Average wintertime BOD 5 concentrations ranged from 2.4 mg/1 in Rockaway
Inlet to 5.3 mg/1 in Grassy Bay and in Pumpkin Patch Channel. The spa-
tial differences in BOD5 concentrations are the consequence primarily
of wastewater and stormwater discharge locations. In general, the high-
est values, regardless of season, were observed in the vicinities of the
26th Ward and Jamaica sewage treatment facilities, discharging to the
north channel and to Grassy Bay, respectively. Another significant
source of oxidizable material is marsh grass which sloughs off into the
bay.
Organic Nitrogen—
Average organic nitrogen concentrations in Jamaica Bay, shown for sum-
mertime and wintertime in Figures 23 and 24, respectively, generally
increased in value from Rockaway Inlet toward the back of the bay at
Grassy Bay and toward the proximity of sewage treatment facility dis-
charges. This distribution would be expected because the two principal
sources of organic nitrogen are wastewater effluents containing substan-
tial amounts of unoxidized nitrogenous forms (proteins, nucleic acids,
etc.) and cellular material (biomass), propagated in the receiving wa-
ters.
Average organic nitrogen levels seasonally were quite comparable and
ranged from the low value of 0.45 mg/1 at the mouth of Rockaway Inlet
in the winter to the high value of 1.2 mg/1 in Broad Channel during the
summer. The slightly higher levels of organic nitrogen observed during
the summer can be attributed to a rate of biological productivity of
organic nitrogenous forms greater than the rate of bacterial decomposi-
tion.
Ammonia—
Average summertime and wintertime ammonia nitrogen concentrations in-
creased rather uniformly with distance from Rockaway Inlet to Grassy
Bay, as shown in Figures 25 and 26. Summertime average ammonia concen-
trations ranged from about 0.2 to 1.2 mg/1, and wintertime averages
ranged from around 0.4 to 1.8 mg/1. Higher ammonia levels in wintertime
are probably due to the decreased metabolic conversion during the colder
weather of ammonia discharged from the sewage treatment facilities.
The ammonia nitrogen concentrations throughout the bay and the year rep-
resent substantial amounts of ammonia for algal utilization. Thus am-
monia appears not to be limiting with respect to biological growth.
Nitrate—
Average summertime nitrate concentrations, as shown in Figure 27, indi-
cated very small spatial variances. The highest average concentrations,
of 0.12 mg/1, were observed in the vicinity of the Rockaway sewage
treatment facility. In the wintertime, average nitrate concentrations,
49
-------
1
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF-.
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
Q36L
Figure 23. Summertime average organic
nitrogen isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO '
26 th WARD WPCF.,:
FRESH CREEK CSO-*v "" \ O.8}
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
! BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 24.Wintertime average organic
nitrogen isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, mg/l
50
-------
0 I Z S
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
O.//
Figure 25. Summertime average
ammonia isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
0123
KILOMETERS
J
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
(BASIN
_ CSO
CF
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 26. Wintertime average
ammonia isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
51
-------
2
KILOMETERS
i
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO x
26th WARD WPCFx *
FRESH CREEK
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUI1
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO t
^AliAfclT^v i cso
^CF wS*
^$*
THURSTON
BASIN
Figure 27.Summertime average
nitrate isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 Ih WARD WPCF. '
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERQEGAf
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
\22 II ^ i BASIN
JAWW€A XX ^ cso
i) V \.xi,%,tf*^!/(0 j p.^f /
" "ffiw
• _ Xi?5 // ; //
g ^^ •/ •' --*
^Q
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
O.O5%
O.O6+2
Figure 28.Wintertime average
nitrate isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay. mg/l
52
-------
shown in Figure 28, indicated greater spatial differentiation, with the
highest value, 0.22 mg/1, noted in Grassy Bay near the Jamaica sewage
treatment facility discharge. Average nitrate values in the Rockaway
Inlet and the New York Bight appeared to be slightly higher in the win-
ter (0.05 to 0.10 mg/1) than in the summer (0.03 to 0.07 mg/1).
Adequate amounts of nitrate, independent of available ammonia concentra-
tions, are apparently available at all times to support large algal pop-
ulations.
Total Phosphate—
Concentration isopleths for total phosphate in the waters of Jamaica
Bay are presented in Figures 29 and 30. While phosphate concentrations
in the New York Bight are higher in wintertime, phosphate concentrations
within the bay are for the most part rather seasonally independent.
Spatial distributions of total phosphate within the bay are almost iden-
tical for both seasons, with concentrations of about 1 mg/1 evident in
the back-bay areas decreasing to values of around 0.2 mg/1 in the Rocka-
way Inlet and the New York Bight.
Orthophosphate—
Patterns of distribution and variations of orthophosphate phosphorus in
Jamaica Bay, as shown in Figures 31 and 32, closely follow those of to-
tal phosphate. There is a small, though distinct, increase in ortho-
phosphates in wintertime over summertime concentrations; in both seasons
a gradual rise in concentration is observed from the Rockaway Inlet to
Grassy Bay.
Hexane Extractable Material—
Except for localized areas in Jamaica Bay, most concentrations of HEM
are about equal in summertime and wintertime, as shown in Figures 33
and 34. Exceptionally high average local concentrations were observed
in wintertime at Head of Bay south of the John F. Kennedy International
Airport and at another point outside the bay in the New York Bight.
High summertime average concentrations of HEM occurred in Pumpkin Patch
Channel. With the exception of these high values, which might be ex-
pected due to the nature of the parameter, average HEM concentrations
throughout the bay and the inlet were about 0.5 mg/1.
Total Coliforms—
Average total coliform densities were generally somewhat lower in sum-
mertime than in wintertime, as shown in Figures 35 and 36, respectively.
The effects of the wastewater discharge from the 26th Ward sewage treat-
ment facility are clearly in evidence, with average values in excess of
240 most probable number per milliliter (MPN/ml) indicated in the vici-
nity for both summertime and wintertime. In the summertime, average
53
-------
KILOMETERS
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF- '
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
I cso
THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
0/5.2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCK AWAY CSO
Figure 29.Summertime average total
phosphate isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF,/
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO —
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
| CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
0.24m\
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 30.Wintertime average total
phosphate isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, mg/l
54
-------
KILOMETERS
J
• SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
0.13,2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 31.Summertime average
orthophosphate isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
J
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF,/
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
>€
THURSTON
BASIN
0/3*2
Figure 32.Wintertime average
orthophosphate isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
55
-------
KILOMETERS
I
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO s
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
,-CSO BERGEN BASIN
(1 CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
0.65^
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 33. Summertime average hexane
extractable materials isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF..'
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
" " CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
3.2Om\
0JJ.2
Figure 34. Wintertime average hexane
extractable materials isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, mg/l
56
-------
KILOMETERS
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
G/SflL
0.687*1
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 35. Summertime average tota
coliforms isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, MPN/ml
0 i 2 3
! I i 1
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO~
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
\ BASIN
CSO
O.995
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 36.Wintertime average tota
coliforms isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, MPN/ml
57
-------
total coliform concentrations were in excess of bathing water standards
of 24 MPN/ml throughout the north channel of the bay. In the winter-
time, average concentrations of total coliforms were in excess of the
water contact standards of 24 MPN/ml everywhere in Jamaica Bay.
Fecal Coliforms—
Fecal coliform densities were considerably higher in wintertime than in
summertime, as shown in Figures 37 and 38. Just as with total coli-
forms, fecal coliforms increase inward from the New York Bight to the
vicinity of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility.
Fecal Streptococci—
The same temporal and spatial distributions which were observed for
fecal coliforms apply to streptococcal concentrations, as seen from
Figures 39 and 40. Concentrations of fecal streptococci, although more
uniform throughout the bay, were highest in the north channel in the
vicinity of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility.
Microplankton—
Average summertime and wintertime microplankton concentrations in
Jamaica Bay are shown in Figures 41 and 42, respectively. Summertime
average microplankton concentrations decreased from maximum values of
about 700 organisms per milliliter (org/ml) in Rockaway Inlet to a min-
imum average of around 80 org/ml in the north channel between the
Paerdegat Basin and Fresh Creek Basin combined sewer overflows. Aver-
age summertime values throughout the remainder of the bay ranged be-
tween 90 and 180 org/ml, with the exception of a higher average value
of 270 org/ml in Beach Channel.
Wintertime average microplankton concentrations, on the contrary, gen-
erally increased from low values of around 7,000 org/ml in Rockaway
Inlet to a high value of nearly 27,000. org/ml in Broad Channel.
Microplankton Diversity—
Summertime average microplankton species diversity indices in Jamaica
Bay, presented in Figure 43, indicated values ranging from 0.32 in the
north channel between Paredegat Basin and Fresh Creek Basin combined
sewer overflows to 1.03 in Beach Channel in the immediate vicinity of
the Rockaway sewage treatment facility discharge. Average summertime
values in Rockaway Inlet and the New York Bight ranged from 0.82 to
0.91, respectively.
Average wintertime microplankton species diversity indices, shown on
Figure 44, were substantially less than summertime averages. The low-
est value, 0.13, was noted in Grassy Bay near the Bergen Basin combined
sewer overflow and in the north channel between Paerdegat Basin and
Fresh Creek Basin combined sewer overflows. The highest value, 0.29,
58
-------
KILOMETERS
I
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF.
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
I CSO
THURSTOH
BASIN
CSO
O.O94
0.566
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 37.Summertime average fecal
conforms isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, MPN/ml
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF>
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO —
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
l.28_
0./02?
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 38.Wintertime average fecal
conforms isopleths for waters of
Jamaica Bay, MPN/ml
59
-------
I 2
KILOMETERS
I
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF. "
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
0 CSO THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
aioo
Figure 39. Summertime average fecal
streptococci isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, no./ml
0123
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 th WARD WPCF,/
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO"
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
I CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
Q/4SL
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 40. Wintertime average feca
streptococci isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, no./ml
60
-------
KILOMETERS
I
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
O.44m
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCK.AWAY CSO
Figure 41. Summertime average
microplankton isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, 103 org/ml
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENORIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF,/
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
(| CSO THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
0.57.1
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 42. Wintertime average
microplankton isopleths for
waters of Jamaica Bay, Itr org/ml
61
-------
KILOMETERS
1
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSC—
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
I! CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
0.9Om I
O.9/.
OCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 43.Summertime average
microplankton diversity index iso-
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
0123
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF.V'
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
THURSTON
8ASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
0.79.
Figure 44. Wintertime average
microplankton diversity index iso-
pleths for waters of Jamaica Bay
62
-------
in Jamaica Bay was observed in Head of Bay. Wintertime averages in
Rockaway Inlet and the New York Bight ranged from 0.66 to 0.79, respec-
tively.
Zooplankton—
Average summertime zooplankton concentrations in Jamaica Bay, shown in
Figure 45, ranged from a high value of greater than 83 organisms per
liter (org/1) observed in Pumpkin Patch Channel in the middle of the
bay to a low value of around 13 org/1 in Rockaway Inlet. Larger aver-
age zooplankton concentrations (more than 75 org/1) were noted in Beach
Channel in the vicinity of the Rockaway sewage treatment facility than
in Head of Bay, where the average value was about 36 org/1. Zooplank-
ton concentrations in the New York Bight were generally less, ranging
from about 11 to 46 org/1.
As shown in Figure 46, wintertime average zooplankton concentrations
were an order of magnitude less than summertime averages. In general,
they decreased in value from about 6 org/1 in Rockaway Inlet, Island
Channel and Pumpkin Patch Channel to less than 2 org/1 in Head of Bay
and less than 3 org/1 in Grassy Bay. Average concentrations in the
New York Bight in the wintertime were in the range of 5 to 6 org/1.
Neither summertime nor wintertime zooplankton populations appeared to
correlate with sewage treatment facility discharge or combined sewer
overflow locations.
Zooplankton Diversity—
Spatial and seasonal distributions of zooplankton species diversity in-
dices are shown for summertime in Figure 47 and for wintertime in Fig-
ure 48. Whereas the lowest diversities (about 0.85) were observed in
Grassy Bay and Rockaway Inlet during the summertime, the lowest (about
0.71) occurred in the wintertime in the north channel in the proximity
of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility discharge.
In general, the summertime zooplankton diversities in the bay were com-
parable to those in the New York Bight, where they ranged between 0.78
and 1.04; wintertime diversities were all higher in the bay, ranging
from 1.2 to 0.71, as compared to values of around 0.55 reported for the
New York Bight. All of these species diversity indices are representa-
tive of healthy zooplankton communities.
Sediment Quality
Unlike water quality, where generally distinct seasonal variations oc-
cur, sediment quality is more stable with respect to time. As a result,
characteristics of the sediments in Jamaica Bay, obtained from the 3-yr
sampling and analysis effort, have been averaged without reference to
season. Detailed results are presented in Appendix F, Volume II, Sup-
plemental Data.
63
-------
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
261h WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO —
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
10.6.
45.6
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 45.Summertime average
zooplankton isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, org/l
KILOMETERS
J
" SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO v
26»h WARD
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
-CSO BERGEN BASIN
1 CSO THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
OCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 46.Wintertime average
zooplankton isopleths for waters
of Jamaica Bay, org/l
64
-------
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENORIX CREEK CSO
26 1h WARD WPCF-./
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
i CSO THURSTON
5? ! BASIN
CSO
1.04
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 47. Summertime average zoo-
plankton diversity index isopleths
for waters of Jamaica Bay
0123
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
i cso
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
O.54
O.56
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 48. Wintertime average zoo-
plankton diversity index isopleths
for waters of Jamaica Bay
65
-------
Temperature—
A slight and very gradual increase in average sediment temperature, from
about 11°C at Rockaway Inlet to about 13°C in Grassy Bay, was observed,
as shown in Figure 49.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand—
Sediment 8005 distribution is very distinct in pattern and varies con-
siderably from that of the overlying water distributions. As shown in
Figure 50, minimum sediment BOD^ concentrations of less than 2 milli-
grams per gram (mg/g) occur in Rockaway Inlet and increase in either
direction toward Canarsie Beach on the west and Head of Bay on the east.
Maximum average concentrations of sediment BOD5 greater than 12 mg/g
were observed in Head of Bay.
Dry Solids—
Percentage dry solids, which is the inverse of moisture content, is a
crude physical measure of sediments which reflects their moisture-
bearing property. Values in excess of 60% indicate high sand content
with some or little organic material. Values below 40% are indicative
of sludge deposits.
The average dry solids content of the sediments in Jamaica Bay is shown
in Figure 51. In Rockaway Inlet and in much of the central bay, the
dry solids content was in excess of 70%. Sediments in Head of Bay and
Grassy Bay indicated dry solids content of less than 40%.
Sand—
Average sand content of sediments, shown in Figure 52, parallels aver-
age dry solids content. Average sand content increases from about 80%
in Rockaway Inlet to values less than 40% in Grassy Bay and Head of Bay.
Silt—
The distribution of average silt content of sediments in Jamaica Bay,
shown in Figure 53, is relatively uniform throughout the channels of
the bay but increases from about 10% there to over 30% in the northern
portion of Grassy Bay.
Average clay content variations in the Jamaica Bay sediments, as shown
in Figure 54, are consistent with other sediment physical characteris-
tics. The clay fraction of the sediments increases from values of less
than 10% in the Rockaway Inlet to values of 50% in Grassy Bay.
66
-------
KILOMETERS
I
• SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX-CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCFv '
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
.BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 49. Average temperature
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, °C
KILOMETERS
j
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26 th WARD WPCF., '
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO —
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
O.3I.
0.67+?
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 50. Average biochemical
oxygen demand isopleths for
sediments of Jamaica Bay, mg/g
67
-------
KILOMETERS
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HFNDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
(1 CSO
THURSTQN
BASIN
CSO
72.2m \
75.0*2
OCKAWAY WPCF
ROCK AWAY CSO
Figure 51. Average dry solids fraction
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, %
0123
KILOMETERS
I
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF, '
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAEROEGAF
BASIN CSO
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO THURSTON
• BASIN
CSO
88.5%\
70.0+?
RQCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 52. Average sand fraction
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, %
68
-------
0 I
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 53.Average silt fraction
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, %
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO"
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
!l CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 54.Average clay fraction
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, %
69
-------
Kjeldahl Nitrogen—
Average Kjeldahl nitrogen content of sediments in Jamaica Bay, shown in
Figure 55, ranges from less than 0.5 mg/g in Rockaway Inlet to a maxi-
mum of 4 mg/g in Head of Bay. Only slightly elevated average concentra-
tions, somewhat greater than 0.5 mg/g, were observed in the north chan-
nel in the vicinity of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility.
Hexane Extractable Material—
Average benthic concentrations of HEM in Jamaica Bay ranged from less
than 0.1 mg/g in Rockaway Inlet to a maximum of greater than 3 mg/g in
Grassy Bay near the Bergen Basin combined sewer overflow and the Jamaica
sewage treatment facility. These isopleths are shown in Figure 56.
Sulfide—
The spatial distribution of total sulfides in the sediments of Jamaica
Bay is shown in Figure 57. Like most of the other sediment quality
(pollutant) parameters, the highest average values (greater than 16
mg/g) were observed in Grassy Bay near the Bergen Basin combined sewer
overflow. Sulfide concentrations decreased markedly and rather uni-
formly from Grassy Bay to Rockaway Inlet, where the average concentra-
tions were about 0.1 mg/g.
Total Phosphorus—
Average total phosphorus concentrations in the sediments of Jamaica Bay,
shown in Figure 58, increased from values less than 0.2 mg/g in Rockaway
Inlet to maxima of greater than 0.7 mg/g in Grassy Bay near the Bergen
Basin combined sewer overflow and 1.3 mg/g in Head of Bay.
Benthos—
The average benthic biomass in Jamaica Bay, shown in Figure 59, in-
creased from 2,000 organisms per square meter (org/m2) in Rockaway
Inlet and Head of Bay to more than 10,000 org/m2 in the immediate vi-
cinity of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility discharge to the
north channel of the bay.
Benthic Diversity Index—
As shown in Figure 60, the maximum average benthic diversity index, of
greater than 1.4, was observed in the north channel near the proximity
of the 26th Ward sewage treatment facility discharge and corresponded
with the maximum observed benthic biomass. Minimal average values of
less than 0.2, indicative of more polluted environments, were observed
in Grassy Bay.
70
-------
KILOMETERS
' SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26»h WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
-CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
029. i
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 55. Average Kjeldahl nitrogen
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, mg/g
KILOMETERS
i
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAEROEGAf
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
i! cso
THURSTON
• BASIN
CSO
0.08.
0.09^2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 56. Average hexane extractable
material isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, mg/g
71
-------
KILOMETERS
? SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO--
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO—
NORTH CONDUIT
.CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
0.705.
'•2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 57. Average total sulfide
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, mg/g
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
0.4Om i
0.30-z
Figure 58. Average total phosphate
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, mg/g
72
-------
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO-
NORTH CONDUIT
-CSO BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
, BASIN
CSO
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
Figure 59. Average benthic biomass
isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay, 103 org/m2
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO
26th WARD WPCF
FRESH CREEK CSO-
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
CSO
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
1.10
0.764^2
ROCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY CSO
O.975.
Figure 60. Average benthos divers
index isopleths for sediments of
Jamaica Bay
73
-------
Special Studies
A number of special studies were conducted during the project to pro-
vide a fuller definition of the character of the Jamaica Bay ecosystem.
These included an abbreviated water quality and terrestrial ecology
characterization of other Long Island bays, fish trawls in Jamaica Bay
and other Long Island bays and studies of heavy metal and pesticide con-
tent in the wastewater discharges to, and sediments of, Jamaica Bay.
Long Island Bay Sampling—
To provide an assessment of the changes which have occurred in the wa-
ter quality and biota of Jamaica Bay, a cursory examination of the wa-
ter quality, marshes and biota of several of the south shore bays was
performed. Six stations in the area between Great South Bay and West
Hempstead Bay and one station in Jamaica Bay were selected, as shown in
Figure 61. Station 15, located in the marsh area of Jamaica Bay, was
selected for comparison with the stations sampled in the other bays.
Water samples were collected on three occasions over a 7-mo period ex-
tending from 30 November 1970 to 3 May 1971 at mid-depth and during low
slack water at each of the stations. Sediment samples for analysis
were taken at the same stations between 21 December 1970 and 5 May 1971.
Results of these analyses, presented in Table 9, indicate that, with
respect to the measured water quality parameters dissolved oxygen, sus-
pended solids, volatile suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, am-
monia and nitrate, concentrations in Jamaica Bay were not substantially
different from those in the other Long Island bays. Biochemical oxygen
demand, soluble phosphorus, total coliforms, fecal coliforms, micro-
plankton and zooplankton concentrations were higher on the average in
Jamaica Bay than in the other Long Island bays, whereas Secchi disc
transparency and chloride concentrations were lower in Jamaica Bay.
These water quality data clearly indicate the influence of the waste-
water discharges to Jamaica Bay.
Results of the sediment analyses, shown in Table 9, indicate generally
lower values for BOD5, HEM, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, soluble phosphorus
and sulfide concentrations at the station in Jamaica Bay in comparison
to the other Long Island bays.
Fish Trawls—
A most important group of estuarine organisms, particularly with re-
spect to recreation and commercial activities, comprises the demersal
and unattached forms of fish and invertebrates. Many fish and inverte-
brates are well adapted to withstand the stresses of the estuarine envi-
ronment and are able to avoid unfavorable effects of wide fluctuations
in salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and suspended material. For
these reasons, and because the estuaries and bays often serve as spawn-
ing areas and nurseries for fish, densities and types of fish and in-
74
-------
GREAT
SOUTH BAY
INLET
ATLANTIC OCEAN
Figure 61. Sampling locations for Long
Island bays sampling program
75
-------
Table 9. WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF LONG ISLAND BAYS
Sample location
Hempstead Bay
Parameter
Water
Secchi disc, m
DO, mg/1
BOD 5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile susp. sol. , mg/1
Chloride, g/1
Kjeldahl nitrogen, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
NO3-N, mg/1
Soluble phosphorus , mg/1
Total coliforms, MPN/ml
Fecal colfiroms, MPN/ml
Microplankton, org/ml
Zooplankton, org/ml
Sediment
BOD 5, mg/g
HEM, mg/g
Kjeldahl nitrogen, mg/g
Soluble phosphorus, mg/g
Sulfide, mg/g
West
A
2.2
9.9
2.1
5.1
1.9
17.1
0.83
0.40
0.32
0.24
46.5
1.17
691
17.5
5.52
1.9
2.95
0.53
2.15
Middle
B
2.3
9.7
1.8
5.4
2.3
17.1
1.03
0.38
0.05
0.19
21.5
12.0
893
13.0
4.81
1.04
2.34
0.61
1.74
East
C
1.8
9.9
2.0
7.2
2.2
17.4
0.58
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.60
0.22
1,000
4.6
5.20
1.5
2.58
0.82
3.40
Oyster Bay
West
D
1.7
9.9
1.9
9.4
2.4
17.8
0.88
0.16
0.03
0.06
0.90
0.35
841
9.8
0.54
0.47
0.54
0.20
0.03
East
E
1.6
9.7
2.3
9.0
3.5
17.6
0.48
0.13
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
1,365
8.7
1.16
0.46
0.80
0.20
0.05
South Bay
F
1.9
10.0
3.4
12.3
3.9
16.0
0.48
0.10
0.19
0.03
0.22
0.22
789
26.2
4.20
1.6
1.99
0.37
1.90
Jamaica
Bay
G
1.4
9.9
5.7
7.9
3.8
14.2
0.83
0.73
0.15
0.39
585
141
4,711
128
0.55
0.36
0.26
0.27
0.10
-------
vertebrates in different areas of Jamaica Bay and in other south-shore
Long Island bays were determined. Areas sampled in Jamaica Bay were
Island Channel, the north channel, Grassy Bay, Broad Channel and Beach
Channel. At each transect a 16-ft otter trawl was lowered and pulled
for a known distance or period of time at a known rate of speed. Col-
lected specimens were identified and enumerated to provide a species
diversity index.
Results of the fish and invertebrate trawls at the various sampling lo-
cations in Jamaica Bay and other Long Island bays are presented in
Table 10. On the average, fewer fish were collected in Jamaica Bay;
but because the number represented a larger number or variety of spe-
cies, a higher species diversity index of fish was obtained for Jamaica
Bay, which is indicative of a better balanced and more favorable fish
community. A larger average number of invertebrates was collected in
Jamaica Bay as compared to the other Long Island bays, in addition to
a greater number of invertebrate species, which again produced a higher
and more favorable invertebrate species index in Jamaica Bay than ex-
isted in the other Long Island bays sampled.
Heavy Metals—
The presence of heavy metals in receiving environments may constitute a
serious form of pollution because the metals are not readily removed by
natural processes. They may persist in the environment for many years
after the sources of pollution have been removed. This accumulation is
enhanced in Jamaica Bay by the salt marsh environment, which collects
heavy metals by formation of sulfides and organic complexes, and by con-
centration in wetland species.
Results of heavy metal analysis of samples collected during the period
June to September 1973 by the Department of Water Resources, City of
New York [8] from selected stations in Jamaica Bay are presented in
Table 11. Each analysis represents a single sample composited from 30
samples taken half near the surface and half near the bottom during a
wide range of tidal and climatic conditions.
Although the heavy metals in Jamaica Bay were not present in concentra-
tions sufficient to cause acute toxicity to marine organisms, their
presence is still potentially dangerous. The effect of heavy metals on
marine life is often synergistic and will vary not only with concentra-
tion and species but also with the physical and chemical properties of
the water. In addition to synergistic effects of heavy metals, there
are chronic effects which may not become manifest for some time.
Pesticides—
Results of analyses for chlorinated hydrocarbons in the waters and sedi-
ments of Jamaica Bay are presented in Table 12 and appear to indicate a
gradual increase from Rockaway Inlet to the east end of Jamaica Bay.
77
-------
Table 10. RESULTS OF FISH AND INVERTEBRATE TRAWLS IN JAMAICA BAY AND OTHER LONG ISLAND BAYS
00
No. of
Sampling location organisms
Jamaica Bay
Island Channel
North Channel
Grassy Bay
Broad Channel
Beach Channel
Average
Other Long Island bays
West Hemp stead Bay
Middle Hempstead Bay
East Hempstead Bay
West Oyster Bay
East Oyster Bay
Great South Bay
Average
68
255
32
76
45
95
530
408
46
3
1,005
235
371
Fish
No. of
species
10
10
6
6
14
9
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
Invertebrates
Diversity
index3
1.73
0.99
1.32
1.15
2.27
1.49
0.09
0.10
2.24
1.10
0.04
0.53
0.68
No. of
organisms
82
309
68
378
167
200
19
0
5
28
20
23
16
No. of
species
6
14
4
14
9
9
3
0
3
5
4
3
3
Diversity
index
1.28
1.18
0.94
2.38
1.81
1.52
0.80
0
0.95
1.50
0.97
0.47
0.78
Diversity index = - > — Iog0 — , where n is number of individual species and N is total number
/ _j N ^ N , , ..
^•^^ r\T a\ \ cri^fific;
of all species
-------
Table 11. HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN JAMAICA BAY, 1973
Location
Heavy metal, mg/1
Copper Chromium Nickel Zinc Cadmium Lead Mercury
Coney Island 0.01
outfall
Rockaway Inlet 0.07
Mill Basin 0.07
Canarsie Pier 0.07
Railroad 0.12
trestle
0.001 0.010 0.09 0.0008 0.16
0.0015 0.015 0.15
0.0015 0.014 0.10
0.001 0.010 0.12
0.0035 0.018 0.14
0.0032 0.21
0.0026 0.18
0.0025 0.20
0.0057 0.20
0.0004
0.0005
0.0008
0.0011
0.0007
Bergen Basin
Average
0.
0.
08
10
<0.0005
0.0015
0.
0.
021
015
0.
0.
14
12
0.
0.
0024
0029
0.25
0.12
0.0022
0.0029
Analyses indicate that along with the polychlorobiphenyls (PCB), signi-
ficant amounts of DDT and its derivatives DDE and ODD are found in the
waters of Jamaica Bay, principally in the north channel area. Poly-
chlorobiphenyls were also found in sediment samples in addition to the
recognized pesticide dieldrin and two unknown chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The significance of these pesticide concentrations is that they are
withdrawn from the water and concentrated by phytoplankton or extracted
from sediments by detritus-feeding animals and thereby passed up the
food chain. Once the pesticides have reached adequate concentrations
in the tissues of fish, they may prove to be toxic under stress or to
be physiologically damaging to the reproductive process.
Although the concentrations of total chlorinated hydrocarbons in the
waters of Jamaica Bay are not alarming, attention must be called to the
paucity of knowledge on the significance of biological magnification.
Also, the concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the sediments
of Jamaica Bay were hundreds and even thousands of times greater than
they were in the waters. At the present time it is not possible to
state all the implications of the chlorinated hydrocarbons in Jamaica
Bay; however, it does appear that the levels of chlorinated hydrocar-
bons in the water pose no significant obstacle to primary-contact recre-
ation. The most serious limitation imposed by high concentrations of
chlorinated hydrocarbons would apply to secondary contact recreational
activities based upon human consumption of fish and shellfish.
79
-------
Table 12. CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN WATERS AND
SEDIMENTS OF JAMAICA BAY
(mg/1)
Date
Water
6 Feb 69
21 Nov 69
10 Apr 70
Sediment
6 Feb 69
21 Nov 69
10 Apr 70
Sta-
tion
4
11
14
4
6
7
10
12
14
15
4
7
10
12
14
4
6
11
14
15
4
6
7
10
12
14
15
4
7
10
12
14
TCH PCB DDE
0.035
0.085
0.110
0.08a 0.01
0.08a 0.2
0.04a 1.0
0.06a 0.02
0.05a 0.05
0.02a 0.04
0.06a NDb
NDC ND
NDC ND
0.120C 0.014
NDC 0.040
NDC 0.004
67d
67d
445d
l,835d
225d
67a
9a
580a
29a
26a
510a
39a
NDa
670a
25a
NDa
l,900a
Diel-
DDT ODD drin TUCH
ND ND
ND ND
0.045 0.043
0.020 0.006
0.022 ND
ND 16
19 861
1 47
ND 42
65 1,000
1254
= not detectable
'PCB 1248
PCB total
80
-------
SECTION VI
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES
Ecosystem Interactions
In an ecosystem, a multitude of biological and chemical components and
physical parameters interact in a complex manner to produce a behavior
characteristic of that particular ecosystem. The behavior is designed
to perpetuate the existence of the biological sector of the system re-
gardless of the nature of the chemical components and physical param-
eters . Ecosystem behavior is characterized in terms of the number of
components in the system, the magnitude and concentration of each com-
ponent. Because the essence of an ecosystem is the capture, storage,
conversion, use and release of energy, the inefficiencies of these
operations can result in the accumulation of energy in the system. In
general, as the rate of accumulation and level of energy increase, the
quality of the ecosystem decreases. Ecosystems are dynamic systems in
which all the components are interrelated, such that a change in a com-
ponent or relationship between components has an effect on all the seg-
ments of the system, including the ones which initially changed.
Use Perspectives
There are three essentially distinct ecosystem use-perspectives; namely,
the preservation use-perspective, the maximum sustained use-perspective
and the destructive use-perspective. The preservation perspective as-
sumes that man must be barred from participating in or having an effect
on ecosystems. It is assumed also that changes in ecosystems in the
absence of man, regardless of the nature of the changes, are acceptable.
Under this use-perspective, if the rate of change is such that an eco-
system will exhibit certain characteristics after a century has passed,
the change is acceptable; however, if man's activities are such that
the rate of change is increased so that the same characteristics will
exist after a decade has passed, the change is unacceptable.
The destructive use-perspective assumes that ecosystems and their com-
ponents are to be used by man in any manner deemed desirable. Funda-
mentally, this use-perspective recognizes no limitations of resources.
Although based on the apparent assumption that ecosystems will exist,
unchanged, in perpetuity regardless of use, this perspective can relate
only to short-term situations because it results in the consumption and
final destruction of the ecosystem or its components. All situations
in which resources are used on the basis of desire or need without re-
gard to supply are examples of this perspective. This has been tradi-
tionally the most common approach to man's use of ecosystems in the
industrialized nations..
81
-------
The maximum sustained use-perspective lies between the above extremes
and is predicated on the assumption that man is a participant in an
ecosystem. There is assumed to be a relationship between uses of an
ecosystem and its components and the quality of the ecosystem, and the
uses of the ecosystem and its components impart changes to the system
which must be corrected or compensated for if the use is to be perpetu-
ated. The latter applies not only to use-induced changes but also to
nonuse-related changes which interfere with the specific use. This
perspective implies that the purpose of the management of the system is
to permit the desired uses of the system to continue; that is, to ex-
pend resources for adjustment and modification of the ecosystem so that
it continues to manifest the desired characteristics. This approach re-
quires identification of the desired characteristics and permits an as-
sessment of the costs associated with achieving them. The management
of fish and game on the basis of sustained yields is a facet of the max-
imum sustained use-perspective.
It is apparent that the preservation and the destructive use-perspec-
tive represent diametrically opposed approaches to ecosystem use. The
maximum sustained use-perspective is a flexible approach which allows
a particular use of an ecosystem or its components to be determined on
the basis of an evaluation of the quantifiable and nonquantifiable
benefits and costs to be incurred as a result of the use.
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
The tools available for managing an ecosystem are wastewater input con-
trol and treatment, flushing and dredging. Additional management tools
which are available, such as harvesting algae and aeration, are consid-
ered secondary in importance because they merely cure symptoms and
their usefulness may be obviated by implementation of the primary man-
agement tools.
Wastewater Management
Management of wastewaters is the traditional and most conventional
technique of ecosystem management because wastewaters are usually the
most important exogenous influence altering the natural progression
of events in an ecosystem. In its widest application, wastewater man-
agement encompasses source control and all levels of wastewater treat-
ment , transport and manner of discharge in or outside the ecosystem for
beneficial uses.
Dredging
Certain wastewater constituents accumulate in the sediments, posing two
problems for ecosystem management. First, these accumulated materials
may be incompatible with benthic organisms necessary to the food chain;
secondly, they can be periodically released back to the overlying water.
Accumulations of wastewater materials in the sediments can cause a
82
-------
gradual change from a desirable to an undesirable ecosystem, whereas
the sudden release of these materials can cause periodic disruptions in
desirable ecosystem characteristics. At present the only apparent posi-
tive way to control these undesirable effects is to physically remove
them by the use of dredging. Thus, if at any given location it is de-
sired to maintain an ecosystem which has constant characteristics over
time, dredging may be a mandatory ecosystem management technique.
Traditionally, dredging, as routinely practiced in many bays, rivers,
lakes, estuaries and harbors, has been conducted for the explicit bene-
fits which accrue to navigation and construction activities. However,
there has been a recent growing awareness that if aquatic ecosystems
are to be maintained and improved then dredging, as it affects eco-
system status, must be developed to the point where it can be included
in the tools and procedures used to combat natural and man-induced
eutrophication of natural and man-made water bodies.
In summary, dredging can serve to eliminate an existing benthic eco-
system so that a new one can be initiated, remove sediments so as to
create a new habitat and reshape the topography so as to create new
circulation patterns, bed load improvement and transport characteristics
within the ecosystem. Thus, dredging as an ecosystem management tool
must be viewed as having two advantages and a disadvantage. The ad-
vantages lie in its value in initiation and maintenance, whereas the
disadvantage relates to the problem of handling the dredged material so
that it does not create more problems after removal than it did in
place.
Flushing
Treated wastewaters can be used to maintain general water quality con-
ditions in aquatic systems as a result of flushing action if the waste-
water flow rate is relatively large compared to the natural flow. That
is, the partial control of the hydraulics of the system can be used to
affect the material residence time and, to some extent, the accumula-
tion of organic and inorganic materials in the sediments and waters.
There are essentially three dispersion mechanisms—advective trans-
port, dispersion and decay—which can affect the distribution of
materials in an aquatic system. The first two mechanisms affect the
distribution of conservative substances, such as mercury, while all
the mechanisms affect the distribution of nonconservative substances,
such as BOD. Consequently, differences in water movement may govern
differences in water constituent concentrations in various parts of
Jamaica Bay.
In general, flushing by currents is much more of a controlling and
limiting factor in streams than it is in bays. Streams are unique in
that they are subject to spring freshets and summer flash floods which
essentially reestablish the resident ecosystem conditions at least
once each season. However, wave action along shores may virtually
duplicate stream conditions.
83
-------
MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS
One of the more controversial aspects of ecosystem management is the
assignment of quantitative values to qualitative benefits arising from
use of the various management techniques. Such assignment is desirable,
however, because the different management alternatives require compar-
ison with the resulting qualitative benefits. The main difficulty is
in the very diverse nature of the many parameters determing degree of
accomplishment of the different uses to be sustained by the ecosystem.
Sustained uses to be protected and enhanced through management of the
ecosystem are full-contact water sports such as swimming, limited-
contact water sports such as fishing, aesthetic enjoyment, fish and
wildlife sanctuary, commercial navigation and wastewater transport and
disposal.
Broad measures of suitability for these objectives are public health
protection, recreational suitability, aesthetic quality, primary pro-
ductivity and manageability. Manageability is a measure of the ability
of the management system to maintain the ecosystem for other beneficial
uses. It is evident that a multiple-objective approach can be used if
numerical indices, or scalar measures, associated with each of the
above areas—as determined by the physical, chemical and biological
character of the Jamaica Bay ecosystem—can be developed for each al-
ternative wastewater management system.
Six indices of ecosystem character were formulated:
1. Zero-Risk Index—a measure of public health protection,
2. Water Contact Recreation Index—a measure of availability of
the ecosystem for zero-risk water contact,
3. Ecosystem Aesthetic Acceptability—a measure of overall
aesthetic impact of ecosystem productivity potential (defined below),
4. Ecosystem Productivity Potential—a measure of the uncon-
strained level of primary productivity,
5. Ecosystem Zero-Benefit Management Index—a measure of the
difficulty of bringing the ecosystem from a given state to a point
where management control of productivity can be exerted, and
6. Ecosystem Benefit Management Index—a measure of difficulty of
bringing the ecosystem from a point of management control to a given
desired level of productivity.
Each of the above indices, in turn, can be described in terms of
84
-------
chemical, physical and biological parameters. These descriptions can
then be translated, in accordance with arbitrarily selected procedures,
into scalar index values associated with desirable or undesirable char-
acteristics. Such procedures would involve references to standard eco-
systems demonstrating the extreme desirable or undesirable character-
istics. Because each index is based upon quantifiable—and controlla-
ble—ecosystem properties, these indices can be used to identify over-
all comparative values associated with given management programs.
Zero-Risk Index
The zero-risk index is a measure of the degree to which the public
health standard is attained. It is derived from the total coliform
concentrations in the water column. Present standards are set such
that densities less than 24 MPN/ml represent zero-risk achievement,
whereas greater coliform densities are unacceptable. Accordingly,
zero-risk index is defined as a step function, with a maximal index
value for densities less than or equal to 24 MPN/ml and a minimal value
for any densities greater than 24 MPN/ml.
Water Contact Recreation Index
The zero-risk index alone is not adequate for determining the suita-
bility of an ecosystem for water contact recreation because it is a
parameter specific for a given situation and time. Assuming that a
valid management technique for an ecosystem is the restriction of pub-
lic access to that system when it is unsuitable for a given use, then
the relative amount of time that the ecosystem is available for that
purpose becomes a meaningful measure. Enforced restriction of access
can be and has been used in Jamaica Bay. Water contact recreation is
thus quantified as the percentage of days on which the zero-risk cri-
terion is met and the beaches are open. The distribution of expected
coliform levels from the different wastewater management alternatives
can be converted into user-days by counting those days on which the
24 MPN/ml standard is not exceeded.
Aesthetic Acceptability Index
Ecosystem aesthetic acceptability is a composite measure of suitability
of an ecosystem for recreation or aesthetic use. Pertinent parameters
will vary for each aquatic ecosystem and the nature of the desired
human interaction with the ecosystem. Parameters can include color,
odor, turbidity, floatables and some measure of standing floral and
faunal crop. The degree of desirability of an ecosystem, from the
aesthetic point of view, is thus highly dependent upon the specific
set of uses which are to be sustained therein.
Productivity Potential Index
Ecosystem productivity potential is a measure of the potential of an
85
-------
aquatic ecosystem to support the growth of algae and other consumers.
This index is not a measure of the standing crop but of the rate of
change of the standing crop in response to limiting light and nutrient
conditions. Productivity determines the maximum sustained use which
can be obtained from the ecosystem; therefore, control of primary pro-
ductivity is a basic management objective. Because a major portion of
the energy flow in the aquatic ecosystem occurs through the phytoplank-
ton (algae, diatoms, etc.), control of primary productivity is achieved
largely through control of phytoplankton. Furthermore, primary produc-
tivity rates are sequentially and singularly controlled at any time by
the environmental parameter which supports the minimal growth rate. As
the magnitude of a potentially controlling parameter shifts, control
may well shift from one parameter to another.
The sequential, single-parameter control of growth rate of the primary
producers provides a basis for developing a scalar system for defin-
ing primary productivity potential. The growth rate of primary pro-
ducers increases as a function of increasing growth-stimulating param-
eter level or decreasing growth-retarding parameter level. For Jamaica
Bay, three potentially controlling parameters are nitrogen, phosphorus
and light. While these may not be the only control parameters, con-
trolling them evidently leads to controlling primary productivity.
Furthermore, benthic diversity index is an indicator of stability and
health of an ecosystem. Hence, a suitable composite index of eco-
system productivity potential could be obtained by adding the scalar
value associated with the minimal—controlling—growth control param-
eter to the scalar value associated with benthic diversity index.
Zero-Benefit and Benefit Management Indices
The concept of a management index is derived from the stability of pro-
ductivity in a given control approach, under the potential threat of
loss of control of the one rate-limiting parameter. For example, a
radiant energy control (high turbidity) may exist along with the abun-
dance of nitrogen and phosphorus. Loss of control through decrease in
turbidity or color in the system can cause runaway growth, resulting
in a severe management problem.
The characteristic saturation behavior of growth rate curves makes it
particularly important to examine two separate components of the man-
agement index: the "zero-benefit" index and the "benefit" index. In
the zero-benefit range, constituent concentrations or values are above
saturation, while in benefit stress, constituent values are below sat-
uration. Reduction of constituent levels through management control
of parameters which are in the saturation range results in no observ-
able benefits, in terms of stability or control. An index for each
management component can be defined in terms of constituent concentra-
tions.
86
-------
QUANTIFICATION SYSTEM
Numerical values were derived and assigned to the management parameters
or indices and evaluated for the wastewater management alternatives
presented in Section VIII. For the conditions extant in the Jamaica
Bay ecosystem and the assigned scalar values, the quantification system
proved to be too insensitive, providing only small numerical differences
between wastewater management alternatives. Thus, widely different eco-
system management techniques produced rather similar numerical values
for each index, minimizing the utility of this evaluative tool for
wastewater management programs relevant to Jamaica Bay.
The potential merit of the ecosystem management quantification system
developed in this project for Jamaica Bay should not be overlooked for
applications elsewhere. In those cases where the conditions of the
ecosystem are such as to provide a greater response to differences be-
tween wastewater management alternatives than was evidenced for Jamaica
Bay, the ecosystem management evaluation procedure developed in this
project could provide a significant adjunct to more conventional eval-
uative tools.
87
-------
SECTION VII
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
WASTEWATER SOURCES
At the present time, wastewaters and surface runoff are discharged at
numerous points along the periphery of Jamaica Bay. Treated municipal
wastewater effluents are discharged continuously from four major water
pollution control facilities operated by the City of New York, from two
small military installations and from two minor water pollution control
facilities operated by Nassau County. Combined sewer overflows dis-
charge during excessive storm conditions at eight locations, and direct
stormwater runoff occurs at many points during wet-weather conditions.
Other minor pollutant sources include leachate drainage from two active
solid waste disposal sites and surface drainage from the John F. Kennedy
International Airport.
Dry-Weather Flow
A population of 1,632,500 persons residing within New York City in the
area tributary to Jamaica Bay produces an average dry-weather flow of
249 mgd of sanitary sewage. This total flow is separated into four ma-
jor sewerage service areas, shown in Figure 2, which each terminate at
a major water pollution control facility. In 1972, the four sewerage
service areas and their respective annual average daily dry-weather
flows were Coney Island, 99 mgd; 26th Ward, 66 mgd; Jamaica, 93 mgd;
and Rockaway, 19 mgd.
Combined Sewer Overflow
There are nine distinct drainage basins which culminate in combined
sewer systems tributary to the four major water pollution control fa-
cilities operated by the City of New York. The total area served by
combined sewer systems exceeds 18,900 ac. The areas and other charac-
teristics of the individual combined sewer basins are presented in
Table 13. The locations of the individual drainage areas are shown in
Figure 62.
Separate Storm Sewer Runoff
A total area of greater than 18,000 ac in the Jamaica Bay drainage ba-
sin is served by separate storm sewers. Most of the separate storm
sewered areas are located at the northeastern and eastern edges of
Jamaica Bay inland of the John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Smaller storm drainage areas are located along the northern perimeter
of the bay and Rockaway Inlet. The predominate land use in these sep-
arately sewered areas is single-family dwellings.
88
-------
Table 13. COMBINED AND STORM SEWER CHARACTERISTICS OF
JAMAICA BAY DRAINAGE BASIN3
Drainage basin
Estimated
Area, WPCF overflow
ac tributary coefficient
Predominant
land use
Combined sewers
Spring Creek Westc 1,874 26th Ward 0.40
Spring Creek Eastc 1,382 Jamaica
d
Thurston
Hendrix
Paerdegat
Fresh Creek
Bergen
Rockaway
Sheepshead Bay
Subtotal
2,190 Jamaica
5,730 Coney Is.
2,699 Jamaica
1,250 Rockaway
291 Coney Is.
18,909
Separate storm sewers
Thurston & Bergen 18,083
Total 36,992
0.50
0.25
492 26th Ward 0.60
0.40
2,001 26th Ward 0.40
0.50
0.40
Multi-family dwell-
ings, limited open
space
Single-family hous-
ing units
75% single-family,
25% cemetery
Highest population
density, multi-
family dwellings,
commercial
65% multi-family
dwellings, 30%
commercial, 5%
public buildings
Multi-family dwell-
ings, commercial
Single-family
dwellings
70% multi- and
single-family
dwellings, 30%
Single-family
dwellings
Includes portions of the drainage basin within the city limits.
Runoff coefficient is estimated at 0.65 for all basins.
°The overflow structures for the sewerage systems serving both Spring
Creek basins lead to the Spring Creek facility.
Stormwater from other areas is mixed with combined sewer overflows.
Excludes J.F.K. International Airport, with an area of 4,900 ac.
89
-------
r' -i^O^^^feiw8K??i
sm*:w«
*K ' TX\ ^^MfWT^Kgf; -?«^
Figure 62. Location of combined sewer
overflows and tributary areas
Jamaica Bay
KILOMETERS
90
-------
Other Sources of Wastewater
The two active landfill sites contributing leachate flows to the bay
are the Hendrix landfill and the Rockaway landfill. These two land-
fills are owned and operated by New York City for disposal of municipal
solid waste. Commercial and private dumping is limited. All types of
refuse, except flammables, are placed at these sites. The Hendrix
landfill site is 370 ac in area and the Rockaway site is 120 ac in area.
The Hendrix site has 4,000 ft of frontage on Spring Creek, Hendrix
Creek and North Channel. Rockaway landfill has 4,000 ft of frontage on
Norton Basin and Grass Hassock Channel.
Another source of wastewaters is the John F. Kennedy International Air-
port, which occupies 4,900 ac on the northeast perimeter of Jamaica Bay.
One half of the stormwater runoff is discharged to Grassy Bay, 25% flows
into Bergen Basin and another 25% culminates in Thurston Basin. Sani-
tary wastewater is discharged separately to the Jamaica sewage treatment
facility.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Four major water pollution control facilities for treatment of dry-
weather flows (Coney Island, Rockaway. 26th Ward and Jamaica) and an
auxiliary water pollution control facility for treatment of combined
sewer overflow (Spring Creek) comprise the existing wastewater quality
management facilities of the City of New York for Jamaica Bay. The
process performance of three of the dry-weather flow facilities is be-
ing upgraded (upgrading of the fourth is planned) and the auxiliary
facility has been constructed in response, in part, to the early find-
ings of this study.
Coney Island Water Pollution Control Facility
The Coney Island facility serves a population of 617,000. It is a mod-
ified aeration plant with a discharge of about 99 mgd. Chlorination is
practiced only during the summer recreational season, from May 15 to
September 30. Chlorine contact occurs in the outfall, which provides
approximately 0.5 hr detention time after chlorine is applied. The
tributary area is comprised of Paerdegat Basin and Sheepshead Bay Basin.
Rockaway Water Pollution Control Facility
The Rockaway facility service area has a population of 80,500. Prior
to upgrading to step aeration, it was a modified aeration plant with a
discharge of approximately 19 mgd. Chlorination is accomplished using
a conventional contact chamber. The Rockaway Peninsula area sewers
are tributary to the plant.
91
-------
26th Ward Water Pollution Control Facility
The 26th Ward facility serves 370,000 persons. Prior to upgrading to
step aeration, the facility was a modified aeration plant with a dis-
charge of 66 mgd. Chlorine is added at the terminal end of the final
settling tank and the flow is immediately discharged. Fresh Creek,
Hendrix Creek and Spring Creek West basins are tributary areas of this
plant.
Jamaica Water Pollution Control Facility
The Jamaica facility serves 565,000 persons. Prior to upgrading to
step aeration, it was a modified aeration plant with a discharge of 93
mgd. It has a chlorination system similar to that utilized at Coney
Island. This plant receives wastewater from the Spring Creek West,
Bergen and Thurston basins.
Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility
In conjunction with the upgraded dry-weather flow facilities, the City
of New York has planned a program for construction of auxiliary facili-
ties to control the adverse effects of overflows from combined sewers
to Jamaica Bay.
An initial step in this program was the design and construction of the
Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility. This facility
is one of the largest installations in the country for management of
combined sewer overflows. The facility was partially operational at
the onset of the 1972 summer recreational season and is now complete.
The facility is located at the head of Spring Creek and receives com-
bined sewage overflows from Spring Creek East and Spring Creek West
basins, as shown on Figure 62. The total tributary area in the two
outlets covers approximately 3,260 ac. The facility is designed as a
retention basin providing for chlorination of overflows and removal of
settleable and floatable solids. After cessation of overflow, the
wastewaters are routed, through an interceptor, to the 26th Ward sew-
age treatment facility for treatment.
Major components and characteristics of the Spring Creek facility are
a disinfection system with four hypochlorinators; six retention basins
with a surface area of 142,800 ft2 and a capacity of 1,657,000 ft3 de-
signed for a hydraulic loading of 2,900 mgd, equivalent to a 5-yr
storm; and complete dewatering system and basin cleaning facilities.
During periods of overflow, combined sewer overflows are diverted
through the chlorine diffusion chambers and into the inlet chamber for
distribution to the retention basins. The overflow volumes that can-
not be retained in the basins are discharged to Spring Creek and thence
to Jamaica Bay.
92
-------
After cessation of overflow, the basins are emptied by gravity to the
level of the diversion weir in the combined sewer from the Spring Creek
West Basin, which is 63% of the full basin volume. The remaining vol-
ume in the basins is pumped out to the 26th Ward facility.
In the ensuing cleaning process, traveling spray bridges move from down-
stream to upstream in each basin and flush grit and sludge along the
back-sloped bottoms of the basins to collector troughs leading to the
basin drain system. The flushings from the dewatered basin are screened
and degritted, and the facility is then readied for the next overflow
treatment operation. Basic design criteria are presented in Appendix A.
WASTEWATER QUALITY
Untreated Sewage
The average quality of untreated, dry-weather sewage flowing from the
service areas into each of the four water pollution control facilities
is presented in Table 14 in terms of concentrations and mass emission
coefficients of the various water quality parameters. The parameters
reported are: 5-day, 20°C biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids (SS) , hexane extractable materi-
als (HEM), total nitrogen (TN), total inorganic nitrogen (TIN), total
organic nitrogen (TON), total phosphorus (TP) and total soluble phos-
phorus (TSP). Relevant data on flows and populations served by each
plant are also included for ready reference.
Water Pollution Control Facilities Effluent
Average effluent characteristics of the four water pollution control
facilities prior to their upgrading and the corresponding waste load-
ings in million pounds per year (mil Ib/yr) to Jamaica Bay are present-
ed in Table 15. These effluent qualities which are related to average
constituent removal efficiencies for the four facilities prior to up-
grading are presented in Table 16, together with estimated removal ef-
ficiencies following upgrading.
After upgrading, it is estimated that the much improved quality of the
effluent will have the average characteristics shown in Table 17, which
also presents the corresponding average wastewater constituent loadings
to Jamaica Bay.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Because of the dilution effect of the storm waters upon sewage and the
time-variant nature of stormwater quality itself, combined sewer over-
flows exhibit quality characteristics which are functions of time and
of intensity and duration of rainfall. A number of empirical relation-
ships have been tested to describe overflow parameter concentration as
a function of storm intensity. These relationships were tested using
93
-------
Table 14. AVERAGE UNTREATED DRY-WEATHER WASTEWATER QUALITY, MASS EMISSION COEFFICIENTS
AND FLOWS INFLUENT TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES, 1970a
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Population
Flow , mgd
Flow, gcdc
Coney
mg/1
133
377
144
18
49
21
28
8
5
617
Island
pcdb
0.160
0.454
0.173
0.022
0.059
0.026
0.033
0.010
0.005
,000
89
144
Rockaway
mg/1
88
337
125
16
45
20
25
9
5
81
pcd
0.171
0.656
0.243
0.032
0.088
0.039
0.050
0.017
0.009
,400
19
233
26th
mg/1
97
283
112
31
45
21
24
6
5
375
Ward
pcd
0.142
0.415
0.164
0.045
0.066
0.030
0.036
0.010
0.007
,000
66
176
Jamaica
mg/1
129
496
173
25
37
10
27
11
9
566
pcd
0.171
0.657
0.230
0.033
0.049
0.014
0.035
0.015
0.013
,000
90
159
6005 and SS values are annual averages reported by the Bureau of Water Pollution Control for 1970.
All other parameter values are averages of results from analysis of samples collected by Engi-
neering-Science, Inc. in November 1969 and February 1970.
pcd = pounds per capita per day.
"gcd = gallons per capita per day.
-------
<£>
Ol
Table 15. AVERAGE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AND LOADINGS TO
JAMAICA BAY PRIOR TO UPGRADING OF FACILITIES, 1970
Coney Island
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
mg/1
55
117
45
5
37
17
20
5
3
mil Ib/yr
14.8
31.7
12.1
1.49
9.97
4.57
5.80
1.76
0.65
Rockaway
mg/1
35
81
60
14
37
16
21
6
5
mil Ib/yr
2.03
4.68
3.47
0.82
2.17
1.09
1.14
0.31
0.24
26th Ward
mg/1
36
130
46
13
28
13
15
5
4
mil Ib/yr
7.19
26.1
9.20
2.65
5.51
3.20
3.77
1.25
0.82
Jamaica
mg/1
58
124
79
6
32
9
23
10
9
mil Ib/yr
15.9
33.9
21.9
1.64
8.71
2.46
6.15
2.79
2.61
Total
mil Ib/yr
39.9
96.4
46.7
6.60
26.4
11.3
16.9
6.11
4.32
-------
to
O5
Table 16. AVERAGE WASTEWATER CONSTITUENT REMOVALS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
OF JAMAICA BAY PRIOR TO AND AFTER UPGRADING
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Coney Island
59
69
69
70
25
22a
—
22
42
Prior to upgrading
Rockaway
60
76
52
14
17
6a
—
39
9
(1970)
26th Ward
63
54
59
57
39
22a
—
9
14
Jamaica
55
75
54
76
14
15a
—
10
3
All, after
upgrading
85
80
85
85
—
40
20
25
20
aNH3-N only.
-------
Table 17. AVERAGE UPGRADED WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AND
LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY
Coney Island
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Design
flow,
mg/1
20
75
22
3
35
13
22
6
4
mgd
mil Ib/yr
6.01
22.6
6.63
0.904
10.6
3.92
6.63
1.81
1.21
99
Rockaway
mg/1
13
67
19
2
32
12
20
7
4
mil Ib/yr
0.910
4.69
1.33
0.140
2.24
0.840
1.40
0.490
0.280
23
26th Ward
mg/1
15
57
17
5
32
12
20
5
4
mil Ib/yr
3.01
11.5
3.42
1.01
6.43
2.41
4.02
1.01
0.804
66
Jamaica
mg/1
19
100
26
4
27
6
21
8
7
mil Ib/yr
5.55
29.2
7.60
1.17
7.89
1.75
6.14
2.34
2.05
96
Total
mil Ib/yr
15.5
68.0
19.0
3.22
27.2
8.92
18.2
5.65
4.34
-------
data collected during a large number of actual storms in the Jamaica Bay
area.
A total of 44 overflow events were monitored in 5 of the 9 basins. The
basins in which overflows were monitored were Spring Creek East at the
North Conduit, Paerdegat, Spring Creek West, Hendrix Creek and Thurston.
The overflows were monitored at frequent intervals during each event.
Flow rates were measured at each interval and each sample was analyzed
for BOD5, COD, SS, HEM, TON, TIN, TSP and indicator organism concentra-
tions. Mass emission coefficients were developed as a basis for esti-
mating combined sewage emissions to Jamaica Bay as a function of over-
flow quantity on an individual storm basis.
To develop predictive relationships describing cumulative mass emis-
sions as a function of overflow volume, empirical relationships were
evaluated between the cumulative mass emission coefficient for each
monitored constituent and overflow volume. Cumulative mass emission
coefficients were calculated for each constituent from the basic data
for the 44 monitored storms, and plotted against storm overflow depth,
producing a linear relationship relatively independent of drainage ba-
sin. The limited scatter in the data represent the effects of differ-
ent land use and sewer system capacity in the different basins, the
antecedent dry period and other factors. These data are presented in
Appendix B. Weighted average mass emission rates, expressed in pounds
per acre-inch of overflow (lb/ac-in.), were developed from these data
and are presented in Table 18 for each combined sewer overflow basin.
Average concentrations of pollutants in untreated combined sewer over-
flows to Jamaica Bay from each basin are given in Table 19.
Average mass emission rates were applied with the overflow coefficients
and areas of the particular basins to develop average total pollutant
loadings from the untreated combined sewage overflows. The results are
presented in Table 20.
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility Effluents
Total storage volume of the Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Con-
trol Facility below the level of the outflow weirs is 1,657,000 ft3,
which is equivalent to 0.25 in. of rainfall (0.11 in. of overflow vol-
ume) if upstream sewer storage capacity is ignored*- For storms gener-
*
Upstream sewer storage capacity was ignored in analysis of all com-
bined sewer overflow basins, producing an overly conservative design.
In reality, overflow from the Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution
Control Facility occurs only after about 0.50 in. of rainfall has
fallen on the tributary area. However, because the capacity and per-
formance characteristics of this facility were extended to all other
combined sewer overflow basins, and because the upstream sewer storage
capacity in these basins was not known, the more conservative analysis
was believed warranted.
98
-------
CO
Table 18. AVERAGE MASS EMISSION COEFFICIENTS OF UNTREATED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS TO JAMAICA BAY
(Ib/ac-in. of overflow)
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Paerdegat
Basin
18.
82.
18.
4.
3.
1.
2.
2.
0.
0
1
4
20
60
20
40
66
20
Fresh
Creek
24.1
82.1
66.1
17.0
3.73
0.84
2.89
0.77
0.58
Hendrix
Creek
28.7
86.9
57.8
14.4
3.91
0.77
3.14
1.19
0.89
Spring
Creek
West
21.5
58.8
77.3
50.3
4.66
1.24
3.42
0.85
0.64
Spring
Creek
East
32.1
96.1
126
11.4
4.12
0.63
3.49
1.00
0.75
Bergen
Basin
24.1
82.1
66.1
17.0
3.73
0.84
2.89
0.77
0.58
Thurston
Basin
20
86
50
4
2
0
2
0
0
.1
.6
.5
.57
.38
.38
.00
.55
.41
Rockaway
Peninsula
24.1
82.1
66.1
17.0
3.73
0.84
2.89
0.77
0.58
Total
193
657
529
136
29.9
6.74
23.1
8.56
4.63
-------
Table 19. AVERAGE QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS TO JAMAICA BAY
(mg/1)
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
h*1
§ HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Paerdegat
Basin
130
370
315
55
18
5
13
5
3
Fresh
Creek
130
370
315
55
18
5
13
5
3
Hendrix
Creek
170
390
329
95
20
4
16
5
3
Spring
Creek
West
101
260
268
42
25
9
16
7
5
Spring
Creek
East
115
448
306
57
15
4
11
4
3
Bergen
Basin
130
370
315
55
18
5
13
5
3
Thurston
Basin
134
381
357
26
12
2
10
3
2
Rockaway
Peninsula
130
370
315
55
18
5
13
5
3
-------
Table 20. AVERAGE ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM UNTREATED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(mil Ib/yr)
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Paerdegat
Basin
1.81
8.27
1.86
0.42
0.36
0.12
0.24
0.27
0.02
Fresh
Creek
0.85
2.89
2.32
0.60
0.13
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.02
Hendrix
Creek
0.37
1.13
0.75
0.19
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
Spring
Creek
West
0.71
1.94
2.54
1.66
0.15
0.04
0.11
0.03
0.02
Spring
Creek
East
0.97
2.92
3.83
0.35
0.13
0.02
0.11
0.03
0.02
Bergen
Basin
1.43
4.87
3.92
1.01
0.22
0.05
0.17
0.05
0.03
Thurston
Basin
0.44
1.88
1.10
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
Rock away
Peninsula
0.53
1.80
1.45
0.37
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
Total
7.11
25.7
17.8
4.70
1.17
0.30
0.87
0.46
0.14
-------
ating less than this amount of overflow, there will be total capture
and partial removal of pollutant constituents in this volume by sub-
sequent processing and treatment at the 26th Ward facility. Under these
conditions, it is estimated that approximately 85% of the BOD5, HEM and
SS, 80% of the COD, 40% of the TIN, 25% of the TP and 20% of the TSP and
TON are removed under average circumstances. For rainfall depths great-
er than 0.25 in., the system acts as a sedimentation basin operating at
increasing surface loading with decreasing performance efficiency.
The assumed performance curves developed for the Spring Creek treatment
facility, and presented in Figure 63, were used to estimate effluent
quality and loadings from all future auxiliary water pollution control
facilities for treatment of combined sewer overflows. These curves are
based on general performance characteristics of sedimentation basins
operating under conditions similar to those prevailing in the Jamaica
Bay area. Removal efficiencies obtained for an "average" 0.5-in. storm
overflow volume were applied to average total pollutant loadings to pro-
duce estimated wastewater constituent loadings from each basin if an
auxiliary facility were constructed with the same performance charac-
teristics as those assumed for the Spring Creek facility. These esti-
mated loadings are presented in Table 21.
For 14 mo from June 1972 through October 1973 (excluding a 3-mo per-
iod extending from 1 April to 27 June 1973 when the 26th Ward treatment
facility was unable to routinely dewater the Spring Creek facility),
there were 136 days when rainfall of 0.01 in. or more occurred and a
total of 105 days when at least 0.06 in., termed a storm, fell during
the 24-hr period. During these 14 mo, the Spring Creek facility dis-
charged to Jamaica Bay on 26 days, or for 25% of the storms. Average
monthly rainfall during this 14-mo period was 4.14 in., which was about
12% above the long-term monthly average of 3.66 in. Of the total amount
of stormwater runoff entering the combined sewer system (assuming a run-
off coefficient of 0.65 and a tributary area of 3,256 ac) during this
period, namely 3,352 mil gal., it was estimated by the Division of Plant
Operations, City of New York, that 1,153 mil gal., or 35% of the total,
were treated and discharged from the Spring Creek facility to Jamaica
Bay. The remainder either flowed directly to the 26th Ward facility
or was eventually received there following temporary storage in the
Spring Creek facility.
During the period from January through June 1974, it was estimated by
the Division of Plant Operations that 828 mil gal. of stormwater runoff
entered the sewer system, of which 84 mil gal., or 10% of the total,
was treated at the Spring Creek facility and discharged directly to
Jamaica Bay. The average monthly rainfall during this 6-mo period was
2.37 in., which is about 35% below the long-term monthly average.
Results composited from seven storms during 1974 that caused discharge
from the Spring Creek facility to the bay indicated an average effluent
suspended solids concentration of 79 mg/1 and an average effluent BOD5
102
-------
LU
QC
CD
LU
QC
CD
CD
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
RAINFALL, in.
Figure 63. Assumed performance of Spring Creek
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility
103
-------
Table 21. AVERAGE ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
PROVIDED WITH AUXILIARY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
(mil Ib/yr)
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Paerdegat
Basin
0.72
5.38
0.56
0.17
0.296
0.096
0.200
0.216
0.018
Fresh
Creek
0.34
1.88
0.70
0.24
0.109
0.024
0.085
0.024
0.018
Hendrix
Creek
0.15
0.73
0.23
0.08
0.011
0.008
0.003
0.016
0.009
Spring
Creek
0.67
3.16
1.91
0.80
0.066
0.048
0.018
0.048
0.036
Bergen
Basin
0.57
3.17
1.18
0.40
0.185
0.040
0.145
0.040
0.027
Thurston
Basin
0.18
1.22
0.33
0.04
0.042
0.008
0.034
0.008
0.009
Rock away
Peninsula
0.21
1.17
0.44
0.15
0.067
0.016
0.051
0.016
0.009
Total
2.84
16.7
5.33
1.88
0.776
0.240
0.536
0.368
0.126
-------
concentration of 30 mg/1. Average composite removals during these dis-
charge occurrences from the Spring Creek facility were 2.4% for sus-
pended solids and 31.4% for BOD5. Analyses performed by the Division of
Plant Operations during the 14 -mo period from June 1972 through October
1973 indicated overall average effluent concentrations of 54 and 29 mg/1
for suspended solids and BODs, respectively.
Chlorination was initiated at the Spring Creek facility in 1974. Anal-
yses performed by the Division of Plant Operations on four overflowing
storms indicated geometric average fecal coliform densities of 6, 3, 1
and 300 org/100 ml. Chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) dosages ranging
from 25 to 35 mg/1 have resulted in average chlorine residual levels of
2.5 to 3.0 mg/1 .
Separate Storm Sewer Runoff
A large area in Jamaica Bay basin is served by separate storm sewers
which discharge directly to Jamaica Bay. Along with the runoff waters,
a great quantity of litter, domestic animal waste products and other
materials are washed into the bay. The weighted average concentrations
of the various pollutant constituents were measured for a typical storm
and were used as a basis for computing mass emission coefficients of
the various pollutants. Both concentrations and mass discharge coef-
ficients are presented in Table 22, wherein computed total loadings are
also shown. Total loadings were calculated for an annual average preci-
pitation of 43.93 in. over an area of 18,083 ac.
Other Discharges
Leachate flows from the Hendrix Creek and Rockaway landfills were mon-
itored in the course of the study. Estimates of mass flows of pollu-
tant discharges from the landfill sites were based on infiltration and
evaporation assessments. Average flow from the Hendrix site is esti-
mated to be 0.10 mgd and that from the Rockaway site to be 0.05 mgd.
The results of the leachate monitoring program and the estimated flow
rates were used to make gross estimates of the annual mass emissions
of pollutants from the two sites. These loadings are presented in
Table 23.
Total Wastewater Loadings in Jamaica Bay Basin
Wastewater loadings from the various sources contributing to Jamaica
Bay are summarized in Tables 24 through 27, presenting loadings of
each constituent as a function of the particular stage in the waste-
water management program of New York City. It is evident from Tables
24 through 27 that the dry-weather flow treatment facility effluents
contribute by far the largest percentage of pollutants, particularly
nutrients, to Jamaica Bay. While nutrients contributed by these
facilities are generally over 90% of the total nutrient loads under
105
-------
Table 22. AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS AND TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS
OF SEPARATE STORM SEWER RUNOFF TO JAMAICA BAY
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Concentration ,
mg/1
18.0
46.3
77.0
2.8
1.17
0.55
0.62
0.31
0.20
Mass emission
coefficient,
Ib/ac-in.
4.08
10.5
17.4
0.63
0.26
0.12
0.14
0.09
0.07
Total loading,
mil Ib/yr
2.1
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
Table 23. ESTIMATED ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS FROM LANDFILLS IN
THE JAMAICA BAY BASIN
(Ib/yr)
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Hendrix Creek site
11,500
70,000
8,900
1,200
42,100
30,600
11,500
450
340
Rockaway site
9,200
55,000
6,400
750
3,100
1,400
1,700
3.1
2.3
Total
20,700
125,000
15,300
1,950
45,200
32,000
13,200
453
342
106
-------
Table 24. AVERAGE ANNUAL WASTEWATER POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FACILITIES PRIOR TO UPGRADING, FROM UNTREATED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES
Treatment
plants
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
mil Ib/yr
39.9
96.4
46.7
6.60
26.4
11.3
16.9
6.11
4.32
%a
81
76
64
57
95
97
95
92
96
Combined sewer
overflows
mil Ib/yr
7.11
25.7
17.8
4.70
1.17
0.30
0.87
0.46
0.14
%
14
20
24
41
4
3
5
7
3
Separate
storm sewer
runoff
mil Ib/yr
2.1
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
Other sources
% mil Ib/yr %
4
4
12
3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.002
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.000
0.04
0.1
0.03
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.06
0.02
0.007
Total,
mil Ib/yr
49.1
128
73.3
11.6
27.7
11.7
17.9
6.62
4.50
Of total.
-------
Table 25. TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES PRIOR TO
UPGRADING, FROM SPRING CREEK AUXILIARY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY AND FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES
Treatment
plants
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
g SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
mil Ib/yr
39.9
96.4
46.7
6.60
26.4
11.3
16.9
6.11
4.32
%a
83
77
68
64
96
97
96
92
96
Combined sewer
overflows
mil Ib/yr
6.10
24.0
13.3
3.49
0.96
0.29
0.67
0.45
0.14
%
13
19
19
34
3
3
4
7
3
Separate
storm sewer
runoff
mil Ib/yr
2.1
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
%
4
4
13
3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
1
Other sources
mil Ib/yr
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.002
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.000
%
0.04
0.1
0.03
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.06
0.02
0.01
Total ,
mil Ib/yr
48.1
126
68.8
10.4
27.5
11.7
17.7
6.61
4.50
Of total.
-------
Table 26. TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM UPGRADED WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES,
FROM SPRING CREEK AUXILIARY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY AND FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES
Treatment
plants
Parameter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
mil Ib/yr
15.5
68.0
19.0
3.22
27.2
8.92
18.2
5.65
4.34
%a
65
70
46
46
96
96
96
92
96
Combined sewer
overflows
mil Ib/yr
6.10
24.0
13.3
3.49
0.96
0.29
0.67
0.45
0.14
%
26
26
32
50
3
3
4
7
3
Separate storm
sewer runoff
mil Ib/yr
2.1
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
Other sources
% mil Ib/yr %
9
6
22
4
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.002
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.000
0.08
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.02
0.01
Total,
mil Ib/yr
23.7
97.4
41.1
7.01
28.3
9.30
19.0
6.15
4.52
Of total.
-------
Table 27. TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY FROM UPGRADED WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES,
FROM AUXILIARY WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES ON ALL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND FROM ALL
OTHER SOURCES
Treatment
plants
Parameter mil Ib/yr
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
15.5
68.0
19.0
3.22
27.2
8.92
18.2
5.65
4.34
%a
76
76
57
60
97
96
97
93
96
Combined sewer
overflows
mil Ib/yr
2.84
16.7
5.33
1.88
0.776
0.240
0.536
0.368
0.126
%
14
19
16
35
3
3
3
6
3
Separate storm
sewer runoff
mil Ib/yr
2.1
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
%
10
6
27
6
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.8
1
Other sources
mil Ib/yr
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.002
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.000
%
0.1
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.02
0.01
Total,
mil Ib/yr
20.5
90.1
33.2
5.40
28.1
9.25
18.8
6.07
4.51
S0f total.
-------
the management conditions tabulated, the proportion of other pollu-
tants (BOD5, COD, SS, HEM) is about 75% of the total load and is more
greatly affected by the particular management regime.
Combined sewer overflows contribute the second largest percentage of
pollutants, especially oxidizable materials, suspended solids and
floatables. Their contribution to coliform contamination is treated
in detail in Section VIII. Separate storm runoff loadings comprise a
lesser source of pollutants in that their organic pollutant loading
contribution is generally under 5% and their nutrient contribution is
below 1% of the total loadings. Other sources of pollutants, princi-
pally sanitary landfills, comprise a minimal (less than 1%) pollutant
contribution to Jamaica Bay.
Ill
-------
SECTION VIII
EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Environmental
The purpose of the wastewater management alternatives presented in this
section is to attain the environmental quality necessary to support the
desired beneficial uses of Jamaica Bay. The environmental quality re-
quirements of existing and potential beneficial uses of Jamaica Bay
were outlined in Section V. The requirements for water contact recrea-
tional activities such as swimming and wading at potential beach areas
and for maintenance and propagation of desirable aquatic life can be
singled out as the two most important uses that can be quantitatively
related to the performance of alternative wastewater management systems.
Water quality for water contact sports requires extremely low levels of
pathogenic agents to assure protection of public health. The concentra-
tion or density of total coliform organisms is a generally accepted mea-
sure or indicator of the public health character of a water. A tenta-
tive water quality criterion for bacterial quality has been set at a
maximum total coliform density of 24 MPN/ml to provide safe and accept-
able conditions for water contact recreation in Jamaica Bay.
For each wastewater management alternative, the quantity of total coli-
forms discharged to Jamaica Bay can be estimated. Moreover, using ap-
propriate receiving water models, it is possible to predict the coli-
form density at a particular beach location and the reduction in usable
beach time due to the discharge of a known quantity of total coliforms.
For these reasons, total coliform density was selected as the measure
of the public health attributes of each wastewater management alterna-
tive and was converted to percentage of usable beach days during the
summer season to produce the evaluation criterion.
Water contact recreation and general enjoyment of the Jamaica Bay waters
by the residents of the area requires that the bay be aesthetically
pleasing. Damaged waterfowl and fish life, odors and excessive vegeta-
tive growth should be conspicuously absent. Reduction of the discharge
of deleterious materials, such as oils, greases and other floating ma-
terials, and constituents which lead to depletion of the dissolved oxy-
gen and encouragement of undesirable and excessive vegetative growth
was used as the evaluation criterion related to aesthetics.
Maintenance of a healthy biota, including fish life, requires a water
quality similar to that for aesthetic enjoyment. Frequently in pol-
luted waters low dissolved oxygen levels are responsible for fish kills
112
-------
and localized anoxic conditions which create malodors and other nui-
sances. Dissolved oxygen levels can be controlled by limiting the dis-
charge of oxidizable materials (BOD) which place a demand upon the oxy-
gen resources of the receiving waters. Therefore the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives were evaluated on the basis of their capacity to re-
duce the input of BOD to the bay.
Additionally, the environmental evaluation of wastewater management al-
ternatives must assess the environmental impact associated with the con-
struction and operation of the proposed facilities. Evaluation of the
beneficial effects and changes in the character of the Jamaica Bay eco-
system was used to screen alternatives. Negative effects due to the
construction of the combined sewer overflow routing facilities, the wa-
ter pollution control facilities and the effluent discharge facilities
were important criteria in the evaluation process.
Economics
The costs of wastewater management alternatives are extremely important
and demand careful consideration in an urban society in which there is
strong competition for limited community monies. Important economic
factors that determine, in part, the total cost of a program include
the fixed and recurring costs associated with the wastewater management
system. Capital costs of interceptors, water pollution control facili-
ties and discharge facilities were estimated using accepted engineering
principles on the basis of 1973 dollars for comparison purposes. Annual
costs represent the sum of the operation and maintenance cost and the
cost of borrowed funds. Similar capital recovery factors were used in
the evaluation of all alternatives.
Effectiveness
The environmental and economic attributes of a wastewater management al-
ternative cannot normally be presented in commensurate terms. There-
fore the approach used in this project has been to develop recommenda-
tions based upon the cost-effectiveness of the various alternatives in
achieving objectives. To be cost-effective, an alternative should pro-
vide proportionately higher environmental quality for increased expen-
diture of funds. Specifically, the percentage of usable beach time for
Jamaica Bay and the percentage improvement in BOD concentration are ex-
pected to increase along with aesthetic quality and other factors with
increasingly more expensive alternatives.
Other effectiveness criteria that were employed include the system re-
liability and flexibility. The reliability of combined sewer overflow
management systems varies, and the consequence of mechanical or- process
failure should be evaluated. The selected alternative should readily
accommodate unforeseen demands that may be placed upon it, such as demo-
graphic changes, upgrading of water quality standards and the availabil-
ity of new treatment technology. The plan for Jamaica Bay should be
113
-------
flexible enough to be modified, upgraded or otherwise changed in re-
sponse to future events.
In summary, recommendations from this study were based upon an evalua-
tion of the cost-effectiveness of the various wastewater management al-
ternatives to upgrading the water quality of Jamaica Bay.
EVALUATION METHODS
General
Implementing the above evaluation criteria is most effectively accom-
plished with the aid of mathematical models to predict the environmental
effects of wastewater management alternatives on Jamaica Bay. Jamaica
e\
Bay is a large body of water with a surface of over 20 mi and an ap-
proximate water volume of 5.25 x 1010 gal. The physical character of
the bay is significantly influenced by tidal action. With a mean tidal
range of approximately 5 ft and a mean depth of only 16 ft, a signifi-
cant tidal exchange of 35.9% of the bay volume occurs twice daily. In
spite of the apparently large wastewater dilution and flushing capabil-
ity of the bay, the water quality response to storm-related inputs is
limited by the tidal-dependent circulation pattern within the bay.
The majority of water movement within Jamaica Bay occurs in the dredged
channels along the north and south perimeters. These channels are up
to 40 ft deep and 1,000 ft wide. Virtually all stormwater runoff and
sewage treatment plant effluents are transported in these channels,
past potential beach areas, and out Rockaway Inlet to the New York
Bight. Moreover, these discharges reach the main channels via side
channels or basins, such as Paerdegat Basin and Spring Creek, which en-
ter the bay along its perimeter in close proximity to potential beach
areas. The water quality at a beach following a particular storm will
be dependent upon a number of factors including (1) the magnitude of
pollutants discharged from separate and combined sewers and water pol-
lution control facilities, (2) the initial dilution available in the
side channels, (3) the mechanism by which the side channel input spreads
across and is diluted in the main channel, (4) the apparent dilution
due to decay or disappearance of pollutant concentration and (5) the
direction and speed of the tidal currents in the main channel.
A receiving water quality model was developed to incorporate these fac-
tors and enable the prediction of the improvement in Jamaica Bay water
quality from implementation of alternative combined sewer overflow man-
agement systems. One water quality model was developed to predict coli-
form bacteria densities at potential beaches after storms of different
magnitudes and relate these to the percent of the time the beach would
be usable during the summer season under different management alterna-
tives. A second water quality model was developed to predict the ex-
pected reduction in BOD concentrations that would occur in the bay from
implementation of alternative wastewater and combined sewer overflow
114
-------
management systems. Both of these models require an accurate estima-
tion of the magnitude of pollutants discharged from each drainage basin
for a given storm. These estimates were based upon extensive data col-
lection efforts and an urban runoff model developed for the project.
Modeling efforts were conducted in parallel with a two-dimensional dy-
namic water quality simulation model developed by the New York City
Rand Institute [9]. The Rand model was linked to the urban runoff mod-
el developed in this project and produced a time history of pollutant
concentration at any point within the bay resulting from a storm of
given intensity and duration occurring at a particular time within the
tidal cycle. At the present time (1974), the Rand model has been used
to simulate coliform concentrations for three storm patterns.
Valuable insight into the response of Jamaica Bay to stormwater inputs
can be gained from simulations made with the Rand model. In the north-
ern part of Jamaica Bay the combined sewer overflows from Paerdegat
Basin, Fresh Creek, Hendrix Basin, Spring Creek and Bergen Basin are
discharged into channels and basins of various lengths and capacities,
rather than directly into the bay. It typically takes several hours
for the combined sewer overflows to flow and disperse to the mouths of
their channels and into the bay. For storms which are coincident with
high tide, the combined sewer overflows are carried out of these basins
with the first ebbing tide and dispersed over a wide area very quickly
because of the transport that occurs during the next flooding tide. In
contrast, the discharge from a storm that occurs at low tide is held
back in the channels by the flooding tide and does not get carried out
into the bay until the next ebbing tide. It was observed that the co-
incidence of low tide with the start of the rainstorm, and subsequent
storage in the channels, leads to an increase in coliform bacteria con-
centrations over a larger area of the bay for a longer duration than
with the storm beginning at high tide. In the southern portion of the
bay, a storm occurring at high tide holds back some of the runoff in
the Rockaway sewer system and results in only a small overflow to the
bay because the interceptor can handle the additional load. Moreover,
during heavy rainfall, the interceptor is pumped down directly to the
bay, bypassing treatment. A storm occurring at low tide is also the
worst case in the southern part of the bay because a very intense dis-
charge occurs at the Rockaway combined sewer overflow and the incoming
flooding tide carries the discharge immediately toward the back of the
bay.
Urban Runoff Model
Quantity Component—
Data obtained during this project have shown the rainfall-runoff rela-
tionship to be a linear process, so that it was possible to use a com-
putationally efficient linear model to predict the coliform loadings to
the bay from a given storm. A schematic diagram showing the various
115
-------
components of the precipitation-overflow sequence in an urban drainage
system is shown in Figure 64. The figure also indicates the input/
output and computational steps involved in the urban runoff model. Ac-
cording to linear system theory, the input (rainfall)/output (overflow)
relationship may be obtained by convolution of the effective input and
the instantaneous unit hydrograph. In computation, a summation form
of the convolution integral is used to compute the direct runoff hydro-
graph from the pulsed inputs—effective rainfall hyetograph and a short-
duration unit hydrograph.
Measured hydrographs for each sub-basin from isolated short-duration
storms were used to compute unit hydrographs. A basic 20-min hydro-
graph was constructed by averaging several unit hydrographs of 15- to
20-min duration. This basic unit hydrograph has been used to derive
direct runoff hydrographs from computed effective rainfall hyetographs.
In order to determine the effective rainfall hyetograph from the total
rainfall hyetograph, the "loss" function for the drainage basin must be
formulated. Loss parameters include interception, evaporation, infil-
tration, depression storage, etc. The relative importance of each loss
component depends principally upon the physical characteristics of the
land surface. For example, in most urban areas, rainfall intercepted
by vegetation and lost through evaporation during precipitation is
rarely of importance. Investigations have shown that infiltration ap-
proaches a steady minimum rate after 1 or 2 hr. Infiltration is also
affected by antecedent precipitation. High-intensity rains of short
duration occurring after a dry spell often produce little, if any, run-
off. A standard infiltration curve was used to compute losses due to
infiltration. Depression storage for different land surfaces depends
on their roughness and slope. For the model employed in this investi-
gation, loss parameters are each assigned to a function which generates
an effective rainfall hyetograph from any total rainfall hyetograph.
Land-use distribution and imperviousness of each surface are the two
factors used to estimate the loss parameters. These input values were
adjusted by comparing computed with measured direct runoff hydrographs.
Comparisons between the model output and actual monitoring data are pre-
sented in Appendix C. Good agreement was achieved in spite of several
unknowns, including the initial amount of storage in the sewer, the ac-
tual rainfall distribution on the basin and the complex relationship
between the overflow process and the bay water level.
Quality Component—
An important adjunct to the quantity model is the model which predicts
the quality, i.e., coliform concentration in MPN/ml, of the combined
sewer overflow. The time history of combined sewer overflow coliform
concentration was found to be affected by dilution, scouring and sur-
face washing. The elements of the quality model are shown in Figure 64.
The following equation was derived to predict the coliform concentra-
tion at time t:
116
-------
t
EVAPORATION
1
INFILTRATION LOSS
TO GROUND WATER
SURFACE POLLUTANT
LOAD AND WASHING
EFFECT
SANITARY, INDUSTRIAL
INPUTS AND
DILUTION EFFECT
SYSTEM MEMORY
AND SCOURING
EFFECT
PLANT EFFLUENT
PRECIPITATION
1
INTERCEPTION
PRECIPITATION
EXCESS
OVERLAND FLOW
GUTTER FLOW
CATCH BASIN INFLOW
CONDUIT FLOW
OVERFLOW AT
DIVERSION STRUCTURE
TIDE GATES
RECEIVING
WATER BODY
DEPRESSION STORAGE
AND DETENTION
GUTTER STORAGE
AND DETENTION
CONDUIT STORAGE
AND DETENTION
INTERCEPTED FLOW TO
TREATMENT FACILITIES
TIDE EFFECT
TEMPORARY STORAGE
Figure 64. Components of urban hydrological system
117
-------
ct =
n-1 „, ,k-1
(1)
where C = dry-weather coliform concentration;
q = dry-weather flow rate;
q = wet-weather flow rate;
S
S = coefficient related to storage factor and sewer slope;
a = 0 when t > t^j, or
a = 1 when t < t^;
tmax = time of hydrograph peak;
n = empirical coefficient;
W = coefficient varying with streat cleaning frequency, basin
geometry and population density; and
k = varies from 1.5 to 2.0.
Equation (1) contains three terms corresponding respectively to the di-
lution effects, scouring effects and surface washing effects.
The dilution term has a characteristic shape of an inverted Gaussian
curve (shape depending upon the storm hydrograph) with each end asymp-
totically approaching the dry-weather concentration. The scouring term
rises exponentially as the direct runoff hydrograph rises but drops
sharply when the available concentration is exhausted. The value of
n = 3 was generally used. The street gutter contribution has the same
shape as the overflow hydrograph.
For a typical storm, the time history of coliform concentration, C.,
will exhibit a W-shaped curve. Coliform data taken at the five combined
sewer overflow monitoring sites have confirmed this configuration. The
coefficients S and W are functions of sewer and surface conditions at
the time of the storm. The data indicate that although S and W vary
from storm to storm they do not influence the basic shape of the coli-
form curve. Most of the computed coliform curves are well within the
95% confidence limits of the measured values. Comparison of the model
output and actual monitoring data are presented in Appendix C.
The urban runoff quality model was extended to enable production of sus-
pended solids concentration as a function of time. Further documenta-
tion is given in Appendix C.
118
-------
Receiving Water Model for Coliform Density
Input—
Coliform Loadings. The receiving water coliform model utilized data
generated by the urban runoff model for the total coliform loading
(MPN) to the bay from each drainage basin as a function of the total
storm rainfall depth [10]. Figure 65 shows these relations. The coli-
form loading from separately sewered areas for different storm sizes
was computed using the drainage area, a runoff coefficient of 0.65 and
an average coliform concentration of 9,000 MPN/ml.
Currents. Water circulation in Jamaica Bay is largely determined by
tidal action because the net advective flow is less than 1% of the
tidal exchange. Moreover the distance traveled by a combined sewer
overflow on the flood and the ebb tide is significant, and most of the
overflows will affect two or more beaches during one tidal cycle.
Tidal currents in the main channels range from 2 feet per second (fps)
into the bay to 2 fps out of the bay, except in the Grassy Bay area
where the maximum currents are on the order of 0.5 fps.
Coliform Disappearance Rate. Coliform disappearance studies were con-
ducted during the course of the project to determine the rate of dis-
appearance in the receiving water environment. As a result of these
studies, it was found that 90% of the coliforms disappeared within 24
hr, providing a rate constant of 0.10 day
Computational Procedure—
Dilution Calculations. The coliform loadings from the combined sewer
overflows, runoff from separately sewered areas and the effluent from
the dry-weather flow treatment facilities will experience an initial
dilution in the side channel or basin. The resulting concentration, a
function of the basin volume, will then disappear at the exponential
rate of 0.10 day"1 for the duration of the residence time in the basin.
The residence time is dependent upon the overflow duration and the tid-
al conditions and ranges from several hours in the Spring Creek chan-
nel to approximately 16 hr in Paerdegat Basin.
The mixing and transport of the basin waste loads with the main channel
flow was modeled in a fashion similar to wastewater diffusion from an
ocean outfall. The effects of initial mixing with a portion of the
main channel flow followed by lateral spreading across the channel and
combined with dilution due to disappearance can be expressed in mathe-
matical form to give the resulting concentration GI at a downstream
beach as:
Cl - Co^erf
119
-------
10
1.0
CD
i—
CO
to
o
° 0-
Q=
01
THURSTON
ROCKAIW—i
FRESH CREEK
PAERDEGAT
I I I I Mill I I I I II
11
SPRING CREEK
EAST
BERGEN
10
14
,15
,16
,17
10'J 10'u 10'
TOTAL BACTERIAL EMISSION IN EACH EVENT MPN
10
18
Figure 65. Estimated total bacterial emission caused by isolated
storms from each drainage system
-------
where C0 = initial concentration of basin flow in the main channel,
MPN/ml;
KI = disappearance rate, day ;
t = travel time to beach, day;
b = initial width of basin flow field in main channel, ft;
Ey = coefficient of lateral diffusion, ft2/day; and
erf = error function.
Computations were made for three storms—0.10, 0.50 and 1.0 in.—and
for conditions corresponding to the beginning of the storm occurring at
low water and at high water. The resulting coliform concentrations
were predicted at the four most promising potential beach sites on
Jamaica Bay.
Usable Beach Days. It is helpful to express the results of analysis in
terms of the percentage of time during which the beach would be usable,
i.e., water quality standards for coliform are achieved. A frequency
distribution of the number of storms during a summer season (May 1 to
September 30) is shown in Figure 66. By averaging the results of the
predicted coliform concentrations at each beach and each storm for ebb-
ing and flooding tide and assuming a disappearance from the maximum
concentration of 0.90 day"-'-, the length of unusable beach time for each
isolated storm event was computed. Finally, with the storm frequency
distribution, and given that there are 139 possible usable beach days
in a summer season (May 15 to September 30), the percentage of usable
beach time at each beach was computed for selected wastewater manage-
ment alternatives. The analysis thus displayed the effects on usable
beach days as various combined sewer overflows were brought under con-
trol.
Verification. The receiving water coliform model results were compared
to results of the Rand model simulations for two storms and four beach
sites. As is documented in Appendix C, predicted concentrations were
usually within 25%. Considering the nature of the problem, this agree-
ment was deemed adequate for the objectives of the coliform model.
Receiving Water Quality Model for BOD
Inputs—
The mass discharges of BOD to Jamaica Bay 'for various wastewater manage-
ment alternatives are presented in Tables 24, 25, 26 and 27. The re-
sponse of the bay to BOD inputs in the winter is different from that in
the summer; i.e., the rate of utilization of BOD is less in the winter,
causing winter BOD concentrations to be higher. The inputs to the bay
are also seasonal, with a higher proportion of the combined sewer over-
flow occurring in the summer. This is due to the type of rainfall; i.e.,
121
-------
co
to
oc.
to
oc.
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
iiir~iiiiir
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
NUMBER OF DAYS HAVING STORM GREATER THAN A GIVEN AMOUNT (MAY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30)
Figure 66. Summer storm duration curve for New York City
-------
summer thunderstorms cause a higher combined sewer overflow than that
caused by a low-intensity winter rain or snowfall.
Computation—
A model was developed to show the seasonal improvement in the receiv-
ing water BODs concentration under different combined sewer overflow
management alternatives. The general approach of the BOD model was
to compute resulting concentrations on the basis of a seasonal mass
balance of sources and sinks. The model was derived from the one-
dimensional, time-dependent differential equation that expresses BOD5
concentration as a function of inputs, dilution, diffusion and sink
terms. Because, in a seasonal mass balance, the time and spatial var-
iations in concentration average out, the resulting mass balance can
be expressed as:
(k2 + k3)L = Ra (3)
where k2 = BOD exertion rate constant;
k3 = BOD removed/added by sedimentation or resuspension;
L = ultimate BOD =1.5 times BODs; and
Ra = rate of BODs addition.
The BOD model was calibrated to determine the parameter k3 for summer
(June, July, August) and winter (December, January, February). The
average BODs of Jamaica Bay was computed from Figures 21 and 22 to be
2.7 mg/1 in the summer and 4.7 mg/1 in the winter. This was converted
to the average total mass of BOD, L, indigenous to the bay during these
seasons. The rate constant k2 (0,13 day"-'- at 20°C) was adjusted for
summer and winter temperatures, and the rate of BODs addition, Ra, was
computed from data presented in Section VII. These data enabled estima-
tion of ks; the computed values are given in Appendix C.
With k2 and k3 known, it is possible to use Equation (3) to compute a
new L associated with the loading rates, Ra, for each alternative waste-
water management program. The total mass L can be converted to a BODs
concentration for evaluation of effects of the alternatives on Jamaica
Bay water quality.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
There are three basic methods for upgrading the water quality in Jamaica
Bay. These are to upgrade the performance characteristics of the four
major sewage treatment facilities, to provide some form of treatment
for the combined sewer overflows and to route the discharges to a more
favorable location such as a submarine outfall discharge to the ocean.
From these three techniques a total of 11 alternative combinations was
developed for wastewater management in Jamaica Bay. The essential fea-
tures of the alternatives are presented in Table 28. The locations of
123
-------
Table 28. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR JAMAICA BAY
to
Treatment provision
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
WPCF treatment
Prior'3 Upgraded0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AWPCF locationa
Spring
Creek
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paerdegat
X
X
X
X
Fresh All
Creek Bergen others
X
X
X
X X
XXX
Disposal
location
Bay Ocean
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
All treatment levels comparable to Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility.
^Effluent quality prior to 1970.
'Estimated effluent quality from upgraded (step-aeration) facilities.
-------
the treatment facilities are shown in Figures 67 and 68. The effects
of the alternatives, including the associated receiving water quality
and the costs, are presented in a following subsection.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is included for reference and represents the conditions
at the Coney Island, 26th Ward, Jamaica and Rockaway sewage treatment
facilities prior to the conduct of this study with no combined sewer
overflow treatment. In the cost analysis, Alternative 1 was assigned
a zero cost so that additional investments would be relative to this
base level.
Alternative 2
The construction of the Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control
Facility (see Figure 67) was completed in 1972, and treatment of com-
bined sewer overflows from the Spring Creek East and Spring Creek West
basins began. Details of the facility are presented in Section VII.
Basically the plant acts as a holding basin for later treatment at the
26th Ward facility for the volume of a storm of depth equal to 0.25 in.
(ignoring in-sewer storage) and provides treatment approximately equiv-
alent to primary treatment (see Figure 63 for predicted aggregate pol-
lutant removals) for storms larger than 0.25 in. It is included in the
evaluation so as to isolate the cost-effectiveness of this single com-
bined sewer overflow treatment facility.
Alternative 3
Upgrading of three of the dry-weather sewage treatment facilities is
well underway to provide conventional step-aeration secondary-level
treatment (26th Ward, Jamaica and Rockaway). Upgrading of the fourth,
Coney Island, is pending release of impounded Federal funds. Modifi-
cations include increased carbonaceous oxidation, improved chlorina-
tion facilities and expanded sludge handling capacity at each of the
four facilities. Alternative 3 also includes the Spring Creek auxili-
ary facility. Successive alternatives build upon Alternative 3.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 provides combined sewer overflow treatment for Paerdegat
Basin in addition to the facilities presented in Alternative 3. A fa-
cility similar to the Spring Creek facility would be constructed with
the size increased over that provided for Spring Creek to handle the
larger flow volumes from Paerdegat Basin. Discharge would be at the
upper end of Paerdegat Basin, as shown on Figure 67.
Alternative 5
The combined sewer overflow discharge from Fresh Creek is significant
125
-------
I
KILOMETERS
f SPRING CREEK AWPCF
HENDRIX CREEK AWPCF v
26th WARD
FRESH CREEK AWPCF
PAEROEGAT
BASIN AWPCF
BERGEN BASIN
AWPCF
THURSTON
, BASIN
AWPCF
OCKAWAY WPCF
ROCKAWAY AWPCF
Figure 67. Location of primary and auxiliary
water pollution control facilities for
alternatives 1 through 9
KILOMETERS
SPRING CREEK CSO
HENDRIX CREEK CSO v
26th WARD '
FRESH CREEK CSC—
PAERDEGAT
BASIN CSO--
NORTH CONDUIT
BERGEN BASIN
CSO
INTERCEPTOR/
OUTFALL
PUMPING
STATION
LENGTH = 5 MILES
ROCKAWAY CSO \
ROCKAWAY WPCF
A LENGTH =
THURSTON
BASIN
CSO
5.5 MILES
Figure 68. Location of major interceptors
and outfalls for alternatives 10 and 11
126
-------
due primarily to its location near potential beach sites, and Alterna-
tive 5 would incorporate an auxiliary facility to serve the Fresh Creek
area, in addition to facilities described in Alternative 3. Discharge
would be at the plant site at the upper end of Fresh Creek Basin, as
shown on Figure 67.
Alternative 6
Another significant combined sewer overflow occurs from Bergen Basin.
Alternative 6 would provide combined sewer overflow treatment facili-
ties for Bergen, Spring Creek West and Spring Creek East basins. A ma-
jor portion of the facilities necessary to treat the Bergen Basin com-
bined sewer overflow is related to the construction of interceptors to
collect the overflows in Bergen Basin and transport them to a suitable
single point for combined treatment and discharge to Jamaica Bay, as
shown on Figure 67.
Alternative 7
A logical combination of the preceding alternatives is to combine Alter-
natives 4 and 5. Alternative 7 thus includes combined sewer overflow
treatment for Paerdegat, Fresh Creek, Spring Creek West and Spring Creek
East basins.
Alternative 8
The combination of Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 has been made to form Alter-
native 8. Combined sewer overflow treatment in auxiliary facilities
would be provided for Fresh Creek, Paerdegat, Bergen, Spring Creek West
and Spring Creek East basins. The type of treatment and discharge
points would be the same as for Alternatives 4, 5 and 6.
Alternative 9
All of the combined sewer overflows tributary to Jamaica Bay would re-
ceive treatment in auxiliary facilities under Alternative 9. In addi-
tion to those facilities provided in Alternative 8, auxiliary facili-
ties providing treatment similar to that at the Spring Creek facility
would be constructed for Hendrix, Thurston and Rockaway basins. Dis-
charge points would be located at the upper end of Hendrix Creek, at
Thurston Basin and near the Rockaway sewage treatment facility, as
shown on Figure 67.
Alternative 10
A marine outfall system was developed as an alternative to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of removing the four dry-weather sewage treatment
facility effluents and the combined sewer overflow discharges from
Jamaica Bay. It was found least expensive to construct two outfalls,
one an extension to the Coney Island outfall and one serving the other
127
-------
three sewage treatment facilities. Additionally, an interceptor net-
work was included to route the combined sewer overflows and the water
pollution control facility effluents to the outfall. The conduit sys-
tem and pumping station locations are shown on Figure 68. The Coney
Island outfall would be extended 5 mi to a depth of 50 ft in the Atlan-
tic Ocean, and the second outfall would be 5.5 mi in length, discharg-
ing at a depth of 50 ft. These lengths and depths were based upon the
dilution required to insure that the water quality standards of 24 MPN/
ml would be achieved at Rockaway Beach. In addition, chlorination facil-
ities would be provided to disinfect the combined sewer overflow prior
to discharge. The total capacity for the two-outfall system would be
1,855 mgd, which would provide capacity for 150% of the average dry-
weather flow plus the peak runoff from a rainfall intensity of 0.15 in./
hr. All combined sewer overflows resulting from runoff from rainfall in
excess of 0.15 in./hr would be bypassed directly without treatment to
Jamaica Bay. It is estimated that the two-outfall system would capture
100% of the dry-weather sewage treatment facility effluents and 46% of
the annual pollutant load from the combined sewer overflows.
Alternative 11
The capacity of the marine outfall system of Alternative 10 has been
increased to form Alternative 11. The physical layout would be the
same as shown on Figure 68. The total hydraulic capacity of the two-
outfall system would be 7,860 mgd, which would provide capacity for 150%
of the dry-weather flow plus the peak runoff from a rainfall intensity
greater than 1.0 in./hr. Seldom, if ever, would a rainfall intensity
greater than 1.0 in./hr occur simultaneously on every drainage basin
tributary to Jamaica Bay and persist longer than the time of concentra-
tion. Thus the outfall system of Alternative 11 would capture 100% of
the water pollution control facility effluent, and it can be assumed
that it would also capture 100% of the annual pollutant load from the
combined sewer overflows.
POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
The total pollutant loadings from all sources for each alternative
wastewater management system are summarized in Table 29. The largest
source of these loadings is the effluent from the dry-weather sewage
treatment facilities. Alternatives 1 and 2 correspond to the treatment
conditions prior to upgrading of any of these facilities, and Alterna-
tives 3 through 11 reflect reduced waste loads expected from all four
upgraded facilities. The projected average total waste loadings from
combined sewer overflows and auxiliary facilities are the second most
important source of pollutants for each alternative. Complete treat-
ment of combined sewer overflows (Alternative 9) provides a 60% reduc-
tion in BOD5 loading over the untreated situation. Total coliform den-
sity from each auxiliary facility is expected to be in the order of 1
KPN/ml. This is greatly reduced from the untreated discharges, which
are in the order of 105 MPN/ml. Other sources which are included in
128
-------
Table 29. AVERAGE TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO 'JAMAICA BAY
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
(mil Ib/yr)
Param-
eter
BOD 5
COD
SS
HEM
TN
TIN
TON
TP
TSP
Alternative
1
49.1
128
73.3
11.6
27.7
11.7
17.9
6.62
4.50
2
48.1
126
69.0
10.4
27.5
11.7
17.7
6.61
4.50
3
23.7
97.1
41.3
7.01
28.3
9.30
19.0
6.15
4.52
4
22.6
94.2
40.0
6.76
28.4
9.28
19.0
6.10
4.52
5
23.2
96.1
39.7
6.65
28.3
9.29
19.0
6.14
4.52
6
22.8
95.4
38.6
6.40
28.3
9.29
19.0
6.14
4.52
7
22.1
93.2
38.4
6.40
28.2
9.27
18.9
6.09
4.52
8
21.2
91.5
35.6
5.79
28.2
9.26
18.9
6.08
4.51
9
20.5
89.8
33.4
5.40
28.1
9.25
18.8
6.07
4.51
10
5.4
18.3
16.0
2.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
11
2.1
5.4
8.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Table 29 are discharges from sanitary landfills and pollutant loadings
contributed by runoff from separately sewered areas. These contribu-
tions will remain the same under all alternatives considered.
The pollutant loadings for each alternative in terms of total coliform
concentration from the dry-weather sewage treatment facilities and the
combined sewer overflow treatment facilities are given in Table 30.
Table 30. ASSUMED COLIFORM CONCENTRATION IN EFFLUENTS
FROM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
(MPN/ml)
Location
26th Ward
Jamaica
Roc ka way
Coney Island
Paerdegat Basin
Fresh Creek
Hendrix Basin
Spring Creek
Bergen Basin
Thurston Basin
Rockaway Basin
Prior
Concen-
tration
5,000
1
1
1
variesa
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
treatment
Applies to
alternative
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,4,6
1-8,10
1,2
1-5,7,10
1-8,10
1-8,10
Upgraded
Concen-
tration
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
treatment
Applies to
alternative
3-11
3-11
3-11
3-11
4,7-9
5,7-9
9
3-11
6,8,9
9
9
Function of storm, basin characteristics.
129
-------
The loadings for the basins not served by an auxiliary facility in a
particular alternative were derived from the urban runoff quality model.
For Alternative 10 the loadings from combined sewered areas were pro-
portional to storm size and varied from no overflow for storms of depth
0.10 in. to overflow (pollutant loading) of 74% of the runoff volume
for storms of depth 1.0 in. The loading from these sources for each
alternative is shown in Table 30. In addition, a concentration of
9,000 MPN/ml in storm runoff from separately sewered areas was assumed
for all alternatives. In order to evaluate the effects of alternatives
on the receiving water quality, the contribution of other natural
sources was included. Estimates of the equivalent total waste loading
from marsh grass decomposition in Jamaica Bay were made, and the value
of 11.5 x 106 Ib BODs/yr was used to compute the natural background
concentration of BODs in Jamaica Bay. This loading is not included in
Table 29 as it would be of the same magnitude for all alternatives con-
sidered. A background concentration of 10 MPN/ml total coliforms was
also used in the evaluation of all alternatives.
EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Recreation Day Profiles
The coliform model was used to analyze the effects on Jamaica Bay water
quality for each of the 11 wastewater management alternatives. Predict-
ed concentrations for each alternative under different storm sizes were
computed and converted to the number and percentage of usable beach
days annually. There are 139 potential usable beach days during the
period May 15 to September 30.
The results of the analysis for each alternative are presented in Fig-
ure 69 for the four potential beach sites and in Figure 70 for all
beaches combined. Beach 1 is located along the bayfront of Barren Is-
land starting at the Mill Basin outlet. Beach 2 is located along the
Island Channel at Canarsie Park between Paerdegat Basin and Fresh
Creek. Beach 3 is located between Beach 2 and Fresh Creek along the
Island Channel. Beach 4 is located along Island Channel between the
Spring Creek outlet and Shellbank Basin.
Alternative 1 represents prior conditions and shows that Beach 1 would
be usable 93% of the time and that Beaches 2, 3 and 4 would be usable
approximately 67% of the time. Construction of the Spring Creek auxili-
ary facility (Alternative 3) produced marked improvement at Beaches 2,
3 and 4. The upgrading of the four sewage treatment facilities, partic-
ularly the 26th Ward facility, and the large improvement in Alternative
4 over Alternative 3 shows that Paerdegat Basin has a significant impact
at Beaches 2 and 3, more so than just adding facilities at Fresh Creek
or Bergen Basin (Alternatives 5 and 6). Alternatives 7, 8 and 9 show
increasing usable beach days as additional combined sewer overflow
treatment facilities are added to the management plan. Only Alterna-
tives 9 and 11 will provide total usage at all beaches all of the time.
130
-------
IUU
90
80
70
60
"id
i —
—
—
—
™"
'™
~~
•"~
— •
—
BEACH
NO. 1
inn
IUU
5 90
^C
z 80
^ 70
S 60
« 50
—
—
—
—
-
-
BEACH
NO. 2
LLJ
GO
uj 100
OQ
13
LU 80
C3
£ 70
LLJ
CO
£ 60
Q_
50
100
90
80
70
60
>;n
—
—
—
r-
B
IACH
NO. 3
,— ,
—
—
—
—
i — |
_
BEACH
N
0. 4
234567
ALTERNATIVE
9 10 11
Figure 69. Effect of alternative wastewater
management programs on usable beach days
for each potential beach
131
-------
c
-------
Under Alternatives 9 and 11 the only untreated source of coliform would
be urban runoff, which by itself would not lower water quality below
the standards. Alternative 10 shows a lower usable beach time than in
Alternatives 4, 5, 7, 8 or 9 because significant amounts of combined
sewage would have to be bypassed as a result of high flow rates associ-
ated with the larger storms. Alternatives 9 and 11 thus produce the
best percentage of usable beach days in Jamaica Bay, followed in de-
creasing order by Alternatives 8, 7, 5, 4, 10, 6, 3, 2 and 1.
Receiving Water Responses
The BOD model was used to develop the predicted receiving water quality
for each alternative wastewater management program. The results are
presented in Figure 71 for average summertime and average wintertime
conditions. Marked improvement in the 6005 concentrations is observed
with the upgrading of the four dry-weather sewage treatment facilities
(Alternative 3). A small additional improvement in BOD concentration
would be obtained by implementing combined sewer overflow treatment.
The natural background represents the contribution of marsh grass and
other decaying vegetation and is the minimum BOD concentration obtain-
able by wastewater management practices. Alternative 9 yields a 8005
concentration that is only twice that caused by the natural background.
Referring to the spatial distribution of BOD 5 in Figures 21 and 22, the
resulting spatial distribution in Jamaica Bay under the alternative
wastewater management programs can be discussed qualitatively. For Al-
ternatives 1 through 9, concentrations of BODs will be higher than the
average in those areas having discharges from sewage treatment facili-
ties, those areas near any unmanaged combined sewer overflows and those
areas in the center of the bay due to marsh grass decomposition. Con-
centrations will be lower than the average in the main channel along
the north and south perimeters of the bay. For Alternatives 10 and 11,
concentrations will be higher than the average near the marsh grass
area and lower in all other regions except for small areas in the ba-
sins that receive significant runoff from separatly sewered areas such
as Bergen Basin and Thurston Basin.
In a similar fasion the changes in the average concentration and spa-
tial distribution of other parameters, such as HEM, total nitrogen and
total phosphorus, are expected to be in proportion to the reduction or
increase in pollutant loadings shown in Table 29 for each alternative
wastewater management program. As a result of increasing treatment lev-
els and increasing treatment locations, reductions in average pollutant
concentrations from Alternative 1 to Alternative 9 are expected to be
30% for chemical oxygen demand, 55% for suspended solids, 53% for HEM
and 8% for total phosphorus. Total nitrogen loading is expected to in-
crease slightly to less than 2%. Relatively higher concentrations of
pollutants would be observed in areas of the bay near the pollutant
sources. Implementation of Alternative 10 or 11 would produce larger
reductions in constituent concentrations, and the resulting values
133
-------
OJO
CO
3.0
2.0
1.0
SUMMER
NATURAL BACKGROUND
234567
ALTERNATIVE
GO
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
NATURAL BACKGROUND
9 10 11
WINTER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ALTERNATIVE
Figure 71. Effect of wastewater management programs
on average BOD5 concentration in Jamaica Bay
134
-------
would approach background levels except in areas affected by runoff
from separately sewered areas.
Costs of Alternatives
An economic analysis was performed on the 11 alternative wastewater man-
agement systems. Capital costs for upgrading the four dry-weather sew-
age treatment facilities and construction of the Spring Creek combined
sewer overflow treatment facility were obtained from the City of New
York, Department of Water Resources. The Spring Creek facility has
been constructed, and construction work is proceeding on the. upgrading
of the 26th Ward and Rockaway facilities and enlargement of the Jamaica
facility. Construction and operating costs for additional auxiliary fa-
cilities were estimated by scaling the costs of the Spring Creek auxil-
iary treatment facility on the basis of providing a facility capacity
at each drainage basin equivalent to the overflow volume from the re-
spective drainage basin associated with the specified design storm
depth for Spring Creek. Costs of required appurtenant structures, such
as interceptors and overflow structures, to route the combined sewer
overflow to the auxiliary facility and thence to the bay for each drain-
age basin were obtained from the City of New York, Department of Water
Resources.
All capital costs were amortized over a 25-yr period at a 7.0% interest
rate. Construction costs were based on costs applicable to the New York
area in October 1973.
Additional operation and maintenance costs, including staffing require-
ments, for the upgraded facilities and chlorination requirements for
combined sewage overflows were estimated using the latest information
available [11,12]. Operation and maintenance costs for the auxiliary
facilities were estimated on the basis of actual first-year costs for
the Spring Creek facility, modified to reflect the typically inflated
costs associated with the start-up of a new process and facility.
Sludge handling and disposal costs of $15/ton dry solids were included
in the overall treatment costs and were based on current information
provided by the City of New York, Department of Water Resources.
Table 31 presents the estimated costs for individual elements of waste-
water management systems for Jamaica Bay. Total additional annual
costs for upgrading the four sewage treatment facilities range from an
estimated $2.9 million for the Jamaica facility to $6.7 million for
Coney Island facility. The total annual cost for the Spring Creek aux-
iliary facility was $1.3 million (1973 dollars). For the other auxil-
iary facilities, the costs are estimated to range from $0.45 million for
Hendrix Creek to $3.4 million for Thurston. The estimated total annual
costs for the interceptors and outfalls, including pumping and chlori-
nation facilities and operations, are $17.8 million for Alternative 10
and $33.6 million for Alternative 11.
135
-------
Oi
Table 31. ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR ELEMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS FOR JAMAICA BAY
(1973 dollars)
Facility
WPCF
26th Ward
Coney Island
Jamaica
Roc ka way
AWPCF
Spring Creek
Fresh Creek
Paerdegat
Bergen
Hendrix
Thurston
Rockaway
Outfall
Alternative 10
Alternative 11
Ultimate
capacity
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
.66
.73
.08
.22
.27
.45
.45
1
7
85
110
100
45
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
106 ft3
106 ft3
106 ft3
106 ft3
106 ft3
106 ft3
106 ft3
,480 mgd
,860 mgd
Capital
SI,
41,
74,
27,
42,
14,
9,
19,
16,
4,
39,
19,
196
370
000
087
324
737
035
300
538
562
782b
991
007b
092b
,816b
,000b
$l,000/yra
3
6
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
16
31
,700
,377
,380
,607
,227
819
,679
,440
429
,347
,638
,886
,565
Operation and
maintenance,
$l,000/yr
384
475
535
764
120
67
192
113
25
42
42
869
2,000
Total annual
cost,
$l,000/yr
4
6
2
4
1
1
1
3
1
17
33
,084
,852
,915
,371
,347
886
,871
,553
454
,389
,680
,755
,565
Amortized at 7% over 25 yr.
Includes interceptors.
-------
Estimated costs of the 11 alternative wastewater management programs
are presented in Table 32. It is evident that a large proportion of
the total annual costs of the wastewater management alternatives are
associated with the upgrading and operation of the four existing water
pollution control facilities. For example, the total annual cost for
upgrading the existing facilities is $18.2 million, which represents
nearly 62% of the estimated total cost of upgrading the four existing
facilities and providing auxiliary facilities on all combined sewer
overflows to Jamaica Bay (Alternative 9).
Table 32. ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS FOR JAMAICA BAY
(1973 dollars)
Capital
Operation and
maintenance
Total annual
cost.
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
$1,000
0
14,300
199,483
219,045
209,021
216,265
228,582
245,365
308,455
396,299
569,483
$l,000/yr
0
1,227
17,291
18,970
18,110
18,731
19,789
21,229
26,643
24,177
8,856
$l,000/yr
0
120
2,278
2,470
2,345
2,391
2,537
2,650
2,759
3,147
4,278
$l,000/yr
0
1,347
19,569
21,440
20,455
21,122
22,326
23,879
29,402
37,324
53,134
Environmental Impact
The environmental impacts include the effects of the construction of
the auxiliary facilities and the changes in Jamaica Bay ecology that
may result from altered discharge quantity and g_uality. The construc-
tion of the Spring Creek facility utilized approximately 35 ac of land,
and Alternatives 4 through 9 involve even larger overall facilities
that will require more land. However, many of these facilities would
be built near existing water pollution control facilities and on pres-
ently unused land, mitigating to some extent their impact.
Alternatives 10 and 11 would have substantial environmental impacts due
to the construction of a large interceptor outfall across the bay along
Cross Bay Boulevard and the construction of two 5-mile-long ocean out-
falls. Alternatives 10 and 11 would change the water circulation pat-
terns in the bay because all of the dry-weather flow and a portion of
the wet-weather flow would be diverted. This would reduce the flushing
action caused by these inflows and would increase the residence time
for pollutants otherwise discharged to the bay from uncontrolled
137
-------
sources. Alternatives 10. and 11 thus have a relatively higher environ-
mental impact than do Alternatives 3 through 9, which involve combined
sewer overflow treatment rather than routing from Jamaica Bay.
Cost-Effectiveness of Alternatives
It is an objective of this study to develop sound recommendations which
maximize the benefits to Jamaica Bay for a given economic investment.
Costs have been developed for each alternative, and the benefits to
Jamaica Bay from each alternative have been analyzed for two parameters,
total coliforms and 6005. Using this information, cost-effectiveness
on the basis of each parameter for each of the wastewater management al-
ternatives is shown in Figures 72 and 73. Specifically, Figures 72 and
73 depict the improvement in usable beach days and the improvement in
the annual average mass discharge of BOD5 to Jamaica Bay, respectively.
Implementation stages are shown in Figures 72 and 73 and represent al-
ternative paths to reach a given level of usable beach days or reduced
BOD5 loading. From the perspective of maximizing usable beach days,
capital investment should be on the path from Alternative 2 to Alterna-
tive 3 to Alternative 5 to Alternative 7 to Alternative 8 to Alterna-
tive 9. Implementation of Alternative 9 is the most economical means
of attaining 100% usable beach days for the beaches considered. Alter-
native 11, which also would provide 100% usable beach days, would cost
nearly twice as much as Alternative 9. From the perspective of maxi-
mizing the improvement in BODs concentration, capital investment should
be on the path from Alternative 2 to Alternative 3 to Alternative 11.
However, an only slightly lesser reduction in BODs loading could be
achieved at considerably less cost ($37.3 million versus $53.1 million)
upon implementation of Alternative 10. Construction of Alternative 10
would provide only 87% usable beach days. This is not significantly
better than the existing conditions corresponding to Alternative 3,
i.e., 81% usable beach days. Moreover, Alternatives 10 and 11 would
provide average 6005 concentrations in summertime and wintertime that
are only about 1 mg/1 and less than 2 mg/1 lower, respectively, than
that provided by Alternatives 3 through 9.
138
-------
e/o
100
95
90
85
80
75
y^-AOD ALL OTHER AWPCFs /
T^-n
ADD BERGEN AWPCF-
_ ADD PAERDEGAT
AWPCF
•^1
I
ADO FRESH p-
CREEK AWPCF I /
I
ADD FRESH-fj^
" !•'
—ADD PAERDEGAT /
& FRESH CREEK /—ENLARGE
AWPCFs /
/
/
/
OCEAN
OUTFALLS
CREEK AWPCF ,/ / /
11 / / /'^PROVIDE OCEAN
ADD PAERDEGAT-|1 / / / OUTFALLS
AWPCF
n / / >
i / / /
ADD BERGEN AWPCF
UPGRADED WPCFs
ADD SPRING CREEK AWPCF
70
10
20 30 ^
ANNUAL COST, mil $
50
60
Figure 72. Cost-effectiveness (usable beach days) of
alternatives
139
-------
ou
(
I—
J3
"•"
E
40
>-
«X
CD
*f
O
— •
•a:
3E
^^
^^ 30
H™
in
a
CD
U_
O
UJ
to
ac
5 20
CJ
CO
o
CO
CO
10
0
1 1
>J~ADD SPRING CREEK AWPCF ~
^<
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\^ADD UPGRADED WPCFs
\^
\
\
\
\
\ ^DD FRESH CREEK AWPCF
^- — •^^-'ADD BERGEN AWPCF
/' \ ^— -f^>e ADO FRESH CREEK AWPCF
/ /Jc-^^W^ ADD PAERDEGAT AWPCF
1 3'-3p^6/*J^*OD PAERDEGAT & FRESH
V^^^OT^rf CREEK **PCFs
/S\^ ^V^xfft*' (§\ — ^ADO BERGEN AWPCF
— s' X*"* I^N li —
ADD PAEROEGAT \\ \'
AWPCF f\\
ADD ALL OTHER AWPCFs^ \ \
\ \ ^-ENLARGE OCEAN
— PROVIDE OCEAN OUTFALLS-^ \ \ OUTFALLS —
\ \
X
\
1 1 ®
0
10
50
20 30 40
ANNUAL COST, mi I $
Figure 73. Cost-effectiveness (BOD) of alternatives
60
140
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. Cohen, P., O. L. Franke, and B. L. Foxworthy, "An Atlas of Long
Island's Water Resources," New York Water Resources Commission
Bulletin 62, State of New York, 1968.
2. Cotton, D., "Long Island Waterfowl Investigation," U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 23 October 1951.
3. Cotton, D., "Inspection of Jamaica Bay Marshes, N. Y., for Possi-
ble Development of Wildlife Habitat," Supplement to 23 October
1951 Report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 31 January 1952.
4. "Report on Jamaica Bay," New York City Department of Parks and New
York State Conservation Department, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
February 1968.
5. "Progress Report of the Jamaica Bay Improvement Commission," The
Board of Estimate and Apportionment, New York City, N. Y., 27 De-
cember 1909.
6. "Spread City," Regional Plan Association, Inc., N. Y., 1962.
7. "Jamaica Center," Regional Plan Association, Inc., N. Y., April
1968.
8. Klein, L. A., et al., "Sources of Metals in New York City Waste-
water," Department of Water Resources, City of New York, paper
presented at New York Water Pollution Control Association, Jan-
uary 1974.
9. A Water Quality Simulation Model for Well-Mixed Estuaries and
Coastal Seas: Volumes I-VI, The New York City Rand Institute, 1972.
10. Jamaica Bay Water Quality Management Analysis—Dynamic Response of
Coliform Bacteria Distributions under Various Treatment Alterna-
tives, The New York City Rand Institute, 1972.
11. "Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional Waste-
water Treatment Facilities," No. 17090 DAN, Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, October 1971.
12. Camp, T. R., "Chlorination of Mixed Sewage and Storm Water," Pro-
ceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 87, SA1, 1961.
13. Tidal Current Charts for New York Harbor, Seventh Edition, U. S.
Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1956.
14. Pearson, E. A. "Marine Waste Disposal," The Engineering Journal,
November 1961.
141
-------
SECTION X
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA
SPRING CREEK AUXILIARY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
STORM OVERFLOWS
1. Autumn Avenue outlet from Brooklyn.
2. New Queens sewer.
RAINFALL
1. Annual average rainfall New York City, 42.37 in.
2. Annual average rainfall 5-mo summer period, 18.99 in.
3. Number of summer storms expected, 40. Number of summer
storms resulting in overflows into Jamaica Bay, 20.
4. Rainfall maximum annual storm, 2.50 in.
5. Five-year storm maximum intensity, i = 150/(t + 20),
2.14 in./hr.
6. One-year storm maximum intensity, i = 75/(t + 15), 1.15 in./
hr.
7. Intensity less than 0.50 in./hr 98% of time.
DESIGN CRITERIA
1. Tributary area, 3,256 ac.
2. Maximum rate of flow into basins, 5-yr storm, 1.38 cfs/ac or
4,490 cfs total. Detention period 6 min (infrequent occurrence).
3. Maximum rate of flow into basins, 1-yr storm, 0.75 cfs/ac or
2,440 cfs total.
4. Detention period in excess of 20 min 98% of time.
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Width 300 ft (six 50-ft basins)
Length 476 ft
Area 142,800 ft2
Top elev. 6.00
Overflow weir elev. -1.50
Av. bottom elev. -10.60
142
-------
Max. W.S. elev. 1.00
Vol. at max. W.S. elev. 1,657,000 ft3
Av. depth at max. W.S. 11.60 ft
elev.
OPERATION OF BASINS
1. Basins normally empty.
2. Basins cleaned after each storm.
3. After storm, basin contents discharged to 26th Ward Plant.
4. Approximately 63% basin volume will flow by gravity; remainder
will be pumped. Gravity discharge to level of top of dam at regulator
at interceptor; elevation approximately -7.0. (Arrangement also made
to discharge portion of basin volume to tide through sluice gates in
each basin.)
5. Cleaning operation started after basins have been dewatered.
BASIN INLET AND OUTLET
1. Connection from existing overflow to inlet chamber.
2. Inlet chamber distributes flow to basins.
3. Flow into individual basins through full height openings which
may be closed by stop logs.
4. Outlet from basins over weir walls with tide gates to prevent
backflow of tide.
5. Outlet weir chambers baffled by curtain walls on basin side
to trap and contain froth that may develop from fall over weirs.
6. Discharge chambers to Spring Creek baffled by curtain walls
to trap and contain froth that may develop from fall over weirs.
BASIN CLEANING FACILITIES
1. Deposited grit and sludge flushed by a system of spray nozzles
supported on a traveling bridge (one traveling bridge cleaning mechanism
provided for each basin).
2. Pressure at spray nozzle 40 psi.
3. Speed of bridge adjustable from 4 to 40 fpm.
4. Spray water supplied by pump mounted on bridge.
5. Pump takes suction from channel adjacent to each basin.
6. Suction channel intake at tidal water.
7. Entrance to suction channel provided with traveling water
screen with 1/8-in. openings.
143
-------
8. Trash rack with 6-in. bar spacing precedes traveling water
screen.
9. Traveling bridge operation will be semi-automatic.
10. Deposited grit and sludge flushed to trough, at center of
each basin, which discharges to pump wet well.
11. Maximum rate of flow of spray water is 1,000± gpm per basin,
or 6,000± gpm total.
PUMPING EQUIPMENT
1. Approximately 63% of the basin volume will drain by gravity
to the 26th Ward Plant.
2. Approximately 37% must be pumped.
3. Estimated capacity of the 60-in. interceptor collector to the
26th Ward Plant is 37 mgd. To maintain some reserve capacity for hour-
ly variation of flow in the 60-in. interceptor collector, the sum of
the average dry-weather flow rate and the basin dewatering flow rate
should be limited to about 20 mgd when the dewatering pumps are in
operation.
4. Two 2,000-gpm and two 1,000-gpm Wemco torque flow type pumps
are proposed. Pumps will have variable speed fluid drives. Four pumps
will dewater 37% of the basin volume in about 12 hr. Gravity dewater-
ing of the basins and inlet sewers is estimated at about 25 hr. When
the effluent sluice gates are in operation, gravity drainage time will
be about 13.5 hr.
5. Two trash racks with 1-in. bar spacing, mechanically cleaned,
precede pumps. Screenings removed in containers.
GRIT REMOVAL FACILITIES
1. Grit and sludge underflow from basin cleaning operation will
be pumped by dewatering pumps to centrifugal-type grit separators
(Dorrclones).
2. Six Dorrclones, each 24-in. diameter, capacity 1,000 gpm,
proposed; total capacity 6,000 gpm.
3. Overflow from Dorrclones will be discharged to 26th Ward
Plant.
4. Grit will be discharged to classifiers for washing, three
3-ton/day grit loading classifiers proposed.
5. Washed grit will be conveyed to a steel storage bin, having a
capacity of 1,600 ft3, which is about the quantity of grit expected in
the maximum annual storm.
6. Grit disposal by trucks to landfills.
144
-------
SOLIDS QUANTITIES
1. Screenings - estimated at 4 ft3/mil gal.
2. Grit - estimated at 15 ft3/mil gal.
3. Sludge - estimated quantity returned to sanitary sewer at 10%
of annual average.
CHLORINATION FACILITIES
1. Mixed storm water and sanitary sewage will be disinfected
during periods of storm by use of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl).
2. Chlorine demand based on data in paper by T. R. Camp, Pro-
ceedings of Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, and analysis of
chlorine demand sampling of combined flows obtained at the 26th Ward
Plant.
3. Peak 5-yr storm flow rate 4,490 cfs or 2,900 mgd.
4. Maximum dilution ratio 130 at peak flow.
5. Four hypochlorite injectors rated at 25 gpm each.
6. Maximum design chlorine feed rate 45,000 Ib/day with 3 in-
jectors and 60,000 Ib/day with 4 injectors, at 5% hypochlorite solution
at maximum flow rate of 4,490 cfs. This flow is of infrequent occur-
rence. At flow of 2,440 cfs (peak flow, 1-yr storm), the detention
period in the basins is about 10 min and the dosage will be about
4.6 ppm, with 4 injectors. Dosage rate may be increased, if required,
by increasing the concentration of sodium hypochlorite solution.
7. Machines will be placed in service when water level reaches
elevation -9.5 in the basins and will shut off when level in basins
has receded to elevation -7.0.
8. Initial chlorine feed rate will be at a predetermined rate for
a predetermined time, after which an automatic controller will operate
to proportion the feed rate to the inflow rate.
9. Solution water obtained from spray water suction channels.
10. Chlorine solution will be introduced into flow by chlorine
diffuser pipes located in the inlet sewers. System operates auto-
matically as the water level rises. Three vertical diffuser pipes in
each barrel of the inlet sewers will be provided.
11. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) can be obtained in strengths of
5% to 15% available chlorine; a 15% solution contains 1.25 Ib of
available chlorine/gal. The solution will be fed automatically through
hypochlorinators to the diffusers; 12,000 Ib of available chlorine will
provide chlorination for a major storm, with reserve capacity for two
additional average storms or for a second major storm; 12,000 Ib is
equivalent to 10,000 gal. of 15% concentration, or 30,000 gal. at 5%
145
-------
concentration. Provisions made for two 15,000-gal. storage tanks
which allows for dilution to 5% concentration to reduce rate of de-
terioration.
METERS
1. Meters will be provided to measure the rate of storm water in-
flow to the basins and the chlorine application rate. The meters will
be of the magnetic flow type. Basin outflow will be determined by mea-
surement of heads upstream and downstream of the effluent weir and the
rates calculated from the head measurements.
2. A chlorine residual recorder, receiving sample from the basin
overflow, will be provided.
3. Supervisory alarm systems will be provided to transmit alarms
to the 26th Ward Plant.
VENTILATION
1. Pumping station will be ventilated by a system of fresh air
intakes and exhaust fans in roof, complete with duct systems.
2. The basins proper will be ventilated by a system of fresh air
inlet fans and exhaust fans. Fresh air is drawn in at south end through
fixed louvres and gravity shutters and discharged through exhaust fans
located at the north end.
3. The ventilation system is designed to allow for the future
addition of an odor control system, if required.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
1. Power supplied by Con Edison at 460 volts, 3 phase, 60 cycles.
Distribution centers provided for power and light.
STRUCTURAL FEATURES
1. The structures are essentially of reinforced concrete with
structural steel framing for the pumping station. The basins are
covered and are entirely of reinforced concrete.
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
1. The pumping station and basins are of simple modern design.
Exterior essentially consists of pre-cast, exposed aggregate, concrete
panels.
146
-------
APPENDIX B
POLLUTANT MASS EMISSION FROM COMBINED SEWER AREAS
Several parametric relationships were constructed and evaluated in or-
der to develop a general predictive correlation between mass emission
rate of each pollutant and overflow volume (expressed as depth) from
combined sewer overflows.
Good correlations were obtained when the areal intensity of "pollutant
mass emission, expressed in pounds per acre (Ib/ac), of drainage area
was related to overflow volume, expressed in inches (in.) of overflow
occurring from the drainage area. Straight-line relationships between
these parameters were obtained for each pollutant studied. The rela-
tionships are presented in Figures 74 through 80 for BOD5, chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, HEM, total organic nitrogen, total in-
organic nitrogen and total soluble phosphorus, respectively. Detailed
data are presented in Table 33.
The relationships appear to be independent of specific drainage basin
characteristics and thus provide a general method for determining the
pollutant mass emission rates from combined sewer overflows from urban-
ized areas similar to those tributary to Jamaica Bay.
147
-------
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
o
- 14
ID
ca
S 12
10
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
D PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
0.
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
OVERFLOW, in.
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 74. Relationship between overflow volume
and BOD emission from combined sewered areas
148
-------
82.10
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
Q PAEROEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
I I I L L I L
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
OVERFLOW, in.
Figure 75. Relationship between overflow volume
and COD emissions from combined sewered areas
i.o
149
-------
i
o
CO
(Si
149.41
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
Q PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
OVERFLOW, in.
Figure 76. Relationship between overflow volume and
suspended solids emissions from combined sewered areas
150
-------
o
TO
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
D PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
'0* 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
OVERFLOW, in.
Figure 77. Relationship between overflow volume
and HEM emission from combined sewered areas
.0
151
-------
1.4
1.2
i.o
O.B
O
CO
0.6
0.4
0.2
O
A
2.58
3.31
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
0 PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
I I I
0 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
OVERFLOW, in.
Figure 78. Relationship between overflow volume and total
organic nitrogen emission from combined sewered areas
152
-------
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
o
TO
0.3
0.2
0.1
0>
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
Q PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
A
O
O
A
I I I
0.
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5 0.6
OVERFLOW, in.
0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0
Figure 79. Relationship between overflow volume
and total inorganic nitrogen emission from
combined sewered areas
153
-------
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
O
TO
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
O
A
i r i
O
0.486
i
0.903
LEGEND
A SPRING CREEK EAST
Q PAERDEGAT
O SPRING CREEK WEST
O HENDRIX CREEK
x THURSTON BASIN
A
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.
OVERFLOW, in.
Figure 80. Relationship between overflow volume and total
soluble phosphorus emission from combined sewered areas
154
-------
Table 33. CUMULATIVE MASS EMISSION AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW DATA, JAMAICA BAY
Oi
Basin
Date of
storm
Overflow
volume,
in.
BOD5 COD
Mass
SS
emission,
HEM
Ib/ac
TON TIN TSP
Spring Creek East
N-l
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
N-6
N-7
N-8
N-9
N-10
N-ll
N-12
N-13
N-14
Paerdegat
P-l
P-2
P-3
22
9
3
10
12
4
20
23
26
2
20
27
3
15
18
10
31
Apr
May
Jul
Jul
Jul
Mar
Mar
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
Sep
Oct
Oct
Jun
Jul
Jul
69
69
69
69
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
0.303
0.296
0.210
0.196
0.042
0.124
0.080
0.056
0.159
0.375
0.108
0.124
0.036
0.625
0.040
0.012
0.039
11.5 -
6
5
1
6
6
7
9
1
18
0
0
.88 21.4
.64 28.7
18.1
-
_
-
.94
.52
.60
.30
.52
.30
.2
.488
.417
_ _
13
38
5
1
10
2
4
14
11
26
7
149
0
0
.3
.2
.83
.36
.5
.84
.63
.4
-
.5
.9
.80
.805
.417
-
0.
3.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
2.
0.
5.
0.
0.
971
85
91
-
46
443
858
71
-
-
51
819
26
087
125
-
0.674 0.370 0.269
0.567 0.074 0.195
0.487 0.114 0.202
_ _ _
0.140
0.034
0.043
0.378
- - -
_
0.653 0.073 0.042
0.251 0.056 0.005
2.58 0.256 0.094
0.824 0.044 0.007
0.356 0.021 0.002
_
-------
Table 33 (Continued). CUMULATIVE MASS EMISSION AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW DATA, JAMAICA BAY
01
Basin
Date of
storm
Overflow
volume ,
in.
BOD 5 COD
Mass
SS
emission,
HEM
Ib/ac
TON
TIN
TSP
Spring Creek West
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
Hendrix Creek
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
Thurston
T-l
T-2
3 Jul 69
17 Jul 69
29 Jul 69
22 Dec 69
2 Apr 70
24 Apr 70
15 Oct 70
26 Jan 71
24 Mar 69
10 Jul 69
29 Sep 69
21 Oct 69
4 Nov 69
2 Feb 70
4 Nov 70
3 Jul 69
10 Jul 69
0.173
0.054
0.154
0.014
0.218
0.024
0.393
0.240
0.860
0.351
0.093
0.074
0.623
0.537
0.175
0.218
0.020
6.00 15.3
0.645 2.28
2.05 4.77
0.423
3.31
0.618
13.9
0.372
26.7 82.1
23.1
-
3.29
12.0
15.3
7.91
6.53 19.9
- -
15.9
0.626
6.61
0.705
4.10
-
24.0
44.6
74.9
23.7
6.41
1.81
20.8
22.3
6.80
20.2
0.463
1.99
0.152
0.320
-
1.02
-
8.69
46.7
20.0
5.40
-
0.379
2.54
-
1.63
1.15
0.208
0.709
0.014
0.249
0.041
-
-
1.08
1.30
3.31
1.05
-
0.377
1.26
-
0.530
0.464
0.045
0.351
0.009
0.052
-
-
-
-
0.276
0.602
0.225
-
0.148
-
-
0.145
0.076
0.013
0.306
0.036
0.065
0.005
0.046
-
0.189
-
0.903
0.291
-
0.115
0.486
-
0.067
0.140
0.010
-------
Table 33 (Continued). CUMULATIVE MASS EMISSION AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW DATA, JAMAICA BAY
01
Basin
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
T-ll
T-12
Date of
storm
12
17
26
7
21
4
8
10
3
15
Jul
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Dec
Oct
Oct
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
70
70
Overflow
volume,
in.
0.063
0.011
0.079
0.001
0.012
0.141
0.153
1.032
0.006
0.205
BOD 5
-
0.404
-
-
0.378
1.52
2.33
-
0.192
3.69
Mass
COD SS
0
0.728 2
0.974 6
0
0
3
6
41
0
18
.798
.49
.99
.019
.965
.17
.33
.2
.495
.1
emission,
HEM
-
0.090
0.438
-
0.079
0.448
-
-
0,062
0.722
Ib/ac
TON
-
0.084
-
-
0.051
0.158
-
-
0.025
0.453
TIN TSP
-
0.024 0.
0.
-
0.006 0.
0.
-
-
0.005 0.
0.074 0.
-
024
047
-
007
065
-
-
002
008
-------
APPENDIX C
MATHEMATICAL MODELS
RECEIVING WATER MODEL FOR COLIFORM DENSITY
A mathematical model was developed to enable prediction of the coliform
density at a given beach following a given storm size. This was then
used to determine the percentage of time that a given beach would be
usable, i.e., would meet the receiving water coliform standard under a
particular wastewater management alternative.
Input for the Coliform Model
Input for the coliform model includes data describing the storm charac-
teristics, the quantity and quality of the resulting combined sewer
overflow from each drainage basin, the quantity and quality of runoff
from separately sewered areas, the quantity and quality of dry-weather
sewage treatment facility effluents, the tidal conditions at the time
of the storm, the bay dilution and circulation and the coliform disap-
pearance rate. The basin characteristics and water pollution control
facility dry-weather flow discharge quantity and quality were presented
in Sections IV and VII; the remaining input is discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
Coliform Loadings—
The receiving water coliform model utilized data generated by the urban
runoff models for the total coliform loading to the bay from each drain-
age basin as a function of total storm depth [10]. The relations devel-
oped are shown in Figure 65. As output was not available for Paerdegat
and Fresh Creek Basins, total coliform concentrations were determined
from the drainage area, appropriate overflow coefficients and assumed
average coliform concentrations of 156,000 MPN/ml for Paerdegat Basin
and 650,000 MPN/ml for Fresh Creek Basin.
The coliform loading from separately sewered areas for different storm
sizes was computed using the drainage area, a runoff coefficient of
0.65 and, based upon the Rand model [9], an average coliform concentra-
tion of 9,000 MPN/ml. The contribution of urban runoff is small com-
pared to untreated combined sewer overflows.
Circulation in Jamaica Bay—
Water circulation in Jamaica Bay is important in determining the pollu-
tant distribution from combined sewer overflows. The influence of a
particular combined sewer overflow at one or more beach sites is depen-
dent upon the tidal excursion, which is the distance travelled during
158
-------
the flooding or ebbing tide stage. Water movement in the bay is gener-
ally back and forth with the tidal currents and will slowly leave the
bay at the net advective flow. However, if a beach site is not within
the range of a combined sewer overflow discharge on the first or second
tidal cycle, the coliforms may disappear to a negligible level before
they will arrive at the beach at the net advective velocity. The net
flow in Jamaica Bay is very small, in the order of 0.003 to 0.15 fps.
Tidal current charts [13] were used to estimate the current direction
and velocity at each station in Jamaica Bay for every hour of the 12-hr
tidal cycle. Typically, the currents fluctuate between 2 fps into the
bay and 2 fps out of the bay except in the Grassy Bay area, where the
maximum currents are in the order of 0.5 fps.
Further information on the volume available for dilution was obtained
from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Nautical Chart 542-SC.
Coliform Disappearance Rate—
Coliform disappearance studies were conducted during the course of the
project to determine the rate of decay in the receiving water environ-
ment. As a result of these studies, it was found that 90% of the coli-
forms disappeared within 24 hr (Tg0 = 24 hr), providing a rate constant
of 0.10 day"1-
Computational Procedures for the Coliform Model
In tracking the fate of a combined sewer overflow of known coliform
loading to Jamaica Bay, it' is first important to calculate the dilution
and coliform disappearance that occurs in the side channel or basin and
then the dilution and coliform disappearance during transport in the
main channel to a nearby beach.
The reaction in the basin can be represented by
G! = C0e~klt (4)
where C^ = concentration of coliforms after time t, MPN/ml;
total storm loading, MPN
C0 = initial concentratzon = basin volume, ml '"
kj = 2.67 x 10~5 sec'1 (0.10 day"1); and
t = residence time in basin, sec.
Assuming that an average summer overflow lasts 2 hr and that the storm
starts at low water or at high water, the normal residence time is 4 hr.
A delay of 16 hr for Paerdegat Basin was used because of its extensive
length.
Because of the geometry of the basin-main channel network, it can not
be assumed that the discharge from the basin is instantaneously mixed
159
-------
across the main channel cross-section. Some initial mixing will occur
followed by a lateral spreading across the channel. An analysis similar
to ocean outfall analysis can be made. The initial mixing is taken as
<5>
where C^ = concentration of coliforms prior to lateral dispersion,
MPN/ml ;
Q = average flow rate out of the basin on ebb tide = tidal
prism/6 hr, ft3/sec;
V = average velocity in main channel, fps;
b = width of basin, ft; and
h = average depth of main channel at junction, ft.
The phenomena of lateral spreading and disappearance during transport
to a beach can be obtained from the following equation [14] :
where Cg = concentration of coliforms after lateral dispersion of
time t , KPN/ml ;
ki = 2.67 x 1CT5 sec"1;
t = travel time to beach £ 6 hr, sec;
b = initial width of combined sewer outfall field in main
channel = width of basin, ft; and
Ey = coefficient of lateral diffusion, ft^/sec.
On the basis of available information [9] , Ey was assumed to be 4% of
the coefficient of longitudinal diffusion. These latter coefficients
were computed on the basis of salinity distributions obtained during
this project.
The cumulative effects of all combined sewer overflow discharges at a
particular beach were taken as the sum of all discharges having a trav-
el time of less than 6 hr. The flood tide and the ebb tide were consid-
ered separately. The travel times are shown on Table 34. The effect
of Paerdegat Basin was handled by computing the cumulative effect at
each beach without Paerdegat on the first tidal cycle and then adding
the effects of Paerdegat on the second tidal cycle, with the first tid-
al cycle contribution decayed at the rate of 90%/24 hr to reflect coli-
form disappearance. The highest concentration at each beach was used
for evaluation purposes..
160
-------
Table 34. ARRIVAL TIME IN HOURS FROM BEGINNING OF TIDAL CYCLE
Discharge
Coney Island WPCF
Mill Basin
Paerdegat Basin
Fresh Creek
Hendrix Creek
Spring Creek
Bergen Basin
Jamaica WPCF
Beach 1
Flood Ebb
3.11
0.37
2.28
4.32
5.07
6.72
8.97
- »8
Beach 2 Beach 3
Flood Ebb Flood Ebb
7.24 - »8
2.7 5.11
0.48 2.89
2.18 - 0.61
2.93 - 1.36
4.58 - 3.01
6.83 - 5.26
- »8 - 8.35
Beach 4
Flood
»8
9.04
6.92
3.16
3.98
1.74
Ebb
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.09
4.18
The computations were made for each of the four most promising poten-
tial beach sites for storm sizes (depths) of 0.10, 0.50 and 1.0 in.
Corresponding coliform loadings from each basin were obtained from Fig-
ure 65. Treatment plants were assumed to discharge at their rated ca-
pacity during the 6-hr residence time in the basin. The procedure was
followed first assuming that the beginning of the storm was coincident
with low water and then separately with the storm coincident with high
water.
It is desirable to express the results of the analysis in terms of the
percentage of time during the summer months that a given beach would be
usable, i.e., that water quality is sufficiently high to allow water
contact sports. A frequency distribution of the number of storms occur-
ring during the summer season (1 May to 30 September) [10] indicated
that during an average summer there were 5 storms larger than 1.0-in.
depth, 8 storms having a depth between 0.1 and 0.5 in. and 10 storms
having a depth less than 0.1 in. The maximum concentration at each
beach for each storm size in the above categories occurring on an ebb-
ing tide and on a flooding tide were computed. Then, using a coliform
disappearance rate of 0.10 day"1, the lengths of time that the water
quality standards would be exceeded from such a storm were determined
for each beach. Results for ebbing tide and flooding tide were averaged
and multiplied by the number of storms in each storm-size category and
the total from all categories obtained to give the total number of un-
usable beach days during the summer season. The percentage of usable
beach time at each beach was then determined given that there are 153
possible usable days in the 1 May to 30 September period.
Coliform Model Verification
It is important to verify the accuracy of the coliform model before it
is used as an evaluative tool for combined sewer overflow management
161
-------
alternatives. The Rand model has been used [9] to simulate the behavior
of Jamaica Bay responding to storms of 0.75 and 1.Q8 in. at different
tidal conditions. Assuming that this model accurately represents bay
behavior (it has since been verified with actual data), these results
can be compared with the Engineering-Science coliform model developed
in this project. A comparison is made in Table 35, which shows that
the Engineering-Science model predicts maximum coliform concentrations
which agree reasonably well with those of the Rand model. The discre-
pancies are not large considering the difference that can be caused by
slight changes in storm duration and tidal conditions and by the more
accurate modeling of the basin response. Also, the Engineering-Science
model ignores the Pumpkin Patch Channel, which will reduce concentra-
tions at Beach 4 and add them to Beach 1 on ebbing tide and vice versa
on flooding tide.
Table 35. PREDICTED MAXIMUM COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS3
ES model
Beach
MPN/ml
Unusable
beach days
Rand model
MPN/ml
Unusable
beach days
0.75-in. storm
at low tide
1 200 1.0
2 2,000 2.0
3 5,000 2.3
4 70 .5
120
1,000
1,500
400
1.2
1.9
2.2
2.3
1.08-in. storm
at high tide
1
2
3
4
2
1,200
1,300
90,000
0
1.7
1.8
3.6
60
1,200
2,500
8,000
1.0
2.3
2.3
2.8
No combined sewer overflow treatment facilities in operation (Atlerna-
tive 1).
Unusable beach days corresponding to coliform concentrations predicted
by the Engineering-Science model were determined by assuming that the
maximum concentration will decay 90% every 24 hr. Unusable beach days
from the Rand model output were determined by the length of time coli-
form concentration was above the water quality standard of 24 MPN/ml.
In both models it was assumed that background concentration of coli-
forms was 10 MPN/ml. The comparative agreement between the two models
in terms of unusable beach days associated with these two storms is
closer than the actual concentration values and is considered adequate
for the expressed purposes of the Engineering-Science coliform model.
162
-------
RECEIVING WATER MODEL FOR BOD
Sources of BOD
The mass discharges of BOD5 to Jamaica Bay are tablulated in Table 36
for various wastewater management alternatives.
Table 36. AVERAGE ANNUAL BOD5 LOADINGS TO JAMAICA BAY
(mil Ib/yr)
Treatment
alternative
Prior to WPCFsa
Treatment
plants
32
Combined
sewer
overflows
7
Combined
storm sewer
runoff
2
Other
sources
0.02
Total
41.0
upgrading
Prior to WPCFs 32
upgrading and
SCAWPCFb
Upgraded WPCFs 16
and SCAWPCF
Upgraded WPCFs 16
and AWPCFsc on
all combined
sewer overflows
0.02
0.02
0.02
40.0
24.0
21.0
b
'Water pollution control facilities (dry-weather sewage treatment).
'spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility (combined
sewer overflow treatment).
°Auxiliary water pollution control facilities (combined sewer overflow
treatment).
Steady-State Model
A model was developed to show the improvement in the seasonal receiving
water BOD5 concentration under different combined sewer overflow manage-
ment alternatives. The general approach of the BOD model is to compute
resulting concentrations on the basis of a seasonal mass balance of
sources and sinks. The one-dimensional equation for constituent concen-
tration, C, for a variable area, unsteady, input/output situation is:
3 (AC)
3t
r} C1
3x
3(AuC)
3x
-kC
(6)
where A = cross-sectional area at distance x;
t = travel time to x;
163
-------
E = longitudinal diffusivity;
u = average cross-sectional velocity at x; and
k = constituent rate of decay.
At steady-state, the above expression for BOD may be written:
(7)
where L = ultimate BOD of the receiving water;
k2 = BOD exertion rate constant;
k3 = BOD removal by sedimentation, etc.; and
Ra = rate of BOD5 addition.
f\ f)
When computing the average concentrations within the bay, d L/dx. and
dL/dx are zero, and the mass balance equation simplifies to:
(k2 + k3)L = Ra (3)
Because k2 is a function of temperature, the following equation was
used to adjust the value to another temperature, T:
K2T = k220 (1-040)(T~20) (8)
where k2 = 0.13 day"1 and
T = temperature, °C.
The ultimate BOD, L, was assumed to be 1.5 times 6005.
When Equation (3) is used to perform a mass balance for the bay, L is
the average total amount of BOD in the bay on a given day, Ra is the
average daily loading of 6005, k2 is a function of the average tempera-
ture and k3 is an unknown. For the summer season (June, July, August),
the average BOD5 concentration (from Figure 21) was estimated to be 2.7
mg/1, making L = 1.15 x 106 Ib of ultimate BOD; k2 was adjusted to 23°C
(0.147 day"1); Ra was estimated to be 147,410 Ib/day; and k3 was found
to be -0.060 day" - Similarly, for the winter (December, January, Feb-
ruary), the average 6005 (from Figure 22) was 4.7 mg/1 (L = 2.06 x 106
Ib) ,- k2 was adjusted to 2°C (0.064 day"1); Ra was estimated to be
122,150 Ib/day; and k3 was found to be -0.024 day"1- The fact that k3
is negative means that there is a carryover BOD loading from the previ-
ous season, probably from the sediments. Wind action is stronger in
the summer and will resuspend a higher proportion of BOD; hence k3 is
more important in summer.
164
-------
With k2 and k3 known, it is possible to use Equation (3) to compute a
new L associated with a different loading rate Ra. To determine Ra cor-
responding to each alternative, it was assumed that the percentages of
each source of BOD shown in Table 37 were appropriate. The removal of
BOD by a combined sewer overflow treatment facility (auxiliary water
pollution control facility) for an average storm was assumed to be 57%.
A runoff coefficient of 0.65 and an average BOD5 concentration of 18
mg/1 was used to compute the BOD loading due to urban runoff.
Table 37. ASSUMED SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BOD SOURCES
Percentage of annual
Source
Dry-weather flows
Combined sewer overflows
Urban runoff
Marsh grass
Summer
25
33
25
25
(four-season) load, %
Winter
25
0
25
25
The analysis of Alternatives 1 through 9 was completed by adjusting the
rate of BOD5 input to the bay due to the effects of the combined sewer
overflow treatment facilities in each alternative. Alternative 10 re-
quired special consideration because it is dependent upon rainfall in-
tensity. An average summer thunderstorm in New York City has a depth
of 0.5 in. and a maximum intensity of 1.0 in./hr. By generating syn-
thetic hydrographs for the drainage basins, it was estimated that the
interceptor associated with Alternative 10 would capture 46% of the
flow from all of the basins during an average storm. The BODs loading
to the bay under Alternative 10 was thus based upon 46% removal of the
combined sewer overflow source of BOD, all other inputs being the same
as for Alternative 3.
URBAN RUNOFF MODEL
Quantity Model
Urban Drainage Basin—
A schematic diagram showing various components of the precipitation-
overflow sequence for a typical urban drainage system in which the re-
ceiving water is affected by tidal action is presented in Figure 64.
The rainfall-runoff relationship has been treated for many years as a
linear process. According to linear system theory, the input-output
relationship can often be described by the convolution integral:
+CO
W(t,T)-X(T)dT (9)
L
165
-------
where X(T) is the input and Y(t) the resulting output. As the function
of the two variables, W(t,i) is called the weighting function of the
system.
If a linear system is described by a convolution integral, then the
output Y(t) at a given time t is a weighted sum of the values of the
input over the integral from negative to positive infinity. That is,
the contribution to the output from the input is a weighted value of
X(T), where the weighting is provided by the weighting function W(t,T).
Applying this to the rainfall-runoff process, a hydrograph can be pre-
dicted for any given effective hyetograph if the weighting function is
known.
Unit Hydrograph and Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph—
In order to derive the weighting function, it is necessary to intro-
duce the unit hydrograph theory and instantaneous unit hydrograph. The
unit hydrograph of a drainage basin is defined as a hydrograph of di-
rect runoff from 1 in. of effective rainfall generated uniformly over
the basin area at a uniform rate during a specific period of time or
duration. (The word unit is often misinterpreted as 1 in. of unit
depth.) In essence, linearity (superposition) and time invariance are
two fundamental principles of the unit hydrograph.
If the duration of the effective precipitation becomes infinitesimally
small, the resulting unit hydrograph is called an instantaneous unit
hydrograph and is expressed by U(O,t) or U(t). By the principle of su-
perposition, when an effective rainfall function I(T) of duration tg
is applied, each infinitesimal element of this effective rainfall hyet-
ograph will produce a direct runoff hydrograph equal to the product of
I(T) and the instantaneous unit hydrograph expressed by U(t-T). Thus,
the ordinate of the direct runoff hydrograph at time t is:
/U(t-x) •:
-n
't'
U(t-T)'I(T)dT (10)
-o
One can easily see that Equation (10) is equivalent to Equation (9).
Equation (10) is also known as the Duhamel integral, in which U(t-T) is
a kernel function, I(T) is the input function and t' = t when t < tg
and t' = tg where t > tg.
One important difference between Equation (9) and Equation (10) is that
the system described by Equation (9) (usually called a causal or a phy-
sically realizable system) cannot anticipate what the future input will
be. In other words, the weighting function of a causal system is zero
for T > t; that is, future values of the input are weighted zero.
166
-------
For a given drainage basin, the ordinate at time t of the unit hydro-
graph having a unit duration of At0 is presented by U(At0,t), where t
is any time after the beginning of effective rainfall. The effective
rainfall for a given storm may be considered to consist of n blocks of
different intensity 1^ and of time duration equal to At0 where the sub-
script i denotes the number representing a block. By the principle of
linearity, the ordinate of the direct runoff hydrograph for the given
storm may be expressed as:
Q(t) = /Ju I At0, t - (i-l)At 1 I^t (11)
Equation (11) is a summation form of the convolution integral, and it
describes the principle of computing a direct runoff hydrograph from an
effective rainfall hyetograph for each drainage sub-basin. Measured di-
rect runoff hydrographs for each sub-basin from isolated short-duration
storms were used to compute unit hydrographs. A basic 20-min unit hy-
drograph was constructed by averaging several unit hydrographs of 15-
to 20-min duration. This basic unit hydrograph has been used to derive
direct runoff hydrographs from computed effective rainfall hyetographs.
Determination of Effective Rainfall Hyetograph
from Total Rainfall Hyetograph —
In order to determine the effective rainfall hyetograph from the total
rainfall hyetograph, the loss function for the drainage basin must be
formulated. Loss parameters include interception, evaporation, infil-
tration, depression storage, etc. The relative importance of each loss
component depends principally upon the physical characteristics of the
land surface.
In most urban areas, for example, rainfall intercepted by vegetation
and lost through evaporation during precipitation is rarely of impor-
tance. Investigations have shown that infiltration approaches a steady
minimum rate after 1 or 2 hr. Infiltration is also affected by antece-
dent precipitation. High-intensity rains of short duration occurring
after a dry spell often produce little, if any, runoff. Depression
storage for different land surfaces depends upon their roughness and
slope. For the model employed in this investigation, loss parameters
are each assigned to a function which generates an effective rainfall
hyetograph from any total rainfall hyetograph. Land-use distribution
and imperviousness of each surface are the two factors used to estimate
the loss parameters. These input values have been adjusted by compar-
ing the computed direct runoff hydrographs with measured direct runoff
hydrographs .
167
-------
Modeling Results and Verification—
The data from several storms were used to prepare input rainfall hyeto-
graphs from the unit hydrograph model. Comparisons between the model
output direct runoff hydrograph and actual monitoring data are presented
in Figure 81, which also shows the input total rainfall hyetograph and
the computed direct runoff hydrograph. Note the comparison between the
computed and measured values at the Spring Creek East monitoring site.
Discrepancies arise from the following.
1. The computed values were based on the assumption that the dry-
weather flow (base flow) follows the pattern of the average condition.
However, for any given day, this value may be affected by the operation
of water pollution control facilities, which may alter the initial
amount of conduit storage.
2. Monitored overflows were affected by the existence of two tide
gates located approximately 800 ft downstream of the Spring Creek East
diversion chamber. These gates were removed during construction of the
Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Facility.
3. At the monitoring site, two sets of temporary weir structures
were used for metering. These weirs created some storage in the lower
reach of the conduit system but will be removed at the plant's comple-
tion. The effects can be seen in the measured hydrograph. For example,
the model predicts a smoother initial hydrograph than the measured val-
ues, which show a few minutes of delay and a much sharper slope, caused
by the presence of the weirs. One may also note that the combined hy-
drograph predicted at the plant intake during the whole overflow process
receives the overflow from the Spring Creek West drainage basin earlier
than that from the Spring Creek East basin. The time lag is approxi-
mately 10 min in this case because the mointoring point for Spring Creek
East was approximately 8,000 ft from the plant intake. (The main body
of the flood wave, which is kinetic in nature, travels at a speed of ap-
proximately 1.5 times the flow velocity.)
4. Although the precipitation data were obtained from instruments
in the drainage area, it is probable that the indicated amounts of rain-
fall did not fall uniformly over the entire tributary area.
Figure 81 shows the inflow hydrograph to the plant and the downstream
level at Spring Creek. The figure also shows the basin's water level,
the average apparent velocity in the basin and the flow-through veloci-
ty. These hydraulic parameters will enter the prediction model as in-
put quantities. At present, the storage-level relationship of the
whole system is only approximate.
Quality Model
Combined Sewer Overflow Coliform Pollutographs—
In the study of the rainfall-runoff relationship it is usually assumed
168
-------
1000
800
600
£ 400
CO
11
L -*--
1
II
f
1
1
1
1
I
I
IPHI
•
\
18 APRIL 1969
TOTAL RAINFALL HYETO-
- GRAPH. MEASURED BY
\ 26th WARD GAUGE
\
\ PLANT INFLOW HYDROGRAPH
^BY UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL
u
— .2
— 4
— .6
— .8
— 1.
200
' '
I/
II
If
/
\
°o\
SPRING CREEK EAST DIRECT
RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH COMPUTED
BY UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL
MEASURED OVERFLOW
AT N. CONDUIT BLVD.
(SPRING CREEK EAST)
60
I— .5
APPARENT VELOCIT.
.3 rIN BASIN
FLOW-THROUGH
/ VELOCITY
TOTAL RUNOFF-
VOLUME
DOWNSTREAM
WATER /"
(LEVEL. ./.
*~'' WEIR CREST OF PLANT
BASIN WATER LEVEL
13 ~
O
_o
11
CO
«t
OQ
60 120 180 240
ELAPSED TIME IN min FROM THE BEGINNING OF STORM
Figure 81. Comparison between the computed
and the measured overflow from Spring Creek
dra i nage has in
169
-------
that an urban drainage basin is essentially a linear system. This im-
plies that the response of the system is linearly proportional to the
effective inputs and can be estimated with the use of a transfer func-
tion. An extension of this methodology can be quite useful in the anal
ysis of storm pollutographs. However, the analogy should be approached
with extreme caution when dealing with pollutographs because the system
has certain memory.
For any particular instance during an overflow, the amount and concen-
tration of coliform bacteria are the combined results of the following
processes:
1. Coliforms contained in the dry-weather flow are being mixed
and diluted by the stormwater. At any given time, t, the resulting
coliform concentration is equal to the product of the dry-weather con-
centration and flow rate divided by the sum of the dry- and wet-weather
flow rates as shown below:
c; = -,
t qD(t) + *S(t)
where C = dry-weather coliform concentration;
q = dry-weather flow rate; and
q^ = wet-weather flow rate.
O
G£ is the concentration component which is caused by dilution alone.
The characteristic shape of C| is an inverted Gaussian curve (skewness
and peakedness depend upon the storm hydrograph) with each end asymp-
totically approaching the dry-weather concentration.
2. The second contributing component is derived from bottom scour-
ing. The amount of contribution depends greatly on the memory of the
sewer system. This effect is more pronounced when the sewer system has
a low elevation and is equipped with tide gates. If a storm begins dur-
ing a high-tide condition, the ponding effect will cause a major portion
of the solids to settle out in the trunk sewers. This prolonged tidal
recession and dewatering process will not have the ability to carry away
the settled solids and bacteria. Qualitatively speaking, the coliform
concentration contributed by this process is proportional to the scour-
ing velocity and limited by the concentration available. The amount of
scouring is proportional to the n^ power of the flow. Therefore, the
concentration contributed from the scouring action is:
where S = coefficient which is a function of storage factor and sewer
slope;
170
-------
a = 1 when t <
a = 0 when t > t
or
max '
t-max = time of hydrograph peak; and
n = empirical coefficient.
The characteristic shape of the concentration curve from this component
rises exponentially as the storm hydrograph rises but drops sharply
when the available concentration is exhausted.
3. Another important source of coliforms is the street gutters.
The amount contributed from street gutters is highly variable due to
the different street cleaning frequencies, pet populations and antece-
dent dry periods involved. The graph of the amount contributed from
this source has the same shape as the overflow hydrograph due to the
early impact of the storm causing most of the pollutants in the street
gutters to be carried to the sewer system. The curve is proportional
to the k^h power of the hydrograph resulting from the first few effec-
tive storm impulses (first 10 to 20 min) divided by the first power of
the hydrograph itself, as shown below:
C'» = W
t
. .k
(^t
= W(qc
. k-1
(14)
where (CL.)^ = ordinate of the storm hydrograph at time t;
o t
W = coefficient varying with street cleaning frequency,
basin geometry and population density; and
k = coefficient varying from 1.5 to 2.0.
Combining the effects of dilution (Equation (12)), scouring (Equation
(13)) and street gutters (Equation (14)) yields:
Ct = Ct
Ct
(1)
For a typical storm, the time history of coliform concentration, Ct,
will exhibit the W-shaped curve shown in Figure 82. Coliform data
taken at the five combined sewer overflow monitoring sites have con-
firmed this configuration.
Comparison Between the Computed and
Observed Coliform Pollutographs—
Through physical reasoning, each component of the coliform pollutograph
has been identified. This section deals with estimating the coeffi-
cients and with comparisons of the computed and measured values.
171
-------
CJ9
ac
CJ
CS)
HYDROGRAPH
qQ)
n-1
SCOURING INPUT
GUTTER (CURB) INPUT
DRY-WEATHER CONFORM CONCENTRATION
(ASSUMED CONSTANT IN THIS DWG.
FOR DEMONSTRATION)^
C
D(t)
(CAUSED BY DILUTION)
TYPICAL W-SHAPED COLIFORM CURVE
max
TIME
Figure 82. Definition sketch for coliform analysis
172
-------
An approximation of the powers in Equation (1) has been made from close
scrutiny of the measured coliform concentration curves. For all the
drainage systems monitored, n is approximately equal to 3.0 and k is ap-
proximately equal to 2.0. Coefficients S and W vary with the drainage
system because of the basin and sewer network characteristics.
On 3 July 1969 a storm was monitored at both Spring Creek East and
Spring Creek West basins. This storm and a storm occurring on 2 Febru-
ary 1970 monitored at Hendrix were used to derive the values of S and W
for each basin.
The dry-weather flow coliform concentrations for each drainage area
were assumed to be as follows:
North Conduit 1.0 x 106 MPN/ml
Spring Creek Basin 2.0 x 105 MPN/ml
Thurston Basin 1.0 x 106 MPN/ml
Hendrix Basin 1.0 x 106 MPN/ml
These values were derived from the initial and final values on the moni-
tored coliform curves.
An example of the comparisons between the computed and observed values
of coliform concentration along with approximations of S and W yielding
the best fit curves is presented in Figures 83 and 84 for the Spring
Creek East and Spring Creek West basins. Upper and lower 95% confidence
limits of coliform densities were computed for each observed MPN value
and are shown on each graph.
In comparing the computed curve with the measured curve, it should be
remembered that points identified on the measured curve do not necessar-
ily reflect turning points of the true coliform distribution. Periodic
sampling produces the discontinuities shown, but the short time between
samples decreases the possibilities of the true curve being much dif-
ferent from the measured curve. In addition, the values of S and W
will vary slightly for each discrete storm in a given drainage basin.
However, the magnitude of the coefficients will not change the basic
shape of the computed curve. Furthermore, the relative influence of
the powers, n and k, on the shape and magnitude of the curve is much
greater than that caused by S and W. These powers have been found to
be the same for all monitored drainage basins.
All computed curves agree quite well with the observed values. Using
S = 10 and W = 100 for the Spring Creek East basin, the agreement is ex-
cellent. In the case of Thurston Basin, the values of S = 3 and W = 0
produced close agreement. In Hendrix Creek, S = 20 and W = 10 yielded
desirable results, and in Spring Creek West good results were achieved
with S = 50 and W = 1,000.
Higher S values were indicative of pronounced scouring effects, and high
W values indicated large contributions from surface washing. The rela-
173
-------
MEASURED OVERFLOW HYDROGRAPH
3 JULY 1969 STORM
I J J I
120
UPPER 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS
MEASURED
MPN VALUES
COMPUTED
COL I FORM
POLLUTOGRAPH
S = 10
W = 10°
LOWER 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS
20
40 /60\ 80 100 120
TIME AFTER OVERFLOW START, min
140
Figure 83. Comparison between the computed and the
measured coliform pollutograph,
Spring Creek East drainage basin
174
-------
00
t»—
o
CJ
O
CJ
CJ
3 JULY 1969 STORM
MEASURED OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
COMPUTED COLIFORM
POLLUTOGRAPH
S = 50
MEASURED W = 1000
MPN/ml
LOWER 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS
OF THE MEASURED MPN
60 120 180 240
TIME AFTER THE BEGINNING OF STORM, min
Figure 84. Comparison between the computed and the
measured conform pol lutograph ,
Spring Creek West drainage basin
175
-------
tively high S value of Spring Creek West is caused by the low sewer
elevations, which result in ponding and subsequent scouring of large
amounts of pollutants. The flat land surface effects the size of W for
Spring Creek East. With these constants evaluated, and with knowledge
of their relationship to sewer and surface characteristics, estimates
for other areas become relatively easy. In addition, a minor amount of
monitoring (two or three periods) of a system will permit excellent
evaluation of these parameters.
RAND TWO-DIMENSIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL
Methodology
The study of technical solutions to the problem of wastewater management
in an estuary involves complicated relationships such as those among
waste loading, location of discharges, degree of treatment, geometry of
the estuary, flow in the estuary and temperature. Models can be built
to predict the probable consequences of each of the alternative solu-
tions chosen. Using the predictions obtained from these models and
whatever other information or insight is relevant, alternatives can be
compared and conclusions drawn concerning the most desirable course of
action.
The Rand two-dimensional water quality simulation model, schematically
shown in Figure 85, is based on the numerical solution of the two-
dimensional vertically integrated equations of motion and continuity for
a fluid. First, the water velocities and levels are computed taking
into account the variation of the area and shape of the bay due to rise
and fall of the tides. The transport of constituents in the waters of
the bay is then determined using the computed velocities and levels.
In addition, the different constituents of the fluid wastes can react
with each other or with natural substances in the water; thus a reaction
model describing these biological and chemical processes, as well as
their interactions, is included. At present, this model computes the
concentrations of six soluble constituents simultaneously.
The two-dimensional bay water quality model is linked to an urban runoff
model similar to the one described in the foregoing section except for
the basic mechanism for determining the predictive kernel function. The
cross-spectral method is employed in the Rand version.
Input/Output
An extensive computer program was developed to solve the momentum and
continuity equations of fluid flow, along with constituent mass-balance
equations, to obtain the time and space distributions of waste constitu-
ents in bays or estuaries. Since the problem is time-dependent and at-
tempts to simulate real-world conditions, large numbers of input data
describing the characteristics of the area to be studied are required.
In addition, the results of the computation can be presented at every
176
-------
GEOGRAPHY, latitude,
topography, boundaries
TIDE, tide-level
histor les
SEPARATE STORM SEWER
INFLOW
ATMOSPHERIC INTER-
ACTIONS, rain, wind,
harometric pressure
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL FACILITIES
TREATED KASTE
DISCHARGE
HYDRAULIC FLO* MODEL
Compute velocities,
quantities, land-
water bounds, tur-
bulent fr icti on
AUXILIARY WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
FACILITIES
LEGEND
Functions included in
^ Rand Model
Influences not
->• explicitly included
in Rand Model
| \\ Computer models
ADVECTIVE-DIFFUSIVE TRANSPORT MODEL
Compute mass concentration,
e.g., coliform bacteria,
dissolved oxygen, biological
oxygen demand, beat,
sa I mi ty, f loatables
AIR TEMPERATURE
RADIATION
AERATION
REACTION MODEL
Compute decay, bio-
chemical processes,
interface sources,
flocculation, photo-
syntbesi s
Input-output information
DEPOSITS
Figure 85. Input-output and components of Rand water quality simulation model
(after [9:)
-------
grid point and at each succeeding time step. However, interpretation
and extraction of important results frofr such a large volume of printed
numerical data rapidly becomes impossible. Thus several routines using
interactive computer technology were developed for data insertion, and
programs were written to generate machine-made drawings for graphical
presentation of the results of the computation. These input and output
procedures are described in the following subsections.
Hydraulic Flow Model
Inputs—
Bathymetry. Depth data or elevation above mean sea level (values for h)
are input at each grid point within the field. For the Jamaica Bay mod-
el, a grid size of 500 ft was selected, which gives rise to a data array
of 78 by 61 points. One array is used for the depth and elevation data,
and this information is read in from cards. If no data are inserted at
a particular grid point, land is assumed.
Determination of Land-Water Boundary. The boundary location is depen-
dent upon the tide stage and is thus time-varying. One data array is
used to store the water level that remains on the tidal-flat areas as
they become dry.
Open Boundaries. At the open boundary, a time history of the water lev-
el is given as a function of the input tide. The input water levels
are given at every third time step, with a linear interpolation used
between.
Latitude. The latitude is given in degrees of the center of the area
of computation. The effect of a variation in the Coriolis acceleration
over the area of a very large body of water is not simulated in the
present program.
Manning Value and/or Chezy Value. The investigator has the option of
defining a Chezy value over the entire field or computing periodically
a value from Manning's n (which is variable over the field) as a func-
tion of the water level. Two data arrays are used to store the appro-
priate Manning's n input value and the time- and space-dependent Chezy
coefficient. If a specific value is not inserted or computed, a de-
fault value is used.
Meteorology. Wind speed and direction are inserted as a function of
time so that the wind-stress term in the momentum equation can be de-
termined.
Location of Discharge Points. Time histories of the fluid discharges
at the locations of the outfalls of water pollution control facilities
and combined sewer overflows are input.
178
-------
A total of 16 wastewater inputs into the model are used, as listed be-
low:
1. 26th Ward Water Pollution Control Facility effluent
2. Jamaica Water Pollution Control Facility effluent
3. Rockaway Water Pollution Control Facility effluent
4. Hendrix combined sewer overflow
5. Thurston combined sewer overflow
6. Bergen combined sewer overflow
7. Paerdegat combined sewer overflow
8. Fresh Creek combined sewer overflow
9. Rockaway combined sewer overflow
10. Bergen separate stormwater overflow and surface runoff from
the west portion of John F. Kennedy International Airport, which dis-
charges at the end of Bergen Basin
11. Thurston separate stormwater overflow and surface runoff from
the east portion of John F. Kennedy International Airport, which dis-
charges at the end of Thurston Basin
12. Mill Basin separate stormwater overflow
13. Runoff from the Fountain Avenue landfill
14. Runoff from the Rockaway landfill
15. Broad Channel East combined sewer overflow
16. Broad Channel West combined sewer overflow
Outputs—
Velocities and Water Levels. Four types of output presenting velocity
and water-level data can be obtained from the simulation model.
1. Graphs—Graphic output giving velocity vectors and water lev-
els at selected points and times can be made on film or as hard copy.
The graphic output displays the outline of the bay at the approximate
location of the high-water line and the grid points at which the water
levels and constituent mass densities are computed. As the water level
in the marshy areas changes with time, the number of points in the com-
putation varies since some areas become dry while others flood. Veloc-
ity vectors are computed at the locations of the water levels from the
average of the surrounding velocity components. These vectors are
plotted at every second grid point in orthogonal directions. Water
levels are printed out at selected locations in the bay. The locations
of the outfalls of sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows
and stormwater runoff locations are shown on the output. The graphic
output can be obtained at any interval desired. Normally, records are
made every 1 or 2 hr of real time. If the graphs are printed at each
179
-------
time step, a motion picture can be made showing the time variation of
the velocity vectors over the area of the bay.
2. Numerical velocity and water-level data—Printed numerical
data of the water levels and the velocity components at each point on
the grid can be obtained at selected time intervals. Again, these data
are usually printed out every 1 or 2 hr 01. real time.
3. Velocity and water-level time histories—The velocities and
water levels at selected points in the bay are graphed as a function of
time.
4. Water-level field information at specific times—It is possi-
ble to obtain water-level isocontours of the water-level information in
graphical form. In addition, a three-dimensional view of the water
levels can be produced using a computer-graphics system.
Advective-Diffusive Transport Model
Inputs—(except those generated by the flow model)
Constituent Time Histories at Open Boundaries. The concentration of
each of the constituents is described as a function of time at the open
boundaries of the model.
Concentration of Constituents in Discharges. The concentration of each
of the modeled constituents in the wastewater discharges from the out-
falls of the dry-weather sewage treatment facilities, combined sewer
overflows and other inflows is input as a function of time.
Dispersion Coefficients. The dispersion coefficient is composed of sev-
eral terms. First, a term dependent on lateral dispersion is input at
every point in the field. If it is not specified at a particular
point, a default value is used. A second term is then computed as a
function of the velocity component, depth and Chezy coefficient so that
the total coefficient is time-varying.
Initial Constituent Concentrations throughout the Field. At the begin-
ning of the computation, initial values of the constituent concentra-
tions at each grid point are input. If these values are not given, a
specified default value is used.
Outputs—
Graphs. The mass densities of the constituents are plotted on graphs
by means of isocontour lines. These graphical data are generally com-
bined with the output of the flow model as described previously. Nu-
merical values of the constituent concentration are printed out at se-
lected locations in the field, and the values of the adjacent isocon-
tour lines can be obtained by extrapolation.
180
-------
In the Jamaica Bay study, four constituents are computed simultaneously:
dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, salinity and coliform bac-
teria from three independent groups of sources. Twelve data arrays are
used in the calculation of the constituents because of the two time lev-
els involved.
Numerical Values of Constituent Concentrations. Printed numerical data
of concentrations of each of the constituents are obtained at each grid
point. This information and the numerical velocity and water-level
data are printed out at the same time.
Time Histories of Constituent Concentrations. The concentrations of
the various constituents are graphed as a function of time at selected
grid points in the bay. These data can then be compared with field
measurements to ensure correct adjustment of the model. If necessary,
these data can be smoothed as well.
Reaction Model
Inputs—
Disappearance Rates. The first-order disappearance constants for the
coliform bacteria must be input. These values are determined experi-
mentally from field measurements.
First-Order Reaction Rates. The reaction coefficient in the BOD-
dissolved oxygen reaction model is estimated from field measurements,
and adjustments are then made to correctly simulate field data.
Source-Sink Function. In the present model, this includes the reaera-
tion coefficient of oxygen. This input value can currently be varied
over the area of the computation. Various equations are available to
aid the model user in estimating an appropriate reaeration coefficient.
Output—
The reaction model feeds information to the advective-diffusive trans-
port model and has no separate set of unique outputs.
Calibration
Hydraulic Flow Model—
The hydraulic flow model has been adjusted to obtain a good fit between
observed and computed tidal amplitude data. Particular emphasis was
placed upon the tidal phase throughout the bay because of its effect
upon water circulation. The flow model is adjusted by changing the
value of Manning's n, which in turn leads to a change in the computed
Chezy coefficient. The latter is used in the computation of the dis-
persion coefficient in the advective-diffusive transport model.
181
-------
Advective-Diffusive Transport Model—
For the evaluation of the two-dimensional bay model, together with the
urban runoff models, the distributions of coliform bacteria in the bay
resulting from a rainstorm in the period 31 May to 2 June 1972 were
sampled by the Department of Water Resources, City of New York. Water
quality simulations were also made for the same event with the two-
dimensional model. Reasonable agreement between observed and computed
coliform densities was obtained. Further calibration and verification
work is planned, including simulation of additional water quality param-
eters .
Water Quality Management Applications of the Model
The two-dimensional water quality simulation model is designed to give
predictive capability on the hydraulic and water quality responsive be-
havior of the bay system under various engineering alternatives. Sto-
chastic models can be developed to assess system parameters for the wa-
ter quality simulation model and also to derive water quality transfer
functions for real-time prediction in conjunction with the urban runoff
models. Once the water quality transfer functions from rainfall to bay
water quality are determined, simulation with the two-dimensional water
quality model is no longer required.
Stochastic models can also be used for determining the process equa-
tions for the treatment process in the combined sewer overflow treatment
facilities from observed data, and these models will be the basis for
real-time prediction of flow rates and incoming water quality at the
auxiliary facilities. It may be appropriate for the transfer functions
to be stored in a small process-control computer in the auxiliary facil-
ities to determine the required control policy (e.g., chemical dosing)
according to real-time information from rain gauges and tide gauges.
182
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'lease read Instructions on the reverse be/ore completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-222a
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Wastewater Management Program, Jamaica Bay, New York,
Volume I, Summary Report
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON-NO.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Donald L. Feuerstein, William O. Maddaus
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING O RG \N I ZATI ON NAME AND ADDRESS
H. F. Ludwig & Associates
Engineering-Science, Inc.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
For
Dept.. of Water
Resources
New York., N.Y. 20013
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
11023 FAO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 1969-1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also EPA-600/2-76-222b - Volume II
16. ABSTRACT
The Jamaica Bay ecosystem and wastewater discharges to the bay were characterized
during a comprehensive 3-year study. The primary objective of the project was the
development of management criteria and procedures for the bay ecosystem, with major
emphasis on combined sewer overflow management to provide for water contact recreat-
ion in the bay. Analysis of the sampling results and the output of the hydrologic
models developed during the project demonstrated that (1) the four municipal sewage
treatment facility effluents are the major sources of organic and nutrient materials
discharged to the bay, (2) combined sewer overflows represent significant sources of
solids and coliforms to the bay, (3) the Spring Creek combined sewer overflow treat-
ment facility will provide substantial benefit in reducing overall pollution from
combined sewer overflows in the Jamaica Bay drainage basin and (4) treatment of
combined sewer overflows from the Paerdegat Basin will provide the next greatest
benefit to the quality of the bay. Recommendations are presented on the most cost-
effective development of a wastewater management program for the Jamaica Bay drainage
basin that would result in water quality conditions suitable for water contact
recreation at all potential beaches along the perimeter of Jamaica Bay.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Water pollution
Combined sewers
Waste treatment
Jamaica Bay
2 SB
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
199
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
183
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976-757-056/5413 Region No. 5-11
------- |